What you seem intent on missing is that deliberately bad timing on traffic lights on certain roads (e.g. Oxford Street) actually means deliberately bad timing for *drivers*. For pedestrians, of course, it means that we can actually cross the road without being knocked over.
I understand your sentiment, but the Northern Line example is wrong -- it's actually not too bad (tho' Bank branch is worth than Charing +). For real overcrowding, you should try the Jubilee Line...
As for the problem being Ken's socialist hatred of cars: even many fervent rightwingers acknowledge that there are too many cars for the available roadspace in London. Solutions will have to revolve around supply management (i.e. investing in the tube) and demand management (i.e. discouraging road use). Given how much more efficient public transport is in terms of shifting large volumes of people, it's not surprising that Ken and lots of others are trying to shift usage proportionately away from cars. He's also done lots to encourage bus use, given the government's intention to create Railtrack2 on the tubes.
Oh bollocks mate. Car users pay only a small fraction of the true cost of motoring. There's this economic concept called externalities that motorists like to ignore, i.e. you drive cheaply, we pay the price. Your petrol tax doesn't even get near to covering costs of things like pollution, traffic police, new construction, lighting, RTAs, asthma etc etc that result directly from too many cars for one little island.
Re:No sanctuary - a waste of a gunnery platform
on
HavenCo Doing Well
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for an interesting reply. I agree that your chances of getting jailed depend on mostly on how cleverly you decide to tweak the nose of the authorities, and less on the morality of your actions.
Re:No sanctuary - a waste of a gunnery platform
on
HavenCo Doing Well
·
· Score: 1
What if it's not a commercial venture? And anyway, if it was as simple as all that to get businesses to behave, heck, why're Kenneth Lay and his buddies still running free?
One additional fact I forgot to mention: the 1918 'flu pandemic saw the infection of one fifth of the entire world. It was bigger than any previous pandemic, and the trend remains in upwards, not downwards direction.
Christ on a bike. I understand your main point, but your details are pretty inaccurate. Antibiotic resistance is a very large and very rapidly growing problem across the world and is killing many people every day. While necrotising fasciitis (flesh-eating disease) is unlikely to kill you, HIV is reducing life expectancy across Africa to rates not seen since the 19th century, and Strep A (which is the cause of flesh-eating disease) is a huge killer, responsible for scarlet fever and rheumatic fever. Less than a hundred years ago, influenza killed between 20 and 40m people, more than had died in the first world war. Microbes thrive in a huge range of circumstances and are opportunistic, exploiting change wherever possible. Infectious disease remains the world's number one killer and will do so for the foreseeable future. While improvements in technology, both low (eg sanitation) and high (eg sterile conditions in hospital theatres) will help, other changes will lead to the increased spread of disease (travel and urbanisation are particularly important) and it is important to remember that we are engaged in an evolutionary arms race with bugs--i.e., fighting disease is a continuing process, not a one-off that you can "win".
While I agree with your basic sentiment, I think that you're not using the correct numbers. It's not the number of native speakers per se that MS would be interested in -- it's the *likely* userbase. Additionally, I don't know where you got your figures from, but there are more like 5 or 6m Hebrew speakers than 3m. Still an order of magnitude less than Portuguese speakers, of course.
You've gotta ask what the moderators are on, here. This guy is at 5 for posting a question that he can answer for himself. I point this out and get modded down...
Why not check your example. FWIW, neither site you mention made the top ten. However, gulfwarvets came in at 3 and the sites listed don't seem particularly dominated by big-cheese commercial players.
I'm sorry to say this, but your point 2 clearly show that you have absolutely no idea how a library works. While *some* libraries will rotate *some* content, many libraries deliberately store old versions of texts, even where newer versions are available. Have you never heard of copyright libraries? They're must surely exist in the US too--libraries, such as the British Library and the University Library of Cambridge (that's England, not MA) that are entitled by law to hold a copy of any copyrighted text published in (in the case of these two) the UK. It's not just these particular libraries either--most libraries have a policy of updating some texts and keeping others for historical reference. That's why you can go to a library and read gardening manuals or travel guides or chemistry textbooks written five, ten or 20 years ago. As for newspapers...as you acknowledge, libraries frequently keep back issues of newspapers. Many also have an archival policy for newspapers to allow access to old material (e.g., microfiching copies more than a couple of years old). Content providers have no say in this matter. And in general, they should have no say on the web either.
The answer is obvious: you don't look at individual lines, you look at context and content of the whole FAQ. As I said in the body text, it's about wholesale copying. Copyright has always been about wholesale copying.
