Yes, and doesn't that source automatically fall under copyright owned by the author of that piece of information?
No, copyright doesn't apply down to every last fractional bit. If it did, then "for(int i=0;i
Basically, it comes down to this:
copyright violation - making exact or near-exact copies of original work plagiarism - copying whole concepts, ideas, or designs and passing them off as your own work after minimal "personalization"
The one cool thing about freezing yourself that no one seems to mention is the process, if successful, will seem instant to you regardless of how many hundreds of years you're out for.
Heh. You hope it seems instantateous, at least. Until we thaw one of those suckers out and reanimate 'em, we won't know if they wake up saying "what was that?" or "OH MY GOD WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG, THE ETERNAL FREEZING LIMBO!!!!!!!!!"
The banks yes, but also everyone that uses the same currency as him. Taking that much money out of circulation should help increase the value of the bills in your wallet right now.
Pfff! 10 million is infinitessimal in relation to even the minted and coined (M0) money supply (AKA "cash"), which is itself already fairly small in comparison to the full (M3) money supply as a whole. On top of that the value of the money supply is additionally at the mercy of a myriad of external forces. In the larger scheme of things, this guy's "fortune" is actually as meaningless as his plans to keep it forever.
Unfortunately these inventions are always bought up by the powerful french wine cartel and shelved. Or worse sometimes these inventors meet their untimely demise. So sad.
I heard that this one guy came up with a process to turn water into wine and the wine industry had their puppets in the government arrest him on trumped up charges of fomenting unrest and temple vandalism and then executed. I hear he totally like faked his death and escaped, though.
I assume that you refuse to buy man-made diamonds as well? Despite the fact that you can't tell the difference and they cost quite a bit less?
Yeah, notice how you never see artifical diamonds in jewelry. The diamond cartels have "educated" people into thinking A) diamonds are rare, and B) manufactured diamonds are inferior. Even if this questionable/crazy contraption does work, it'll never be accepted by the "wine industry".
What I'm saying is that the control group is almost certainly crap. What makes you so sure that the people using cell phones have lives that are similar to people who don't use cell phones?
That wasn't their control group. Re-read the article. They didn't survey "cell users" vs "non cell users", they surveyed "glioma" vs. "no glioma" and charted the varying degrees of cell phone usage for each.
Y1 and Y2 should not be compared. People without cell phones are probably less wealthy. They are thus more likely to smoke, work with toxic chemicals like paint and cleaning fluid, etc
Well, now you see why the approached measuring correlation from the other direction. They split the groups into "cancer" and "no cancer", then surveyed for frequency, type, method, and total length of cell phone usage going back 10 years. When you're looking at an activity that is engaged in in varying degrees over a variable time, and may result in a binary condition, you don't split the groups in "does activity" and "doesn't do activity", because (just as you point out) one of the subgroups automatically selects an extreme. When you're looking at cell use over 10 years, you run into the further problem that 10 years ago cells were a "rich people only" thing, and presently it's "all but the very poor".
GP poster had the right idea statistics wise though. He just selected the wrong side of the correlation for his example.
"That's precisely what the study found. Cell usage patterns of both groups were the same."
Quote me a line from the article that would indicate the truth of that statement. I've reread it four times, and I can find no such evidence.
Evidence of what? The specific evidence that cell phones probably don't cause cancer or that you can measure correlation between two activities? If you want the former, you'll have to dig up the study. The latter is just basic statistical survey technique. Find a 101 level college textbook on the subject. Or, you could read the part of the article where they spell it out:
[They] spoke to 966 people diagnosed with glioma and 1,716 without the condition in five areas of the UK.
All 2,783 were interviewed about their history of mobile phone use over the previous 10 years.
They were asked to recall in detail how much they used their mobile phones, how often they used hands-free kits and what types of phones they had used.
As the article points out, the only flaw in this method is that many past glioma patients are dead, so that leaves open the possibility that cell phones only cause a special kind of glioma that kills you too fast to be surveyed and only kills you if the tumor appears OPPOSITE the side you use your phone. Possible, but not likely.
