This is silly. LinuxToday had already made its fair use - it excerpted the article. The link blocking is just CMP being buttheads - which they have a right to be.
CMP can block any access to their website that they wish, however, they have no legal right to serve a message which, by statement or implication, indicates that an innocent third party has broken copyright law.
We regularly send out email that our members have agreed to receive.
Just what do you mean by "agreed to receive"? To many bulk e-mailers that means something like:
Someone else entered your e-mail address on our web form. We did not e-mail back a verification and, instead, just started bombarding you with unwanted e-mail. Don't complain to us. Complain to the random person who signed you up. No, we won't tell you who that was.
We had a sign-up form on which we, by default, checked boxes that said 'I want junk e-mail from your firm'. Those boxes were at the very bottom so you could only find them if you scrolled down -- but the "Submit" button was at the top of the screen where you couldn't miss it. By the way, we recorded your IP address and the time you hit 'submit' so we can prove that you gave us permission to e-mail you.
We bought your e-mail address from some other firm with which you did business. They had a box on their web form that said you might get mail from "affiliates" of theirs. We had 3/10 of a cent to spare, so we bought your address. Howdy!
You bought a CD from us and said we could e-mail you. So we are sending out ads on behalf of our business partners. They became "business partners" by paying us to e-mail their ads to all of our customers. If you didn't want to see ads for lower mortgage rates, then why did you by a Goo Goo Dolls CD?
The only way that a firm has legitimate permission to e-mail is when all of the following conditions are met:
1. The nature of the e-mail was described in unambiguous terms. If you e-mail ads, you did not tell the person that you wanted permission to send "important information."
2. The recipient had to actively choose to receive the e-mail -- they had to check a box, choose between yes/no, etc. You didn't, by default, check the box for them and leave it up to them to discover it.
3. Your firm sent a confirmation e-mail and the person clicked on the "yes, I want to be subscribed" link enclosed in the e-mail. That way, you know that the address belongs to the person that filled out the web form.
If you didn't meet all of those conditions, you didn't have permission.
You mean "libel." Slander is spoken, libel is written.
You are, of course, correct.
At any rate, I don't think they have libeled LinuxToday -- the claim that LT is not authorized to redistribute the content is not defamatory, it's merely incorrect.
CMP's statement implies that the content is beyond what would constitute fair use -- for otherwise, CMP would have no legal right to require 'authorization' its use.
Defamation usually requires that you know that the information is incorrect, and you intend to cause harm by publishing it.
"Actual Malice is what plaintiffs in the public eye have to prove in order to win a libel case. Actual malice is the act of publishing or broadcasting statements with prior knowledge of the inaccuracy of the statement or a reckless disregard for the truth."
The highlighting is mine. CMP's actions show a "reckless disregard for the truth" since LinuxToday has apparently been very careful to assure that their excerpts fall under fair use.
Yes, they can block who they want, but they don't have a right to determine who will have fair use rights. The message that they displayed was "Unfortunately, we cannot satisfy this particular request because it comes from a source that is not authorized to redistribute our content..." That implies that LinuxToday was violating CMP's copyright (because CMP has no legal right to decide who is 'authorized' to make fair-use excerpts. Thus, CMP has slandered LinuxToday.
On a wider scale, we have seen large corporate entities go to great lengths to prevent fair use. The RIAA and MPAA have redefined fair use and put copy protection into place to prevent fair use copying and backup. Broadcasters will have a "flag" in HDTV broadcasts that tells digital recording devices whether a broadcast can be recorded. Software companies have long fought against fair use. I just bought Unreal Tournament 2004. It uses a form of copy protection and, on top of that, requires that a "Play CD" be in the drive. You can't back up that CD using normal methods and you're hosed if it gets damaged or lost. (There were cracks out the next day, but 99% of people will never know about the cracks.)
We need laws protecting fair use before large corporations effectively quash it. Should CMP be allowed to "punish" a site for exercising their fair use rights to excerpt? I see both sides of this one, but, given the big picture of corporations deciding to prevent fair use, I have to side with LinuxToday.
Evolution is mainly chance! Yes, there is survival of the species, but there is also irreducible complexity (which I'm not going to go into here).
Probably wise as Michael Behe's "theory" has been widely panned by the scientific community. It is an example of the fallacy of conclusion by analogy:
1. A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" in that - it requires all of its parts to work properly. 2. A mousetrap is a product of design. 3. The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly. 4. Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap. 5. Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.
It is also an example of "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" or "argument from ignorance." Basically, he's arguing that, since we don't understand how something has come to be, we must assume that it is the work of God.
I suspect the vast majority of "scientific evolutionists" (including you) don't actually understand darwins logic.
Yet another uncalled-for swipe.
Yes, evolution is based on chance. Random genetic mutations occur, most of which are harmful and result in premature death while a tiny percentage are beneficial and give a survival advantage. Those individuals with those advantages are able to reproduce, passing the desirable mutation on.
Anyways, back to denmark. Could it be culture as well? Could it be that Denmarkians only get married when they feel like sticking together for the rest of their fricken lives??.
Yes, the same culture which is so sexually open and permissive may take their wedding vows more seriously. But all of this is just more evidence that showing breasts on television and in ads does not lead to the cultural decay of a society. The drastically lower rates of rape in Denmark argue strongly in favor of the idea that our preoccupation with making sexuality into something "dirty" in the U.S. is actually harmful.
not like you'll actually read it, but what the hell
I find that remark to be insulting when I have spent my time researching to provide valid numbers for this discussion.