According to the report, most of the reason for the decision was to do with the fact that there wasn't evidence of wholesale copying. There's only one paragraph in the report suggesting that FAQs in general can't be copyrighted, and my gut instinct says that something couldn't *not* be copyrighted merely because it's a FAQ. It would be the context and content of the FAQ that would determine whether it could be copyrighted.
My God but you're persistent in being wrong, aren't you? How can I make this clearer for you? You talked about the psychology department. The psychology department does not include the centre for evolutionary psychology, as they are unrelated subjects.
Those reasons might be more important to Palestinians, but frankly, Saudis are a lot more worried about being tortured by their own government than the Israelis...
Nope. You, however, are digging a fantastic hole for yourself. You are clearly unable to read your own post as well as other people's. You took him to task on two points: criticising UCSB without foundation and *in particular*, criticising its PSYCHOLOGY department without foundation. You will note that my post picked you up for the latter point, not the former: that you referred to the *psychology* department but that he had talked about the *evolutionary psychology* department. I had nothing to say--deliberately--about your complaint that he should not criticise a school without foundation, as I agreed with it.
The issue is not the clarity of his post--it is the clarity of your original response.
1. What, pray tell, has been your contribution to the intellectual achievements of evolutionary biology? In case you've forgotten, Gould was a working scientist as well as a populist. I have no doubt that his was a finer mind, both intellectually and morally, than yours. For instance, in all his published writings, there are no vicious personal attacks on the recently dead, whereas there are in yours. 2. Gould discussed populism repeatedly throughout his career, and rejected the view that trying to explain difficult concepts to the general public is a challenge that should not be taken up. He tried his best to avoid dumbing down, but he wasn't such an idiot as to confuse technical details with the substance of an argument, nor would he ever deride explanation as a mode of writing for a non-scientific audience, as you do. You can argue that he wasn't successful in this, but frankly, I think you're on to a loser. 3. He was actually a far better prose stylist than Darwin, whose books, even by the standards of Victorian English literature are turgidly written. However, he had a huge respect for Darwin, and repeatedly urged people to read Darwin's works. I remember his brandishing of a copy of the Origin of the Species when he gave one of the Darwin lectures in Cambridge in 1995. During an electrifying and fascinating talk, he asked everyone to read Darwin's masterwork. 4. He understood the huge importance of Darwin to modern theories of evolutionary biology, and recognised his own debt. But it takes a peculiar type of idiocy to describe his entire corpus of work as merely derivative.
Why are you calling someone a fool when you don't read their posts properly? It makes you look stupid. The poster was discussing the centre for *evolutionary psychology* at UCSB, not the psychology department.
Possibly. But not solely. Plenty of homegrown reasons as well, such as political impotence, scapegoating, the rise of fundamentalism, poverty, propaganda etc etc.
Nope. The point is, we *don't* have to become enlightened and intelligent people. We can stay dumb and make bad decisions based on the misinformation we find on the Web. Sadly, our bad decisions may be about such tiny issues as the future of our country and we may therefore cause ourselves and many others to go to hell in a handbasket. That's why it's an issue. It's no use saying "anyone with half a brain would laugh at Goebel's rubbish" when we know that lots of people *are* listening...and that many of them have guns.
A lovely old theory that does bugger all to explain the prevalence of antisemitism in Japanese society (where there have been historically very few Jews), in many parts of Eastern Europe where there are virtually no Jews left due to the Holocaust, and large chunks of the Arab world, where Jews also don't live. The origins and causes of antisemitism are manifold.
You have not understood what the bad thing is. It is not that information is presented. It is that misinformation is presented, and not everyone knows how to read it. People are unclear that they cannot simply trust the information they find on the web. And lies are frequently more believable than the truth, especially when they can be fitted into an archetype such as "the underdog". Additionally, while it is true that the Web has allowed many new voices to shout, there's not actually that many new things being said. News from the Middle East is still dominated by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with two basic positions (corresponding to the two sides) being propounded. This despite the fact that there are other conflicts and other issues, some of which may be just as geostrategically important (eg Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia). News from other places around the world is out there -- but you have to take a prior interest to find it, generally. It's not carried on the big media channels. So I'm not convinced by this argument about lots of viewpoints being real.
Um, that's the 80/20 principle, not the 20/80 principle. It also has no discernible relevance to what you're talking about. Glad to see that you *were* just blowing smoke and had no evidence to back up your assertions.
Same as traffic lights elsewhere: an unfortunately necessary measure to regulate traffic flow once volumes become too high. Roundabouts are good with high volumes and multiple exits, but they're not perfect. And they work best when people obey the conventions associated with them (ie move across traffic one lane at a time).
