Didn't notice it until well after I hit submit... but in the parenthetical remark above, I meant "(for example, the copy being used non-privately was unauthorized)..." Since what I intended to say and what I actually wrote are practically opposites, I felt clarification was in order.
The problem, I think, with this is that they are trying to directly equate the concept of making something available to doing something wrong.
Instead, I think, they need to take a different route, and look at the facts.... and the law how it *REALLY* applies, not how they think it ought to.
Making something available would, by any sense of reasoning, negate any possible notion of private use.
If nonprivate use is not applicable under the circumstances (for example, the copy being used privately was unauthorized), then it seems that by that notion, copyright infringement would apply.
So it seems that they could get the judgement they want, but it hinges on whether or not such nonprivate use in some way constitutes fair dealing. If it does, then they are out of luck. If it does not, however, they could still reasonably win.
You gotta be careful about that... choosing to not accept an offer of employment from an employer, regardless of who it is, can result in the immediate cancellation of one's employment insurance benefits.
Of course, they might not ever find out about it... but it's still definitely possible. You can't always tell if an employer is getting government subsidies to minimize training costs when hiring people coming off of EI.
So in other words, you give employees about a 3 to 4 week warning that somebody's going to be canned. That procedure could end up really biting you in the face if enough of your employees happen to actually like each other.
Ah... yes. Fair enough. It could create an inconvenience for firearms manufacturers who were not prepared for this.
Thank you. I had not thought of that, nor had the above poster made an indication that he might have been referring to such. I presumed he was referring to law abiding purchasers.
It's worth pointing out that most of the above issues also apply to cars... particularly newer ones.
Also, most of what you've addressed above is with respect to increased costs alone, which I did not question. I asked how it would increase inconvenience (for law abiding citizens) outside of increased cost? Much of the inconvenience you cite is already applicable to weapons already, the remainder are only applicable if only you have your heart set on getting an older gun that is not subject to the newer requirements.
Again, I don't dispute that this is going to create increased costs, I just was curious how it would be particularly inconvenient for law abiding citizens *outside* of those increased costs, over and above ways that are not already inconvenient right now.
I think that the only reason a lot of people would get them wrong is because they didn't practice solving word problems enough when they were in grade school... or they possibly even were not actually taught how to solve them. I actually don't recall any teacher in school ever spending time teaching how to solve them. My father taught me.
As an aside, I personally know a lot of people that hated those types of math problems in school, but in each case I've observed, I've noticed that they simply do not immediately recognize a way to model such a problem into an actual math equation, and they struggle disproportionately with that part of the problem (sometimes simply giving up entirely), where the same people would have absolutely no problem solving a simple linear equation in one variable. I expect that this inability to recognize how to model the problem, when it is stated in such a way, and actually sounds so simple, can cause someone to feel stupider than they actually are, and so the person resents being confronted with those types of problems because they cause them to feel dumb, which creates a feedback loop of not wanting to put much effort into solving them. Of course, the inability to recognize how to model such word problems into a linear equation with a single variable is not remotely a reflection of how smart one is, it is simply a reflection of what that person has been taught when it comes to solving such problems. But even though the method itself is not that difficult to actually do, learning the techniques involved, and in particular, understanding them well enough to be able to know how to apply them in arbitrary circumstances, still takes time and practice... just like learning to do anything well.
I would suggest that people with a lot of math background aren't as likely to slip up on those types of problems, even though the answers are no more important for them than they are for anybody else... I would suggest that they are less likely to make the mistake simply because they've had so much practice at solving those types of problems than most people.
Both problems given in the article were word math problems.
A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?
and
In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake?
I got them both right almost immediately, but I think I understand why people would frequently make the errors the article mentioned.
Ultimately, I think that the reason people make those mistakes is not because they are naturally irrational, but because they simply have not had enough practice at those types of math problems.
The former took me back to grade 7 math... where I was always solving for x. How I would have done it on paper is as follows:
Let x = the cost of the ball.
Let x+1=cost of bat.
x+(x+1)=1.10
2x+1=1.10
2x=0.10
x=0.05.
I happened to solve this particular one in my head, but the mental steps I took still reflected the above process. And I think it's the sheer amount of practice that I got solving those types of problems in grade 7 and 8 that I didn't get hung up on anything.
