Assuming that there is such a thing as legit therapy. Try looking for experimental data showing a statistically significant effect of therapy. Nearly all the data out there is lacking important controls, and when metaanalysis is done the effect mostly disappears into statistical insignificance.
The best predictor for success in therapy is the expectations of the client. Not the skill of the therapist or the methods he uses. This leads me to believe that the apparent success of therapy is due to self-selection by patients with good prognoses
As for the alternative, prozac is similarly ineffective when the literature is viewed metaanalytically.
No, I'm not a lawyer. Yes, I know there is a lot in law I am not aware of. That's why I asked. What is the actual definition of "material object" in law? Where in the law is it defined?
Oh, I should also point out that if you happen to be more fortunate than others, internalizing your good fortune is a great way to feel superior. Obviously, someone in that position is going to be biased into thinking he got there on his own, instead of being extraordinarily lucky.
No matter how much you want to blame the victim, bad things really do happen to people because of circumstances outside of their control.
Your general message is a good one. People should be responsible for themselves. But claiming that the locus of control should always be internal simply flies in the face of reality.
For example, what if one's boss really is a jerk? No matter how hard you work to please him, you cannot. If you internalized that locus of control, you would conclude that there is something terribly wrong with you. That's not a healthy frame of mind at all.
I haven't said that anyone should work for my benefit for free. If they choose not to work, that's fine. What's not fine is thinking that you can skirt the laws of economics. Zero marginal cost leads to zero marginal price. Period.
We have machines that can create copies for zero cost. The price the market will bear is therefore zero. Period. You're going to have to deal with it, whining to me about how unfair it is isn't going to change anything.
If you're unhappy with that deal, get a job where you earn an hourly wage. I won't miss you or your creative output.
Driving it further underground and returning it to the domain of the technically informed would stem their perceived losses though. I'm not sure if this is an obtainable goal with the internet being what it is but you can bet they will keep trying as long as they draw breath.
Not a chance. Even if we had to go back to finding files on IRC, someone would whip up an XBMC plugin that made it entirely transparent and usable by morons.
They're deluded into thinking that they're the good guys. Chris Dodd wouldn't have offered Obama a bribe on national television if he thought there was something wrong with it. I am sure it never occured to him, even for a microsecond, that it would appear improper to the rest of us.
People have already adapted to changing technology. We have Netflix, iTunes, Steam, and other digital distribution.
And yet, not a dent was made in the piracy rate. Nothing anyone can do will stop piracy. They'll keep saying "just one more law", until there's nothing left to restrict.
Not to cut in on the INFORMATION-WANTS-TO-BE-FREE rant, but culture can't survive in the long term if its creators don't get rewarded for their work.
Culture will survive, because culture has always survived. Culture is what humans do. Creators will find a way to get paid.
You have to be rational and fight against overreactions like SOPA while acknowledging sane solutions for compensating content creators so that we can continue to enjoy cool shit in our society.
Then propose a "sane solution". I've never seen one.
Complaining about this is a way of maintaining that eternal vigilance. If people don't regularly point out dirty tricks, people will stop noticing the dirty tricks.
There are no valid reasons to fight against piracy. Technology has changed the world, and you're not going to change it back. Adapt or die, those are the choices.
I believe in principle that I should be able to sell my MP3s if I don't want them anymore.
Unfortunately, the fair market price for a copy of a digital work is zero. This is the basic economic fact the industry and the courts need to catch up with.
The fact that people on Slashdot still rant about PS3 Linux as if any significant share of the PS3 user base even bothered with it is illustration enough how out-of-touch many of the posters are.
Nobody really cares about Linux on PS3. What people care about is the fact that Sony can disable features on hardware you own. Yesterday, it was a mostly useless Linux. It's what they do tomorrow that everyone, even non-nerds, should be concerned about.
If that was the major benefit of console publishing, we'd see fewer multi-platform games. The real reason games are published on consoles these days is because consoles are locked down.
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of copyright maximalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.
Can't we just agree that citizens of both the US and UK suffer unacceptable breaches of their liberty? There's no need to argue about who is freer, we both suffer terrible abuses.
They're government employees entrusted with the power to use violence against citizens. If you're not proud enough of your conduct to have it filmed, I don't trust you with that power.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming that there is such a thing as legit therapy. Try looking for experimental data showing a statistically significant effect of therapy. Nearly all the data out there is lacking important controls, and when metaanalysis is done the effect mostly disappears into statistical insignificance.
The best predictor for success in therapy is the expectations of the client. Not the skill of the therapist or the methods he uses. This leads me to believe that the apparent success of therapy is due to self-selection by patients with good prognoses
As for the alternative, prozac is similarly ineffective when the literature is viewed metaanalytically.