Yes, but you fail to mention that a surprising majority of the couples in both those countrys never get married.
Let's look at Denmark:
In the U.S., there are 49 divorces per 100 marriages. In Denmark, there are only 37 divorces per 100 marriages.
The U.S. has a 50% higher rate of one-parent families than does Denmark.
The U.S. has.32 rapes per 1000 people while Denmark has.09 rapes per 1000 people, giving the U.S. a horrifying 355% higher incidence of rape.
Also, I don't see why you think that the marriage rates are so "surprising." Austria, Greece, Japan, Italy, Norway, France, Ireland, and Finland all have lower marriage rates than Denmark. Are you saying that it's all that Irish porn that's causing people to not get married in Ireland?
So is it wrong to not be married (and be having sex)? If so, by whose standards? Is their an absoloute standard?
Please don't try to bring your moral and religious views into this discussion. The claim was that the sexually repressive nature of U.S. society was leading to fewer divorces, lower incidence of teen pregnancy, lower incidence of drug use, and higher incomes with lower unemployment.
Go to personnel and tell them that you need to be able to receive emergency calls from your family and you will continue to carry the phone while at work. End of story. Don't beg. Don't grovel. Don't whine.
If they fire you over that, your job was not all that stable to begin with.
Americans, in general, are more prudish than Europeans. I personally see this as both a positive and a negative. It's a positive because it seems to be working. More married couples now are staying together rather than getting divorced, teenage pregnancy is decreasing, drug use is down, average income is up, unemployment is low (compared to most European countries), etc.
Whoa! The divorce rate is higher in the U.S. than any major European country. It's almost double the rate of Denmark and Sweden, both of which are among the most sexually open countries in the civilized world. We have a drastically higher incidence of rape in the U.S. as well as a much higher incidence of murder. Our teen pregnancy rate is far higher than that of most European nations.
As to the economics, have you seen *any* reputable studies which show a correlation between repressing sexuality and income or employment? (Okay, if some guy spends 9 hours per day yanking himself off while looking at porn, then, yes, it probably will affect his income and employment. But that's an extreme.) But having an exposed breast on TV during a shampoo commercial or a half-time show? Just what effect would airing such material have on the GNP?
I agree with most of what you said, but if the broadcast bare breast that you are referring to is the Janet Jackson breast, the nipple was NOT covered. Her nipple(s?) is/are pierced and what you saw was a stylized "sun" that was held in place by the bar through the nipple. And the nipple is clearly seen sticking out in the center of the "sun."
I guess it's safe to assume that you watched the Superbowl on TiVo.;-)
He cites the lack of focus of conglomerates and aversion to risk-taking on original brands as the heels of Warner's future downfall, suggesting of their new gaming division: 'Focused [game-only] publishers will always lead us in making the best games...
This is a man who really knows about "risk-taking on original brands." Look at the Duke Nukem brand: How risky is it to take eight or more years to release a sequel? Even "focused" game publishers like Epic Games and ID Software aren't willing to take risks like that with their flagship brands.
There are people who played Duke Nukem 3D when they were in junior high school and they've now graduated from college and there is still no sequel. There's a risk that, when/if Duke Nukem Forever is released that no one will even remember the original. If all game companies took risks like 3DRealms does, stores wouldn't need nearly so much shelf space for video games and consumers would have a much easier time of it.
Ever receive a postage-due snail mail ad?
on
Junkie Loves His Spam
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
That's like saying your against junk *snail* mail.
How can people still not get it?
When you recieve an ad via snail-mail, the sender has paid the postage. He's paid for the paper it's printed on. When you receive spam, the spammer has stolen your bandwidth, your ISP's bandwidth, your ISP's storage, administrative costs, etc. And your ISP doesn't get to bill the spammer. The ISP passes the costs on to you. When the ISP has to upgrade add more bandwidth to handle the spam, who do you think pays for that? Spammers? What about when the ISP adds on three more mail servers or another four-drive SCSI RAID array to deal with the spam? Do you think the penis enlarger guys are going to chip in to pay the costs?
Who the hell moderated the parent post as insightful? Are they giving moderator points out at crack houses?
Or am I just a prude who's getting worked up over nothing?
It depends on what, in particular, about the images of scantily clad women got you worked up. If you were just annoyed because you felt that you paid for a gaming magazine and got something else, then, no, you aren't a prude. Nor are you a prude if you were annoyed that the magazine publisher basically ignored their female readers. On the other hand, if you were upset that a semi-nude female form was in plain view, then, yes, you are a prude.
Ironically, I have to wonder if the reason for the phenomenon you point out is prudishness. Think about the absurdity of the U.S. Senate holding hearings because a breast (with the nipple covered) was shown on network television. People in Europe must think that Americans are complete, sexually-repressed, idiots. And it may be the "forbidden" nature of sex in the U.S. that makes pseudo porn (the images you mentioned, FHM, Maxim, etc.) so appealing. If U.S. beaches were topless and network television showed nudity, how much of a draw would it be to put images of "hot babes" in gaming magazines?
This is why I'm not completly against Spam, but I wish they would clearly mark it so those who don't want it won't get it and this guy will.
So you're not against spammers wasting my bandwidth with messages that I then have to filter out? You don't mind ISPs having to buy extra bandwidth, servers, and storage to deal with the spam that you aren't "completely against"? How generous of you!
