"It is a sense. If it was a model, someone could move your arm around and, if you weren't looking, you'd have no idea which way it was pointing, which is clearly not the case."
It is a model. The sense tied to this model is feeling. Without the sense of feeling in the arm, you no longer have the ability to know where your arm is without some other clues. Our brain maps the position of the body in relation to the environment and the body itself. It is not in a sense, a sense. If you broaden the definition of sense, sure you could call it that. But when speaking in terms of general senses that can not easily be broken down into an interpretation of other senses, then no. When your arm falls asleep completely where you have no feeling (perhaps it has happened to you before), if someone were to then move your arm, you would have no clue where the location of your arm was. The only way you could tell that your arm was being moved would be the feeling in your shoulder or upper arm. I hope this clears things up.
None is not an answer to that question, and dick is broad, relative, and just plain stupid. Maybe he is a "dick", but that does not clear up a complicated issue such as creating such a coordinated attack. There is obviously some sort of motivation behind something as direct as attacking 911 call centers. Although unreasonable as it sounds to a normal person, he himself did it for some reason. Please do not waste our time with such quick thoughtless posts.
Were you motivated to post so quickly so that you could be modded up and be seen by most readers? Or did you actually feel it was important that we read your unintersting post?
We all know there are people that are quite destructive. Calling them dicks does little to explain their reasoning though.
"You can't ignore people who perform extremely well on standardized tests."
I don't believe anyone has argued that we should ignore them, in fact I'm sure they are not being ignored. You have stated the obvious for the most part. Everyone understands there are problems with testing.
"It's just like college: does college "prove" that you're smart? No, but it shows you have the willpower and wherewithal to perform the task, and many other intangibles that go along with it."
You have no problem stating that college does not prove your smart, but will easily argue that it proves you have willpower? If one graduates from college, it proves that one was able to graduate from college. There are plenty of people across the the spectrum of abilities and the papers that go with it.
"Standardized tests are, again, just an imperfect way of whittling down the candidate pool in the most sensible way possible."
I agree. But we need to ask how well it works, not agreeing that the top scorers shouldn't be ignored. In fact, receiving top scores on tests is far from the best indicator of either intelligence or willpower. There are many other factors involved. A good school doesn't standardize learning, they adapt.
I believe there has been far too much miscommunication between you and I. A few last words of advise. Be careful how you present your opinions/arguments/facts , how you come to conclusions, and your choice of words. It seems almost as if your trying to make it more difficult to understand what you are saying. You also appear to have a bad habit of pointing out every flaw of someones post, beating them to death with it, and treating them like complete idiots (or inferiors). I should point out, I could easily do the same to each and every statement of yours. Instead, I will say that your a little too caught up in your world, your words, and your meaning. If you find a mistake, point it out, but don't harass people about it. Everyone makes mistakes, but your forgetting about your own. Also, time is a factor.
Much earlier someone stated that one can not easily argue one is costing a company sales. This is present tense. You then suddenly jumped to future tense and argued "will cut into their future sales".
You completely misunderstood that parent poster. Parent was in present tense, you were in future tense. Are things a little clearer now? I do not mean to be harsh about this, but I'm trying to help here. Your typing too quickly. Reread at least once, if not more, before posting.
"The profit damage of fansubs isn't 100%, but it isn't 0% either. It's somewhere in between, which means I'm right."
then
"But today, if an anime has any substantial appeal to Americans, it'll certainly get an international DVD release inside of two years."
Now consider if fansubs did not exist. Two years for a DVD release. How well do most people remember 2 years ago? Then there is the simple people factor. We are social, this is an issue when discussing this topic. How about when you said
"Fact: A lot of televised anime is story-driven, with plot twists and linearity."
So if someone was exposed to one show, they might consider watching another. How many would not have watched if it was in a foreign language only? This is another consideration in arguments for an event in profit prediction. In reality this was your argument. It about predicting profit and trying to prove that you were correct. Which one can not at all verify, because it happened. We do not know how many people became exposed due to fansubs and how this would have impacted their customer base.
You can argue all you want, and I do not wish to stop you. It is the statement
"...so distributing fansubs earlier will cut into their future sales." and then "No, I just proved it. By example."
that I would like to point out.
There were many other statements after that, which I'm going to go into. I hope that this time I have finally cleared things up. You were pressing hard on your argument to the point of ignoring what my message was. I was not debating your argument, but your presentation. You also failed to provide anything substantial to back up your original argument. In fact, your statement:
"But today, if an anime has any substantial appeal to Americans, it'll certainly get an international DVD release inside of two years."
appears to be very bad for your argument.
"if an anime has any substantial appeal to Americans", is a big if behind another what if fansubs did not exist question.
"two years", people forget, people find other available media, people find a new favorite show/etc.
I personally do not know much about anime. But I received little data to see the connections in your argument. As much value as small facts like "anime is story-driven" provide to the argument, they are not enough for at least me.
"Good thing I didn't say that, then. What we did say is they reduce the revenue potential. And they do.
The profit damage of fansubs isn't 100%, but it isn't 0% either. It's somewhere in between, which means I'm right."
Still so sure of yourself I see. You are not correct. Simple. You have no proof, you simply have data.
You replied to my earlier comment and said "No, I just proved it. By example." Minna Kirai, you do not understand what a proof is. Here is a simple argument. The exposure provided by the "fansubs" created a market that would have been more difficult to enter otherwise and most likely cost far more to create. Perhaps you have no knowledge of pirates in the world of ideas. Maybe you don't understand that most industries of art, entertainment, music, etc. grew from a much less legally controlled atmosphere.
So perhaps the companies were smart in exploiting the free form of advertising, and then when they thought the time was right, legally supress the pirates and create a for profit economy market in the U.S.. But I will never go outright and say this argument is right and that I have proved it. I will simply look for more data, more knowledge, more critical thinking, more arguments, more of everything to build a more solid argument that is not based on bias, but truth.
"Nope. That's actually an easy argument: The company WILL someday soon sell its DVDs in the USA, so distributing fansubs earlier will cut into their future sales."
Prove it!
