oh, crap! Nobody ever told me that environmental responsibility has a downside. I'm not going to support anything that can, in any way, inconvenience me or anyone I care about. Now, excuse me, someone just told me that my grandfather's diabetes medication costs money. I have to prevent him from taking it.
Actually, I suspect that "bait terms" like copyfraud, are more likely to be in the media, and more likely to get people's attention and cooperation, than some suggestion that we all ditch iTunes, etc... . But I would also agree with another poster, that digital content does cost money to produce. I had no problem buying a digital copy of Freakonomics a few years back, because Levitt and Dubner should be compensated for their work. If you want to talk about the children of an author who has been dead for twenty years, that is a different story, however.
WTF?!? That's exactly what almost ALL laws do. I'm so sick of hearing, "We can't Legislate Morality." That's bull-shit. We do it all the fucking time.
We do it when we outlaw prostitution, marijuana, and through blue laws (all of which I disagree with), but, laws can exist to preserve fundamental rights, or to create what our founders referred to as "a more perfect union". If you steal, then you are depriving others of their right to own property. The original justification of copyright law was to promote the arts and sciences. Morality had nothing to do with it. . As for the claim that cap & trade is legislating morality, I think environmentalism is more about saying you don't have the right to screw up public resources, whether it be by dumping toxic chemicals in lakes and rivers, or by polluting the sky. morality has nothing to do with it.
If you can't think of a reason we need it, and you keep it, then isn't that security theater?
I think it's quite arrogant to assume that if you can't figure out a reason, no one else can either. The guy is a usability expert not a security expert, that's where the alarm bells should go off.
Of course. It is a logical fallacy to make that assumption. But, it is superstition to keep a security feature if nobody understands why it exists.
I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open. Nintendo is just covering their ass.
How? If Atari violates the GPL and has to release their source code, how does that hurt Nintendo?
Why shouldn't you use information from Wikipedia with no cited sources?
I hope you're being sarcastic. If you have a source, then you have accountability. You may not be able to sue someone or have them arrested, but you at least have a name, and a person's reputation being staked on the accuracy of the work. In the case of Wikipedia, you MAY have a citation.
Why can't Wikipedia be the source?
Think of it this way. Someone publishes a paper or a college level manual, or conducts an interview. The person is the primary source of information on what they did. As such, which would you rather have, their account, or a summary of their account? Wikipedia is, at best, secondhand information. . Don't get me wrong, I use Wikipedia all the time, but if I were doing a research paper, I would use it only to get a grasp on the basics of the subject.
Does the same go for citing from Encyclopedia Britannica?
We don't all have to start our own companies, but if we were all just as productive in our respective fields, we probably would already have synthetic liver replacements. We might have green coal plants. We might have more efficient ways to grow food
As a French person, I resent what the author is implying. Defau(l)t is a french word. It means "inaction", "failure", or "inactive state". And if anybody invented "inaction", we certainly did. We have prior art. It's part of our cultural heritage. And you guys, you were just lucky that we even taught it to Great Britain in the twelve century, for without that specialized knowledge, that special concept of defaults would never even have arrived in America!!
I'm not against the green thing, but you do have a good point. Most of us would have to take out a loan to come up with that $38,000. So, let's say it was 5% interest. On the first year, $1,900 of that 3,000 would go toward paying interest, and the remaining $1,100 would go toward the principal. I'm not a banker but it seems like it would take about twenty years, if you assumed a fixed 5% APR. That is assuming no additional insurance and no maintenance or repair costs.
It'd seem having massive wind turbines would slow down the movement of air, which might lead to scenarios where the current global warming scare would be merely a trifle.
So, we should continue heading in the wrong direction, because if we take a single step in another direction, then it may lead to five million more, which could be just as bad as what we're doing now. So, yay, status quo!
...They claim marijuana's a depressant. The government claims it's a hallucinogen. English teachers claim you should divide your thoughts into segments, known as paragraphs. Science claims it's medicine...
Does anybody really think it needs to be kept legal for economic reasons? I'm sure there are a few people who work as prison guards, contractors, etc, but you'd have to be retarded to honestly believe it helps the economy. We're spending an incredible amount of tax dollars to remove productive people from the job market and support them on the dumbest welfare program imaginable.