Get a clue: spammers are thieves. They steal bandwidth and storage from ISPs and Internet users. Every person who pays an ISP for Internet connectivity is paying extra for the spam. Why the hell should I have to pay for spam just so that some clueless idiot can get ads promising to enlarge his undersized dick?
Throw a rider on your bill to allocate funds so that medicaid and medicare can provide chargers and rechargables to all patients using medicaid/medicare provided equiptment that can use rechargable batteries (like blood sugar monitors) and help defray the cost of lithium over alkalines for those pieces of equiptment that can't, and some fundage for providing chargers and rechargable batteries to public schools, hospitals, etc, and I might even support it, but that is one hell of a price tag.
I'll agree on the medicare/medicaid, but not the schools. It's asinine that schools are still buying, and throwing away, alkaline batteries. That's your tax dollars and mine being wasted.
Perhaps more practically, there really ought to be a public service announcement type of campaign for rechargables. I've noticed that a lot of the non-geeks around me still believe many outdated things about rechargeables.
That's reasonable, but most people just need to know that, for 99.9% of devices, rechargeables work fine. Then show them how much they will save over a year of typical use.
But even with soap, sometimes it's really a price constraint. If you've got $2 to your name and no soap and no toliet paper, it makes more sense to buy the smaller (though more expensive per unit)packages so that you can buy both. Because twice as much soap does not make up for no toliet paper, nor vice versa.
With batteries, if they can't afford rechargeables, put whatever the battery powered device is (except smoke detectors) into a drawer for a month or two. Or borrow the money from a friend or family member. It's friggin' nuts to see welfare recipients buying 8-packs of AA alkalines for $5-$6 once or twice a month. That's $60-$144 per year! They could to to Walmart and spend less than $30 for 8 Rayovac AA NiMH cells and a Rayovac charger. That would save them over $30 and maybe over $100 (depending on usage) in the first year alone.
Yet I keep reading that they only start at 1.2V-1.25V. Is my meter screwed? Am I missing something?
Yes. The 1.2V-1.25V rating is a nominal rating over the useful discharge life of the battery. Here is the data sheet on Eveready AA NiMH batteries. Look at the discharge curve and you will see that the battery quickly drops to the 1.25V range in use and stays there a long time. Now look at the Eveready alkaline AA cell data sheet and you can see that the voltage just keeps dropping off instead of remaining relatively constant. That's why NiMH batteries work so much better in digital cameras, photo flashes, etc. The alkalines quickly lose voltage while the NiMH cells keep right on to the end.
I don't know enough about walkie talkies to know if this is the case for them, but I had an ex whose vibrator was battery voltage sensitive. It was significantly stronger when one dropped in an alkaline than when one dropped in a rechargeable, though the difference didn't last all that long
Again, it's the discharge curve. They could easily put voltage regulation into them to keep them at maximum and constant performance throughout the life of the batteries. It's being done with some LED flashlights already.
Sorry for such a short reply to your message, but work calls and I must go.
You are selling it, to joe customer. Joe customer is expecting support...
No, I am not selling it to anyone. I'm being paid by my employer to develop it and my employer is selling it to Joe Customer. My employer will hire support people, installation people, etc. and keep paying me to do the creative work of writing software.
Look at it this way: Do you think that the Software Engineers who wrote Windows XP are taking customer support phone calls? Do you think that they are going to customer sites to install it? Do you think that they are adding logos to it for customers? Heck no! They're writing the next version of Windows.
Um, the actually-pretty-clear warnings about the unfitness of certain software products for life-critical applications are specifying the limitations of the product. Aren't they?
No, they aren't specifying the limitations. Limitations would be things like "this software rounds to the nearest cent" or "this software sporadically crashes when run on an Athlon 64 CPU." Saying that a given piece of software is unfit for life-critical applications is analogous to Firestone saying that their tires are unfit for use on cars transporting wealthy people. Each of those things is just an attempt to weasel out of liability.
Imagine someone suing the coders behind the Linux kernel for it locking up while controlling an aircraft.
Then maybe there should be exemptions for not-for-profit software.
"If you're ripping around at 150mph on non Z-rated tired, and one blows, it's your own damned fault, not that of the manufacturer."
The problem with your analogy is that tire manufacturers are required to specify the maximum speed rating of their tires between N (87 mph) and Y (186 mph). Note: Z is now effectively a dead designation.
The DOT/NHTSA does not allow Firestone to put a disclaimer on their tires saying that they can't be used when the failure could cause injury or death. And neither should the feds allow software publishers to do that. Specify the limitations of the product, but don't try to weasel out of liability by putting vague warnings about the use in life-critical applications. If it fails to work as advertised, then the publisher should be fully liable, regardless of how someone else used the software.
Do that, and you'll see Microsoft investing a lot more in making a stable OS rather than making bad video editors and sub-par instant messaging clients to bundle with each OS.
I'm not positive, but aren't most of these type of disclaimers saying something along the lines of "We do not give permission for this software to be used in environments where failure could result in loss of life. In the event of such unauthorized use, we will not warranty the product, nor be held accountable for any damages it may cause"?
Something like that is always in there --- so that the software companies can protect their profits without producing a quality product.
Just what is a company supposed to do when designing computerized medical equipment? Hire a team of engineers to create everything from the operating system to the GUI front-end? And people wonder why medical insurance costs so much...
Did you ever think that we should just require that software companies produce products which perform as advertised? Instead, we have companies that produce buggy software that costs people huge sums of money and the customers are stuck with no legal recourse.