You can not prove this. Nor can I disprove it. But I do hope you considered the many many other factors that contribute to future sales of any product. Do not be so quick to make arguments, especially based on so many assumptions.
"There is a HUGE difference between an idea and a piece of intellectual property..."
Your arguing semantics. Idea is an idea, intellectual property encompasses a broad range of definitions of what an idea is. Plese do not waste time finding minor problems in what one has said. The question I ask, do you understand the basic ideas of what I was saying? I do not want an argument about whether I used the word idea, intellectual property, copyright, book, music, etc. unless you want to point out a mistake ok. But understand that you just biased my post from the beginning. You didn't accept what I was writing for what it was, you searched for errors. Whether you accept my argument, my thoughts, opinions, or whatever is another story. Ideas, large, small, etc. are all created due to the environment we live in. Now you can leave the question as to what is fair compensation ot any number of people, institutions, the market, a single dictator, etc. It appears you have chosen the currect system of law, enforcement, and intellectual property market. Or maybe some variation.
Your entire post was about the difference between an idea and a bigger imaginative idea. I do not assume they are the same, nor would I argue that we should put them in the same group when speaking more about specifics relating to this topic. In general, my entire argument is that the current system in place that will ultimately fail. Then again, I could say that about any system. The most unfortunate part about all of this though, is that there are many people/institutions pushing to make the system even worse. On the other hand this is to be expected, advances in science and technology threaten the system, and so it is trying to protect itself.
There are millions of artists. How many do you know? Now do you understand? It is not just about a better distribution system for one particular business, but a broader, faster, and more efficient distribution system for all. ALso, we do have much much cheaper methods of produving many types of works (recording for example) than were available decades ago.
Also forgoet to mention. I do not mean the eventual complete destruction of all forms of intellectual property. There are some practices, laws, ideas in the intellectual property system we want to keep, improve, or make only minor changes to. But most of it must be dropped. One example is file-sharing. File-sharing is providing a decent transition that will create a new music ecnonomy without completely destroying the current one. The internet, computers, digital media, etc. all provide an instant savings in distribution, marketing, and other areas. The old system still remains and has even had better sales according to some. The idustry definitely is not about to fall. While the new music industry evolves, the old one will change. If society is to ever progress, we must change. The music, movie, and publishing industries can either resist or work with progress.
Also, most artists, inventors, writers, scientists, and others would not be willing to go along with the current system if they understood it.
Fair compensation under our current intellectual property system is just a perception. Some will benefit, most will not. In the end, it is law versus rationality.
Please, you and all those that argue the same point, do some reading on the subject. Also, do not get all your information on the subject from mainstream media. Mainstream media is controlled for the most part by the wealthy.
Ideas are part of life. We continually produce new ideas that drive progress. The idea of an idea monopoly is about as absurd in capitalism as a monopoly on a particular area of business. It all comes down to control. Our society has grown up with intellectual property laws and therefore, many people rely on this system for a living. Those that argue that the system is corrupt, broken, a failure, anti-capitalistic, etc. are almost guaranteed resistance from those that benefit from it. Control is everything. If an industry, business, institution, etc. loses control of the market, people, etc., something will take its place.
The problem is that the intellectual property system is very artificial. It goes against what comes natural. When a person finds a better way of doing something, then others may or may not copy it. It is far more efficient for society to replicate what works best. When the idea that allows for progress is in control of a specific person, etc. then it creates an artificial barrier. This barrier is supported by various means, most being legal.
Now back to the argument of compensation. If a person, institution, etc. finds a particular area of interest in pursuing, they will. It the cost is too high, then it won't be pursued. Some will argue that because of the high costs of particular endevours, we will not progress without compensation. The same people seem to forget or undermine the important of organizations life the Science Foundation. Although the size of these institutions may be small now, they would likely be larger and more efficient without intellectual property law barriers.
Unfortunately, our society has relied on this system for quite a few generations and any drastic change will produce consequences of many sorts for particular groups of people around the world. To say that we should immediately give up the intellectual property system sounds crazy and in many ways is.
So what do we do? Do we allow these large institutions to strengthen the laws? Do we allow them to broaden these laws? In my opinion, the idea of intellectual property is one destined to fail. Whether or not it had benefitted us in the past is of no concern to me anymore. The question we must ask; what do we do to fix this?
So please, those that argue for copyrights, just stop. If you have an idea that will help ease us off this corrupt system, speak up. But there have been far too many reptitive statements on this subject, both for and against. Occasionally someone will post something worth reading. For the most part though, the posts on slashdot are crap.
Maybe I'm wrong. But if that is true, I'd like to see some actual argument. Comments like "how would you feel if people stole your work?" ado little to progress the discussion on this extremely important topic.
Consider if everyone reacted that way after a disaster. Imagine life living on with everyone being depressed about disaster, overwhelmed, neglecting talk about what effects such a disaster have on the entire world. Personally, I would love to know how such an event effects us all economically, socially, politically, etc. Such disasters should not evoke such a shock from people with the added apathy. It would be wrong to ignore the fact that many people died. It is a very sad event, but those that care are over there working, everyone else is somewhere else, maybe working. Be a little more understanding to the journalists that are doing their job. Just because the news is about a disaster, does not mean that we need to bring all the information to that level. People should be more aware of their emotional reactions. We all know the media is a tool for propaganda. So why go the extra mile and react emotionally to news?
It should be noted that "first mover" under your case is strictly business market control related. For those seeing the scientific point-of-view, "first mover" would seem to define the first to move a technology forward as a business. The fact that the first technology movers are rarely seen is because the winner is not necessariy the best in todays marketplace. There are many ways to cheat to the top and take advantage of whatever legal, public, environmental, or even social methods are available. There is no debate in this case between your argument and the orginal statement. He mentioned first mover from a different view of what first mover meant. Whether or not the definition in the dictionary says so is not important. You both can argue a long while about who is wrong and who is right, and still be on two different subjects. I hope this clears things up. Also, remember not to take things too literally, because everyones dictionary is not exactly the same. Sometimes one must look past the words.