I want to see their math.
Ya, OK... But if you're original quarrel with the survey was based upon not understanding how they could survey a "cancer" group so much larger than the general glioma rate than their "no cancer" control group, I suspect your grasp of survey methodology is far too weak to spot any potential flaws.
However over a third of the people involved in the study had glioma. You can't tell me that glioma is prevalent in 1/3 of the population. Instead, what they did was find cancer patients first as the "test" group and people without cancer as the "control" group. Unless they proved that cell phone usage rates were identical between the two groups, then identical risk is not proven.
That's precisely what the study found. Cell usage patterns of both groups were the same. You're allowed to come at such a problem from either direction. You can either divide the groups into "cell" and "no cell" and look for higher cancer rates, or you can look at "cancer" and "no cancer" and look for higher cell phone usage. Correlation is correlation regardless of which side you approach it from.
Well, indeed there is an illness which is obviously caused by cell phones: The Phone Shouting Disease (PSD).
My theory: Cell phones affect the part of the brain controlling your lungs when speaking, causing an increased level of neural activity there. This results in speaking extraordinarily loud into the phone.
PSD is caused by lack of sidetone. Sidetone is what you have on regular phones, where you hear your own voice in your ear, acting as a feedback loop, allowing you to adjust the volume level. Dumbshits who shout into cell phones are unconsciously allowing their mental feedback system crank their voice volume up in a vain attempt to get the sidetone in their ear up to a proper level. Since there is no sidetone, they end up shouting loud enough for the ambient sound of their voice to satisfy their feedback system.
the fact that there's increased risk on the phone side and decreased risk on the other side would seem to suggest that the phone itself is emitting some sort of localized field that increases the risk. No?
No. What the study showed was that either one of two things was true:
A) Cell phones cause cancer on the near side while suppressing it on the other
B) People who find out they have cancer on one side will tend to erroneously claim that side is their predominant cell phone side.
If you look just at the cancer, it doesn't show up any more on one side or the other than it does for non cell phone users. What happens is that the cell phone conveniently follows the cancer. It's human nature to want to fix blame. The moment you ask a one-side cancer patient which side of their head they use their cell phone more, what answer do you think you'll more likely get?
Yeah, but in all fairness, "Reader" is a stupid name and makes people think it's a modifier of "Adobe."
True, but my experience is from back in the olden days when it was still called Acrobat. stupid name too. What the hell does acrobatics have to do with documents?
What you have left is simple: does the cancer happen on one side more than the other? Well, yes it does. That's enough to say that cell phones are almost certainly affecting the cancer.
But you are missing the entire point of the study. They found that there was a corresponding drop in cancer on the side of the head where the cancer wasn't, in comparison to a control group of one-side cancers who don't use cell phones. In other words, cell phones aren't causing elevated levels of one-side brain cancer, cell phone users with one-side brain cancer are (intentionally or unintentionally) erroneously claiming the cancer side is the side where they used their cell phone most.
I like that he doesn't just whine about the problem but offers solutions too, to provide the "stickiness" required to keep customers coming and interacting with companies' sites.
His "solutions" are pretty weak though:
1-general spam (which he calls "email newsletters")
2-targetted spam (for those who intententionally/foolishly request more info)
3-encouraging discussion group shills
4-trading links with "affiliate sites" (pyramid scheme, as another poster suggested)
5-push spam (RSS)
6-put your web address on your product label (gee, what a stroke of genius.)
7-hardware lock-in (his example is iPod and iTunes)
8-"mobile features". Dunno what the hell he's talking about. He prattles about how search engines are hard to use on mobile devices and how a better position is to be "an icon on somebody's Blackberry". Is he advocating "adware" for mobile devices? If so, all I can say is "nice, dickhead".
