The patent was assigned to Burroughs-Wellcome who paid for drug trials and promptly began selling it two years later. Selling it at a price that made it the most expensive drugs ever marketed ($8,000+ a year per patient) - despite the fact it was developed with public money and was the only treatment available for a rapidly-spreading disease with a 100% mortality rate.
Dammit! They paid for the drug trials (a plus in favor of giving the patent to Burroughs-Wellcome) but the drug was originally researched with public funds (a minus against giving the patent to Burroughs-Wellcome). My groupthink is failing! Who am I supposed to root for?
On a more serious note, I'm honestly not sure what the right thing to do here would have een. Burroughs-Wellcome arguably deserves to recoup their expenses, but the public deserves access to a drug it paid for through taxes...I'd argue a middle ground is for the government to grant the patent and then buy it back under eminent domain, but that seems silly, too...
-Trillian
Why make up data when you can find statistics?
on
Obama's MySpace Drama
·
· Score: 3, Informative
(This is a repost of something I wrote near the bottom of the page, in the hopes it'll actually get seen...)
From allison
It's a freaking myspace page. Of his 160,000 "friends," how many are over 18? Perhaps 25%? Of those 40,000, how many are registered? Even a quarter of those? I doubt it. Maybe an eighth. So of those 5,000, how many actually care enough to vote? Probably half.
Well, doing a quick Google search on 'myspace demographics' shows conflicting information. Some pages say that over 75% of the MySpace population is over 18 [1]. Meanwhile, another site is saying over half of MySpace is over thirty five [2]. Even pulling numbers out of my ass (much like you did) and assuming that a significant portion of of the people who show up as over 18 are lying, it still looks like much more than 25% of the "friends" from this page are over 18.
Likewise, looking at US census info shows just about 50% of 18-24 year olds were registered for to vote by November 2004 while around 40% actually voted [3].
So lets do some math with this new data. You said of the 160,000 friends this page had, only around 2500 will actually vote. Of the 160,000 around 120,000 (160,000*.75) are over 18. Of those, the national turnout (again, the US Census) was at around 58% in 2004. 58% of 120,000 is just under 70,000 people who, statistically, will probably vote. At the asking price of $49,000 for the MySpace page, that's less than a dollar a voter - a good buy for any politician.
But lets go a step further and look at just the 18-24 demographic (from links 1 and 2 somewhere around 18% of MySpace). So around 29,000 friends of the 160,000 are 18-24, of which around 40% will actually vote. So over 10,000 friends age 18-24 who will actually vote. That's still only a couple dollars per voter, not bad for a campaign, and ignores all the other voters who are over 24.
Now, I know, I've made a lot of assumptions doing this back-of-the-envelope math: all the data (both about MySpace and about US voters) is accurate, all the MySpace users are in the United States, and trends will continue like they did in the 2004 election. But for all the assumptions that my estimates are high, you could make an equal argument that they're low. That is, you could argue that people registered as friends of Obama are more likely to vote than the population as a whole.
My point is, your original guess (about 2500 who are 18+ and will actually vote out of the original 160,000 friends) seems to be off by 65,000 voters (not registered voters, but people who will vote). In fact, there are more voters out of those 160,000 who are 18-24 than your original guess for all people over the age of 18.
Feel free to correct my math or my assumptions. I had fun doing this, but would someone else come along and correct me than let something incorrect stand. -Trillian
Why make up data when you can find statistics?
on
Obama's MySpace Drama
·
· Score: 5, Informative
It's a freaking myspace page. Of his 160,000 "friends," how many are over 18? Perhaps 25%? Of those 40,000, how many are registered? Even a quarter of those? I doubt it. Maybe an eighth. So of those 5,000, how many actually care enough to vote? Probably half.
Well, doing a quick Google search on 'myspace demographics' shows conflicting information. Some pages say that over 75% of the MySpace population is over 18 [1]. Meanwhile, another site is saying over half of MySpace is over thirty five [2]. Even pulling numbers out of my ass (much like you did) and assuming that a significant portion of of the people who show up as over 18 are lying, it still looks like much more than 25% of the "friends" from this page are over 18.
Likewise, looking at US census info shows just about 50% of 18-24 year olds were registered for to vote by November 2004 while around 40% actually voted [3].
So lets do some math with this new data. You said of the 160,000 friends this page had, only around 2500 will actually vote. Of the 160,000 around 120,000 (160,000*.75) are over 18. Of those, the national turnout (again, the US Census) was at around 58% in 2004. 58% of 120,000 is just under 70,000 people who, statistically, will probably vote. At the asking price of $49,000 for the MySpace page, that's less than a dollar a voter - a good buy for any politician.
But lets go a step further and look at just the 18-24 demographic (from links 1 and 2 somewhere around 18% of MySpace). So around 29,000 friends of the 160,000 are 18-24, of which around 40% will actually vote. So over 10,000 friends age 18-24 who will actually vote. That's still only a couple dollars per voter, not bad for a campaign, and ignores all the other voters who are over 24.
Now, I know, I've made a lot of assumptions doing this back-of-the-envelope math: all the data (both about MySpace and about US voters) is accurate, all the MySpace users are in the United States, and trends will continue like they did in the 2004 election. But for all the assumptions that my estimates are high, you could make an equal argument that they're low. That is, you could argue that people registered as friends of Obama are more likely to vote than the population as a whole.
My point is, your original guess (about 2500 who are 18+ and will actually vote out of the original 160,000 friends) seems to be off by 65,000 voters (not registered voters, but people who will vote). In fact, there are more voters out of those 160,000 who are 18-24 than your original guess for all people over the age of 18.
Feel free to correct my math or my assumptions. I had fun doing this, but would someone else come along and correct me than let something incorrect stand. -Trillian
It's a good idea, but it would require a constitutional amendment.
I don't think that's true, although I could be wrong.