Actually, there is something that sounds similar to your theory. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2502755.stm
This link was posted earlier http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=131958 &cid=11020106
From all the posts I've seen, the quark matter strike is the most likely answer from my point-of-view. Most speak of the post, but few of the water (possible it hit water, but appears it didn't). Also, is it not possible a flash can occur and not damage a post? So many have just assumed that a flash MUST damage that post. Then again, it could still be anything. It is quite hard to tell; too many possibilities.
To see if the quark matter strike theory is correct, then one would need to figure out how quark matter would effect the atmosphere, water, metal objects (pole), electricity, etc.
There is always a lot of talk about the big corporations stealing the work of a lone inventor. But this happens all the time even with patents. Also, there are few people that could be considered lone inventors. Look around and you will see collaboration among many scientists, researchers, inventors, engineers, marketers, etc. Without a patent system, all that time being wasted fighting in courts, searching the patent databases, discussing infringement, calculating legal risk, filing for patents, consistantly having to go back and check your work against others "legal" versions, etc. Do people not realize all the problems that go along with patents? Even if the patent system was restricted by thsoe two rules you have come up with, most of the problems would still exist. I should point out that there is one good thing about the patent system, and it doesn't involve control. The advantage, as I've stated in the earlier post, is disclosure. The United States may have benefitted from the patent system for this one main advantage, but it is of little value today. One can argue all they want about preventing general concepts from being patented, but who decides what is general and specific? The courts do. The lawyers do. The patent office does. This is where the problem lies. One is forced to go through a legal system of idea control to determine whether their idea is new (patentable) or not. Can the "little guy" afford the legal fees if a competitor decides to pursue legal action? So how does the "little guy" survive? I ask you to take a moment and consider all the worst possible outcomes of having no patent system. If you wish, share them. I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about this subject (at least 7-8 years now), and if I'm wrong about something, I want to know. I haven't been as active lately, because there is little I can do, but I stll take the time to learn more. Btw, if I'm being a little arrogant when it comes to this topic I'm sorry. Also, yes my argument is about all patents, that includes software patents.
"Software patents are not an inherently bad idea."
I disagree completely with that statement. All the problems you have stated are by-products of the patent system. Any system that gives a person or corporation legal control over an idea is simply providing means of maintaining a monopoly with the benefit of not being perceived as one and/or provides a system of corruption and waste. Look at some of the largest industries; automobiles, software, pharmaceuticals, etc. The largest corporations in this industry hold extremely large patent portfolios that could crush any competitor of much smaller size. Yes, there is still some competition in the market place. Yes, one can still enter the market, although with much difficulty in most cases. In the end, the patent system is a failure in its perceived intention. There is one major benefit of the patent system and even this can be accomplished with completely different rules. The benefit is disclosure. Yet even this has been alluded by some. There is far too much corruption in the patent system to even consider a fix. Do you expect those in the system and those benefitting from it to turn around and weaken it? Only if pressured to do so, would they weaken the system. Some changes will be made in the near future, but don't expect too much.
The question is, was this "Psychological research" done using fMRI or similar technology? The next one I would ask is whether there really is a distinction between a real event and an imagined one. To just come out and say there isn't a difference is limiting ones own thoughts on the subject. The simple truth is, many claim a lot of things are impossible until someone proves them wrong. Although the difference might be extremely small and/or it could vary greatly from thought to thought and mind to mind it is up to a scientist to discover those differences.
"Furthermore researchers have demonstrated that it's remarkably easy to train people to remember events that didn't actually happen."
A good observer would immediately catch the attention of at least one word in this sentence: "train". Training a person to remember something and actually experiencing something are quite different. On the contrary, I would not disagree that with enough time and effort, most traces of a "trained" reality would disappear. Nothing is impossible. In the end, it is just an arms race; liar vs investigator as an example.
This would still require some serious effort, practice, and/or ability. Something that did happen leaves a more realistic image in the mind. So to pull something like this off would mean that the lie appears as real as possible to the person telling it. One would literally have to believe the lie to the point of not knowing it was a lie they are telling. Then again, this all depends how much data fMRI can provide and if the scientists can manage to interpret the data correctly. From my knowledge of the brain, it would be far more difficult to fool this, but most likely not impossible. One thought comes to mind, thinking about previous experiences as one is telling the lie might work. If one can manage to say a lie, but ponder on past experiences, it should fool the scientists (unless they use some more complicated ways of questioning the person and interpreting the data). One might need to train for some time to do this right.
Actually, I meant to say more along the lines of religious alternative (not ethical). If a church argues a point, it isn't about science. Science is included, but the argument rests on a religious basis, not a scientific one.
"And it's obvious no valuable information will be exchanged via popular IMs."
Apparently it is valuable. If there are millions of people using these various open methods (chats, etc.) to communicate, then there is the value. It is the ability to see at least a part of the popular opinion of a large portion of people that makes it valueable. Hence the reason there is spyware. Should I even mention Google and what they are doing right now?
It all just depends on point-of-view. Companies looking to market their products more effectively are interested in this kind of data. The average person usually does not care all too much, and this is a problem. We should be demanding more public record disclosure and easier access to it.
Then again, this same thing could be done openly by an organization with no agenda beyond helping people access history and data. Those that wish to keep their conversations private could use a more private method instead of public chat rooms. I considered a long time ago to actually crawl IRC chats and record everything. There are many possibilties with such data. I could instantly find a conversation about a subject I am interested in at the moment and then participate. This is what the internet is all about; instant communication, information retrieval and storage, and related. By allowing government agencies and private interests to have more control over this public domain we are going against democracy, open source, and freedom in general. I hope no one misunderstands me. I do see a difference in public domain and private interests. Each individual has a right to their own privacy. Corporations and government agencies are not private interests. Legally speaking they are, but for an organization to be controlling public domain is not in the (should be) public interest. Unfortunately, the publics interest has been beat out of them. Few people have the oppurtunity to see the data. I'm not against the idea of the CIA in doing this. I am against data being withheld. I didn't RTFA, so I can't argue about the details. Also, I do realize there is software like this, but most of it I'm sure is in the hands of coporate and private control. Just my thoughts.