Or do you think that all companies should be allowed to disclaim responsibility for the use of their products where failure can result in injury or death? Do you want a car manufacturer to have to create everything from the cotter pins to the electrical connectors on a car because no company wants the risk of being sued? If so, I hope that you've got a seven figure income to pay for that car.
Belvedere: Quiet, quiet, quiet, QUIET! There are ways of *telling* whether she is a witch! Villagers: Are there? What? Tell us, then! Tell us! Belvedere: Tell me. What do you do with witches? Villagers: BUUUURN!!!!! BUUUUUURRRRNN!!!!! You BURN them!!!! BURN!! Belvedere: And what do you burn apart from witches? Villager: More Witches! Other Villager: Wood. Belvedere: So. Why do witches burn?
(long silence) (shuffling of feet by the villagers) Villager: (tentatively) Because they're made of.....wood? Belvedere: Goooood! Other Villagers: oh yeah... oh.... Belvedere: So. How do we tell whether she is made of wood? One Villager: Build a bridge out of 'er! Belvedere: Aah. But can you not also make bridges out of stone? Villagers: oh yeah. oh. umm... Belvedere: Does wood sink in water? One Villager: No! No, no, it floats! Other Villager: Throw her into the pond! Villagers: yaaaaaa!
(when order is restored) Belvedere: What also floats in water? Villager: Bread! Another Villager: Apples! Another Villager: Uh...very small rocks! Another Villager: Cider! Another Villager: Uh...great gravy! Another Villager: Cherries! Another Villager: Mud! Another Villager: Churches! Churches! Another Villager: Lead! Lead! King Arthur: A Duck! Villagers: (in amazement) ooooooh! Belvedere: exACTly! Belvedere: (to a villager) So, *logically*... Villager: (very slowly, with pauses between each word) If...she...weighs the same as a duck......she's made of wood. Belvedere: and therefore...
(pause) Villager: A Witch! All Villagers: A WITCH!
(they do consequently weigh her across from a duck on Bedevere's largest scale, and she does indeed weigh the same as the duck.) Witch: (to camera) It's a fair cop.
Don't forget, if you plan to just write software, and sell it... You will be providing support out of your own pocket, or sell support contracts (see #x on the list). I have never seen something that was write once, sit back and watch the profits roll in, retire to Mexico.
No, I won't. I'll be paid by my employer to write software and they will hire people to install it, configure it, support it, etc.
# providing support # customization # install and maintainance # using the software to sell tangible goods # using the software to attract eyeballs for ads
You may be satisfied to spend your career doing software maintenance, support, and installation. Or maybe you don't mind becoming a sales-whore. But many of us want to develop original code and be well-compensated for it. I don't want to dedicate my career to adding corporate logos to open source software. I don't want to drive around in a 1996 Ford Aerostar van installing and configuring software in offices. I don't want to give away my software and then lose out on service contracts to seven Indian guys who share a two bedroom apartment and work for $9.50/hour.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to eke out a living that way, but I'd sure rather retain all of the rights to my intellectual property, be well paid for creating it, and leave the support, sales, and grunt work to others.
I understand the theory, but bad idea. I will not use a rechargable for things like smoke detectors -- NiCad and NiMH batteries lose charge whilst sitting. Even the new ones do, though at a lesser rate.
You are right and I was sloppy. What I really should have said is that they should ban alkaline and carbon zinc cells. A smoke detector or emergency flashlight should be equipped with lithium cells. They have a ten year shelf life and far more power than alkalines. The cost is more in line with rechargeables so the purchase decision would not be so clouded by initial cost.
OTOH, most applications are not like smoke detectors and more people should use more rechargables more of the time. It would be useful if the start up expenses weren't so high.
I've just watched for sales. The last NiMH batteries I bought were 2000mah AA cells that cost me $6.99 for four. I bought four packs. Prior to that, I stocked up at under $1 per AA from MCM electronics for 1800mah AA cells. But even Walmart has marked down four-packs of Rayovac NiMH cells to $8.97. That's the same cost as three packs of alkalines but that extra cost is paid for quickly.
Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have some sort of tax or fee on disposable batteries -- maybe like the bottle refund in some states. You could pay an extra five or ten cents and you'd get it back when you bring the batteries to be recycled.
That's something that I've considered also and I think that it's a good idea, though I'd prefer to see the lower forms of batteries (e.g., alkaline and, worse yet, carbon zinc) be eliminated. Some of the people who use disposables are those who can least afford to. They buy $3 packs of batteries five times per month rather than paying $9 for rechargeables and a one-time cost for a charger. They are the same people who buy a half-sized container of soap because it costs 30% less than the bigger size.
I can hear the free marketers all having heart attacks now, but it's less draconian (and more practical) than completely outlawing disposables, but still encourages use of rechargeables.
Capitalism doesn't deal with the "tragedy of the commons" and that's why we need government intervention. It's why we don't let industry decide how much to pollute. It's why localities have made recycling mandatory. The free market can do a lot to get you a better price on headphones or bananas, but, if anything, it tends to encourage spoilage of the environment (since it's usually easier and cheaper to pollute than not).
It would also be useful if more devices were calibrated for rechargeables. My palm gives me about four hours of heavy use before it starts flashing the annoying "your battery is dying" screen with a rechargeable, compared with 12 hours with an alkaline (generic store brand, because I'll pay a bit extra for high quality rechargeables, but I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to disposables).
I'm pretty sure it's because the Palm uses the delivered voltage to decide when the battery is dying, and the rechargeables drop below that point much faster, relative to their total life, than the akalines.
