At first I was going to agree. But actually, prisoner's dilemma might be a good analogy. Imagine that the newspapers that don't opt out of google are the rats, and the ones that do didn't rat. This is equivalent. The best situation is to be the newspaper that doesn't opt out when others do, as that newspaper would get the others' traffic.
"Would you feel the same if you wrote a book, then someone else took a copy, edited it then sold copies of the edited version?"
What if I bought a chair, painted it, and resold it? This is exactly what happens with remixes of music and I think that should be perfectly allowable.
Big Content wants to treat their goods as tangible by calling pirating "theft," but then they say "oh we are licensing not selling," and they don't want to have to deal with first sale doctrine. Pick one, either they are tangible or not. You wouldn't license a chair to me, would you?
If Psyster didn't buy the copies of OSX, then that is one thing. But what I'm arguing is in the event that they did purchase it, or if another company repeated the same thing but purchased the software.
I really like your six year old vs Mike Tyson analogy. That puts it in a happy light:) And it's a good point: if a company has the market cornered, there should absolutely be stricter limitations on what it can or cannot do.
(Also, I meant the IE vs Firefox comment.)
I believe format shifting is legal in the US, and I'm almost positive it's legal in Canada. I think though in the US the DMCA prevents you Americans from legally exercising that right in the case of DRMed content.
Anyways. I don't see the legal or moral basis for saying you can only run our software on our machines, other than violating questionable click-through shrink-wrapped EULAs.
That's the beauty of the first sale doctrine. You don't need permission to re-sell things you have purchased. I don't need permission to resell the chair I'm currently sitting in. If I can make a profit on the sale of this chair then why the hell not? If I can paint it another colour and make a profit, why the hell not?
I think morally and legally, companies should not be able to control what you do with products you have acquired legitimately.
Why is this so different from format shifting? Music industry makes a CD and says you can't play this on an iPod...shouldn't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music? What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers (say, Fujitsu and Toshiba)? What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows? Anti-trust?
130 people experience said symptoms and there is an outcry? If 130 people complained about a heavily backed pharmaceutical, it would be buried. How many people die from Tylenol every year?
I doubt it works, but lets at least be balanced here.
Brock University conducted released statistics on turnitin results. It's interesting that the vast majority of submissions fall into not the lowest match category, but the category of more than 20 words but less than 24% match.
I see your point, but the advertisers are only going to be happy if there are eyeballs on the newspaper. And you don't convince readers to view your news by pissing them off. Either way you look at it, the point remains the same.
"Why is it not illegal to look at images of crime scenes, death, murder?"
Perhaps if there were such a demand for those pictures that people went out and committed more crimes just so they could sell the pictures, then it would be illegal to look at them.
Okay, fair enough. But it is important to be aware of biases. People tend to downplay aspects of their own society that they criticize in others. In this case, I don't know enough to say what your example falls under.
Then how do mummies work? Do you think that they actually died yesterday, and that they will decay in a few months? Do you not accept that there are conditions that do not favor microbial growth? Do you not realize how hard it is for microbes to break down bone? Fossils also include imprints on non-living material...were you aware of that? What about animals/people that die in glaciers and still have organic matter on them? Do you just close your eyes and pretend they don't exist? What did you say your name was? I'm not convinced that you are employed at Stanford. Do your employers know how conflicted you are? Do they know that you feel you don't need to cite peer reviewed journals? I'd like to look up some of your research. I mean, do you even bother to have your own journals peer reviewed, or do you just make up your results the way you do here?
Well a donkey is one species, and a horse is another species? Can we agree on that? Those two animals are of different "kinds." A donkey bred with a horse makes a mule. The mule is sexually inviable (sterile) and thus we still conclude that the donkey and the horse are different species. But if horses keep changing genetically, and so do donkeys, eventually, they will stop being able to produce any offspring viable or not. That is one example of an animal in the middle of a speciation event. I'm sorry I can't speed it up for you. I would if I could.