Yes, but those are still arguments that have been backed up using a small portion of data. Also, there are many other factors twhich must be considered. Unfortunately, many scientists make bad conclusions based on their data. Remember the phrase "Correlation is not causation". It is extremely important. In science one must be very aware of as many factors as possible to come to the best conclusion. Again, your statement about permanent changes to the brain is moot. The brain changes all the time, and to say a change is permanent would imply a physical change. But then we learn that the brain physically changes. So again one can not argue that the changes are permanent. On the subject of neurotransmitters, the same applies. Many factors are involved. This is why a sugar pill is more effective than no pill at all. A person can perceive that the taking of a substance has an effect on them and that will in turn release neurotransmitters. That is just one simple example, but an important one. This factor is not physical and so is a type of factor that many scientists will miss. Another thing about studies on illicit drugs. A lot of those studies that pertain to various types of damage may be right, but for another reason. A person using illicit substances has had a likely chance of using a laced substance. In the case of illicit substances, one must be very careful about what one reads or hears.
"...the brain doesn't return to normal once the drug is out of the system."
What is normal? One must realize our brain changes every second to then understand why some will argue damage to the brain, whatever the reason. You injest any substance that has an effect on the brain in some way and it will change it. The question then is, what is damage. With illegal substances it is hard to get the real truth because little to no research is done on those substances beyond those supported by the same organizations that promote its illegality. With other substances like caffeine it is a little easier, but few people know because they don't read the books, rsearch journals, and non-mainstream information sources that pertain to effects of substances on the brain. So what causes damage? One would still need to explain what damage means. I've done a lot of reading into neuroscience and other brain related material and find that what some define as damage can b edescribed as the complete opposite. It is funny to hear some say "We are finding that even a single use can produce brain changes" because a single day of not injesting any "brain changing" substance can produce brain changes. It depends on the state of mind, what one is doing, is something being learned, are new thoughts producing a change in point-of-view on current knowledge, etc. If one spends an hour learning something new. Back to brain damage. A substance would have to show physical damage to the brain, such as cells being destroyed. This is not what many are using to back up their claims of brain damage. With the more advanced brain research, one could easily find data to fit their view. While one scientist may say that brain damage is occuring, another will say that the brain is using less of the brain to accomplish the same task. Whole one will say that it makes a person less intelligent, another will say it makes them more intelligent. Which one will you believe? Why not try and understand what information is being presented and why? Expect a biased opinion favoring the financier. It is difficult to provide a definitive picture of long-term effects of any substance that does not actually cause physical damage. If one speaks of social damage for example, then one would have to remove the barriers of illegality and perception of a substance. Those supporting prohibition will continue to provide "evidence" of brain damage due to a substance without acknowledging other factors. if you were supporting prohibition, would you acknowledge the problems created due to prohibition itself? Your post is misleading. It is true, but under a narrow interpretation of data.
"But nothing attrocious has been committed in iraq."
So what do you call the death of over 1,000 Americans and thousands of Iraqi's? A mistake? I notice you talk a lot about "reprocutions". Yet you fail to realize that the terrorists goal is everything that goes along with "reprocutions". We are fighting terror right? So how does any form of infliction of pain (physical or mental) help prevent terror? If the wish of the U.S. is to stop terrorism, then why promote it? Soldiers are about the only Americans most Iraqi's will meet. Now how does everything going on in Iraq look to the Iraqi people? Do we need a history lesson about previous wars in Iraq and the impression it has left on the Iraqi people? They don't think the same thoughts you do. If a friend of yours was locked up in an Eskimo prison cell being treated the way Iraqi prisoners are being treated now, would you be as willing to accept that the Eskimo's just made a mistake?
"I appreciate all the protestors, they remind me that everything I am doing is right."
I seriously hope you don't actually beleive that. Do you ever think that maybe if it wasn't for the protestors that many more would die? Does imperialism mean anything to you? The Roman Empire? Napoleon? Your a soldier right? A soldier must follow orders. That is part of what is forced upon every soldier in the military, to follow orders and do it without hesitation. This is one of the major reasons for bootcamp. A soldier is a part of the military agenda, but is not involved in deciding what that agenda is. Anyway, I'm going off on tangents. The problem is, that your arguing emotion. Retaliation is an emotional subject. We could retaliate forever and ever against terrorists, because the act of retaliating helps promote terrorism. The "War on Terror" is different. We can not treat it like wars of the past. You point out all the information that supports your argument, but ignore all that is wrong with this war. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe we need no crticism. So instead I'll just happily smile when a president says we need to go to war with country X and support everything that goes along with it, or will I? That is why I am not a soldier following orders, but a citizen that questions the choices of those elected. I have nothing against soldiers. I disagree with those giving the bad orders. What each soldier decides to do during a war is another issue. And those that allow it to happen is yet another.
So tell me, what is it that your doing that is so right? And is anyone that criticizes the war wrong?
"Al-Qaeda is taking advantage of the unrest in an attempt to push its agenda, much like you're taking advantage of misquoting me to serve yours."
He didn't misquote you; he posted entire sections of what you said. Then he provided his arguments and opinions. He is only providing what you said to either back up his arguments or refute your opinions. It is now your job, if you wish, to say what you would like. But to be on the safe side, you want to avoid a flame war. Both you and some of those replying to you are ignoring each other. Take the time to keep emotional arguments to a minimum. Do not consistantly "I, I, I, and not you, so I'm right your wrong." Take the time to learn something from the person speaking, but still never forget that any facts could just be opinions or lies. But a smart person takes the time to listen to all (even those one hates or finds completely crazy) and see patterns, missing truth, and other data. I can't even come up with a person or group of people I hate. So bring some love into the equation. Don't forget the Iraqi people, the soldiers, and everyone else involved, even the contractors just working to survive (in luxury, but at a gamble?). You speak of division like Bin Laden wanted it, but proceed to divide yourself from those you argue with, and same goes to the others. A disagreement on an opinion should not become an issue about the other person, unless your running for politician. I say should not but more from a point-of-view that it causes unnecessary flame wars. If you like flame wars, then by all means continue what you were doing. I'm sorry for being harsh. I really am a nice person.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is a sense. If it was a model, someone could move your arm around and, if you weren't looking, you'd have no idea which way it was pointing, which is clearly not the case."