Slashdot Mirror
What you seem intent on missing is that deliberately bad timing on traffic lights on certain roads (e.g. Oxford Street) actually means deliberately bad timing for *drivers*. For pedestrians, of course, it means that we can actually cross the road without being knocked over.
I understand your sentiment, but the Northern Line example is wrong -- it's actually not too bad (tho' Bank branch is worth than Charing +). For real overcrowding, you should try the Jubilee Line...
As for the problem being Ken's socialist hatred of cars: even many fervent rightwingers acknowledge that there are too many cars for the available roadspace in London. Solutions will have to revolve around supply management (i.e. investing in the tube) and demand management (i.e. discouraging road use). Given how much more efficient public transport is in terms of shifting large volumes of people, it's not surprising that Ken and lots of others are trying to shift usage proportionately away from cars. He's also done lots to encourage bus use, given the government's intention to create Railtrack2 on the tubes.
Oh bollocks mate. Car users pay only a small fraction of the true cost of motoring. There's this economic concept called externalities that motorists like to ignore, i.e. you drive cheaply, we pay the price. Your petrol tax doesn't even get near to covering costs of things like pollution, traffic police, new construction, lighting, RTAs, asthma etc etc that result directly from too many cars for one little island.
Thanks for an interesting reply. I agree that your chances of getting jailed depend on mostly on how cleverly you decide to tweak the nose of the authorities, and less on the morality of your actions.
What if it's not a commercial venture? And anyway, if it was as simple as all that to get businesses to behave, heck, why're Kenneth Lay and his buddies still running free?
One additional fact I forgot to mention: the 1918 'flu pandemic saw the infection of one fifth of the entire world. It was bigger than any previous pandemic, and the trend remains in upwards, not downwards direction.
Christ on a bike. I understand your main point, but your details are pretty inaccurate. Antibiotic resistance is a very large and very rapidly growing problem across the world and is killing many people every day. While necrotising fasciitis (flesh-eating disease) is unlikely to kill you, HIV is reducing life expectancy across Africa to rates not seen since the 19th century, and Strep A (which is the cause of flesh-eating disease) is a huge killer, responsible for scarlet fever and rheumatic fever. Less than a hundred years ago, influenza killed between 20 and 40m people, more than had died in the first world war. Microbes thrive in a huge range of circumstances and are opportunistic, exploiting change wherever possible. Infectious disease remains the world's number one killer and will do so for the foreseeable future. While improvements in technology, both low (eg sanitation) and high (eg sterile conditions in hospital theatres) will help, other changes will lead to the increased spread of disease (travel and urbanisation are particularly important) and it is important to remember that we are engaged in an evolutionary arms race with bugs--i.e., fighting disease is a continuing process, not a one-off that you can "win".
While I agree with your basic sentiment, I think that you're not using the correct numbers. It's not the number of native speakers per se that MS would be interested in -- it's the *likely* userbase. Additionally, I don't know where you got your figures from, but there are more like 5 or 6m Hebrew speakers than 3m. Still an order of magnitude less than Portuguese speakers, of course.
You've gotta ask what the moderators are on, here. This guy is at 5 for posting a question that he can answer for himself. I point this out and get modded down...
Why not check your example. FWIW, neither site you mention made the top ten. However, gulfwarvets came in at 3 and the sites listed don't seem particularly dominated by big-cheese commercial players.
I'm sorry to say this, but your point 2 clearly show that you have absolutely no idea how a library works. While *some* libraries will rotate *some* content, many libraries deliberately store old versions of texts, even where newer versions are available. Have you never heard of copyright libraries? They're must surely exist in the US too--libraries, such as the British Library and the University Library of Cambridge (that's England, not MA) that are entitled by law to hold a copy of any copyrighted text published in (in the case of these two) the UK.
It's not just these particular libraries either--most libraries have a policy of updating some texts and keeping others for historical reference. That's why you can go to a library and read gardening manuals or travel guides or chemistry textbooks written five, ten or 20 years ago. As for newspapers...as you acknowledge, libraries frequently keep back issues of newspapers. Many also have an archival policy for newspapers to allow access to old material (e.g., microfiching copies more than a couple of years old). Content providers have no say in this matter. And in general, they should have no say on the web either.
The answer is obvious: you don't look at individual lines, you look at context and content of the whole FAQ. As I said in the body text, it's about wholesale copying. Copyright has always been about wholesale copying.
According to the report, most of the reason for the decision was to do with the fact that there wasn't evidence of wholesale copying. There's only one paragraph in the report suggesting that FAQs in general can't be copyrighted, and my gut instinct says that something couldn't *not* be copyrighted merely because it's a FAQ. It would be the context and content of the FAQ that would determine whether it could be copyrighted.