This has got to be about politicians not having the guts to say "I don't care if the other guy accuses me of trying to get your kids stoned, and I don't care if this makes me look weak on crime". No politician is ready to do that, yet.
There is a reason why Chivalry is measured by knights and manners.
I'd be willing to bet that a modern woman would rather live in the US with our modern day "brutes", than in the dark ages with "chivalrous knights". I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't all King Arthur fairy tales.
Freedom and Government are ultimately contradictory ideas. I'm not promoting anarchy, but I am suggesting that Freedom is one of the trade-offs that we make to live in a civilized society. The only real argument is about people who take trade-offs that they consider to be acceptable and assume that those do not infringe upon "freedom" (it isn't slavery if I have to work to support the fire department, but it is morally wrong if I have to work to support social security).
I don't know where you are getting your "facts" from, but you should never use that source again. here is the AMA position on the use of placebos. As for your statement that all drugs are psychosomatic, that is just patently rediculous. Another poster had mentioned antibiotics, and cancer drugs. Then there are also blood thinners, such as aspirin, blood clotting agents, insulin, and a wide range. The one example you gave was an antidepressant. I would be surprised to see an antidepressant that worked without some neurochemistry explanation.
But you are right about one thing. Doctors do often give out placebos. THe AMA is against it, and it is against their code of conduct, because it "may undermine trust, compromise the patient-physician relationship, and result in medical harm to the patient."
Of course, they do say it is ok, if the patient knows he or she is, or may be, receiving a placebo, but they make it clear that this is not meant to be a substitute for medication.
But the problem is, how direct must the harm be? If we could figure out exactly what caused the market meltdown that we have had lately, would it not make sense to outlaw that? Now, we may argue about whether it is sufficiently proven that the deregulation of the market caused the metldown, or that CO2 causes global warming, but the point remains the same. Many of the nanny state regulations exist to protect society at large.
IANA doctor, but you need to be corrected for some of the blaring misconceptions you have.
the interesting thing is that the placebo effect (which you are basically describing) is a very well documented medical fact. in some studies the placebo is actually more effective than the drug being tested,
No, it isn't When the drug being tested is less effective than the placebo, then that means it is not effective.
and its not because the drug sucks or that people are faking it. there is a huge misconception and stigma surrounding placebos. MDs prescribe them regularly.
And when they do, it's called "FRAUD". Again, IANA doctor, but placebos only work if the patient doesn't know they getting snake oil. Doctors could get disbarred for doing what you say they're doing.
they _WORK_ . sure, its basically fooling your brain,
There's more to it than that. People taking medication often alter their behavior, eating better, exercising more, and doing all the things their doctor keeps telling them they should be doing. That's a big part of why taking a sugar pill is more effective than simply doing nothing.
but whats wrong with that?
See the fraud statement before. You're telling the patient to buy something he doesn't need. That expense is being passed on to the insurance company. Do you think they would simply shell out the money and go on?
placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.
You don't have to own a telegraph machine to receive a telegraph, and there is no law saying you can't run out and buy a telegraph machine.
The point is that, it is passive aggressive for either person to say "you will communicate with me on my terms". It doesn't matter what those terms are, or if either party has equipment that facilitates the transfer.
Slashdot Mirror
oh, crap! Nobody ever told me that environmental responsibility has a downside. I'm not going to support anything that can, in any way, inconvenience me or anyone I care about. Now, excuse me, someone just told me that my grandfather's diabetes medication costs money. I have to prevent him from taking it.
Actually, I suspect that "bait terms" like copyfraud, are more likely to be in the media, and more likely to get people's attention and cooperation, than some suggestion that we all ditch iTunes, etc...
.
But I would also agree with another poster, that digital content does cost money to produce. I had no problem buying a digital copy of Freakonomics a few years back, because Levitt and Dubner should be compensated for their work. If you want to talk about the children of an author who has been dead for twenty years, that is a different story, however.
