While the public can pay to enter, the theater is really private property. Isn't it?
I still find it shocking that the penalty is so harsh for this type of thing while so many violent crimes in the US result in much more lenient sentences...:-(
I don't see how the theater management (and lawyers if necessary) can't come to a simple arrangement where they delete the stuff that had the film in it and call it a day.
Whats with all the criminal charges and bad looks? Can't we act like civil human beings and offer common respect first!?
I don't see why the law has to come into play here at all. The best solution was so much more simple and nobody would have their feelings hurt.
Somehow our culture has drawn us away from each other; we're so afraid to even speak to people we don't know that we use our establishments like mommy/daddy parents to span gaps that are easily jumped with a little less fear of each other.
Ok. Here are the facts. God has never been proven in any fact whatsoever (else there would be little dispute).
Based on what we know to be true, God had nothing to do with this. I could be wrong, but for lack of evidence otherwise, my statement is true to the best of our knowledge.
The point of review is to reject work that is not thorough or has not satisfied a reasonable level of data collection to encompass the known (by science/fact) related aspects of the work.
Those e-mails are likely a matter of discussion between people that have also discussed the lack of scientific integrity of the works they intend to reject.
I'm not giving these guys a full pass based on assumption, but rather deferring to the fact that there is little here to consider as conclusive evidence of anything. What I see is people have found a small place where dispute can be generated and are exaggerating the implications of what little they have found.
It has everything to do with it. The swedes were the first to dissect brains, and are also the first in the store on black friday. Needless to say, they are close to this issue.
That some of this has to do with the staff being largely of the 35+ crowd and the propensity of that crowd to not know how to use computers even remotely as well as, say, a 16 year old kid does right now.
Computers take more work to use when you don't have a nice grasp on not only the software or function you're doing, but the regular logical deductions you make from repeated observation and experience.
From my experience in life, most older people have somehow adapted themselves to 'get by' with technology, but without actually knowing what is really going on. Many will think the monitor is the computer. Many have no idea what the basic components are. And, hell, many are even clueless at the overly-simplified layouts of hardware nowadays with color coding and the square-peg-square-hole approach to basically everything.
Make the majority of a staff fill this description and you can be damned sure plenty of time is being spent moving the mouse around cautiously while looking down the nose in deep confusion and wonder.
question: is a hotkey actually hot? which one is it?
Well then set up a deeper investigation and catch em red handed! Get out there vegan sleuths! Get that gumshoe action first hand!
Did 'the man' pressure you to keep secrets? I'm just laughing here at how ridiculous you and a couple other people will assume the 'real situation' to be. What a joke.
Your mom maybe toyed with your goods when you were a baby. Maybe the backside of the moon really IS made of cheese. Maybe bobby brown never really beat whitney houston up. Maybe OJ really didn't do it. OH MY GOD THE TIN FOILS ARE RUNNIN OUT OF DA SUPPLIES!
All the businesses are corrupt! THe man is in on it all! The companies that make our vegan meats are using real meats! OH NO!
Yeah, it turns out many of the companies I buy products from use underhanded business methods too. The truth isn't far from grasp, though. The limitation is the level of effort a person would put into actually knowing.
Here's a hint: Start a vegan consumer advocacy group that is funded by donations and tests various supposed 'vegan' products for animal products --- make quarterly publications. Voila! Now you know where to buy your grass and olives from and who is a farce.
But nah, lets just sit on the internet and be skeptical --- lets naysay everything and assume the world is a bag of lemons.
Smile. The truth isn't as bleak as you're imagining.
"[the] Vegetarian Society remained skeptical. "The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust."""
Oh please. What you do, then, is get off your lazy skeptic butt and go to the place they are making the meat and look around. Get official people you trust as a vegetarian (whatever that means) to go investigate and report. From that report, which you trust, you should be able to know if it is coming from killed animals or from tissue generation.
This skepticism is undue and irrational. They assume that because it is possible for an animal-slaughtering meat company to 'trick' customers by pretending it was grown in tissue culture, that it may necessarily be true.... That's garbage. In reality, a company carrying out deception of this magnitude would not go unnoticed and would probably be sued.
You have to think: thousands of people work in meat processing plants. Every single one of them would have to be the best secret keeper on the planet for the suggested 'truth' to not be found out. And if there is anything we can know about secrets is that the more people that know it, the less likely it stays secret.
As a matter of fact, even when only one person (the secret creator) knows a secret, it isn't safe. People are eager to share secrets. And once the number becomes 2 or more, the odds of it remaining secret reduce dramatically.
And now I return fire with an equally ridiculous claim: The Vegetarian Society is only trying to question this so they can get me to quit eating meat, thus eat more veggies, and end up dying from rhubarb poison on accident (but on purpose because they meant to do it)!