No, I'm not a lawyer. Yes, I know there is a lot in law I am not aware of. That's why I asked. What is the actual definition of "material object" in law? Where in the law is it defined?
If you were being serious, "Material" at this point has its own legal definition, and they do not just mean "physical".
What is that definition? The only one I'm aware of is "Of, relating to, or composed of matter."
Oh, I should also point out that if you happen to be more fortunate than others, internalizing your good fortune is a great way to feel superior. Obviously, someone in that position is going to be biased into thinking he got there on his own, instead of being extraordinarily lucky.
What is the mass of an MP3?
You can. You just have to use some sort of atomic transaction scheme like ReDigi does to ensure that no more than one copy is accessible at a time.
No matter how much you want to blame the victim, bad things really do happen to people because of circumstances outside of their control.
Your general message is a good one. People should be responsible for themselves. But claiming that the locus of control should always be internal simply flies in the face of reality.
For example, what if one's boss really is a jerk? No matter how hard you work to please him, you cannot. If you internalized that locus of control, you would conclude that there is something terribly wrong with you. That's not a healthy frame of mind at all.
I haven't said that anyone should work for my benefit for free. If they choose not to work, that's fine. What's not fine is thinking that you can skirt the laws of economics. Zero marginal cost leads to zero marginal price. Period.
We have machines that can create copies for zero cost. The price the market will bear is therefore zero. Period. You're going to have to deal with it, whining to me about how unfair it is isn't going to change anything.
If you're unhappy with that deal, get a job where you earn an hourly wage. I won't miss you or your creative output.
Driving it further underground and returning it to the domain of the technically informed would stem their perceived losses though. I'm not sure if this is an obtainable goal with the internet being what it is but you can bet they will keep trying as long as they draw breath.
Not a chance. Even if we had to go back to finding files on IRC, someone would whip up an XBMC plugin that made it entirely transparent and usable by morons.
They're deluded into thinking that they're the good guys. Chris Dodd wouldn't have offered Obama a bribe on national television if he thought there was something wrong with it. I am sure it never occured to him, even for a microsecond, that it would appear improper to the rest of us.
People have already adapted to changing technology. We have Netflix, iTunes, Steam, and other digital distribution.
And yet, not a dent was made in the piracy rate. Nothing anyone can do will stop piracy. They'll keep saying "just one more law", until there's nothing left to restrict.
You've essentially said that you can countermand the laws of economics with the laws of man. That makes you delusional.
Not to cut in on the INFORMATION-WANTS-TO-BE-FREE rant, but culture can't survive in the long term if its creators don't get rewarded for their work.
Culture will survive, because culture has always survived. Culture is what humans do. Creators will find a way to get paid.
You have to be rational and fight against overreactions like SOPA while acknowledging sane solutions for compensating content creators so that we can continue to enjoy cool shit in our society.
Then propose a "sane solution". I've never seen one.
Complaining about this is a way of maintaining that eternal vigilance. If people don't regularly point out dirty tricks, people will stop noticing the dirty tricks.
There are valid reasons to fight against piracy.
There are no valid reasons to fight against piracy. Technology has changed the world, and you're not going to change it back. Adapt or die, those are the choices.
I believe in principle that I should be able to sell my MP3s if I don't want them anymore.
Unfortunately, the fair market price for a copy of a digital work is zero. This is the basic economic fact the industry and the courts need to catch up with.
Really? Windows games in an arcade cabinet?
If these talented people have enjoyed the time they spent building ReactOS, then they haven't wasted it at all.
The fact that people on Slashdot still rant about PS3 Linux as if any significant share of the PS3 user base even bothered with it is illustration enough how out-of-touch many of the posters are.
Nobody really cares about Linux on PS3. What people care about is the fact that Sony can disable features on hardware you own. Yesterday, it was a mostly useless Linux. It's what they do tomorrow that everyone, even non-nerds, should be concerned about.
If that was the major benefit of console publishing, we'd see fewer multi-platform games. The real reason games are published on consoles these days is because consoles are locked down.
A form of Poe's law applies here:
Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of copyright maximalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing.
Can't we just agree that citizens of both the US and UK suffer unacceptable breaches of their liberty? There's no need to argue about who is freer, we both suffer terrible abuses.
They're government employees entrusted with the power to use violence against citizens. If you're not proud enough of your conduct to have it filmed, I don't trust you with that power.
No they are not meant to be totally transparent. That's a great way to get innocent people killed, and totally destroy the effectiveness of police.
Opaque authority kills more people than transparent authority, every time.
Last time I checked we lived in a free society in which our military is 100% separated from civilians.
You haven't checked recently. Instead of having military police, we just militarized our civilian police. Same result.