The latter problem was so obvious, I didn't even have to arrange a formula to solve it... saying it doubles every day, and filling after 48 days means it *MUST* be half full after 47 days. There's probably a formula for it, but I didn't happen to notice it.
Wouldn't that be ill advised for them to not show up? I mean, if it results in a summary judgement?
Otherwise, anyone who WAS actually cheating, but simply denied ever doing so, would be able to get a summary judgement as well... and at that point, they might as well be prepared to offer a refund for every account they ban.
I'm pretty sure that technology hasn't progressed to the point of fully satisfying any one of those requirements yet. We're part way on several of them, but you know the saying... close only counts when you are using weapons with a large enough blast radius.
Invent a machine that can clean up and dispose of kitty litter.
A machine that can take out the garbage, and intelligently put appropriate recyclables in the applicable receptacle.
One that can vacuum the entire house, including stairs, and empty its own canister when full. Oh, and it has to be able to pick up things that aren't supposed to be on the floor and put them away.
A machine that can take clean clothes out of the dryer, and fold and put them away for you. Ideally also put them in the washing machine in the first place during the day while you are at work so that you aren't competing with practically every other person on your floor for a machine in the laundry room.
Something that automatically can take clean dishes from a dishwasher and put them away.
A machine that cleans bathrooms. Another one that cleans the kitchen.
Then, and only then, will machines have genuinely freed me from household drudgery.
Cool.... so based on nearby multiple hovering events, combined with touch events, it could even detect which finger you were touching the screen with. That has possibilities.
While I know that even in that field there can be some ethical issues that arise, not all types of games, nor even all companies are going to be problematic.
My only agenda is to live my life transparently, and to try to practice integrity in everything that I do. I am prepared to held accountable for *ALL* of my activities, whether they are performed in private or not. If I disagree with a law, I will either be prepared to face the consequences for disobeying it, or I shall abide by it, and try to work within the system to get the law changed.
We are now at a point in time where copyright has a negative net effect on society.
I am compelled to disagree with that assessment. There have *ALWAYS* been artists and other creators that have desired exclusivity of control over copy of their creations (even before copyright existed, in fact, which is why copyright was created, so that they could retain that control at least from a legal standpoint, while the general public benefits from the availability of the published work), and that has not changed simply because copying has become extremely simply for the public to do... it has only become more difficult to practically achieve when faced with people who don't necessarily want to respect it.
Without copyright, publishers would have very little incentive to, for example, print physical books, since anyone could legally copy and distribute it without compensating the author... all books, therefore, would be electric and digital in nature, and be laden with *extreme* amounts of DRM, in what would be at least an attempt by the publisher to manage the uncontrolled copying.
People who self-publish would find themselves competing for popularity in an unending sea of low-quality self-published content, making it more difficult for people who cannot afford a high bandwidth pipe for uploading content to even get their stuff to be seen by other people. At least right now, people can turn to publishing companies.
Of course I could answer it... But is there any point in doing so? Especially since I expect that you'll just go on to ignore my entire point, and go on to criticize something else entirely irrelevant (if you bother to respond at all). Nonetheless, for what I am sure is to be your amusement, here is the answer I would have given you:
My stance on the morality of copyright infringement comes from the fact that the concept of copyright has, in fact, historically been extremely good for society, and that accepting copyright is a good thing, I see infringement of it as ethically undesirable, since it reduces the confidence that creators will place in it to maintain control over copies of their works, which in turn motivates them to resort to measures that make their works less accessible to the general public (DRM, anyone? That's just the beginning... it can and certainly will get a whole lot worse). Even though I disagree with the duration of copyright terms and the inaccessibility that some publishers are placing on their content, I do not subscribe to the premise that two wrongs make a right, however, so I advocate staying on the side of the law. Considering that it's not particularly inconvenient to do so in the case of many programs on network television, I find the argument that piracy is always going to be more convenient than legitimate access to be little more than the rantings of somebody who believes that they should be entitled to do something simply because they can.