Damn vegetarian society could probably be trying to kill us all!
Lol. Way to spin it in a completely untrue direction there buddy. Apparently you missed the point that by including the discarded data or keeping the discarded data, the CRU results match the results of several other independent research bodies.
Or the fact that these implied claims that their work goes un-reviewed.... thats bullcrap too.
These 'lies' are only a product of your skewed perception and your ability to take a slim thread of reality and somehow contort it to make the sweater you think it should be. There is nothing awry here and the main work is still valid and corroborated by basically all other work in the field as well.
I'm a scientist and I've discarded about half of the experiments I've conducted along the way on my current project. Looking at my notebook you would see all of these things that I would not report, such as failed PCRs and non-working primers --- but you would have to actually talk to me to find out why I won't spend much time in my final writing discussing all of the discarded data. Guess what, some DNA sequences are illegible, some are not the desired product, etc etc etc...
And just like I would, the CRU has gone to explain the difference here and shown that this 'difference' has no impact on the results/discussion of the data and work. You don't have to believe them, though all the other independent work shows the same things. You don't have to, but until you're doing the science yourself you're no more capable or aware of what is really going on than anyone else on this planet.
And so you've suggested twice now that the science that is published and related to climate predictions are not peer reviewed... That's your beef.
Prove it.
I have a subscription to Science and a few weeks ago the theme was climate research. All of it was peer reviewed. Call Science mag and get the editor to admit all the climate stuff was just let through the pipes without challenge and I'll suck your toes... It didn't happen.
You're saying these scientists, their work, and their publications are not being reviewed. I don't believe you. Chances are you just won't reply to me and prove the burden you've given yourself.
And each American produces almost 8 times the GNP of their Chinese counterpart. So by that standard, each Chinese produces about TWICE the CO2 per unit of economic output as his American counterpart. China needs to clean up its act.
You might be correct, except that the US is more responsible than China and the UK/Japan are hardly innocent either.
This is less an act of war or one-sided recklessness, and more something akin to a bunch of ignorant fools drinking liquor and shooting their guns into the air not knowing that the rounds will return to the earth and strike them in the head.
(I will pre-empt the 'well the US does it more efficiently than China' responses with an I DON'T GIVE A CRAP because that is like us all sitting in a hot tub and we all kinda poop in it, but I poop the most and then I say "well, I really needed to and it felt better to me")
Since there is no fact to confirm any presence of god, in our current best understanding of the world god is only a fantasy of human creation. So since you require me to be extra clear here, please take what I said before and add 'to the best of our knowledge'.
And now I compel you to provide ANY evidence whatsoever to the contrary. Would you like to refute that to the best of our knowledge god had nothing to do with this?
I can argue the logical fact that you cannot prove god DID have anything to do with this. And so because I know you cannot prove that, in all facts that can be observed, I can hold that my statement is true.
As I said to the other guy. In a logical argument, you cannot be forced to prove a negative, but since your side requires you to give proof (and you can't), then I cannot lose this argument. The day you prove god is the day almost everyone gives up on any 'debate' or 'other belief' that might exist. It just won't happen because you can't and the facts are not there; the beliefs are unreasonable, which is the definition of faith.
... all this really does is give them more dead horse to beat on.
All the while not considering that piracy is so widespread it is best described as 'natural' and is found ubiquitous among the poor, rich, educated, ignorant, moral, and immoral. Piracy is almost as common as laughing, and probably more popular than religion.
No.... lets pretend this is a curable disease; an infestation of the people's perception that can be righted..... lets beat this frikking horse to pieces and when the path gets awkward, beat it some more!!!!! --------
Or... Or we could try to understand peoples and cultures and not try to incriminate ourselves (yes we permit our governments that tickle/torture/incriminate us) --- maybe we could find better business and cultural/legal models that are realistic.... What.. did I just say REALISTIC?
Yes... realistic. If bread was digital, we'd all be making copies. And that is realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
While the public can pay to enter, the theater is really private property. Isn't it?
I still find it shocking that the penalty is so harsh for this type of thing while so many violent crimes in the US result in much more lenient sentences... :-(
I don't see how the theater management (and lawyers if necessary) can't come to a simple arrangement where they delete the stuff that had the film in it and call it a day.
Whats with all the criminal charges and bad looks? Can't we act like civil human beings and offer common respect first!?
I don't see why the law has to come into play here at all. The best solution was so much more simple and nobody would have their feelings hurt.
Somehow our culture has drawn us away from each other; we're so afraid to even speak to people we don't know that we use our establishments like mommy/daddy parents to span gaps that are easily jumped with a little less fear of each other.