My God but you're persistent in being wrong, aren't you? How can I make this clearer for you? You talked about the psychology department. The psychology department does not include the centre for evolutionary psychology, as they are unrelated subjects.
Those reasons might be more important to Palestinians, but frankly, Saudis are a lot more worried about being tortured by their own government than the Israelis...
Nope. You, however, are digging a fantastic hole for yourself. You are clearly unable to read your own post as well as other people's. You took him to task on two points: criticising UCSB without foundation and *in particular*, criticising its PSYCHOLOGY department without foundation. You will note that my post picked you up for the latter point, not the former: that you referred to the *psychology* department but that he had talked about the *evolutionary psychology* department. I had nothing to say--deliberately--about your complaint that he should not criticise a school without foundation, as I agreed with it.
The issue is not the clarity of his post--it is the clarity of your original response.
1. What, pray tell, has been your contribution to the intellectual achievements of evolutionary biology? In case you've forgotten, Gould was a working scientist as well as a populist. I have no doubt that his was a finer mind, both intellectually and morally, than yours. For instance, in all his published writings, there are no vicious personal attacks on the recently dead, whereas there are in yours.
2. Gould discussed populism repeatedly throughout his career, and rejected the view that trying to explain difficult concepts to the general public is a challenge that should not be taken up. He tried his best to avoid dumbing down, but he wasn't such an idiot as to confuse technical details with the substance of an argument, nor would he ever deride explanation as a mode of writing for a non-scientific audience, as you do. You can argue that he wasn't successful in this, but frankly, I think you're on to a loser.
3. He was actually a far better prose stylist than Darwin, whose books, even by the standards of Victorian English literature are turgidly written. However, he had a huge respect for Darwin, and repeatedly urged people to read Darwin's works. I remember his brandishing of a copy of the Origin of the Species when he gave one of the Darwin lectures in Cambridge in 1995. During an electrifying and fascinating talk, he asked everyone to read Darwin's masterwork.
4. He understood the huge importance of Darwin to modern theories of evolutionary biology, and recognised his own debt. But it takes a peculiar type of idiocy to describe his entire corpus of work as merely derivative.
Why are you calling someone a fool when you don't read their posts properly? It makes you look stupid. The poster was discussing the centre for *evolutionary psychology* at UCSB, not the psychology department.
Possibly. But not solely. Plenty of homegrown reasons as well, such as political impotence, scapegoating, the rise of fundamentalism, poverty, propaganda etc etc.
Nope. The point is, we *don't* have to become enlightened and intelligent people. We can stay dumb and make bad decisions based on the misinformation we find on the Web. Sadly, our bad decisions may be about such tiny issues as the future of our country and we may therefore cause ourselves and many others to go to hell in a handbasket. That's why it's an issue. It's no use saying "anyone with half a brain would laugh at Goebel's rubbish" when we know that lots of people *are* listening...and that many of them have guns.
It's there and it's relatively significant. Do a google...
As for the thrust of your post, you seem to be supporting what I said: that antisemitism has many causes, one of which you've elaborated.
A lovely old theory that does bugger all to explain the prevalence of antisemitism in Japanese society (where there have been historically very few Jews), in many parts of Eastern Europe where there are virtually no Jews left due to the Holocaust, and large chunks of the Arab world, where Jews also don't live. The origins and causes of antisemitism are manifold.
You have not understood what the bad thing is. It is not that information is presented. It is that misinformation is presented, and not everyone knows how to read it. People are unclear that they cannot simply trust the information they find on the web. And lies are frequently more believable than the truth, especially when they can be fitted into an archetype such as "the underdog".
Additionally, while it is true that the Web has allowed many new voices to shout, there's not actually that many new things being said. News from the Middle East is still dominated by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, with two basic positions (corresponding to the two sides) being propounded. This despite the fact that there are other conflicts and other issues, some of which may be just as geostrategically important (eg Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia). News from other places around the world is out there -- but you have to take a prior interest to find it, generally. It's not carried on the big media channels. So I'm not convinced by this argument about lots of viewpoints being real.
Um, that's the 80/20 principle, not the 20/80 principle. It also has no discernible relevance to what you're talking about. Glad to see that you *were* just blowing smoke and had no evidence to back up your assertions.
Same as traffic lights elsewhere: an unfortunately necessary measure to regulate traffic flow once volumes become too high. Roundabouts are good with high volumes and multiple exits, but they're not perfect. And they work best when people obey the conventions associated with them (ie move across traffic one lane at a time).