You are correct -- because they start out at a lower nominal voltage of 1.2-1.25.
I know people who gave up on putting rechargeables in their palms because they hated changing batteries three times as often. Twice as often is less annoying, and there's no reason for changing the batteries three times as often except for the calibration of the device. Other devices have this same problem. Maybe it's time to start placing a bit of pressure on the manufacturers?
Amen! All devices that can use standard (A,AA,AAA,AAAA,C,D,9V) disposable batteries should capable of using rechargea
Slashdot Mirror
This is silly. LinuxToday had already made its fair use - it excerpted the article. The link blocking is just CMP being buttheads - which they have a right to be.
CMP can block any access to their website that they wish, however, they have no legal right to serve a message which, by statement or implication, indicates that an innocent third party has broken copyright law.
These planes have a wingspan of 13 inches (33 cm)...can be launched by a single soldier
It must suck to be married. You can't even play with toy airplanes anymore.
Just what do you mean by "agreed to receive"? To many bulk e-mailers that means something like:The only way that a firm has legitimate permission to e-mail is when all of the following conditions are met:If you didn't meet all of those conditions, you didn't have permission.
You mean "libel." Slander is spoken, libel is written.
You are, of course, correct.
At any rate, I don't think they have libeled LinuxToday -- the claim that LT is not authorized to redistribute the content is not defamatory, it's merely incorrect.
CMP's statement implies that the content is beyond what would constitute fair use -- for otherwise, CMP would have no legal right to require 'authorization' its use.
Defamation usually requires that you know that the information is incorrect, and you intend to cause harm by publishing it.
From a legal standpoint, I'll refer to the University of Houston's web pages on "media libel."
"Actual Malice is what plaintiffs in the public eye have to prove in order to win a libel case. Actual malice is the act of publishing or broadcasting statements with prior knowledge of the inaccuracy of the statement or a reckless disregard for the truth."
The highlighting is mine. CMP's actions show a "reckless disregard for the truth" since LinuxToday has apparently been very careful to assure that their excerpts fall under fair use.
Yes, they can block who they want, but they don't have a right to determine who will have fair use rights. The message that they displayed was "Unfortunately, we cannot satisfy this particular request because it comes from a source that is not authorized to redistribute our content..." That implies that LinuxToday was violating CMP's copyright (because CMP has no legal right to decide who is 'authorized' to make fair-use excerpts. Thus, CMP has slandered LinuxToday.
On a wider scale, we have seen large corporate entities go to great lengths to prevent fair use. The RIAA and MPAA have redefined fair use and put copy protection into place to prevent fair use copying and backup. Broadcasters will have a "flag" in HDTV broadcasts that tells digital recording devices whether a broadcast can be recorded. Software companies have long fought against fair use. I just bought Unreal Tournament 2004. It uses a form of copy protection and, on top of that, requires that a "Play CD" be in the drive. You can't back up that CD using normal methods and you're hosed if it gets damaged or lost. (There were cracks out the next day, but 99% of people will never know about the cracks.)
We need laws protecting fair use before large corporations effectively quash it. Should CMP be allowed to "punish" a site for exercising their fair use rights to excerpt? I see both sides of this one, but, given the big picture of corporations deciding to prevent fair use, I have to side with LinuxToday.
Evolution is mainly chance! Yes, there is survival of the species, but there is also irreducible complexity (which I'm not going to go into here).
Probably wise as Michael Behe's "theory" has been widely panned by the scientific community. It is an example of the fallacy of conclusion by analogy:
1. A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" in that - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
2. A mousetrap is a product of design.
3. The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
4. Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
5. Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.
It is also an example of "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam" or "argument from ignorance." Basically, he's arguing that, since we don't understand how something has come to be, we must assume that it is the work of God.
I suspect the vast majority of "scientific evolutionists" (including you) don't actually understand darwins logic.
Yet another uncalled-for swipe.
Yes, evolution is based on chance. Random genetic mutations occur, most of which are harmful and result in premature death while a tiny percentage are beneficial and give a survival advantage. Those individuals with those advantages are able to reproduce, passing the desirable mutation on.
Anyways, back to denmark. Could it be culture as well? Could it be that Denmarkians only get married when they feel like sticking together for the rest of their fricken lives??.
Yes, the same culture which is so sexually open and permissive may take their wedding vows more seriously. But all of this is just more evidence that showing breasts on television and in ads does not lead to the cultural decay of a society. The drastically lower rates of rape in Denmark argue strongly in favor of the idea that our preoccupation with making sexuality into something "dirty" in the U.S. is actually harmful.
not like you'll actually read it, but what the hell
I find that remark to be insulting when I have spent my time researching to provide valid numbers for this discussion.
Yes, but you fail to mention that a surprising majority of the couples in both those countrys never get married.
.32 rapes per 1000 people while Denmark has .09 rapes per 1000 people, giving the U.S. a horrifying 355% higher incidence of rape.
Let's look at Denmark:
In the U.S., there are 49 divorces per 100 marriages. In Denmark, there are only 37 divorces per 100 marriages.
The U.S. has a 50% higher rate of one-parent families than does Denmark.
The U.S. has
Also, I don't see why you think that the marriage rates are so "surprising." Austria, Greece, Japan, Italy, Norway, France, Ireland, and Finland all have lower marriage rates than Denmark. Are you saying that it's all that Irish porn that's causing people to not get married in Ireland?
So is it wrong to not be married (and be having sex)? If so, by whose standards? Is their an absoloute standard?