I am sure you are a very good atomic physicist, I'm sure Stanford is lucky to have you in that capacity. I really truly mean that. I'll also grant that you likely know more about carbon dating than I do. I get how a person with no scientific background can be a steadfast believer in creationism, but I will never understand how somebody such as yourself, who clearly must have a thorough understanding of the scientific method, can believe the accounts of people from 2000 years ago. I mean do you really think that every animal on the planet (extant and extinct, dinosaurs and all) fit onto a boat? I mean you are a physicist for crying out load! How big would that boat have to be?! I mean whenever somebody asks a question in your line of work, can't somebody just say, "Because God willed it to be so." How can you, as an apparently faithful Christian, argue against that?? I guess everything is fine so long as your research doesn't challenge any Christian indoctrination. Do you only reject the parts of science that your church tells you too, or do you just randomly pick things that you don't like? I mean, 2000 years ago people thought the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Do you believe that to be true? The people that wrote the bible thought that was true, so why shouldn't you?
As a question: how many creationist biologists (i.e. biologist who teach creationism in their classroom) does Stanford employ? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with your employment and all, but it would be a lot more impressive if you told me that Stanford was teaching creationism as fact. Or are your bosses also in on the conspiracy? I mean, if you are right, either your coworkers that disagree with you are lying or they are all very very wrong (and you would have to pretty much say they are stupid for making such a big and obvious mistake, right?)
Well it's been a good debate, and I appreciate your candor. Myself, I have a paper to write (on endocrinology of all things). I'd love to stay and chat, but you and I both know very well that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. We both think the other is foolish, misguided and indoctrinated and there is no getting around that. But nonetheless, cheers to differing opinions!
So because it is not happening right in front of your eyes, within your lifetime, it must not have ever happened, nor will it ever happen? Pretty much every single doctor you will go to will understand and accept the theory of evolution. If you don't agree with them, then you should stop seeing doctors or accepting medicine; after all, if all of them can be so horribly wrong about evolution, how can you trust them with your health? Don't worry, God will protect you from MRSA.
Medical research depends on the fact that animal models are closely related to us; that is why we test future treatments on animals first. You don't see us testing new antibiotics on insects, right? Right, because they aren't as closely related as mammals. And why are mammals closely related? Because at some point in our history, we had a common ancestor; the difference is that the common mammalian ancestor is much more recent than the one we share with other less related organisms. You think it's too far of a stretch for one species to progress into a very different species? Then look at the fossil record. Though I suppose you must think that the fossil record is one big conspiracy, right? "Carbon dating?! hmph! The earth is 5000 years old! Physicists/chemists are also wrong, they are colluding with those Darwinian freaks!"
For those of you who can hear over the bible thumping, a speciation event occurs when a species branches (becomes significantly different) so that the gametes of one species cannot produce sexually viable offspring with the gametes of the other species. In fact, on the Gallapagos Islands, the birds outlined by Darwin are different species. You are saying that because they are all finches, they are all the same species. That is exactly like saying that primates are all the same species. Have you been producing offspring with monkeys? Or perhaps you are the offspring of a monkey and a human? Clearly you can understand the difference there.
The differences between creationism and intelligent design are irrelevant to this discussion. Neither of them constitutes science. If we were talking about a degree in theology, then yes fine, tell me the differences until you are blue in the face. But we're not. Nobody here is asking for a bachelor of evolution from a faculty/department of theology. Why the hell would you want a bachelor of creationism from a faculty of science?
If you want more of an explanation on evolution, then go get a degree in the sciences. This is exactly why we say that a degree in creationism is a redflag for, "I can't grasp straight-forward concepts that are spelled out for me." The point is, you don't want to learn, you want to stick with your own personal beliefs that you were taught in bible school. That is exactly what a degree in creationism will tell your prospective employers. So go ahead, go get your degree in creationism. See what good it will do you.
"Or who hire somebody with a degree in evolution? Both of these are belief systems. In both cases we must believe or disbelieve witnesses from the past in the same way that a jury must believe witnesses about a crime that took place in the past."
The theory of evolution does not depend on witnesses from the past. It relies on hypotheses that can be tested and retested today. Where are you getting your information?