Slashdot Mirror
Didn't notice it until well after I hit submit... but in the parenthetical remark above, I meant "(for example, the copy being used non-privately was unauthorized)..." Since what I intended to say and what I actually wrote are practically opposites, I felt clarification was in order.
The problem, I think, with this is that they are trying to directly equate the concept of making something available to doing something wrong.
Instead, I think, they need to take a different route, and look at the facts.... and the law how it *REALLY* applies, not how they think it ought to.
Making something available would, by any sense of reasoning, negate any possible notion of private use.
If nonprivate use is not applicable under the circumstances (for example, the copy being used privately was unauthorized), then it seems that by that notion, copyright infringement would apply.
So it seems that they could get the judgement they want, but it hinges on whether or not such nonprivate use in some way constitutes fair dealing. If it does, then they are out of luck. If it does not, however, they could still reasonably win.
The implication is that you get what you pay for.
Of course, they might not ever find out about it... but it's still definitely possible. You can't always tell if an employer is getting government subsidies to minimize training costs when hiring people coming off of EI.
So in other words, you give employees about a 3 to 4 week warning that somebody's going to be canned. That procedure could end up really biting you in the face if enough of your employees happen to actually like each other.
Thank you. I had not thought of that, nor had the above poster made an indication that he might have been referring to such. I presumed he was referring to law abiding purchasers.
It's worth pointing out that most of the above issues also apply to cars... particularly newer ones.
Also, most of what you've addressed above is with respect to increased costs alone, which I did not question. I asked how it would increase inconvenience (for law abiding citizens) outside of increased cost? Much of the inconvenience you cite is already applicable to weapons already, the remainder are only applicable if only you have your heart set on getting an older gun that is not subject to the newer requirements.
Again, I don't dispute that this is going to create increased costs, I just was curious how it would be particularly inconvenient for law abiding citizens *outside* of those increased costs, over and above ways that are not already inconvenient right now.
Increased cost? Yes... Inconvenience? How, other than a larger cost?
The converse to this, assuming the veracity of the above observation, states that good ones are expensive.
QED.
I think that the only reason a lot of people would get them wrong is because they didn't practice solving word problems enough when they were in grade school... or they possibly even were not actually taught how to solve them. I actually don't recall any teacher in school ever spending time teaching how to solve them. My father taught me.
As an aside, I personally know a lot of people that hated those types of math problems in school, but in each case I've observed, I've noticed that they simply do not immediately recognize a way to model such a problem into an actual math equation, and they struggle disproportionately with that part of the problem (sometimes simply giving up entirely), where the same people would have absolutely no problem solving a simple linear equation in one variable. I expect that this inability to recognize how to model the problem, when it is stated in such a way, and actually sounds so simple, can cause someone to feel stupider than they actually are, and so the person resents being confronted with those types of problems because they cause them to feel dumb, which creates a feedback loop of not wanting to put much effort into solving them. Of course, the inability to recognize how to model such word problems into a linear equation with a single variable is not remotely a reflection of how smart one is, it is simply a reflection of what that person has been taught when it comes to solving such problems. But even though the method itself is not that difficult to actually do, learning the techniques involved, and in particular, understanding them well enough to be able to know how to apply them in arbitrary circumstances, still takes time and practice... just like learning to do anything well.
I would suggest that people with a lot of math background aren't as likely to slip up on those types of problems, even though the answers are no more important for them than they are for anybody else... I would suggest that they are less likely to make the mistake simply because they've had so much practice at solving those types of problems than most people.
Both problems given in the article were word math problems.
and
I got them both right almost immediately, but I think I understand why people would frequently make the errors the article mentioned.
Ultimately, I think that the reason people make those mistakes is not because they are naturally irrational, but because they simply have not had enough practice at those types of math problems.
The former took me back to grade 7 math... where I was always solving for x. How I would have done it on paper is as follows:
I happened to solve this particular one in my head, but the mental steps I took still reflected the above process. And I think it's the sheer amount of practice that I got solving those types of problems in grade 7 and 8 that I didn't get hung up on anything.
The latter problem was so obvious, I didn't even have to arrange a formula to solve it... saying it doubles every day, and filling after 48 days means it *MUST* be half full after 47 days. There's probably a formula for it, but I didn't happen to notice it.