My understanding is that companies lobbying and offering financial donations as a free speech issue stems from a court case which decided that companies have limited 'personage' and thus rights to free speech. As far as I know, it would require either a law that directly contradicts this and/or a Supreme Court ruling to the same effect. If a company is no longer considered an entity with free speech rights, they can easily be prevented from making political donations.
Obligatory IANAL and all that jazz - if there's someone with more knowledge, please correct me. -Trillian
You know, any time someone uses the "adapt or die argument" in the context of the RIAA or MPAA, it gets modded insightful. Yet, when the same argument is used in conjunction with outsourcing, it gets modded as flamebait. Could someone explain the slashdot community's priciple or consistency on this issue. Or are we just all selfish assholes with selective morality?
I think it's a couple things. First, as others have responded to you and suggested, it's partially a result of two different groups saying things. While Slashdot can have a 'hive mind,' it is made up of individuals and not everyone who might say "adapt or die" about the RI/MPAA would necessarily say outsourcing is bad.
But I think that is kind of a cop-out answer because as much as Slashdot isn't a 'hive mind,' I think you're right that, on the whole, the site is anti-outsourcing for businesses and pro-'adapt or die' for movie/record industry. So I'm trying to reconcile the two for myself, as I do feel that the current copyright system is broken and the media industries take advantage of it, while I also feel outsourcing is usually not a great thing. These are all my own opinions, and I can't speak for anyone else, but I am trying to respond to how someone can both feel 'adapt-or'die' and be anti-outsourcing.
First, the media industries. For me, there are two major issues. One is the 'adapt or die' argument: that, just as the proverbial buggy-whip maker needed to find a new line of work when cars became a hit, distributing physical media just isn't as expensive as it used to be and pretending otherwise is silly. Thus, while iTunes, Best Buy, and amazon.com all show (in different ways) that many people are still willing to pay something for media, it may not be what it once was. This, of course, only covers those people who are still willing to pay something for content.
Then you have copyrights, the other major issue. The copyright system in the US, as I understand it, is based on the section in the Constitution that says (paraphrasing) "limited monopolies on 'concepts' to promote science and the arts.' Now, the media companies are trying to get around the 'limited' part through DRM and repeated copyright extensions. To me, this is trying to have your cake and eat it, too. As such, I have no personal moral qualms about (for example) downloading the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica or Scrubs or copying a movie from Blockbuster. As I see it, if they aren't going to play by the 'rules' (which say that work should eventually enter the public domain) than I'm not going to either. Again, this is not a legal argument and I do pay for things (such as the BSG box sets, certain videogames, and certain movies) that I feel are subjectively "worth it." That said, I don't try to wiggle around the fact I'm downloading and copying media I'm not paying for and have no intention of ever paying for. I don't view it as theft, and I don't view it as immoral - I've made my peace with what I'm doing.*
And then you have outsourcing. I'm not across-the-board against outsourcing. I don't, for example, think it should be illegal. And I admit I'm not knowledgeable enough about business to have opinions based on anything other than conjecture and emotion. If someone with more information than me can refute what I'm saying, please do - maybe I'm wrong. But I do think outsourcing is in some ways robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is, at some point someone needs to consume your product and by removing jobs in a local market you at least somewhat remove people who could be your customers. Henry Ford is supposed to have raised his worker's wages to the point where they could afford the cars they made. (Not that he was always the model businessman, but still.)
In addition, outsourcing makes me uneasy because it often seems like companies are being hypocritical. The media companies are again the big offenders here - "We can make our products where it's cheaper, but we'll use legal
So this is an honest question - looking at your user info, you regularly get moderated down to '-1, Troll.' What do you get out of it? This is not intended to provoke a hostile response, I'm just really curious why you stay on Slashdot. -Trillian
I hate to chime in with a 'me too' post, but I'm about to...
Me too! I agree - I turned off WiiConnect24 for exactly the same reason (unneeded power consumption) but was frustrated to find things not updating. A quick check doesn't seem like too much to ask... -Trillian
If someone claims that 6+3 is 10, but when complain when you given them only $3 change when they pay you $10 for a $6 you know they were lying. You don't need to wax philosophical about people making their identities however they want. Most people who claim to be religious believers are liars in the same way that this hypothetical alternative mathematician is.
We may have to agree to disagree. 6+3 is demonstrably less than 10, while there is no such test for 'religiousness.' I completely agree that many religious people come off as hypocritical at best, liars at worse, I just think it's unfair (and, more to the point, outside of the scope of abilities you possess) to determine whether or not someone else holds true to their personal beliefs about their relationship with $DIETY. I don't believe I was waxing philosophical about self-created identities, and I don't think you've responded to my point of contention - how do you know whether someone else is "truly" or "actually" Christian?
Again, your comment implies you can judge who is "truly" or "actually" Christian, across the board. I reject the premise of your claim, and think that if someone says, "I am Christian," the only person they have to answer to is themselves. Now, as someone else in this thread noted (and I agreed) you could point out their hypocrisy and that they're not holding to their self-expressed value/judgment/etc system. I wouldn't have a problem with that, and I'd probably agree with you. I just really strongly feel this is, at least in part, an issue of people being able to choose their own identity.
Thanks for replying though. Sorry if (rereading my comment) I came off as an ass.
I completely agree with you - someone going through the motions without believing is a hypocrite. But what I was responding to was the claim that only occasionally going to Church and not 'practicing' in a daily, public way means you're not Christian (or Jewish, or whatever). More to the point, if they "truly believe" that being Christian can mean occasionally going to Church, celebrating Christmas, and believing in God in a non-confrontational kind of way, more power to them. erroneus said that these people call themselves Christians but don't "actually or truly believe" and, while you have given me some things to think about on what it means to truly believe (and I agree with what you said) I don't think you responded to my original issue: erroneus claimed that "most people who call themselves Christian don't practice it in their daily lives and in essence, don't actually or truly believe."