The real problem is that he's completely misinterpretted the role of the search engine to support his conclusion. The primary purpose of the search engine is to direct people to the sites they 're looking for. His "evidence" that the engines are usurping the sites' place is a flimsy bit of speculative strawman that "people have begun using search engines as answer engines to directly access what they want -- often without truly engaging with the websites". Ridiculous! People looking for a simple answer that can be culled from the tiny snippet of text in a search engine are always going to use a search engine for that. RSS feeds, hardware lock-in, adware on mobiles-- those are all just typical mass-marketing obscenities which will do nothing to lure active seekers of information. For that you need to get placement in search engines, because that's what people like that use. I think he's just pissed that competitors are using search engines as well, creating a bit of an advertising "arms race". Well cry me a river. Welcome to the real world of business, chief.
a) people pee and miss
b) the toilet flush mechanism is powerful enough to kick up spray onto the seat.
Except in the unusual case of some urinary tract infections, urine does not contain any bacteria. Urine is a sterile liquid. It is antiseptic. It may not smell good, but you cannot catch anything from it.
Uh, I hate to nitpick, but doesn't that make a total of 4 men, not three?
(Obligatory M.Python)
"...Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."
That might have been something to do with recovering from a war while everyone recalling the loans they gave you due to the knock-on effects of the depression in the USA.
And also WW1 and the ruinous terms of the Treaty of Versailles, but so what? The original claim that the US depression was somehow unique is still false. There were PLENTY of economic depressions both localized and multinational throughout history. The Vienna stock collapse of 1873 started a depression that lasted 23 years!
I agree with you. But it's not like Roosevelt's changes were undone rapidly - his legacy still lives on.
True, and unfortunate. I certainly would never say that Roosevelt's bread and circuses weren't monumentally far-reaching in scope-- they just didn't do squat to get us out of the great depression.
A Mechanic can fix cars. I can't. My mechanic will fix my car. No thanks, I think I'd be happier listening to someone that knows car that doesn't stand to profit from my misfortune
Oh, please. I challenge you to find a single example of a mechanic who recommends crappy cars because he knows it'll give him more business. It doesn't make any sense. If my mechanic recommended I buy a '76 Triumph Spitfire because they're reliable, and I didn't know any better and bought one, how long do you think it's going to take for me to find out it's an unreliable car and stop going to the mechanic who recommended it? A professional who recommends a bad product in his field of expertise is either A) stupid, or B) lying, and it won't be long before people figure that out.
Yeah, but note the weasely use of "per capita". China has 4 times as many people as the US. Dunno if his claim is accurate, but even if it is, all he's really saying is that they spend the same as we do.
European economies with heavy state involvement have gone up and down for sure since WW2, but have any of them really experienced the kind of serious hit that the USA did during the depression in the 1930s - a depression that was ultimately cleared up (I know this point is disputed) by good old fashioned state intervention ?
Uhhh....Weimar Germany experienced an even more disastrous depression at THE SAME TIME we did in the US. And really, Roosevelt's make-work bullcrap didn't get us out of the depression, World War 2 did.
Though this information was generated through observation of the players` physical exertion, one could possibly construe a baseball players` performance as an original expression of his physical acuity. It`s a show he puts on for the spectators, and information gathered from that performance could possibly be copywritable.
One could construe that, but one would be absolutely wrong. Facts based on measurements or observation of the physical world are not copyrightable.
Slashdot Mirror
No, copyright doesn't apply down to every last fractional bit. If it did, then "for(int i=0;i Basically, it comes down to this:
copyright violation - making exact or near-exact copies of original work
plagiarism - copying whole concepts, ideas, or designs and passing them off as your own work after minimal "personalization"
Heh. You hope it seems instantateous, at least. Until we thaw one of those suckers out and reanimate 'em, we won't know if they wake up saying "what was that?" or "OH MY GOD WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG, THE ETERNAL FREEZING LIMBO!!!!!!!!!"