It is a model. The sense tied to this model is feeling. Without the sense of feeling in the arm, you no longer have the ability to know where your arm is without some other clues. Our brain maps the position of the body in relation to the environment and the body itself. It is not in a sense, a sense. If you broaden the definition of sense, sure you could call it that. But when speaking in terms of general senses that can not easily be broken down into an interpretation of other senses, then no. When your arm falls asleep completely where you have no feeling (perhaps it has happened to you before), if someone were to then move your arm, you would have no clue where the location of your arm was. The only way you could tell that your arm was being moved would be the feeling in your shoulder or upper arm. I hope this clears things up.
"None. He's just a dick."
None is not an answer to that question, and dick is broad, relative, and just plain stupid. Maybe he is a "dick", but that does not clear up a complicated issue such as creating such a coordinated attack. There is obviously some sort of motivation behind something as direct as attacking 911 call centers. Although unreasonable as it sounds to a normal person, he himself did it for some reason. Please do not waste our time with such quick thoughtless posts.
Were you motivated to post so quickly so that you could be modded up and be seen by most readers? Or did you actually feel it was important that we read your unintersting post?
We all know there are people that are quite destructive. Calling them dicks does little to explain their reasoning though.
"You can't ignore people who perform extremely well on standardized tests."
I don't believe anyone has argued that we should ignore them, in fact I'm sure they are not being ignored. You have stated the obvious for the most part. Everyone understands there are problems with testing.
"It's just like college: does college "prove" that you're smart? No, but it shows you have the willpower and wherewithal to perform the task, and many other intangibles that go along with it."
You have no problem stating that college does not prove your smart, but will easily argue that it proves you have willpower? If one graduates from college, it proves that one was able to graduate from college. There are plenty of people across the the spectrum of abilities and the papers that go with it.
"Standardized tests are, again, just an imperfect way of whittling down the candidate pool in the most sensible way possible."
I agree. But we need to ask how well it works, not agreeing that the top scorers shouldn't be ignored. In fact, receiving top scores on tests is far from the best indicator of either intelligence or willpower. There are many other factors involved. A good school doesn't standardize learning, they adapt.
I believe there has been far too much miscommunication between you and I. A few last words of advise. Be careful how you present your opinions/arguments/facts , how you come to conclusions, and your choice of words. It seems almost as if your trying to make it more difficult to understand what you are saying. You also appear to have a bad habit of pointing out every flaw of someones post, beating them to death with it, and treating them like complete idiots (or inferiors). I should point out, I could easily do the same to each and every statement of yours. Instead, I will say that your a little too caught up in your world, your words, and your meaning. If you find a mistake, point it out, but don't harass people about it. Everyone makes mistakes, but your forgetting about your own. Also, time is a factor.
Much earlier someone stated that one can not easily argue one is costing a company sales. This is present tense. You then suddenly jumped to future tense and argued "will cut into their future sales".
You completely misunderstood that parent poster. Parent was in present tense, you were in future tense. Are things a little clearer now? I do not mean to be harsh about this, but I'm trying to help here. Your typing too quickly. Reread at least once, if not more, before posting.
Earlier you said.
"The profit damage of fansubs isn't 100%, but it isn't 0% either. It's somewhere in between, which means I'm right."
then
"But today, if an anime has any substantial appeal to Americans, it'll certainly get an international DVD release inside of two years."
Now consider if fansubs did not exist. Two years for a DVD release. How well do most people remember 2 years ago? Then there is the simple people factor. We are social, this is an issue when discussing this topic. How about when you said
"Fact: A lot of televised anime is story-driven, with plot twists and linearity."
So if someone was exposed to one show, they might consider watching another. How many would not have watched if it was in a foreign language only? This is another consideration in arguments for an event in profit prediction. In reality this was your argument. It about predicting profit and trying to prove that you were correct. Which one can not at all verify, because it happened. We do not know how many people became exposed due to fansubs and how this would have impacted their customer base.
You can argue all you want, and I do not wish to stop you. It is the statement
"...so distributing fansubs earlier will cut into their future sales."
and then
"No, I just proved it. By example."
that I would like to point out.
There were many other statements after that, which I'm going to go into. I hope that this time I have finally cleared things up. You were pressing hard on your argument to the point of ignoring what my message was. I was not debating your argument, but your presentation. You also failed to provide anything substantial to back up your original argument. In fact, your statement:
"But today, if an anime has any substantial appeal to Americans, it'll certainly get an international DVD release inside of two years."
appears to be very bad for your argument.
"if an anime has any substantial appeal to Americans", is a big if behind another what if fansubs did not exist question.
"two years", people forget, people find other available media, people find a new favorite show/etc.
I personally do not know much about anime. But I received little data to see the connections in your argument. As much value as small facts like "anime is story-driven" provide to the argument, they are not enough for at least me.
"Good thing I didn't say that, then. What we did say is they reduce the revenue potential. And they do.
The profit damage of fansubs isn't 100%, but it isn't 0% either. It's somewhere in between, which means I'm right."
Still so sure of yourself I see. You are not correct. Simple. You have no proof, you simply have data.
You replied to my earlier comment and said "No, I just proved it. By example." Minna Kirai, you do not understand what a proof is. Here is a simple argument. The exposure provided by the "fansubs" created a market that would have been more difficult to enter otherwise and most likely cost far more to create. Perhaps you have no knowledge of pirates in the world of ideas. Maybe you don't understand that most industries of art, entertainment, music, etc. grew from a much less legally controlled atmosphere.
So perhaps the companies were smart in exploiting the free form of advertising, and then when they thought the time was right, legally supress the pirates and create a for profit economy market in the U.S.. But I will never go outright and say this argument is right and that I have proved it. I will simply look for more data, more knowledge, more critical thinking, more arguments, more of everything to build a more solid argument that is not based on bias, but truth.
"Nope. That's actually an easy argument: The company WILL someday soon sell its DVDs in the USA, so distributing fansubs earlier will cut into their future sales."
Prove it!
You can not prove this. Nor can I disprove it. But I do hope you considered the many many other factors that contribute to future sales of any product. Do not be so quick to make arguments, especially based on so many assumptions.