Please don't try to bring your moral and religious views into this discussion. The claim was that the sexually repressive nature of U.S. society was leading to fewer divorces, lower incidence of teen pregnancy, lower incidence of drug use, and higher incomes with lower unemployment.
It boils down to evolution vs. God.
In other words, it's science vs. superstition.
Go to personnel and tell them that you need to be able to receive emergency calls from your family and you will continue to carry the phone while at work. End of story. Don't beg. Don't grovel. Don't whine.
If they fire you over that, your job was not all that stable to begin with.
Americans, in general, are more prudish than Europeans. I personally see this as both a positive and a negative. It's a positive because it seems to be working. More married couples now are staying together rather than getting divorced, teenage pregnancy is decreasing, drug use is down, average income is up, unemployment is low (compared to most European countries), etc.
Whoa! The divorce rate is higher in the U.S. than any major European country. It's almost double the rate of Denmark and Sweden, both of which are among the most sexually open countries in the civilized world. We have a drastically higher incidence of rape in the U.S. as well as a much higher incidence of murder. Our teen pregnancy rate is far higher than that of most European nations.
As to the economics, have you seen *any* reputable studies which show a correlation between repressing sexuality and income or employment? (Okay, if some guy spends 9 hours per day yanking himself off while looking at porn, then, yes, it probably will affect his income and employment. But that's an extreme.) But having an exposed breast on TV during a shampoo commercial or a half-time show? Just what effect would airing such material have on the GNP?
I agree with most of what you said, but if the broadcast bare breast that you are referring to is the Janet Jackson breast, the nipple was NOT covered. Her nipple(s?) is/are pierced and what you saw was a stylized "sun" that was held in place by the bar through the nipple. And the nipple is clearly seen sticking out in the center of the "sun."
;-)
I guess it's safe to assume that you watched the Superbowl on TiVo.
He cites the lack of focus of conglomerates and aversion to risk-taking on original brands as the heels of Warner's future downfall, suggesting of their new gaming division: 'Focused [game-only] publishers will always lead us in making the best games...
This is a man who really knows about "risk-taking on original brands." Look at the Duke Nukem brand: How risky is it to take eight or more years to release a sequel? Even "focused" game publishers like Epic Games and ID Software aren't willing to take risks like that with their flagship brands.
There are people who played Duke Nukem 3D when they were in junior high school and they've now graduated from college and there is still no sequel. There's a risk that, when/if Duke Nukem Forever is released that no one will even remember the original. If all game companies took risks like 3DRealms does, stores wouldn't need nearly so much shelf space for video games and consumers would have a much easier time of it.
That's like saying your against junk *snail* mail.
How can people still not get it?
When you recieve an ad via snail-mail, the sender has paid the postage. He's paid for the paper it's printed on. When you receive spam, the spammer has stolen your bandwidth, your ISP's bandwidth, your ISP's storage, administrative costs, etc. And your ISP doesn't get to bill the spammer. The ISP passes the costs on to you. When the ISP has to upgrade add more bandwidth to handle the spam, who do you think pays for that? Spammers? What about when the ISP adds on three more mail servers or another four-drive SCSI RAID array to deal with the spam? Do you think the penis enlarger guys are going to chip in to pay the costs?
Who the hell moderated the parent post as insightful? Are they giving moderator points out at crack houses?
Or am I just a prude who's getting worked up over nothing?
It depends on what, in particular, about the images of scantily clad women got you worked up. If you were just annoyed because you felt that you paid for a gaming magazine and got something else, then, no, you aren't a prude. Nor are you a prude if you were annoyed that the magazine publisher basically ignored their female readers. On the other hand, if you were upset that a semi-nude female form was in plain view, then, yes, you are a prude.
Ironically, I have to wonder if the reason for the phenomenon you point out is prudishness. Think about the absurdity of the U.S. Senate holding hearings because a breast (with the nipple covered) was shown on network television. People in Europe must think that Americans are complete, sexually-repressed, idiots. And it may be the "forbidden" nature of sex in the U.S. that makes pseudo porn (the images you mentioned, FHM, Maxim, etc.) so appealing. If U.S. beaches were topless and network television showed nudity, how much of a draw would it be to put images of "hot babes" in gaming magazines?
This is why I'm not completly against Spam, but I wish they would clearly mark it so those who don't want it won't get it and this guy will.
So you're not against spammers wasting my bandwidth with messages that I then have to filter out? You don't mind ISPs having to buy extra bandwidth, servers, and storage to deal with the spam that you aren't "completely against"? How generous of you!
Get a clue: spammers are thieves. They steal bandwidth and storage from ISPs and Internet users. Every person who pays an ISP for Internet connectivity is paying extra for the spam. Why the hell should I have to pay for spam just so that some clueless idiot can get ads promising to enlarge his undersized dick?
The first hard drive I ever bought was only 5 megabytes (no, not gigabytes). That's way smaller than the one in the article.
Throw a rider on your bill to allocate funds so that medicaid and medicare can provide chargers and rechargables to all patients using medicaid/medicare provided equiptment that can use rechargable batteries (like blood sugar monitors) and help defray the cost of lithium over alkalines for those pieces of equiptment that can't, and some fundage for providing chargers and rechargable batteries to public schools, hospitals, etc, and I might even support it, but that is one hell of a price tag.
I'll agree on the medicare/medicaid, but not the schools. It's asinine that schools are still buying, and throwing away, alkaline batteries. That's your tax dollars and mine being wasted.