"Neither of these degrees has anything in common with, for example, a degree in solid-state physics or medicine"
I'm not really sure what you are driving at here, but you seem to think that just because evolution is labeled as a theory it is no more or less credible than the "theory" of creationism. Yes, there is dogma in every field of research. But equating creationism with evolution only serves to highlight your apparent ignorance of the differences between the scientific method and hand-waving.
To illustrate that point: you imply that solid-state physics or medicine would be a more worthwhile degree. While I do not know enough about solid-state physics to comment, I can tell you that the field of medicine depends on the theory of evolution. Consider how antibiotics select for bacterial mutants with increased resistance.
I don't see it as being a big issue. I mean, who would hire somebody with a Bsc in Creationism? There are a lot of people who somehow muddle their way through a science degree even though they believe in intelligent design. Really, this is a good thing, because it is a red flag to label who not to hire.
I don't think animals typically freeze in the face of a predator (unless they are playing dead). I think what you are thinking of is animals freezing in response to oncoming headlights. Evolutionarily this is a new challenge, and this response likely represents a confusion rather than an adaptive response. Cars haven't been around long enough for us to see any sort of adaptive response.
With regards to chess, what I notice is that computers are much better at calculating higher order of logic (i.e. looking 7-8 moves ahead or more). It's as if the computer looks at one move and explores all the outcomes of that move before moving on to the next possible move. By limiting calculating time, the computer looks at a handful of moves and explores them 7-8 moves ahead, but entirely misses something really "obvious" to a human. On the other hand, most humans probably look at all possible moves to the 2-4th order, and then if we are good we subsequently revisit them in greater detail.
Slashdot Mirror
At first I was going to agree. But actually, prisoner's dilemma might be a good analogy. Imagine that the newspapers that don't opt out of google are the rats, and the ones that do didn't rat. This is equivalent. The best situation is to be the newspaper that doesn't opt out when others do, as that newspaper would get the others' traffic.
"Would you feel the same if you wrote a book, then someone else took a copy, edited it then sold copies of the edited version?"
What if I bought a chair, painted it, and resold it? This is exactly what happens with remixes of music and I think that should be perfectly allowable.
Big Content wants to treat their goods as tangible by calling pirating "theft," but then they say "oh we are licensing not selling," and they don't want to have to deal with first sale doctrine. Pick one, either they are tangible or not. You wouldn't license a chair to me, would you?
If Psyster didn't buy the copies of OSX, then that is one thing. But what I'm arguing is in the event that they did purchase it, or if another company repeated the same thing but purchased the software.
I really like your six year old vs Mike Tyson analogy. That puts it in a happy light :) And it's a good point: if a company has the market cornered, there should absolutely be stricter limitations on what it can or cannot do.
(Also, I meant the IE vs Firefox comment.)
I believe format shifting is legal in the US, and I'm almost positive it's legal in Canada. I think though in the US the DMCA prevents you Americans from legally exercising that right in the case of DRMed content.
Anyways. I don't see the legal or moral basis for saying you can only run our software on our machines, other than violating questionable click-through shrink-wrapped EULAs.
That's the beauty of the first sale doctrine. You don't need permission to re-sell things you have purchased. I don't need permission to resell the chair I'm currently sitting in. If I can make a profit on the sale of this chair then why the hell not? If I can paint it another colour and make a profit, why the hell not?
I think morally and legally, companies should not be able to control what you do with products you have acquired legitimately.
If Psystar is buying the software...then what's the problem? If someone paid for the CD and loaded it onto an ipod, then who cares?
Why is this so different from format shifting? Music industry makes a CD and says you can't play this on an iPod...shouldn't the music company have a right to say what boxes you can use to play your music? What if Microsoft says you can only install Windows on approved manufacturers (say, Fujitsu and Toshiba)? What if Microsoft says you can only run Internet Explorer on Windows? Anti-trust?
I don't see this as being all that different.
But what would be the best way to identify the cheaters from the modders?
How should Microsoft handle cheaters?
Doesn't this violate the Myspace Terms of Service? Like in the Lori Drew ruling? Is Toyota guilty of hacking?
