Exactly. This paper hasn't been retracted. If there are real problems with the paper, there will be corrections or retractions published in peer reviewed journals. Don't take some blowhard from the NYT's word for it.
Not that we can expect people to actually pay attention to the science. People prefer their own confirmation bias to reality. e.g. a similar metaanalysis was done on the effectivness of SSRIs in 2008. It found that SSRIs were only clinically significant in the most severely depressed patients. Yet here we are 4 years later, and SSRIs are still handed out like candy.
Nobody is interested in what's real and what's not. They're only interested in what makes them feel good and what gets them money.
It reminds me of how medical quacks try to differentiate between conventional and alternative (or naturopathic or whatever) medicine when the rational thing to do is to focus on what works, not what it is called.
You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine.
It just prooves that the DCMA is broken by design with just about any other court order third parties get paid "reasonable" fee's. I say "reasonable" as I remember charging several hundred bucks an hour for gathering data for the FBI and SS that last time I ran a hosting company.
There's not much work involved in complying with a well formed DMCA complaint. Google doesn't have to verify that the complaint is valid, only that it is well formed. Then they just have to take it down and email the user who posted it.
Because if someone challenges the DMCA complaint and the DMCA complainer disappears, Google is the one who gets held liable.
That's absolutely untrue. The entire point of the DMCA is the safe harbor provisions for service providers. If you take an item down in response to a well formed DMCA complaint there is no valid cause against you, even if the DMCA complainer disappears.
That "unreasonable burden" is the legally prescribed remedy. If you can be sued for doing the minimum required by law, it's not really the minimum required. That means there must be some other law that requires more from Google, which law is it?
What reason is there that DMCA complaints couldn't be handled automatically? All the DMCA requires after receiving a well formed takedown notice is that the file be taken down and the original poster informed. Isn't that essentially what they do anyway?
The usual indications for Cannabis can be self titrated pretty easily. Anti-emesis, analgesic, anxiolytic, etc. If you feel better, it did its job. These obvious medical benefits, combined with the extremely low toxicity (compare aspirin), should earn Cannabis a spot in every medicine cabinet, OTC.
When A is correlated with B, there are 3 possibilities. A causes B, B causes A, or both B and A are caused by a third factor C.
So are you claiming that earthquakes cause fracking? Or are you claiming that some unknown third factor causes both earthquakes and fracking? If you don't have any plausible suggestions for either, causation seems like the most likely explanation.
The juror can't read the judge's mind. The judge asked a yes or no question, and got back considerably more detail than 'yes' or 'no'. The juror did his duty, the judge screwed up.
I don't see any other reason the world would be as fucked up as it is. It is nauseating, I'll give you that. I'm nauseated every day by the state of the world, and the actions of the people in it who somehow find a way to declare their atrocities righteous. I really don't want to be sickened by my fellow man, but I don't see any other sufficient explanation for the evil in the world.
I would love to be convinced otherwise, which is why I get into these discussions. I'm not starting from a position of 'man is evil' and working things out from there. I'm starting from 'the world is fucked up', and trying to figure out reasons why. Undue respect for authority seems to be one of the major reasons.
Do you have an alternative explanation that isn't based on wishful thinking? I would love to hear it. But since you've already rejected my position based on it being "nauseating", instead of any logical argument, I suspect not.
No, I'm speaking from a practical standpoint. Practically, most evil isn't carried out by leaders. It's carried out by followers in service of those leaders. I don't see how you can absolve them of their moral responsibility.
And you detest *my* accusation? You are the one who said authoritarianism was universal. I detest that accusation. Nothing I said about you exceeds what you said about *everyone*.
I can say with certainty it is evil. But it's not universal. Milgram only found that about 2/3s were willing to do so in his experiment. Thoreau put the proportion at less than 1 per thousand square miles. It's rare, but there are good people out there. Perhaps you prefer to think it's universal to feel better about your own tendencies?
The way a moral human being deals with moral conflict with authority is to resist in every practical way. You can choose your battles to be effective, but submission is never an option. We all have the moral responsibility to question authority at every juncture, and we can never abdicate it ever.
Slashdot Mirror
Compare the organic farm stand with a conventional farm stand and you'll have a more valid comparison.
Exactly. This paper hasn't been retracted. If there are real problems with the paper, there will be corrections or retractions published in peer reviewed journals. Don't take some blowhard from the NYT's word for it.
Not that we can expect people to actually pay attention to the science. People prefer their own confirmation bias to reality. e.g. a similar metaanalysis was done on the effectivness of SSRIs in 2008. It found that SSRIs were only clinically significant in the most severely depressed patients. Yet here we are 4 years later, and SSRIs are still handed out like candy.