"There is a HUGE difference between an idea and a piece of intellectual property..."
Your arguing semantics. Idea is an idea, intellectual property encompasses a broad range of definitions of what an idea is. Plese do not waste time finding minor problems in what one has said. The question I ask, do you understand the basic ideas of what I was saying? I do not want an argument about whether I used the word idea, intellectual property, copyright, book, music, etc. unless you want to point out a mistake ok. But understand that you just biased my post from the beginning. You didn't accept what I was writing for what it was, you searched for errors. Whether you accept my argument, my thoughts, opinions, or whatever is another story. Ideas, large, small, etc. are all created due to the environment we live in. Now you can leave the question as to what is fair compensation ot any number of people, institutions, the market, a single dictator, etc. It appears you have chosen the currect system of law, enforcement, and intellectual property market. Or maybe some variation.
Your entire post was about the difference between an idea and a bigger imaginative idea. I do not assume they are the same, nor would I argue that we should put them in the same group when speaking more about specifics relating to this topic. In general, my entire argument is that the current system in place that will ultimately fail. Then again, I could say that about any system. The most unfortunate part about all of this though, is that there are many people/institutions pushing to make the system even worse. On the other hand this is to be expected, advances in science and technology threaten the system, and so it is trying to protect itself.
There are millions of artists. How many do you know? Now do you understand? It is not just about a better distribution system for one particular business, but a broader, faster, and more efficient distribution system for all.
ALso, we do have much much cheaper methods of produving many types of works (recording for example) than were available decades ago.
Also forgoet to mention. I do not mean the eventual complete destruction of all forms of intellectual property. There are some practices, laws, ideas in the intellectual property system we want to keep, improve, or make only minor changes to. But most of it must be dropped. One example is file-sharing. File-sharing is providing a decent transition that will create a new music ecnonomy without completely destroying the current one. The internet, computers, digital media, etc. all provide an instant savings in distribution, marketing, and other areas. The old system still remains and has even had better sales according to some. The idustry definitely is not about to fall. While the new music industry evolves, the old one will change. If society is to ever progress, we must change. The music, movie, and publishing industries can either resist or work with progress.
Also, most artists, inventors, writers, scientists, and others would not be willing to go along with the current system if they understood it.
Fair compensation under our current intellectual property system is just a perception. Some will benefit, most will not. In the end, it is law versus rationality.
Please, you and all those that argue the same point, do some reading on the subject. Also, do not get all your information on the subject from mainstream media. Mainstream media is controlled for the most part by the wealthy.
Ideas are part of life. We continually produce new ideas that drive progress. The idea of an idea monopoly is about as absurd in capitalism as a monopoly on a particular area of business. It all comes down to control. Our society has grown up with intellectual property laws and therefore, many people rely on this system for a living. Those that argue that the system is corrupt, broken, a failure, anti-capitalistic, etc. are almost guaranteed resistance from those that benefit from it. Control is everything. If an industry, business, institution, etc. loses control of the market, people, etc., something will take its place.
The problem is that the intellectual property system is very artificial. It goes against what comes natural. When a person finds a better way of doing something, then others may or may not copy it. It is far more efficient for society to replicate what works best. When the idea that allows for progress is in control of a specific person, etc. then it creates an artificial barrier. This barrier is supported by various means, most being legal.
Now back to the argument of compensation. If a person, institution, etc. finds a particular area of interest in pursuing, they will. It the cost is too high, then it won't be pursued. Some will argue that because of the high costs of particular endevours, we will not progress without compensation. The same people seem to forget or undermine the important of organizations life the Science Foundation. Although the size of these institutions may be small now, they would likely be larger and more efficient without intellectual property law barriers.
Unfortunately, our society has relied on this system for quite a few generations and any drastic change will produce consequences of many sorts for particular groups of people around the world. To say that we should immediately give up the intellectual property system sounds crazy and in many ways is.
So what do we do? Do we allow these large institutions to strengthen the laws? Do we allow them to broaden these laws? In my opinion, the idea of intellectual property is one destined to fail. Whether or not it had benefitted us in the past is of no concern to me anymore. The question we must ask; what do we do to fix this?
So please, those that argue for copyrights, just stop. If you have an idea that will help ease us off this corrupt system, speak up. But there have been far too many reptitive statements on this subject, both for and against. Occasionally someone will post something worth reading. For the most part though, the posts on slashdot are crap.
Maybe I'm wrong. But if that is true, I'd like to see some actual argument. Comments like "how would you feel if people stole your work?" ado little to progress the discussion on this extremely important topic.
Consider if everyone reacted that way after a disaster. Imagine life living on with everyone being depressed about disaster, overwhelmed, neglecting talk about what effects such a disaster have on the entire world. Personally, I would love to know how such an event effects us all economically, socially, politically, etc. Such disasters should not evoke such a shock from people with the added apathy. It would be wrong to ignore the fact that many people died. It is a very sad event, but those that care are over there working, everyone else is somewhere else, maybe working. Be a little more understanding to the journalists that are doing their job. Just because the news is about a disaster, does not mean that we need to bring all the information to that level. People should be more aware of their emotional reactions. We all know the media is a tool for propaganda. So why go the extra mile and react emotionally to news?
It should be noted that "first mover" under your case is strictly business market control related. For those seeing the scientific point-of-view, "first mover" would seem to define the first to move a technology forward as a business. The fact that the first technology movers are rarely seen is because the winner is not necessariy the best in todays marketplace. There are many ways to cheat to the top and take advantage of whatever legal, public, environmental, or even social methods are available. There is no debate in this case between your argument and the orginal statement. He mentioned first mover from a different view of what first mover meant. Whether or not the definition in the dictionary says so is not important. You both can argue a long while about who is wrong and who is right, and still be on two different subjects. I hope this clears things up. Also, remember not to take things too literally, because everyones dictionary is not exactly the same. Sometimes one must look past the words.