Wouldn't that be ill advised for them to not show up? I mean, if it results in a summary judgement?
Otherwise, anyone who WAS actually cheating, but simply denied ever doing so, would be able to get a summary judgement as well... and at that point, they might as well be prepared to offer a refund for every account they ban.
Can you get Blizzard to refund your purchase price for the game, since the game and your account are now both kaput?
For myself, it's also a job... just one that I would otherwise do for free if I didn't have bills to pay.
I'm pretty sure that technology hasn't progressed to the point of fully satisfying any one of those requirements yet. We're part way on several of them, but you know the saying... close only counts when you are using weapons with a large enough blast radius.
If being filthy stinking rich causes one to lose peripheral interest in the things they enjoy, like nerdtoys, programming, and all things geek.
I sincerely hope that I will always remain poor.
Now all they need to do is...
Invent a machine that can clean up and dispose of kitty litter.
A machine that can take out the garbage, and intelligently put appropriate recyclables in the applicable receptacle.
One that can vacuum the entire house, including stairs, and empty its own canister when full. Oh, and it has to be able to pick up things that aren't supposed to be on the floor and put them away.
A machine that can take clean clothes out of the dryer, and fold and put them away for you. Ideally also put them in the washing machine in the first place during the day while you are at work so that you aren't competing with practically every other person on your floor for a machine in the laundry room.
Something that automatically can take clean dishes from a dishwasher and put them away.
A machine that cleans bathrooms. Another one that cleans the kitchen.
Then, and only then, will machines have genuinely freed me from household drudgery.
Why? Would you suddenly lose all peripheral interest in this sort of subject matter just because you were a professional?
Cool.... so based on nearby multiple hovering events, combined with touch events, it could even detect which finger you were touching the screen with. That has possibilities.
While I know that even in that field there can be some ethical issues that arise, not all types of games, nor even all companies are going to be problematic.
Or can it also record things like multiple hovering events?
My only agenda is to live my life transparently, and to try to practice integrity in everything that I do. I am prepared to held accountable for *ALL* of my activities, whether they are performed in private or not. If I disagree with a law, I will either be prepared to face the consequences for disobeying it, or I shall abide by it, and try to work within the system to get the law changed.
I am compelled to disagree with that assessment. There have *ALWAYS* been artists and other creators that have desired exclusivity of control over copy of their creations (even before copyright existed, in fact, which is why copyright was created, so that they could retain that control at least from a legal standpoint, while the general public benefits from the availability of the published work), and that has not changed simply because copying has become extremely simply for the public to do... it has only become more difficult to practically achieve when faced with people who don't necessarily want to respect it.
Without copyright, publishers would have very little incentive to, for example, print physical books, since anyone could legally copy and distribute it without compensating the author... all books, therefore, would be electric and digital in nature, and be laden with *extreme* amounts of DRM, in what would be at least an attempt by the publisher to manage the uncontrolled copying.
People who self-publish would find themselves competing for popularity in an unending sea of low-quality self-published content, making it more difficult for people who cannot afford a high bandwidth pipe for uploading content to even get their stuff to be seen by other people. At least right now, people can turn to publishing companies.
Of course I could answer it... But is there any point in doing so? Especially since I expect that you'll just go on to ignore my entire point, and go on to criticize something else entirely irrelevant (if you bother to respond at all). Nonetheless, for what I am sure is to be your amusement, here is the answer I would have given you:
My stance on the morality of copyright infringement comes from the fact that the concept of copyright has, in fact, historically been extremely good for society, and that accepting copyright is a good thing, I see infringement of it as ethically undesirable, since it reduces the confidence that creators will place in it to maintain control over copies of their works, which in turn motivates them to resort to measures that make their works less accessible to the general public (DRM, anyone? That's just the beginning... it can and certainly will get a whole lot worse). Even though I disagree with the duration of copyright terms and the inaccessibility that some publishers are placing on their content, I do not subscribe to the premise that two wrongs make a right, however, so I advocate staying on the side of the law. Considering that it's not particularly inconvenient to do so in the case of many programs on network television, I find the argument that piracy is always going to be more convenient than legitimate access to be little more than the rantings of somebody who believes that they should be entitled to do something simply because they can.