Nobody is interested in what's real and what's not. They're only interested in what makes them feel good and what gets them money.
It reminds me of how medical quacks try to differentiate between conventional and alternative (or naturopathic or whatever) medicine when the rational thing to do is to focus on what works, not what it is called.
You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine.
The global socialist revolution.
It just prooves that the DCMA is broken by design with just about any other court order third parties get paid "reasonable" fee's. I say "reasonable" as I remember charging several hundred bucks an hour for gathering data for the FBI and SS that last time I ran a hosting company.
There's not much work involved in complying with a well formed DMCA complaint. Google doesn't have to verify that the complaint is valid, only that it is well formed. Then they just have to take it down and email the user who posted it.
Because if someone challenges the DMCA complaint and the DMCA complainer disappears, Google is the one who gets held liable.
That's absolutely untrue. The entire point of the DMCA is the safe harbor provisions for service providers. If you take an item down in response to a well formed DMCA complaint there is no valid cause against you, even if the DMCA complainer disappears.
Now that's a good answer. I'm guessing Google doesn't need the safe harbor provisions because YouTube's TOS don't guarantee any actual service.
That "unreasonable burden" is the legally prescribed remedy. If you can be sued for doing the minimum required by law, it's not really the minimum required. That means there must be some other law that requires more from Google, which law is it?
What reason is there that DMCA complaints couldn't be handled automatically? All the DMCA requires after receiving a well formed takedown notice is that the file be taken down and the original poster informed. Isn't that essentially what they do anyway?
Why isn't YouTube requiring official DMCA notices in the first place?
No thanks, I got enough of that last night.
The usual indications for Cannabis can be self titrated pretty easily. Anti-emesis, analgesic, anxiolytic, etc. If you feel better, it did its job. These obvious medical benefits, combined with the extremely low toxicity (compare aspirin), should earn Cannabis a spot in every medicine cabinet, OTC.
Ob Oscar Wild: "Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months."
The Philippines don't look so good as a place to locate a data haven anymore.
Smoke some Cannabis. It will help with both the nausea and the glaucoma.
Those idiots drew the Earth upsidedown!
It is not mandatory for advertisers to honour the "Do not track" flag.
And that's the problem. Nothing Microsoft does can force anyone to respect the DNT flag. Don't blame Microsoft for the bad behavior of marketing scum.
When A is correlated with B, there are 3 possibilities. A causes B, B causes A, or both B and A are caused by a third factor C.
So are you claiming that earthquakes cause fracking? Or are you claiming that some unknown third factor causes both earthquakes and fracking? If you don't have any plausible suggestions for either, causation seems like the most likely explanation.
The juror can't read the judge's mind. The judge asked a yes or no question, and got back considerably more detail than 'yes' or 'no'. The juror did his duty, the judge screwed up.
I don't see any other reason the world would be as fucked up as it is. It is nauseating, I'll give you that. I'm nauseated every day by the state of the world, and the actions of the people in it who somehow find a way to declare their atrocities righteous. I really don't want to be sickened by my fellow man, but I don't see any other sufficient explanation for the evil in the world.
I would love to be convinced otherwise, which is why I get into these discussions. I'm not starting from a position of 'man is evil' and working things out from there. I'm starting from 'the world is fucked up', and trying to figure out reasons why. Undue respect for authority seems to be one of the major reasons.
Do you have an alternative explanation that isn't based on wishful thinking? I would love to hear it. But since you've already rejected my position based on it being "nauseating", instead of any logical argument, I suspect not.
No, I'm speaking from a practical standpoint. Practically, most evil isn't carried out by leaders. It's carried out by followers in service of those leaders. I don't see how you can absolve them of their moral responsibility.
And you detest *my* accusation? You are the one who said authoritarianism was universal. I detest that accusation. Nothing I said about you exceeds what you said about *everyone*.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a mistrial. I'm saying that the juror isn't at fault for not offering more information than was asked of him.
I can say with certainty it is evil. But it's not universal. Milgram only found that about 2/3s were willing to do so in his experiment. Thoreau put the proportion at less than 1 per thousand square miles. It's rare, but there are good people out there. Perhaps you prefer to think it's universal to feel better about your own tendencies?
The way a moral human being deals with moral conflict with authority is to resist in every practical way. You can choose your battles to be effective, but submission is never an option. We all have the moral responsibility to question authority at every juncture, and we can never abdicate it ever.
The mere act of shedding moral responsibility itself is evil. That's the problem with your analysis.
Then the judge was at fault for not asking "Is that all?".