Perhaps more practically, there really ought to be a public service announcement type of campaign for rechargables. I've noticed that a lot of the non-geeks around me still believe many outdated things about rechargeables.
That's reasonable, but most people just need to know that, for 99.9% of devices, rechargeables work fine. Then show them how much they will save over a year of typical use.
But even with soap, sometimes it's really a price constraint. If you've got $2 to your name and no soap and no toliet paper, it makes more sense to buy the smaller (though more expensive per unit)packages so that you can buy both. Because twice as much soap does not make up for no toliet paper, nor vice versa.
With batteries, if they can't afford rechargeables, put whatever the battery powered device is (except smoke detectors) into a drawer for a month or two. Or borrow the money from a friend or family member. It's friggin' nuts to see welfare recipients buying 8-packs of AA alkalines for $5-$6 once or twice a month. That's $60-$144 per year! They could to to Walmart and spend less than $30 for 8 Rayovac AA NiMH cells and a Rayovac charger. That would save them over $30 and maybe over $100 (depending on usage) in the first year alone.
Yet I keep reading that they only start at 1.2V-1.25V. Is my meter screwed? Am I missing something?
Yes. The 1.2V-1.25V rating is a nominal rating over the useful discharge life of the battery. Here is the data sheet on Eveready AA NiMH batteries. Look at the discharge curve and you will see that the battery quickly drops to the 1.25V range in use and stays there a long time. Now look at the Eveready alkaline AA cell data sheet and you can see that the voltage just keeps dropping off instead of remaining relatively constant. That's why NiMH batteries work so much better in digital cameras, photo flashes, etc. The alkalines quickly lose voltage while the NiMH cells keep right on to the end.
I don't know enough about walkie talkies to know if this is the case for them, but I had an ex whose vibrator was battery voltage sensitive. It was significantly stronger when one dropped in an alkaline than when one dropped in a rechargeable, though the difference didn't last all that long
Again, it's the discharge curve. They could easily put voltage regulation into them to keep them at maximum and constant performance throughout the life of the batteries. It's being done with some LED flashlights already.
Sorry for such a short reply to your message, but work calls and I must go.
You are selling it, to joe customer. Joe customer is expecting support...
No, I am not selling it to anyone. I'm being paid by my employer to develop it and my employer is selling it to Joe Customer. My employer will hire support people, installation people, etc. and keep paying me to do the creative work of writing software.
Look at it this way: Do you think that the Software Engineers who wrote Windows XP are taking customer support phone calls? Do you think that they are going to customer sites to install it? Do you think that they are adding logos to it for customers? Heck no! They're writing the next version of Windows.
Um, the actually-pretty-clear warnings about the unfitness of certain software products for life-critical applications are specifying the limitations of the product. Aren't they?
No, they aren't specifying the limitations. Limitations would be things like "this software rounds to the nearest cent" or "this software sporadically crashes when run on an Athlon 64 CPU." Saying that a given piece of software is unfit for life-critical applications is analogous to Firestone saying that their tires are unfit for use on cars transporting wealthy people. Each of those things is just an attempt to weasel out of liability.
Imagine someone suing the coders behind the Linux kernel for it locking up while controlling an aircraft.
Then maybe there should be exemptions for not-for-profit software.
You wrote:
"If you're ripping around at 150mph on non Z-rated tired, and one blows, it's your own damned fault, not that of the manufacturer."
The problem with your analogy is that tire manufacturers are required to specify the maximum speed rating of their tires between N (87 mph) and Y (186 mph). Note: Z is now effectively a dead designation.
The DOT/NHTSA does not allow Firestone to put a disclaimer on their tires saying that they can't be used when the failure could cause injury or death. And neither should the feds allow software publishers to do that. Specify the limitations of the product, but don't try to weasel out of liability by putting vague warnings about the use in life-critical applications. If it fails to work as advertised, then the publisher should be fully liable, regardless of how someone else used the software.
Do that, and you'll see Microsoft investing a lot more in making a stable OS rather than making bad video editors and sub-par instant messaging clients to bundle with each OS.
I'm not positive, but aren't most of these type of disclaimers saying something along the lines of "We do not give permission for this software to be used in environments where failure could result in loss of life. In the event of such unauthorized use, we will not warranty the product, nor be held accountable for any damages it may cause"?
Something like that is always in there --- so that the software companies can protect their profits without producing a quality product.
Just what is a company supposed to do when designing computerized medical equipment? Hire a team of engineers to create everything from the operating system to the GUI front-end? And people wonder why medical insurance costs so much...
Did you ever think that we should just require that software companies produce products which perform as advertised? Instead, we have companies that produce buggy software that costs people huge sums of money and the customers are stuck with no legal recourse.
Or do you think that all companies should be allowed to disclaim responsibility for the use of their products where failure can result in injury or death? Do you want a car manufacturer to have to create everything from the cotter pins to the electrical connectors on a car because no company wants the risk of being sued? If so, I hope that you've got a seven figure income to pay for that car.
I screwed up with a search/replace and didn't read carefully enough (the name was given as B: in the script after the first mention).
Sorry about that.
Belvedere: Quiet, quiet, quiet, QUIET! There are ways of *telling* whether she is a witch!
Villagers: Are there? What? Tell us, then! Tell us!
Belvedere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Villagers: BUUUURN!!!!! BUUUUUURRRRNN!!!!! You BURN them!!!! BURN!!
Belvedere: And what do you burn apart from witches?
Villager: More Witches!
Other Villager: Wood.
Belvedere: So. Why do witches burn?