WTF
Ok. Here are the facts. God has never been proven in any fact whatsoever (else there would be little dispute).
Based on what we know to be true, God had nothing to do with this. I could be wrong, but for lack of evidence otherwise, my statement is true to the best of our knowledge.
Thanks for playing.
The point of review is to reject work that is not thorough or has not satisfied a reasonable level of data collection to encompass the known (by science/fact) related aspects of the work.
Those e-mails are likely a matter of discussion between people that have also discussed the lack of scientific integrity of the works they intend to reject.
I'm not giving these guys a full pass based on assumption, but rather deferring to the fact that there is little here to consider as conclusive evidence of anything. What I see is people have found a small place where dispute can be generated and are exaggerating the implications of what little they have found.
It has everything to do with it. The swedes were the first to dissect brains, and are also the first in the store on black friday. Needless to say, they are close to this issue.
Bastads!
bastad! you beat me to it!
It is working for me. This is pretty awesome looking
*Wooooooooooooooooosh*
That some of this has to do with the staff being largely of the 35+ crowd and the propensity of that crowd to not know how to use computers even remotely as well as, say, a 16 year old kid does right now.
Computers take more work to use when you don't have a nice grasp on not only the software or function you're doing, but the regular logical deductions you make from repeated observation and experience.
From my experience in life, most older people have somehow adapted themselves to 'get by' with technology, but without actually knowing what is really going on. Many will think the monitor is the computer. Many have no idea what the basic components are. And, hell, many are even clueless at the overly-simplified layouts of hardware nowadays with color coding and the square-peg-square-hole approach to basically everything.
Make the majority of a staff fill this description and you can be damned sure plenty of time is being spent moving the mouse around cautiously while looking down the nose in deep confusion and wonder.
question: is a hotkey actually hot? which one is it?
Well then set up a deeper investigation and catch em red handed! Get out there vegan sleuths! Get that gumshoe action first hand!
Did 'the man' pressure you to keep secrets? I'm just laughing here at how ridiculous you and a couple other people will assume the 'real situation' to be. What a joke.
Your mom maybe toyed with your goods when you were a baby. Maybe the backside of the moon really IS made of cheese. Maybe bobby brown never really beat whitney houston up. Maybe OJ really didn't do it. OH MY GOD THE TIN FOILS ARE RUNNIN OUT OF DA SUPPLIES!
All the businesses are corrupt! THe man is in on it all! The companies that make our vegan meats are using real meats! OH NO!
Yeah, it turns out many of the companies I buy products from use underhanded business methods too. The truth isn't far from grasp, though. The limitation is the level of effort a person would put into actually knowing.
Here's a hint: Start a vegan consumer advocacy group that is funded by donations and tests various supposed 'vegan' products for animal products --- make quarterly publications. Voila! Now you know where to buy your grass and olives from and who is a farce.
But nah, lets just sit on the internet and be skeptical --- lets naysay everything and assume the world is a bag of lemons.
Smile. The truth isn't as bleak as you're imagining.
"[the] Vegetarian Society remained skeptical. "The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered. It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust."""
Oh please. What you do, then, is get off your lazy skeptic butt and go to the place they are making the meat and look around. Get official people you trust as a vegetarian (whatever that means) to go investigate and report. From that report, which you trust, you should be able to know if it is coming from killed animals or from tissue generation.
This skepticism is undue and irrational. They assume that because it is possible for an animal-slaughtering meat company to 'trick' customers by pretending it was grown in tissue culture, that it may necessarily be true.... That's garbage. In reality, a company carrying out deception of this magnitude would not go unnoticed and would probably be sued.
You have to think: thousands of people work in meat processing plants. Every single one of them would have to be the best secret keeper on the planet for the suggested 'truth' to not be found out. And if there is anything we can know about secrets is that the more people that know it, the less likely it stays secret.
As a matter of fact, even when only one person (the secret creator) knows a secret, it isn't safe. People are eager to share secrets. And once the number becomes 2 or more, the odds of it remaining secret reduce dramatically.
And now I return fire with an equally ridiculous claim: The Vegetarian Society is only trying to question this so they can get me to quit eating meat, thus eat more veggies, and end up dying from rhubarb poison on accident (but on purpose because they meant to do it)!
Damn vegetarian society could probably be trying to kill us all!
And yet so true!
Lol. Way to spin it in a completely untrue direction there buddy. Apparently you missed the point that by including the discarded data or keeping the discarded data, the CRU results match the results of several other independent research bodies.
Or the fact that these implied claims that their work goes un-reviewed.... thats bullcrap too.
These 'lies' are only a product of your skewed perception and your ability to take a slim thread of reality and somehow contort it to make the sweater you think it should be. There is nothing awry here and the main work is still valid and corroborated by basically all other work in the field as well.