WTF?!? That's exactly what almost ALL laws do. I'm so sick of hearing, "We can't Legislate Morality." That's bull-shit. We do it all the fucking time.
We do it when we outlaw prostitution, marijuana, and through blue laws (all of which I disagree with), but, laws can exist to preserve fundamental rights, or to create what our founders referred to as "a more perfect union". If you steal, then you are depriving others of their right to own property. The original justification of copyright law was to promote the arts and sciences. Morality had nothing to do with it.
.
As for the claim that cap & trade is legislating morality, I think environmentalism is more about saying you don't have the right to screw up public resources, whether it be by dumping toxic chemicals in lakes and rivers, or by polluting the sky. morality has nothing to do with it.
It just struck me reading that... it must really, REALLY suck being the first person to ever have a particular disease.
What if we have it backwards?
What if she is the first person not to have the disease we all have and that she is aging but really really slow?
So in 100 years she will have the body of an 18 year old?!
If she currently has the intellect of a four year old, then I am not too optimistic about her ever living a normal life.
If you can't think of a reason we need it, and you keep it, then isn't that security theater?
I think it's quite arrogant to assume that if you can't figure out a reason, no one else can either. The guy is a usability expert not a security expert, that's where the alarm bells should go off.
Of course. It is a logical fallacy to make that assumption. But, it is superstition to keep a security feature if nobody understands why it exists.
I can't think why we need this (standard) security measure, so let's drop it.
If you can't think of a reason we need it, and you keep it, then isn't that security theater?
I know why they did it, there has been a constant worry from closed-source developers that the GPL would force closed source code open. Nintendo is just covering their ass.
How? If Atari violates the GPL and has to release their source code, how does that hurt Nintendo?
Why shouldn't you use information from Wikipedia with no cited sources?
I hope you're being sarcastic. If you have a source, then you have accountability. You may not be able to sue someone or have them arrested, but you at least have a name, and a person's reputation being staked on the accuracy of the work. In the case of Wikipedia, you MAY have a citation.
Why can't Wikipedia be the source?
Think of it this way. Someone publishes a paper or a college level manual, or conducts an interview. The person is the primary source of information on what they did. As such, which would you rather have, their account, or a summary of their account? Wikipedia is, at best, secondhand information.
.
Don't get me wrong, I use Wikipedia all the time, but if I were doing a research paper, I would use it only to get a grasp on the basics of the subject.
Does the same go for citing from Encyclopedia Britannica?
Yes.
Steve Jobs is another example of how wealth buys health and an easy life.
Yeah, cause being rich kept him from getting pancreatic cancer in the first place, right?
Oh, wait.
-jcr
WTF? So, your standard of fairness is that anything goes as long as rich people are not immune to disease?
We don't all have to start our own companies, but if we were all just as productive in our respective fields, we probably would already have synthetic liver replacements. We might have green coal plants. We might have more efficient ways to grow food
But could we keep our two-button mice?
As a French person, I resent what the author is implying. Defau(l)t is a french word. It means "inaction", "failure", or "inactive state". And if anybody invented "inaction", we certainly did. We have prior art. It's part of our cultural heritage. And you guys, you were just lucky that we even taught it to Great Britain in the twelve century, for without that specialized knowledge, that special concept of defaults would never even have arrived in America!!
You may have invented it, but we perfected it!
I'm not against the green thing, but you do have a good point. Most of us would have to take out a loan to come up with that $38,000. So, let's say it was 5% interest. On the first year, $1,900 of that 3,000 would go toward paying interest, and the remaining $1,100 would go toward the principal. I'm not a banker but it seems like it would take about twenty years, if you assumed a fixed 5% APR. That is assuming no additional insurance and no maintenance or repair costs.
It'd seem having massive wind turbines would slow down the movement of air, which might lead to scenarios where the current global warming scare would be merely a trifle.
So, we should continue heading in the wrong direction, because if we take a single step in another direction, then it may lead to five million more, which could be just as bad as what we're doing now. So, yay, status quo!
Leave Fouad alone! He's trying the best he can.
Oops. I guess the GP should have read:
...They claim marijuana's a depressant. The government claims it's a hallucinogen. English teachers claim you should divide your thoughts into segments, known as paragraphs. Science claims it's medicine...