130 people experience said symptoms and there is an outcry? If 130 people complained about a heavily backed pharmaceutical, it would be buried. How many people die from Tylenol every year?
I doubt it works, but lets at least be balanced here.
Brock University conducted released statistics on turnitin results. It's interesting that the vast majority of submissions fall into not the lowest match category, but the category of more than 20 words but less than 24% match.
I see your point, but the advertisers are only going to be happy if there are eyeballs on the newspaper. And you don't convince readers to view your news by pissing them off. Either way you look at it, the point remains the same.
She's also the victim and the defendant at the same time! I think you're on to something!
"Why is it not illegal to look at images of crime scenes, death, murder?"
Perhaps if there were such a demand for those pictures that people went out and committed more crimes just so they could sell the pictures, then it would be illegal to look at them.
Okay, fair enough. But it is important to be aware of biases. People tend to downplay aspects of their own society that they criticize in others. In this case, I don't know enough to say what your example falls under.
Thanks
If Chinese people do it, it's spying. If westerners do it (such as via twitter, or even wikileaks) it's just social media.
This is what I have always said! Plus, you can mindlessly tap the keys and your boss will be convinced you are hard at work.
Then how do mummies work? Do you think that they actually died yesterday, and that they will decay in a few months? Do you not accept that there are conditions that do not favor microbial growth? Do you not realize how hard it is for microbes to break down bone? Fossils also include imprints on non-living material...were you aware of that? What about animals/people that die in glaciers and still have organic matter on them? Do you just close your eyes and pretend they don't exist? What did you say your name was? I'm not convinced that you are employed at Stanford. Do your employers know how conflicted you are? Do they know that you feel you don't need to cite peer reviewed journals? I'd like to look up some of your research. I mean, do you even bother to have your own journals peer reviewed, or do you just make up your results the way you do here?
Well a donkey is one species, and a horse is another species? Can we agree on that? Those two animals are of different "kinds." A donkey bred with a horse makes a mule. The mule is sexually inviable (sterile) and thus we still conclude that the donkey and the horse are different species. But if horses keep changing genetically, and so do donkeys, eventually, they will stop being able to produce any offspring viable or not. That is one example of an animal in the middle of a speciation event. I'm sorry I can't speed it up for you. I would if I could.
I am sure you are a very good atomic physicist, I'm sure Stanford is lucky to have you in that capacity. I really truly mean that. I'll also grant that you likely know more about carbon dating than I do. I get how a person with no scientific background can be a steadfast believer in creationism, but I will never understand how somebody such as yourself, who clearly must have a thorough understanding of the scientific method, can believe the accounts of people from 2000 years ago. I mean do you really think that every animal on the planet (extant and extinct, dinosaurs and all) fit onto a boat? I mean you are a physicist for crying out load! How big would that boat have to be?! I mean whenever somebody asks a question in your line of work, can't somebody just say, "Because God willed it to be so." How can you, as an apparently faithful Christian, argue against that?? I guess everything is fine so long as your research doesn't challenge any Christian indoctrination. Do you only reject the parts of science that your church tells you too, or do you just randomly pick things that you don't like? I mean, 2000 years ago people thought the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Do you believe that to be true? The people that wrote the bible thought that was true, so why shouldn't you?
As a question: how many creationist biologists (i.e. biologist who teach creationism in their classroom) does Stanford employ? I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm impressed with your employment and all, but it would be a lot more impressive if you told me that Stanford was teaching creationism as fact. Or are your bosses also in on the conspiracy? I mean, if you are right, either your coworkers that disagree with you are lying or they are all very very wrong (and you would have to pretty much say they are stupid for making such a big and obvious mistake, right?)
Well it's been a good debate, and I appreciate your candor. Myself, I have a paper to write (on endocrinology of all things). I'd love to stay and chat, but you and I both know very well that neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. We both think the other is foolish, misguided and indoctrinated and there is no getting around that. But nonetheless, cheers to differing opinions!