I'm challenging that assumption on the grounds s/he has no right to claim knowledge of the beliefs of another. S/he could have said "Most people who call themselves Christians aren't living in a way that I feel lines up with what it means to be Christian" or even "Most people who call themselves Christian have very vague definitions of 'Christian,' but s/he didn't - s/he made a very specific claim and I'm calling bullshit.
Likewise, s/he was vague as to what it would mean to "practice [Christianity]." Daily Church attendance? Weekly Church attendance? No Church attendance at all but obeying the Bible as you understand it? Keeping slaves and stoning neighbors who don't observe the sabbath? Depending on your viewpoint, any of those might mean "practicing Christianity." My point is that there's a wide range of what it means to be Christian (Jewish, Muslim, etc) and no one person gets to decide for everyone else what exactly that means.
Unless you found your own religion, in which case feel free to go hog-wild (see Scientology).
As a complete side note, kudos to you for having the strength to leave the church when you no longer believed.
Disclaimer: I'm not Christian - I'm culturally Jewish but consider myself to be religiously agnostic. That said...
It's pretty well-known that most people who call themselves Christian don't practice it in their daily lives and in essence, don't actually or truly believe.
Who the hell are you to decide what people "actually or truly believe"? (FWIW, I don't understand the difference, but that's not really the point.) One of the things I really do appreciate about Judaism, for all that I dislike, is that most Jews are willing to give a wide latitude toward what constitutes "Jewish." As a religion - at least, from my experience with the liberal branch of the religion - no one gets to say "Yup. You're Jewish."*
And as far as I've been able to determine, the New Testaments basically says the same thing - it's up to God to say whether you were 'good enough' or not, and it's up to you to figure out how to best do that. For all the problems with the Bible, Jesus was pretty clear that being a good person and believing in God are more important than going to Church every Sunday. Again, I am no great fan of organized religion and have little patience for fundamentalism in any form. But you don't get to decide whether someone else is Christian or not. Neither do I. And, while there are certainly people who claim that the Pope or whomever gets that authority, I still have to disagree. Every individual knows for themselves whether they are or aren't religious and screw you for saying otherwise.
Eventually, religion will fade away. It's fighting religion that keeps it alive.
It sounds like you're an atheist, although it's possible you're simply an opponent of organized religion specifically. Regardless, I really take issue with your anti-religion stance and, as a larger issue, the occasional anti-religion stance on Slashdot.** The idea that intelligent design should be taught in school next to evolution is ridiculous. The only place religion has in public school is social studies, history, and (arguably) English or literature. And I would readily agree that religion has brought forth some unfortunate consequences (ID being one of the more recent ones). But that doesn't mean religion (or religious people) are inherently bad, or that religion and scientific inquiry are mutually exclusive.
I've drifted off-topic, so I'll get back to my main point. People completely and utterly have the right to create their own identities. That's what really bothered me about your post - that you claim to have the ability to judge who is "truly" or "actually" Christian, as if you are privy to some mystical knowledge that eludes the rest of us. You can't make that call.
-Trillian
As a post-script, part of my conviction of self-identity comes from long discussions this past summer about the Jews for Jesus who had suddenly appeared in the New York City subway system. After doing some research on Messianic Jews (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews) I came to the conclusion that while Jews for Jesus are annoying as hell, Messianic Jews as a larger group honestly believe they're Jewish and I really can't argue. Likewise, even if someone practices religion in a way you don't understand or in a way you feel isn't "good enough" doesn't mean they're not religious.
*There are theological complications if you want to talk about more Orthodox branches of Judaism, but my understanding is you'll find that in the more fundamentalist branches of any religion **I know, it's not everyone...
I'm really too tired to reply as much as I'd like. I just wanted to echo your frustration at his vague definition of 'art.' I guess my problem is he didn't stress enough that the Wii didn't work for what he wanted to do, not what is possible to do. Like you said, just because you're not interested in using a medium which is limiting in one aspect doesn't mean others can't use it to great effect. To make an analogy (a shakey, tired analogy...) just because you're interested in clay because, dammit, you can walk around a sculpture and have to think about three dimensions doesn't mean paint is worthless just because you're not interested in a 'flat' canvass. Taking my already silly analogy further, it doesn't even mean something 'cheap' like fingerpaint is worthless or unable to produce 'art.'
Anyway, I've already said more than I probably should at the level of sleep I'm currently at...Apologies for my ridiculous analogy and I hope someone else can get something good out of it... -Trillian
A cat who had been raised in a horizontal-only world could hop up on the seat of a chair, but would bump into the legs if he tried to walk under it.
I had heard that the kittens could indeed not see vertical lines (or horizontal, depending on the environment in which they were raised) but that as soon as they were put in normal situations they learned to compensate almost instantly by tilting their heads. The way I heard it, if you put kittens raised without horizontal input and tested them, they couldn't see horizontal lines but that if you put them in a normal environment with a bunch of normal kittens, you couldn't tell the difference because the ones with the vision impairment were compensating.
I never did see the study, and have no background in vision research, so I couldn't tell you which version is true, but I'd be willing to guess that the kittens learned to compensate by tilting their heads. It just seems unlikely they wouldn't learn how to compensate.
Trillian
PS - sorry for using the word 'compensate' so much. I guess I'm compensating for something.
Deaf Culture and Medical Treatment
on
Mice Cured of Autism
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
OK, I understand how being autistic can give people neurological advantages, but deafness? If they're deaf from birth and the brain never developed to understand sound, then I can see wanting to be cautious, but if that setback can be fixed, how is the person not better off for having the capacity of hearing?
The issue is that there has developed the attitude among (some) deaf people that being deaf and speaking sign have created a deaf community and culture separate (or at least equally valid) as that of the 'hearing community.' More to the point, they view medical treatment for deafness as an imposition and threat to their culture. From Deaf Community at Wikipedia: "A belief commonly shared by Deaf people from around the world is that deafness should not be regarded as an impairment or disability."