I'm a scientist and I've discarded about half of the experiments I've conducted along the way on my current project. Looking at my notebook you would see all of these things that I would not report, such as failed PCRs and non-working primers --- but you would have to actually talk to me to find out why I won't spend much time in my final writing discussing all of the discarded data. Guess what, some DNA sequences are illegible, some are not the desired product, etc etc etc...
And just like I would, the CRU has gone to explain the difference here and shown that this 'difference' has no impact on the results/discussion of the data and work. You don't have to believe them, though all the other independent work shows the same things. You don't have to, but until you're doing the science yourself you're no more capable or aware of what is really going on than anyone else on this planet.
Nope. The guy has a narrow view of how data is processed and false assumptions that a whole class of scientists (and their papers) go without review.
That is nonsense based on irrational perception due to assumption and ignorance.
And so you've suggested twice now that the science that is published and related to climate predictions are not peer reviewed... That's your beef.
Prove it.
I have a subscription to Science and a few weeks ago the theme was climate research. All of it was peer reviewed. Call Science mag and get the editor to admit all the climate stuff was just let through the pipes without challenge and I'll suck your toes... It didn't happen.
You're saying these scientists, their work, and their publications are not being reviewed. I don't believe you. Chances are you just won't reply to me and prove the burden you've given yourself.
And each American produces almost 8 times the GNP of their Chinese counterpart. So by that standard, each Chinese produces about TWICE the CO2 per unit of economic output as his American counterpart. China needs to clean up its act.
We all need to clean up our act. China also.
You obviously have not been reading everything about this subject or the related information.
I think you should go back and start from the beginning.
I think you've missed a lot and are quite obviously upset for lack of what was missed.
You might be correct, except that the US is more responsible than China and the UK/Japan are hardly innocent either.
This is less an act of war or one-sided recklessness, and more something akin to a bunch of ignorant fools drinking liquor and shooting their guns into the air not knowing that the rounds will return to the earth and strike them in the head.
(I will pre-empt the 'well the US does it more efficiently than China' responses with an I DON'T GIVE A CRAP because that is like us all sitting in a hot tub and we all kinda poop in it, but I poop the most and then I say "well, I really needed to and it felt better to me")
Every industrialized nation is to blame here.
Hippie.
You say that like its a bad thing. What skew is owed to your view?
Google still is a great company and has some level of standard that makes them respect and care for consumers. Microsoft has much less.
The difference is blatantly obvious and should require not references (to slashdot skeptic who wants to pick at this post).
And no, I'm not a google fanboy. I'm the guy who hates google for their streetview encroachments on private property.
Since there is no fact to confirm any presence of god, in our current best understanding of the world god is only a fantasy of human creation. So since you require me to be extra clear here, please take what I said before and add 'to the best of our knowledge'.
And now I compel you to provide ANY evidence whatsoever to the contrary. Would you like to refute that to the best of our knowledge god had nothing to do with this?
Ball is in your court now.
I can argue the logical fact that you cannot prove god DID have anything to do with this. And so because I know you cannot prove that, in all facts that can be observed, I can hold that my statement is true.
As I said to the other guy. In a logical argument, you cannot be forced to prove a negative, but since your side requires you to give proof (and you can't), then I cannot lose this argument. The day you prove god is the day almost everyone gives up on any 'debate' or 'other belief' that might exist. It just won't happen because you can't and the facts are not there; the beliefs are unreasonable, which is the definition of faith.
Are you trying to say something about me? You have no idea how well I 'actually understand science'.
Does my B.S. in Cellular/Molecular biology, minor in Chemistry, and certification in stem cell biology count?
At what point did generalizing people make sense to you?
Actually, I think one of the points of this topic is that we have evolved to benefit from being dirty.
And so evolution did have something to do with this.
You can't prove a negative. But there is no positive proof. And for that I hold a logical trump over your argument.
... all this really does is give them more dead horse to beat on.
All the while not considering that piracy is so widespread it is best described as 'natural' and is found ubiquitous among the poor, rich, educated, ignorant, moral, and immoral. Piracy is almost as common as laughing, and probably more popular than religion.
No.... lets pretend this is a curable disease; an infestation of the people's perception that can be righted..... lets beat this frikking horse to pieces and when the path gets awkward, beat it some more!!!!!
--------
Or... Or we could try to understand peoples and cultures and not try to incriminate ourselves (yes we permit our governments that tickle/torture/incriminate us) --- maybe we could find better business and cultural/legal models that are realistic.... What.. did I just say REALISTIC?
Yes... realistic. If bread was digital, we'd all be making copies. And that is realistic.