Pfff! 10 million is infinitessimal in relation to even the minted and coined (M0) money supply (AKA "cash"), which is itself already fairly small in comparison to the full (M3) money supply as a whole. On top of that the value of the money supply is additionally at the mercy of a myriad of external forces. In the larger scheme of things, this guy's "fortune" is actually as meaningless as his plans to keep it forever.
I heard that this one guy came up with a process to turn water into wine and the wine industry had their puppets in the government arrest him on trumped up charges of fomenting unrest and temple vandalism and then executed. I hear he totally like faked his death and escaped, though.
Yeah, notice how you never see artifical diamonds in jewelry. The diamond cartels have "educated" people into thinking A) diamonds are rare, and B) manufactured diamonds are inferior. Even if this questionable/crazy contraption does work, it'll never be accepted by the "wine industry".
That wasn't their control group. Re-read the article. They didn't survey "cell users" vs "non cell users", they surveyed "glioma" vs. "no glioma" and charted the varying degrees of cell phone usage for each.
Well, now you see why the approached measuring correlation from the other direction. They split the groups into "cancer" and "no cancer", then surveyed for frequency, type, method, and total length of cell phone usage going back 10 years. When you're looking at an activity that is engaged in in varying degrees over a variable time, and may result in a binary condition, you don't split the groups in "does activity" and "doesn't do activity", because (just as you point out) one of the subgroups automatically selects an extreme. When you're looking at cell use over 10 years, you run into the further problem that 10 years ago cells were a "rich people only" thing, and presently it's "all but the very poor".
GP poster had the right idea statistics wise though. He just selected the wrong side of the correlation for his example.
Quote me a line from the article that would indicate the truth of that statement. I've reread it four times, and I can find no such evidence.
Evidence of what? The specific evidence that cell phones probably don't cause cancer or that you can measure correlation between two activities? If you want the former, you'll have to dig up the study. The latter is just basic statistical survey technique. Find a 101 level college textbook on the subject. Or, you could read the part of the article where they spell it out:
As the article points out, the only flaw in this method is that many past glioma patients are dead, so that leaves open the possibility that cell phones only cause a special kind of glioma that kills you too fast to be surveyed and only kills you if the tumor appears OPPOSITE the side you use your phone. Possible, but not likely.I want to see their math.
Ya, OK... But if you're original quarrel with the survey was based upon not understanding how they could survey a "cancer" group so much larger than the general glioma rate than their "no cancer" control group, I suspect your grasp of survey methodology is far too weak to spot any potential flaws.
That's precisely what the study found. Cell usage patterns of both groups were the same. You're allowed to come at such a problem from either direction. You can either divide the groups into "cell" and "no cell" and look for higher cancer rates, or you can look at "cancer" and "no cancer" and look for higher cell phone usage. Correlation is correlation regardless of which side you approach it from.
My theory: Cell phones affect the part of the brain controlling your lungs when speaking, causing an increased level of neural activity there. This results in speaking extraordinarily loud into the phone.
PSD is caused by lack of sidetone. Sidetone is what you have on regular phones, where you hear your own voice in your ear, acting as a feedback loop, allowing you to adjust the volume level. Dumbshits who shout into cell phones are unconsciously allowing their mental feedback system crank their voice volume up in a vain attempt to get the sidetone in their ear up to a proper level. Since there is no sidetone, they end up shouting loud enough for the ambient sound of their voice to satisfy their feedback system.
No. What the study showed was that either one of two things was true:
A) Cell phones cause cancer on the near side while suppressing it on the other
B) People who find out they have cancer on one side will tend to erroneously claim that side is their predominant cell phone side.
If you look just at the cancer, it doesn't show up any more on one side or the other than it does for non cell phone users. What happens is that the cell phone conveniently follows the cancer. It's human nature to want to fix blame. The moment you ask a one-side cancer patient which side of their head they use their cell phone more, what answer do you think you'll more likely get?
True, but my experience is from back in the olden days when it was still called Acrobat. stupid name too. What the hell does acrobatics have to do with documents?