An analogy I've come to appreciate is that of deaf culture to the gay community: One could argue that being gay is a genetic flaw, as it gets in the way of the most efficient possible reproduction rates. However, most gay people (and an ever-growing number of straight people) would say that being gay does not mean they are "flawed." In the movie 'The Family Stones' there is a scene where one character asks a gay man whether he would want the child he is attempting to adopt to be gay, because it must have been incredibly difficult growing up gay in this society. The gay man's mother objects, saying there is something wrong with society, not with her son. (That's from memory, so it may not be exactly right, but it's the basic idea of the scene.) There are people in the deaf community who would argue the same thing, that being deaf is not a disability or disadvantage, and it is only because society makes it difficult to be deaf that there are problems. (I think the scene is also interesting because the man is also deaf, but that's not really important for the analogy...)
That said, I disagree with the concept of deaf culture and would tend to agree that deafness is a disability. However, I also feel very strongly that being gay is not a disability and that it is society's 'fault' that gay people have problems existing in the world. I've thought a lot about it (the comparison of gay-ness and deaf-ness as genetic 'problems') and have come up with primarily emotional reasons for feeling the way I do, rather than logical ones...
I'm only aware of the idea of deaf culture because my mom works extensively with the deaf students and is fluent in sign language. Although neither she nor I are deaf (or even have any particular hearing problems) we've talked a lot about this and I feel qualified to comment on it. I must add that this is all my understanding of things and someone who is deaf would probably know better than I.
If you're still interested in the idea of deaf culture, the movie Sound and Fury might be interesting, as it's a documentary about a deaf culture (in part) and much of the movie focuses on a family of two (genetically) deaf parents with children who also have genetic hearing problems. A question throughout the movie is whether or not to 'fix' the children with cochlear implants (which can provide partial hearing, depending on the cause of deafness). The documentary ends with the decision to not get the implants in most of the children, but there was recently a followup documentary in which almost all of the children (and some of the adults) have now gotten cochlear implants and are enjoying having partial hearing. The wikipedia article on Sound and Fury has some more info.
Phew! That was more than I thought I was going to type. Hope it's helpful to someone...
I would never turn him loose in a city by himself, and letting him loose online is no different.
I agree, but only to some extent. Online activities can be dangerous (ranging from potential child molesters as discussed in this article to 'accidentally' buying something with mom or dad's credit card) but you can't get jumped, beaten, and robbed (or raped, or killed) on a dangerous website. Again, I am not saying the Internet is without dangers for kids, just that they are different dangers (and different magnitudes of danger) than in the 'real' world.
That said, I would agree a 9-year-old probably isn't mature enough to be granted completely unmonitored Internet activity. (Of course, it's easy for me to make parenting decisions, having no children.) I'm just curious at what point you plan to start letting go of that control. This is honest curiosity, although I do have what I think is a pretty good 'right' answer in mind.
(tongue-in-cheek)Well, since you asked, I'll share my thoughts.(tongue-in-cheek) I'm young enough to have had most of my 'formative years' (middle school and high school) with an Internet connection and email and felt my parents gave me freedom to use those in line with other freedoms. When my grades were good, I was going to bed on time, and there weren't any other problems, I had relatively free use of the computer with little supervision. In my mind, it would be like opening your child's mail or checking every book he or she purchases - at a young age that may be appropriate, and may be appropriate at an older age circumstances depending, but becomes less and less so (especially if there are no other issues with behavior/grades/etc).
It sounds like you'll probably agree (at least mostly) I'm just checking to make sure you acknowledge that even if you feel the same legal responsibility toward a child of 9 and a child of 17, they are different creatures and should have different privileges and privacies accordingly.
Sorry to sound like a 'backseat parent,' particularly because I don't have any kids. I just feel strongly that, if a child seems to be handling themselves maturely, they should be granted freedom and privacy to go along with that maturity (but obviously only to a certain extent).
As I'd hope you know, security through obscurity (which it *sounds* like you have, at least in part) is not in-and-of-itself bad. But I hope you also have security systems which don't rely on people simply not knowing how they work, as that is bad policy. A combination of the two is gonna be your best bet.
And Wind Waker wasn't pushed back enough, something like a half-dozen dungeons were cut, and the last 25% of the game turned into a scavenger hunt...
Heh. Yeah, I'm playing through Wind Waker right now for the first time (needed a Zelda fix before this weekend...) I just got to the scavenger hunt (stupid Triforce pieces...) and yeah, even with the warp song (whatever the hell it's called) it's friggin obnoxious. Wind Waker isn't a bad game (hell, I'd even say it's a pretty good game) but it sure as hell isn't a fantastic game...
Sorry to reply to myself - here's the quote. "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever." -Shigeru Miyamoto To cut off protest, that's obviously not always true (Diakatana being the obvious example) but there is some truth to it. -Trillian
Well, maybe. Nintendo is notorious for delaying first party games to get it done 'right.' You're almost certainly right that moving to a Wii/Gamecube release did push back the release date, but 'Ocarina of Time' was also pushed back repeatedly, presumably with good cause as that game is fantastic. From an interview on IGN from last year: "The philosophy of 'quality-first' still lives within Nintendo and it's something we won't compromise on. When Zelda game arrives, we hope to hear that players are thrilled with it and believe the wait was worth it. We think it will be." [http://cube.ign.com/articles/642/642238p1.html] Likewise, 'Wind Waker' was delayed (whether or not that was worth it in the end is another thing - I'm playing through it right now for the first time and think it's fun, but not amazing).
There's a quote from either Nintendo or Blizzard (another company who is known for delaying games) which basically said, 'If a game is not delayed and sucks, you're stuck with that version. If a game is delayed and turns out better, in two or three or five years people will remember the great game, not the delay.'
Off-topic, but what conclusions did you draw from your readings? What are your attitudes now on the US in Vietnam, and how are they different from when you started?