Actually, there is something that sounds similar to your theory. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2502755.stm
8 &cid=11020106
This link was posted earlier http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=13195
From all the posts I've seen, the quark matter strike is the most likely answer from my point-of-view. Most speak of the post, but few of the water (possible it hit water, but appears it didn't). Also, is it not possible a flash can occur and not damage a post? So many have just assumed that a flash MUST damage that post. Then again, it could still be anything. It is quite hard to tell; too many possibilities.
To see if the quark matter strike theory is correct, then one would need to figure out how quark matter would effect the atmosphere, water, metal objects (pole), electricity, etc.
There is always a lot of talk about the big corporations stealing the work of a lone inventor. But this happens all the time even with patents. Also, there are few people that could be considered lone inventors. Look around and you will see collaboration among many scientists, researchers, inventors, engineers, marketers, etc. Without a patent system, all that time being wasted fighting in courts, searching the patent databases, discussing infringement, calculating legal risk, filing for patents, consistantly having to go back and check your work against others "legal" versions, etc. Do people not realize all the problems that go along with patents? Even if the patent system was restricted by thsoe two rules you have come up with, most of the problems would still exist. I should point out that there is one good thing about the patent system, and it doesn't involve control. The advantage, as I've stated in the earlier post, is disclosure. The United States may have benefitted from the patent system for this one main advantage, but it is of little value today. One can argue all they want about preventing general concepts from being patented, but who decides what is general and specific? The courts do. The lawyers do. The patent office does. This is where the problem lies. One is forced to go through a legal system of idea control to determine whether their idea is new (patentable) or not. Can the "little guy" afford the legal fees if a competitor decides to pursue legal action? So how does the "little guy" survive? I ask you to take a moment and consider all the worst possible outcomes of having no patent system. If you wish, share them. I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about this subject (at least 7-8 years now), and if I'm wrong about something, I want to know. I haven't been as active lately, because there is little I can do, but I stll take the time to learn more. Btw, if I'm being a little arrogant when it comes to this topic I'm sorry. Also, yes my argument is about all patents, that includes software patents.
"Software patents are not an inherently bad idea."
I disagree completely with that statement.
All the problems you have stated are by-products of the patent system. Any system that gives a person or corporation legal control over an idea is simply providing means of maintaining a monopoly with the benefit of not being perceived as one and/or provides a system of corruption and waste. Look at some of the largest industries; automobiles, software, pharmaceuticals, etc. The largest corporations in this industry hold extremely large patent portfolios that could crush any competitor of much smaller size. Yes, there is still some competition in the market place. Yes, one can still enter the market, although with much difficulty in most cases. In the end, the patent system is a failure in its perceived intention. There is one major benefit of the patent system and even this can be accomplished with completely different rules. The benefit is disclosure. Yet even this has been alluded by some. There is far too much corruption in the patent system to even consider a fix. Do you expect those in the system and those benefitting from it to turn around and weaken it? Only if pressured to do so, would they weaken the system. Some changes will be made in the near future, but don't expect too much.
The question is, was this "Psychological research" done using fMRI or similar technology? The next one I would ask is whether there really is a distinction between a real event and an imagined one. To just come out and say there isn't a difference is limiting ones own thoughts on the subject. The simple truth is, many claim a lot of things are impossible until someone proves them wrong. Although the difference might be extremely small and/or it could vary greatly from thought to thought and mind to mind it is up to a scientist to discover those differences.
"Furthermore researchers have demonstrated that it's remarkably easy to train people to remember events that didn't actually happen."
A good observer would immediately catch the attention of at least one word in this sentence: "train". Training a person to remember something and actually experiencing something are quite different. On the contrary, I would not disagree that with enough time and effort, most traces of a "trained" reality would disappear. Nothing is impossible. In the end, it is just an arms race; liar vs investigator as an example.
This would still require some serious effort, practice, and/or ability. Something that did happen leaves a more realistic image in the mind. So to pull something like this off would mean that the lie appears as real as possible to the person telling it. One would literally have to believe the lie to the point of not knowing it was a lie they are telling. Then again, this all depends how much data fMRI can provide and if the scientists can manage to interpret the data correctly. From my knowledge of the brain, it would be far more difficult to fool this, but most likely not impossible. One thought comes to mind, thinking about previous experiences as one is telling the lie might work. If one can manage to say a lie, but ponder on past experiences, it should fool the scientists (unless they use some more complicated ways of questioning the person and interpreting the data). One might need to train for some time to do this right.
Actually, I meant to say more along the lines of religious alternative (not ethical). If a church argues a point, it isn't about science. Science is included, but the argument rests on a religious basis, not a scientific one.
"...promote more research into adult stem cells as the intelligent alternative."
Considering the argument at hand, it would be the ethical alternative.
"And it's obvious no valuable information will be exchanged via popular IMs."
Apparently it is valuable. If there are millions of people using these various open methods (chats, etc.) to communicate, then there is the value. It is the ability to see at least a part of the popular opinion of a large portion of people that makes it valueable. Hence the reason there is spyware. Should I even mention Google and what they are doing right now?
It all just depends on point-of-view. Companies looking to market their products more effectively are interested in this kind of data. The average person usually does not care all too much, and this is a problem. We should be demanding more public record disclosure and easier access to it.
Then again, this same thing could be done openly by an organization with no agenda beyond helping people access history and data. Those that wish to keep their conversations private could use a more private method instead of public chat rooms. I considered a long time ago to actually crawl IRC chats and record everything. There are many possibilties with such data. I could instantly find a conversation about a subject I am interested in at the moment and then participate. This is what the internet is all about; instant communication, information retrieval and storage, and related. By allowing government agencies and private interests to have more control over this public domain we are going against democracy, open source, and freedom in general. I hope no one misunderstands me. I do see a difference in public domain and private interests. Each individual has a right to their own privacy. Corporations and government agencies are not private interests. Legally speaking they are, but for an organization to be controlling public domain is not in the (should be) public interest. Unfortunately, the publics interest has been beat out of them. Few people have the oppurtunity to see the data. I'm not against the idea of the CIA in doing this. I am against data being withheld. I didn't RTFA, so I can't argue about the details. Also, I do realize there is software like this, but most of it I'm sure is in the hands of coporate and private control. Just my thoughts.