Does anybody really think it needs to be kept legal for economic reasons? I'm sure there are a few people who work as prison guards, contractors, etc, but you'd have to be retarded to honestly believe it helps the economy. We're spending an incredible amount of tax dollars to remove productive people from the job market and support them on the dumbest welfare program imaginable.
This has got to be about politicians not having the guts to say "I don't care if the other guy accuses me of trying to get your kids stoned, and I don't care if this makes me look weak on crime". No politician is ready to do that, yet.
There is a reason why Chivalry is measured by knights and manners.
I'd be willing to bet that a modern woman would rather live in the US with our modern day "brutes", than in the dark ages with "chivalrous knights". I'm not a historian, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't all King Arthur fairy tales.
Freedom and Government are ultimately contradictory ideas. I'm not promoting anarchy, but I am suggesting that Freedom is one of the trade-offs that we make to live in a civilized society. The only real argument is about people who take trade-offs that they consider to be acceptable and assume that those do not infringe upon "freedom" (it isn't slavery if I have to work to support the fire department, but it is morally wrong if I have to work to support social security).
Mod parent up.
F/OSS works in a survival of the fittest fashion. In such a scenario, a diverse "gene pool" is more beneficial.
I think that OP's point was that it is much easier to just abandon F/OSS and do everything through proprietary software.
I don't know where you are getting your "facts" from, but you should never use that source again. here is the AMA position on the use of placebos. As for your statement that all drugs are psychosomatic, that is just patently rediculous. Another poster had mentioned antibiotics, and cancer drugs. Then there are also blood thinners, such as aspirin, blood clotting agents, insulin, and a wide range. The one example you gave was an antidepressant. I would be surprised to see an antidepressant that worked without some neurochemistry explanation.
But you are right about one thing. Doctors do often give out placebos. THe AMA is against it, and it is against their code of conduct, because it "may undermine trust, compromise the patient-physician relationship, and result in medical harm to the patient."
Of course, they do say it is ok, if the patient knows he or she is, or may be, receiving a placebo, but they make it clear that this is not meant to be a substitute for medication.
But the problem is, how direct must the harm be? If we could figure out exactly what caused the market meltdown that we have had lately, would it not make sense to outlaw that? Now, we may argue about whether it is sufficiently proven that the deregulation of the market caused the metldown, or that CO2 causes global warming, but the point remains the same. Many of the nanny state regulations exist to protect society at large.
IANA doctor, but you need to be corrected for some of the blaring misconceptions you have.
the interesting thing is that the placebo effect (which you are basically describing) is a very well documented medical fact. in some studies the placebo is actually more effective than the drug being tested,
No, it isn't When the drug being tested is less effective than the placebo, then that means it is not effective.
and its not because the drug sucks or that people are faking it. there is a huge misconception and stigma surrounding placebos. MDs prescribe them regularly.
And when they do, it's called "FRAUD". Again, IANA doctor, but placebos only work if the patient doesn't know they getting snake oil. Doctors could get disbarred for doing what you say they're doing.
they _WORK_ . sure, its basically fooling your brain,
There's more to it than that. People taking medication often alter their behavior, eating better, exercising more, and doing all the things their doctor keeps telling them they should be doing. That's a big part of why taking a sugar pill is more effective than simply doing nothing.
but whats wrong with that?
See the fraud statement before. You're telling the patient to buy something he doesn't need. That expense is being passed on to the insurance company. Do you think they would simply shell out the money and go on?
placebos should be preferred as they dont have side effects.
They don't have normal effects either.
You don't have to own a telegraph machine to receive a telegraph, and there is no law saying you can't run out and buy a telegraph machine.
The point is that, it is passive aggressive for either person to say "you will communicate with me on my terms". It doesn't matter what those terms are, or if either party has equipment that facilitates the transfer.
There always will be. The difference is that, with regulation, there is a loophole somewhere. With deregulation, there are loopholes everywhere.
With deregulation there are no loopholes, there are only loopholes when there are regulations.
And if there were no laws, there would be no crime.