I've been looking for a way to sync between multiple computers (and, actually, multiple OSs on the same computer). It sounds like this is a great way to do that, but I'm curious if this lets you completely sync bookmarks (i.e. replace all bookmarks, rather than an individual folder) and what privacy (if any) does this system allow? Are all my bookmarks gonna be posted on de.lic.ious?
Granted, the U.S. certainly has worse decency laws than Europe (I remember seeing a water-bottle commercial involving a woman swimming naked in a submerged room), but censoring that would just be ridiculous.
I think what happens is a combination of ACTUAL fear of government fines (i.e. fear the FCC will come after you, as they did after the Janet Jackson 'scandal') and fear people will get all up-in-arms and protest. The end result is that a TV station may not show a potentially indecent commercial, whether from fear of the FCC or fear 100,000 conservatives are going to start calling up the company and initiate a boycot. The end result is the same, even if the cause is slightly different. I have a suspicion the latter happens more than the former, but I have nothing to back this up.
I posted in the other preorder thread, but wanted to mention again that it really depends on where you are. I was 19th in line for 31 consoles at my local EB and was only there about 45 minutes before the store opened. Likewise, the staff knew exactly what was going on and had a list of games with release dates to make decisions easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Dammit! They paid for the drug trials (a plus in favor of giving the patent to Burroughs-Wellcome) but the drug was originally researched with public funds (a minus against giving the patent to Burroughs-Wellcome). My groupthink is failing! Who am I supposed to root for?
On a more serious note, I'm honestly not sure what the right thing to do here would have een. Burroughs-Wellcome arguably deserves to recoup their expenses, but the public deserves access to a drug it paid for through taxes...I'd argue a middle ground is for the government to grant the patent and then buy it back under eminent domain, but that seems silly, too...
-Trillian
From allison
Well, doing a quick Google search on 'myspace demographics' shows conflicting information. Some pages say that over 75% of the MySpace population is over 18 [1]. Meanwhile, another site is saying over half of MySpace is over thirty five [2]. Even pulling numbers out of my ass (much like you did) and assuming that a significant portion of of the people who show up as over 18 are lying, it still looks like much more than 25% of the "friends" from this page are over 18.
Likewise, looking at US census info shows just about 50% of 18-24 year olds were registered for to vote by November 2004 while around 40% actually voted [3].
So lets do some math with this new data. You said of the 160,000 friends this page had, only around 2500 will actually vote. Of the 160,000 around 120,000 (160,000*.75) are over 18. Of those, the national turnout (again, the US Census) was at around 58% in 2004. 58% of 120,000 is just under 70,000 people who, statistically, will probably vote. At the asking price of $49,000 for the MySpace page, that's less than a dollar a voter - a good buy for any politician.
But lets go a step further and look at just the 18-24 demographic (from links 1 and 2 somewhere around 18% of MySpace). So around 29,000 friends of the 160,000 are 18-24, of which around 40% will actually vote. So over 10,000 friends age 18-24 who will actually vote. That's still only a couple dollars per voter, not bad for a campaign, and ignores all the other voters who are over 24.
Now, I know, I've made a lot of assumptions doing this back-of-the-envelope math: all the data (both about MySpace and about US voters) is accurate, all the MySpace users are in the United States, and trends will continue like they did in the 2004 election. But for all the assumptions that my estimates are high, you could make an equal argument that they're low. That is, you could argue that people registered as friends of Obama are more likely to vote than the population as a whole.
My point is, your original guess (about 2500 who are 18+ and will actually vote out of the original 160,000 friends) seems to be off by 65,000 voters (not registered voters, but people who will vote). In fact, there are more voters out of those 160,000 who are 18-24 than your original guess for all people over the age of 18.
Feel free to correct my math or my assumptions. I had fun doing this, but would someone else come along and correct me than let something incorrect stand.
-Trillian
[1] http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=11967
[2] http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1
[3] http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voti
Well, doing a quick Google search on 'myspace demographics' shows conflicting information. Some pages say that over 75% of the MySpace population is over 18 [1]. Meanwhile, another site is saying over half of MySpace is over thirty five [2]. Even pulling numbers out of my ass (much like you did) and assuming that a significant portion of of the people who show up as over 18 are lying, it still looks like much more than 25% of the "friends" from this page are over 18.
Likewise, looking at US census info shows just about 50% of 18-24 year olds were registered for to vote by November 2004 while around 40% actually voted [3].
So lets do some math with this new data. You said of the 160,000 friends this page had, only around 2500 will actually vote. Of the 160,000 around 120,000 (160,000*.75) are over 18. Of those, the national turnout (again, the US Census) was at around 58% in 2004. 58% of 120,000 is just under 70,000 people who, statistically, will probably vote. At the asking price of $49,000 for the MySpace page, that's less than a dollar a voter - a good buy for any politician.
But lets go a step further and look at just the 18-24 demographic (from links 1 and 2 somewhere around 18% of MySpace). So around 29,000 friends of the 160,000 are 18-24, of which around 40% will actually vote. So over 10,000 friends age 18-24 who will actually vote. That's still only a couple dollars per voter, not bad for a campaign, and ignores all the other voters who are over 24.
Now, I know, I've made a lot of assumptions doing this back-of-the-envelope math: all the data (both about MySpace and about US voters) is accurate, all the MySpace users are in the United States, and trends will continue like they did in the 2004 election. But for all the assumptions that my estimates are high, you could make an equal argument that they're low. That is, you could argue that people registered as friends of Obama are more likely to vote than the population as a whole.
My point is, your original guess (about 2500 who are 18+ and will actually vote out of the original 160,000 friends) seems to be off by 65,000 voters (not registered voters, but people who will vote). In fact, there are more voters out of those 160,000 who are 18-24 than your original guess for all people over the age of 18.