(long silence)
(shuffling of feet by the villagers)
Villager: (tentatively) Because they're made of.....wood?
Belvedere: Goooood!
Other Villagers: oh yeah... oh....
Belvedere: So. How do we tell whether she is made of wood?
One Villager: Build a bridge out of 'er!
Belvedere: Aah. But can you not also make bridges out of stone?
Villagers: oh yeah. oh. umm...
Belvedere: Does wood sink in water?
One Villager: No! No, no, it floats!
Other Villager: Throw her into the pond!
Villagers: yaaaaaa!
(when order is restored)
Belvedere: What also floats in water?
Villager: Bread!
Another Villager: Apples!
Another Villager: Uh...very small rocks!
Another Villager: Cider!
Another Villager: Uh...great gravy!
Another Villager: Cherries!
Another Villager: Mud!
Another Villager: Churches! Churches!
Another Villager: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck!
Villagers: (in amazement) ooooooh!
Belvedere: exACTly!
Belvedere: (to a villager) So, *logically*...
Villager: (very slowly, with pauses between each word) If...she...weighs the same as a duck......she's made of wood.
Belvedere: and therefore...
(pause)
Villager: A Witch!
All Villagers: A WITCH!
(they do consequently weigh her across from a duck on Bedevere's largest scale, and she does indeed weigh the same as the duck.)
Witch: (to camera) It's a fair cop.
Don't forget, if you plan to just write software, and sell it... You will be providing support out of your own pocket, or sell support contracts (see #x on the list). I have never seen something that was write once, sit back and watch the profits roll in, retire to Mexico.
No, I won't. I'll be paid by my employer to write software and they will hire people to install it, configure it, support it, etc.
# providing support
# customization
# install and maintainance
# using the software to sell tangible goods
# using the software to attract eyeballs for ads
You may be satisfied to spend your career doing software maintenance, support, and installation. Or maybe you don't mind becoming a sales-whore. But many of us want to develop original code and be well-compensated for it. I don't want to dedicate my career to adding corporate logos to open source software. I don't want to drive around in a 1996 Ford Aerostar van installing and configuring software in offices. I don't want to give away my software and then lose out on service contracts to seven Indian guys who share a two bedroom apartment and work for $9.50/hour.
I'm not saying that it's impossible to eke out a living that way, but I'd sure rather retain all of the rights to my intellectual property, be well paid for creating it, and leave the support, sales, and grunt work to others.
I understand the theory, but bad idea. I will not use a rechargable for things like smoke detectors -- NiCad and NiMH batteries lose charge whilst sitting. Even the new ones do, though at a lesser rate.
You are right and I was sloppy. What I really should have said is that they should ban alkaline and carbon zinc cells. A smoke detector or emergency flashlight should be equipped with lithium cells. They have a ten year shelf life and far more power than alkalines. The cost is more in line with rechargeables so the purchase decision would not be so clouded by initial cost.
OTOH, most applications are not like smoke detectors and more people should use more rechargables more of the time. It would be useful if the start up expenses weren't so high.
I've just watched for sales. The last NiMH batteries I bought were 2000mah AA cells that cost me $6.99 for four. I bought four packs. Prior to that, I stocked up at under $1 per AA from MCM electronics for 1800mah AA cells. But even Walmart has marked down four-packs of Rayovac NiMH cells to $8.97. That's the same cost as three packs of alkalines but that extra cost is paid for quickly.
Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to have some sort of tax or fee on disposable batteries -- maybe like the bottle refund in some states. You could pay an extra five or ten cents and you'd get it back when you bring the batteries to be recycled.
That's something that I've considered also and I think that it's a good idea, though I'd prefer to see the lower forms of batteries (e.g., alkaline and, worse yet, carbon zinc) be eliminated. Some of the people who use disposables are those who can least afford to. They buy $3 packs of batteries five times per month rather than paying $9 for rechargeables and a one-time cost for a charger. They are the same people who buy a half-sized container of soap because it costs 30% less than the bigger size.
I can hear the free marketers all having heart attacks now, but it's less draconian (and more practical) than completely outlawing disposables, but still encourages use of rechargeables.
Capitalism doesn't deal with the "tragedy of the commons" and that's why we need government intervention. It's why we don't let industry decide how much to pollute. It's why localities have made recycling mandatory. The free market can do a lot to get you a better price on headphones or bananas, but, if anything, it tends to encourage spoilage of the environment (since it's usually easier and cheaper to pollute than not).
It would also be useful if more devices were calibrated for rechargeables. My palm gives me about four hours of heavy use before it starts flashing the annoying "your battery is dying" screen with a rechargeable, compared with 12 hours with an alkaline (generic store brand, because I'll pay a bit extra for high quality rechargeables, but I'm a cheap bastard when it comes to disposables).
If you have a true PalmOS, you might be able to calibrate it for the rechargeables.
I'm pretty sure it's because the Palm uses the delivered voltage to decide when the battery is dying, and the rechargeables drop below that point much faster, relative to their total life, than the akalines.
You are correct -- because they start out at a lower nominal voltage of 1.2-1.25.
I know people who gave up on putting rechargeables in their palms because they hated changing batteries three times as often. Twice as often is less annoying, and there's no reason for changing the batteries three times as often except for the calibration of the device. Other devices have this same problem. Maybe it's time to start placing a bit of pressure on the manufacturers?
Amen! All devices that can use standard (A,AA,AAA,AAAA,C,D,9V) disposable batteries should capable of using rechargea