So because it is not happening right in front of your eyes, within your lifetime, it must not have ever happened, nor will it ever happen? Pretty much every single doctor you will go to will understand and accept the theory of evolution. If you don't agree with them, then you should stop seeing doctors or accepting medicine; after all, if all of them can be so horribly wrong about evolution, how can you trust them with your health? Don't worry, God will protect you from MRSA.
Medical research depends on the fact that animal models are closely related to us; that is why we test future treatments on animals first. You don't see us testing new antibiotics on insects, right? Right, because they aren't as closely related as mammals. And why are mammals closely related? Because at some point in our history, we had a common ancestor; the difference is that the common mammalian ancestor is much more recent than the one we share with other less related organisms. You think it's too far of a stretch for one species to progress into a very different species? Then look at the fossil record. Though I suppose you must think that the fossil record is one big conspiracy, right? "Carbon dating?! hmph! The earth is 5000 years old! Physicists/chemists are also wrong, they are colluding with those Darwinian freaks!"
For those of you who can hear over the bible thumping, a speciation event occurs when a species branches (becomes significantly different) so that the gametes of one species cannot produce sexually viable offspring with the gametes of the other species. In fact, on the Gallapagos Islands, the birds outlined by Darwin are different species. You are saying that because they are all finches, they are all the same species. That is exactly like saying that primates are all the same species. Have you been producing offspring with monkeys? Or perhaps you are the offspring of a monkey and a human? Clearly you can understand the difference there.
The differences between creationism and intelligent design are irrelevant to this discussion. Neither of them constitutes science. If we were talking about a degree in theology, then yes fine, tell me the differences until you are blue in the face. But we're not. Nobody here is asking for a bachelor of evolution from a faculty/department of theology. Why the hell would you want a bachelor of creationism from a faculty of science?
If you want more of an explanation on evolution, then go get a degree in the sciences. This is exactly why we say that a degree in creationism is a redflag for, "I can't grasp straight-forward concepts that are spelled out for me." The point is, you don't want to learn, you want to stick with your own personal beliefs that you were taught in bible school. That is exactly what a degree in creationism will tell your prospective employers. So go ahead, go get your degree in creationism. See what good it will do you.
"Or who hire somebody with a degree in evolution? Both of these are belief systems. In both cases we must believe or disbelieve witnesses from the past in the same way that a jury must believe witnesses about a crime that took place in the past."
The theory of evolution does not depend on witnesses from the past. It relies on hypotheses that can be tested and retested today. Where are you getting your information?
"Neither of these degrees has anything in common with, for example, a degree in solid-state physics or medicine"
I'm not really sure what you are driving at here, but you seem to think that just because evolution is labeled as a theory it is no more or less credible than the "theory" of creationism. Yes, there is dogma in every field of research. But equating creationism with evolution only serves to highlight your apparent ignorance of the differences between the scientific method and hand-waving.
To illustrate that point: you imply that solid-state physics or medicine would be a more worthwhile degree. While I do not know enough about solid-state physics to comment, I can tell you that the field of medicine depends on the theory of evolution. Consider how antibiotics select for bacterial mutants with increased resistance.
I don't see it as being a big issue. I mean, who would hire somebody with a Bsc in Creationism? There are a lot of people who somehow muddle their way through a science degree even though they believe in intelligent design. Really, this is a good thing, because it is a red flag to label who not to hire.
I don't think animals typically freeze in the face of a predator (unless they are playing dead). I think what you are thinking of is animals freezing in response to oncoming headlights. Evolutionarily this is a new challenge, and this response likely represents a confusion rather than an adaptive response. Cars haven't been around long enough for us to see any sort of adaptive response.
It sounds a lot like starcraft.
With regards to chess, what I notice is that computers are much better at calculating higher order of logic (i.e. looking 7-8 moves ahead or more). It's as if the computer looks at one move and explores all the outcomes of that move before moving on to the next possible move. By limiting calculating time, the computer looks at a handful of moves and explores them 7-8 moves ahead, but entirely misses something really "obvious" to a human. On the other hand, most humans probably look at all possible moves to the 2-4th order, and then if we are good we subsequently revisit them in greater detail.