Feel free to correct my math or my assumptions. I had fun doing this, but would someone else come along and correct me than let something incorrect stand.
-Trillian
[1] http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=11967
[2] http://www.comscore.com/press/release.asp?press=1
[3] http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voti
I don't think that's true, although I could be wrong.
My understanding is that companies lobbying and offering financial donations as a free speech issue stems from a court case which decided that companies have limited 'personage' and thus rights to free speech. As far as I know, it would require either a law that directly contradicts this and/or a Supreme Court ruling to the same effect. If a company is no longer considered an entity with free speech rights, they can easily be prevented from making political donations.
Obligatory IANAL and all that jazz - if there's someone with more knowledge, please correct me.
-Trillian
I think it's a couple things. First, as others have responded to you and suggested, it's partially a result of two different groups saying things. While Slashdot can have a 'hive mind,' it is made up of individuals and not everyone who might say "adapt or die" about the RI/MPAA would necessarily say outsourcing is bad.
But I think that is kind of a cop-out answer because as much as Slashdot isn't a 'hive mind,' I think you're right that, on the whole, the site is anti-outsourcing for businesses and pro-'adapt or die' for movie/record industry. So I'm trying to reconcile the two for myself, as I do feel that the current copyright system is broken and the media industries take advantage of it, while I also feel outsourcing is usually not a great thing. These are all my own opinions, and I can't speak for anyone else, but I am trying to respond to how someone can both feel 'adapt-or'die' and be anti-outsourcing.
First, the media industries. For me, there are two major issues. One is the 'adapt or die' argument: that, just as the proverbial buggy-whip maker needed to find a new line of work when cars became a hit, distributing physical media just isn't as expensive as it used to be and pretending otherwise is silly. Thus, while iTunes, Best Buy, and amazon.com all show (in different ways) that many people are still willing to pay something for media, it may not be what it once was. This, of course, only covers those people who are still willing to pay something for content.
Then you have copyrights, the other major issue. The copyright system in the US, as I understand it, is based on the section in the Constitution that says (paraphrasing) "limited monopolies on 'concepts' to promote science and the arts.' Now, the media companies are trying to get around the 'limited' part through DRM and repeated copyright extensions. To me, this is trying to have your cake and eat it, too. As such, I have no personal moral qualms about (for example) downloading the latest episode of Battlestar Galactica or Scrubs or copying a movie from Blockbuster. As I see it, if they aren't going to play by the 'rules' (which say that work should eventually enter the public domain) than I'm not going to either. Again, this is not a legal argument and I do pay for things (such as the BSG box sets, certain videogames, and certain movies) that I feel are subjectively "worth it." That said, I don't try to wiggle around the fact I'm downloading and copying media I'm not paying for and have no intention of ever paying for. I don't view it as theft, and I don't view it as immoral - I've made my peace with what I'm doing.*
And then you have outsourcing. I'm not across-the-board against outsourcing. I don't, for example, think it should be illegal. And I admit I'm not knowledgeable enough about business to have opinions based on anything other than conjecture and emotion. If someone with more information than me can refute what I'm saying, please do - maybe I'm wrong. But I do think outsourcing is in some ways robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is, at some point someone needs to consume your product and by removing jobs in a local market you at least somewhat remove people who could be your customers. Henry Ford is supposed to have raised his worker's wages to the point where they could afford the cars they made. (Not that he was always the model businessman, but still.)
In addition, outsourcing makes me uneasy because it often seems like companies are being hypocritical. The media companies are again the big offenders here - "We can make our products where it's cheaper, but we'll use legal
So this is an honest question - looking at your user info, you regularly get moderated down to '-1, Troll.' What do you get out of it? This is not intended to provoke a hostile response, I'm just really curious why you stay on Slashdot.
-Trillian
I hate to chime in with a 'me too' post, but I'm about to...
Me too! I agree - I turned off WiiConnect24 for exactly the same reason (unneeded power consumption) but was frustrated to find things not updating. A quick check doesn't seem like too much to ask...
-Trillian
We may have to agree to disagree. 6+3 is demonstrably less than 10, while there is no such test for 'religiousness.' I completely agree that many religious people come off as hypocritical at best, liars at worse, I just think it's unfair (and, more to the point, outside of the scope of abilities you possess) to determine whether or not someone else holds true to their personal beliefs about their relationship with $DIETY. I don't believe I was waxing philosophical about self-created identities, and I don't think you've responded to my point of contention - how do you know whether someone else is "truly" or "actually" Christian?
Again, your comment implies you can judge who is "truly" or "actually" Christian, across the board. I reject the premise of your claim, and think that if someone says, "I am Christian," the only person they have to answer to is themselves. Now, as someone else in this thread noted (and I agreed) you could point out their hypocrisy and that they're not holding to their self-expressed value/judgment/etc system. I wouldn't have a problem with that, and I'd probably agree with you. I just really strongly feel this is, at least in part, an issue of people being able to choose their own identity.
Thanks for replying though. Sorry if (rereading my comment) I came off as an ass.
-Trillian
Thanks for the response.
I completely agree with you - someone going through the motions without believing is a hypocrite. But what I was responding to was the claim that only occasionally going to Church and not 'practicing' in a daily, public way means you're not Christian (or Jewish, or whatever). More to the point, if they "truly believe" that being Christian can mean occasionally going to Church, celebrating Christmas, and believing in God in a non-confrontational kind of way, more power to them. erroneus said that these people call themselves Christians but don't "actually or truly believe" and, while you have given me some things to think about on what it means to truly believe (and I agree with what you said) I don't think you responded to my original issue: erroneus claimed that "most people who call themselves Christian don't practice it in their daily lives and in essence, don't actually or truly believe."
I'm challenging that assumption on the grounds s/he has no right to claim knowledge of the beliefs of another. S/he could have said "Most people who call themselves Christians aren't living in a way that I feel lines up with what it means to be Christian" or even "Most people who call themselves Christian have very vague definitions of 'Christian,' but s/he didn't - s/he made a very specific claim and I'm calling bullshit.