Yes, but those are still arguments that have been backed up using a small portion of data. Also, there are many other factors twhich must be considered. Unfortunately, many scientists make bad conclusions based on their data. Remember the phrase "Correlation is not causation". It is extremely important. In science one must be very aware of as many factors as possible to come to the best conclusion. Again, your statement about permanent changes to the brain is moot. The brain changes all the time, and to say a change is permanent would imply a physical change. But then we learn that the brain physically changes. So again one can not argue that the changes are permanent. On the subject of neurotransmitters, the same applies. Many factors are involved. This is why a sugar pill is more effective than no pill at all. A person can perceive that the taking of a substance has an effect on them and that will in turn release neurotransmitters. That is just one simple example, but an important one. This factor is not physical and so is a type of factor that many scientists will miss. Another thing about studies on illicit drugs. A lot of those studies that pertain to various types of damage may be right, but for another reason. A person using illicit substances has had a likely chance of using a laced substance. In the case of illicit substances, one must be very careful about what one reads or hears.
"...the brain doesn't return to normal once the drug is out of the system."
What is normal? One must realize our brain changes every second to then understand why some will argue damage to the brain, whatever the reason. You injest any substance that has an effect on the brain in some way and it will change it. The question then is, what is damage. With illegal substances it is hard to get the real truth because little to no research is done on those substances beyond those supported by the same organizations that promote its illegality. With other substances like caffeine it is a little easier, but few people know because they don't read the books, rsearch journals, and non-mainstream information sources that pertain to effects of substances on the brain. So what causes damage? One would still need to explain what damage means. I've done a lot of reading into neuroscience and other brain related material and find that what some define as damage can b edescribed as the complete opposite. It is funny to hear some say "We are finding that even a single use can produce brain changes" because a single day of not injesting any "brain changing" substance can produce brain changes. It depends on the state of mind, what one is doing, is something being learned, are new thoughts producing a change in point-of-view on current knowledge, etc. If one spends an hour learning something new. Back to brain damage. A substance would have to show physical damage to the brain, such as cells being destroyed. This is not what many are using to back up their claims of brain damage. With the more advanced brain research, one could easily find data to fit their view. While one scientist may say that brain damage is occuring, another will say that the brain is using less of the brain to accomplish the same task. Whole one will say that it makes a person less intelligent, another will say it makes them more intelligent. Which one will you believe? Why not try and understand what information is being presented and why? Expect a biased opinion favoring the financier. It is difficult to provide a definitive picture of long-term effects of any substance that does not actually cause physical damage. If one speaks of social damage for example, then one would have to remove the barriers of illegality and perception of a substance. Those supporting prohibition will continue to provide "evidence" of brain damage due to a substance without acknowledging other factors. if you were supporting prohibition, would you acknowledge the problems created due to prohibition itself? Your post is misleading. It is true, but under a narrow interpretation of data.
"But nothing attrocious has been committed in iraq."
So what do you call the death of over 1,000 Americans and thousands of Iraqi's? A mistake? I notice you talk a lot about "reprocutions". Yet you fail to realize that the terrorists goal is everything that goes along with "reprocutions". We are fighting terror right? So how does any form of infliction of pain (physical or mental) help prevent terror? If the wish of the U.S. is to stop terrorism, then why promote it? Soldiers are about the only Americans most Iraqi's will meet. Now how does everything going on in Iraq look to the Iraqi people? Do we need a history lesson about previous wars in Iraq and the impression it has left on the Iraqi people? They don't think the same thoughts you do. If a friend of yours was locked up in an Eskimo prison cell being treated the way Iraqi prisoners are being treated now, would you be as willing to accept that the Eskimo's just made a mistake?
"I appreciate all the protestors, they remind me that everything I am doing is right."
I seriously hope you don't actually beleive that. Do you ever think that maybe if it wasn't for the protestors that many more would die? Does imperialism mean anything to you? The Roman Empire? Napoleon? Your a soldier right? A soldier must follow orders. That is part of what is forced upon every soldier in the military, to follow orders and do it without hesitation. This is one of the major reasons for bootcamp. A soldier is a part of the military agenda, but is not involved in deciding what that agenda is. Anyway, I'm going off on tangents. The problem is, that your arguing emotion. Retaliation is an emotional subject. We could retaliate forever and ever against terrorists, because the act of retaliating helps promote terrorism. The "War on Terror" is different. We can not treat it like wars of the past. You point out all the information that supports your argument, but ignore all that is wrong with this war. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe we need no crticism. So instead I'll just happily smile when a president says we need to go to war with country X and support everything that goes along with it, or will I? That is why I am not a soldier following orders, but a citizen that questions the choices of those elected. I have nothing against soldiers. I disagree with those giving the bad orders. What each soldier decides to do during a war is another issue. And those that allow it to happen is yet another.
So tell me, what is it that your doing that is so right? And is anyone that criticizes the war wrong?
"Al-Qaeda is taking advantage of the unrest in an attempt to push its agenda, much like you're taking advantage of misquoting me to serve yours."
He didn't misquote you; he posted entire sections of what you said. Then he provided his arguments and opinions. He is only providing what you said to either back up his arguments or refute your opinions. It is now your job, if you wish, to say what you would like. But to be on the safe side, you want to avoid a flame war. Both you and some of those replying to you are ignoring each other. Take the time to keep emotional arguments to a minimum. Do not consistantly "I, I, I, and not you, so I'm right your wrong." Take the time to learn something from the person speaking, but still never forget that any facts could just be opinions or lies. But a smart person takes the time to listen to all (even those one hates or finds completely crazy) and see patterns, missing truth, and other data. I can't even come up with a person or group of people I hate. So bring some love into the equation. Don't forget the Iraqi people, the soldiers, and everyone else involved, even the contractors just working to survive (in luxury, but at a gamble?). You speak of division like Bin Laden wanted it, but proceed to divide yourself from those you argue with, and same goes to the others. A disagreement on an opinion should not become an issue about the other person, unless your running for politician. I say should not but more from a point-of-view that it causes unnecessary flame wars. If you like flame wars, then by all means continue what you were doing. I'm sorry for being harsh. I really am a nice person.