They found that there was a corresponding drop in cancer on the side of the head where the cell phone wasn't
But you are missing the entire point of the study. They found that there was a corresponding drop in cancer on the side of the head where the cancer wasn't, in comparison to a control group of one-side cancers who don't use cell phones. In other words, cell phones aren't causing elevated levels of one-side brain cancer, cell phone users with one-side brain cancer are (intentionally or unintentionally) erroneously claiming the cancer side is the side where they used their cell phone most.
Another favorite is "Adobe won't load".
"Adobe WHAT? Adobe is a company, not a product."
"You know, Adobe. For reading PDFs."
or (slightly less common but still strongly represented)
"You know, Adobe. For doing stuff with pictures."
His "solutions" are pretty weak though:
1-general spam (which he calls "email newsletters")
2-targetted spam (for those who intententionally/foolishly request more info)
3-encouraging discussion group shills
4-trading links with "affiliate sites" (pyramid scheme, as another poster suggested)
5-push spam (RSS)
6-put your web address on your product label (gee, what a stroke of genius.)
7-hardware lock-in (his example is iPod and iTunes)
8-"mobile features". Dunno what the hell he's talking about. He prattles about how search engines are hard to use on mobile devices and how a better position is to be "an icon on somebody's Blackberry". Is he advocating "adware" for mobile devices? If so, all I can say is "nice, dickhead".
The real problem is that he's completely misinterpretted the role of the search engine to support his conclusion. The primary purpose of the search engine is to direct people to the sites they 're looking for. His "evidence" that the engines are usurping the sites' place is a flimsy bit of speculative strawman that "people have begun using search engines as answer engines to directly access what they want -- often without truly engaging with the websites". Ridiculous! People looking for a simple answer that can be culled from the tiny snippet of text in a search engine are always going to use a search engine for that. RSS feeds, hardware lock-in, adware on mobiles-- those are all just typical mass-marketing obscenities which will do nothing to lure active seekers of information. For that you need to get placement in search engines, because that's what people like that use. I think he's just pissed that competitors are using search engines as well, creating a bit of an advertising "arms race". Well cry me a river. Welcome to the real world of business, chief.
Twice!
Except in the unusual case of some urinary tract infections, urine does not contain any bacteria. Urine is a sterile liquid. It is antiseptic. It may not smell good, but you cannot catch anything from it.
(Obligatory M.Python)
"...Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."
Or, as we used to call it, "error between chair and keyboard"
And also WW1 and the ruinous terms of the Treaty of Versailles, but so what? The original claim that the US depression was somehow unique is still false. There were PLENTY of economic depressions both localized and multinational throughout history. The Vienna stock collapse of 1873 started a depression that lasted 23 years!
I agree with you. But it's not like Roosevelt's changes were undone rapidly - his legacy still lives on.
True, and unfortunate. I certainly would never say that Roosevelt's bread and circuses weren't monumentally far-reaching in scope-- they just didn't do squat to get us out of the great depression.
Oh, please. I challenge you to find a single example of a mechanic who recommends crappy cars because he knows it'll give him more business. It doesn't make any sense. If my mechanic recommended I buy a '76 Triumph Spitfire because they're reliable, and I didn't know any better and bought one, how long do you think it's going to take for me to find out it's an unreliable car and stop going to the mechanic who recommended it? A professional who recommends a bad product in his field of expertise is either A) stupid, or B) lying, and it won't be long before people figure that out.
Get a better counter-argument. That one's lame.
Yeah, but note the weasely use of "per capita". China has 4 times as many people as the US. Dunno if his claim is accurate, but even if it is, all he's really saying is that they spend the same as we do.
Uhhh....Weimar Germany experienced an even more disastrous depression at THE SAME TIME we did in the US. And really, Roosevelt's make-work bullcrap didn't get us out of the depression, World War 2 did.
One could construe that, but one would be absolutely wrong. Facts based on measurements or observation of the physical world are not copyrightable.