Likewise, s/he was vague as to what it would mean to "practice [Christianity]." Daily Church attendance? Weekly Church attendance? No Church attendance at all but obeying the Bible as you understand it? Keeping slaves and stoning neighbors who don't observe the sabbath? Depending on your viewpoint, any of those might mean "practicing Christianity." My point is that there's a wide range of what it means to be Christian (Jewish, Muslim, etc) and no one person gets to decide for everyone else what exactly that means.
Unless you found your own religion, in which case feel free to go hog-wild (see Scientology).
As a complete side note, kudos to you for having the strength to leave the church when you no longer believed.
-Trillian
Who the hell are you to decide what people "actually or truly believe"? (FWIW, I don't understand the difference, but that's not really the point.) One of the things I really do appreciate about Judaism, for all that I dislike, is that most Jews are willing to give a wide latitude toward what constitutes "Jewish." As a religion - at least, from my experience with the liberal branch of the religion - no one gets to say "Yup. You're Jewish."*
And as far as I've been able to determine, the New Testaments basically says the same thing - it's up to God to say whether you were 'good enough' or not, and it's up to you to figure out how to best do that. For all the problems with the Bible, Jesus was pretty clear that being a good person and believing in God are more important than going to Church every Sunday. Again, I am no great fan of organized religion and have little patience for fundamentalism in any form. But you don't get to decide whether someone else is Christian or not. Neither do I. And, while there are certainly people who claim that the Pope or whomever gets that authority, I still have to disagree. Every individual knows for themselves whether they are or aren't religious and screw you for saying otherwise.
It sounds like you're an atheist, although it's possible you're simply an opponent of organized religion specifically. Regardless, I really take issue with your anti-religion stance and, as a larger issue, the occasional anti-religion stance on Slashdot.** The idea that intelligent design should be taught in school next to evolution is ridiculous. The only place religion has in public school is social studies, history, and (arguably) English or literature. And I would readily agree that religion has brought forth some unfortunate consequences (ID being one of the more recent ones). But that doesn't mean religion (or religious people) are inherently bad, or that religion and scientific inquiry are mutually exclusive.
I've drifted off-topic, so I'll get back to my main point. People completely and utterly have the right to create their own identities. That's what really bothered me about your post - that you claim to have the ability to judge who is "truly" or "actually" Christian, as if you are privy to some mystical knowledge that eludes the rest of us. You can't make that call.
-Trillian
As a post-script, part of my conviction of self-identity comes from long discussions this past summer about the Jews for Jesus who had suddenly appeared in the New York City subway system. After doing some research on Messianic Jews (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Jews) I came to the conclusion that while Jews for Jesus are annoying as hell, Messianic Jews as a larger group honestly believe they're Jewish and I really can't argue. Likewise, even if someone practices religion in a way you don't understand or in a way you feel isn't "good enough" doesn't mean they're not religious.
*There are theological complications if you want to talk about more Orthodox branches of Judaism, but my understanding is you'll find that in the more fundamentalist branches of any religion
**I know, it's not everyone...
It's not small?
I'm really too tired to reply as much as I'd like. I just wanted to echo your frustration at his vague definition of 'art.' I guess my problem is he didn't stress enough that the Wii didn't work for what he wanted to do, not what is possible to do. Like you said, just because you're not interested in using a medium which is limiting in one aspect doesn't mean others can't use it to great effect. To make an analogy (a shakey, tired analogy...) just because you're interested in clay because, dammit, you can walk around a sculpture and have to think about three dimensions doesn't mean paint is worthless just because you're not interested in a 'flat' canvass. Taking my already silly analogy further, it doesn't even mean something 'cheap' like fingerpaint is worthless or unable to produce 'art.'
Anyway, I've already said more than I probably should at the level of sleep I'm currently at...Apologies for my ridiculous analogy and I hope someone else can get something good out of it...
-Trillian
You are attempting to make a meta-joke on the benefits of Vista's User Access Control. Canel or Allow?
I had heard that the kittens could indeed not see vertical lines (or horizontal, depending on the environment in which they were raised) but that as soon as they were put in normal situations they learned to compensate almost instantly by tilting their heads. The way I heard it, if you put kittens raised without horizontal input and tested them, they couldn't see horizontal lines but that if you put them in a normal environment with a bunch of normal kittens, you couldn't tell the difference because the ones with the vision impairment were compensating.
I never did see the study, and have no background in vision research, so I couldn't tell you which version is true, but I'd be willing to guess that the kittens learned to compensate by tilting their heads. It just seems unlikely they wouldn't learn how to compensate.
Trillian
PS - sorry for using the word 'compensate' so much. I guess I'm compensating for something.
The issue is that there has developed the attitude among (some) deaf people that being deaf and speaking sign have created a deaf community and culture separate (or at least equally valid) as that of the 'hearing community.' More to the point, they view medical treatment for deafness as an imposition and threat to their culture. From Deaf Community at Wikipedia: "A belief commonly shared by Deaf people from around the world is that deafness should not be regarded as an impairment or disability."
An analogy I've come to appreciate is that of deaf culture to the gay community: One could argue that being gay is a genetic flaw, as it gets in the way of the most efficient possible reproduction rates. However, most gay people (and an ever-growing number of straight people) would say that being gay does not mean they are "flawed." In the movie 'The Family Stones' there is a scene where one character asks a gay man whether he would want the child he is attempting to adopt to be gay, because it must have been incredibly difficult growing up gay in this society. The gay man's mother objects, saying there is something wrong with society, not with her son. (That's from memory, so it may not be exactly right, but it's the basic idea of the scene.) There are people in the deaf community who would argue the same thing, that being deaf is not a disability or disadvantage, and it is only because society makes it difficult to be deaf that there are problems. (I think the scene is also interesting because the man is also deaf, but that's not really important for the analogy...)
That said, I disagree with the concept of deaf culture and would tend to agree that deafness is a disability. However, I also feel very strongly that being gay is not a disability and that it is society's 'fault' that gay people have problems existing in the world. I've thought a lot about it (the comparison of gay-ness and deaf-ness as genetic 'problems') and have come up with primarily emotional reasons for feeling the way I do, rather than logical ones...
I'm only aware of the idea of deaf culture because my mom works extensively with the deaf students and is fluent in sign language. Although neither she nor I are deaf (or even have any particular hearing problems) we've talked a lot about this and I feel qualified to comment on it. I must add that this is all my understanding of things and someone who is deaf would probably know better than I.
If you're still interested in the idea of deaf culture, the movie Sound and Fury might be interesting, as it's a documentary about a deaf culture (in part) and much of the movie focuses on a family of two (genetically) deaf parents with children who also have genetic hearing problems. A question throughout the movie is whether or not to 'fix' the children with cochlear implants (which can provide partial hearing, depending on the cause of deafness). The documentary ends with the decision to not get the implants in most of the children, but there was recently a followup documentary in which almost all of the children (and some of the adults) have now gotten cochlear implants and are enjoying having partial hearing. The wikipedia article on Sound and Fury has some more info.
Phew! That was more than I thought I was going to type. Hope it's helpful to someone...
-Trillian
That said, I would agree a 9-year-old probably isn't mature enough to be granted completely unmonitored Internet activity. (Of course, it's easy for me to make parenting decisions, having no children.) I'm just curious at what point you plan to start letting go of that control. This is honest curiosity, although I do have what I think is a pretty good 'right' answer in mind.
(tongue-in-cheek)Well, since you asked, I'll share my thoughts.(tongue-in-cheek) I'm young enough to have had most of my 'formative years' (middle school and high school) with an Internet connection and email and felt my parents gave me freedom to use those in line with other freedoms. When my grades were good, I was going to bed on time, and there weren't any other problems, I had relatively free use of the computer with little supervision. In my mind, it would be like opening your child's mail or checking every book he or she purchases - at a young age that may be appropriate, and may be appropriate at an older age circumstances depending, but becomes less and less so (especially if there are no other issues with behavior/grades/etc).
It sounds like you'll probably agree (at least mostly) I'm just checking to make sure you acknowledge that even if you feel the same legal responsibility toward a child of 9 and a child of 17, they are different creatures and should have different privileges and privacies accordingly.
Sorry to sound like a 'backseat parent,' particularly because I don't have any kids. I just feel strongly that, if a child seems to be handling themselves maturely, they should be granted freedom and privacy to go along with that maturity (but obviously only to a certain extent).
-Trillian
As I'd hope you know, security through obscurity (which it *sounds* like you have, at least in part) is not in-and-of-itself bad. But I hope you also have security systems which don't rely on people simply not knowing how they work, as that is bad policy. A combination of the two is gonna be your best bet.
-Trillia
Heh. Yeah, I'm playing through Wind Waker right now for the first time (needed a Zelda fix before this weekend...) I just got to the scavenger hunt (stupid Triforce pieces...) and yeah, even with the warp song (whatever the hell it's called) it's friggin obnoxious. Wind Waker isn't a bad game (hell, I'd even say it's a pretty good game) but it sure as hell isn't a fantastic game...
-Trillian
Sorry to reply to myself - here's the quote.
"A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever." -Shigeru Miyamoto
To cut off protest, that's obviously not always true (Diakatana being the obvious example) but there is some truth to it.
-Trillian
Well, maybe. Nintendo is notorious for delaying first party games to get it done 'right.' You're almost certainly right that moving to a Wii/Gamecube release did push back the release date, but 'Ocarina of Time' was also pushed back repeatedly, presumably with good cause as that game is fantastic. From an interview on IGN from last year: "The philosophy of 'quality-first' still lives within Nintendo and it's something we won't compromise on. When Zelda game arrives, we hope to hear that players are thrilled with it and believe the wait was worth it. We think it will be." [http://cube.ign.com/articles/642/642238p1.html] Likewise, 'Wind Waker' was delayed (whether or not that was worth it in the end is another thing - I'm playing through it right now for the first time and think it's fun, but not amazing).
There's a quote from either Nintendo or Blizzard (another company who is known for delaying games) which basically said, 'If a game is not delayed and sucks, you're stuck with that version. If a game is delayed and turns out better, in two or three or five years people will remember the great game, not the delay.'
-Trillian
Off-topic, but what conclusions did you draw from your readings? What are your attitudes now on the US in Vietnam, and how are they different from when you started?
Just curious
-Trillian
I've been looking for a way to sync between multiple computers (and, actually, multiple OSs on the same computer). It sounds like this is a great way to do that, but I'm curious if this lets you completely sync bookmarks (i.e. replace all bookmarks, rather than an individual folder) and what privacy (if any) does this system allow? Are all my bookmarks gonna be posted on de.lic.ious?
Thanks!
-Jared
I think what happens is a combination of ACTUAL fear of government fines (i.e. fear the FCC will come after you, as they did after the Janet Jackson 'scandal') and fear people will get all up-in-arms and protest. The end result is that a TV station may not show a potentially indecent commercial, whether from fear of the FCC or fear 100,000 conservatives are going to start calling up the company and initiate a boycot. The end result is the same, even if the cause is slightly different. I have a suspicion the latter happens more than the former, but I have nothing to back this up.
-Trillian
I was limiting myself to preordering games that are coming out with the launch of the system.
-Trillian
I posted in the other preorder thread, but wanted to mention again that it really depends on where you are. I was 19th in line for 31 consoles at my local EB and was only there about 45 minutes before the store opened. Likewise, the staff knew exactly what was going on and had a list of games with release dates to make decisions easier.
Couldn't be happier about it.
-Trillian