I don't think any modern psychologist or psychiatrist seriously follows Freud. The most common response I've heard from psychs was, "That guy really wanted to fuck his mom, and it colored everything he did."
What he did was the moral equivalent of walking through an unlocked, unguarded door and having a look round. For this he's facing 60 years in jail. This is not justice.
And that still be breaking and entering, and you would still go to jail for a long time. My roommate accidently left the door wide open yesterday. If I found someone in my apartment, you're damn right I'd call the cops, and maybe even punch them. And you know what? I'd be in the right.
If it's not yours, you have no right to do anything to it. It's just that simple.
All it takes is one civilization to say "Screw you" to the Federation, and your Prime Directive idea is shot to hell. (Like the Romulans, or hell the Borg, gave a shit about the Prime Directive.)
Personally, I think there's no one interesting out there. We're the apex. You need sentience, intelligence, and tool use. Let's say for sake of argument that there are Space Whales with equal intelligence to humans. It doesn't matter though. No hands. No (relevant) tools. Completely undetectable, and really, not that interesting. Even if Earth whales had as much raw intelligence as humans, it doesn't matter. They have no technology at all, because in all honesty, it's not required for them to survive. In all honesty, the jury is still out on whether intelligence is viable adaptation.
Are you serious? We are such infants when it comes to science. A few hundred years, at best, of science and we have concluded that there is no way to deal with space pebbles? A race that has a few thousand or million or billion years on us will have figured out how to deal with "space shit". Your line of thinking is similar to the main story; if we can't understand or envision "how" with our VERY limited scientific knowledge, it must not exist or be possible.
Your faith in the existence long lived, superiorly intelligent, and technologically advanced alien race that has solved all problems and perhaps can even manipulate universal constants at whim is laughable. You might as well be saying, "But the pegasus riding leprechauns..."
I've been saying that for years. We're the most advanced life form around. While it may sound arrogant, we don't have any evidence to the contrary, and let's face it. Someone has to be on top, why not us?
Again, you show no understanding of what fair use actually is. It is not codified in law. It is instead an an affirmative defense, that means that the defense has the burden of proof, not the plaintiff. Each case is different, and it is up the judge using the facts as described during the trial, prior court rulings, and common law tradition. This means that the assertion that "the restrictions should be limited to those embodied in the law itself" is meaningless in the case, as there are no restrictions in the law. Even the unspoken premise that the current guidelines on what determines fair and unfair use are somehow (at least partially) extra-legal, betrays a grave misunderstanding not only the the doctrine of fair use, but of the very legal process itself.
The relevant portion of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Â 107, says:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. Â 106 and 17 U.S.C. Â 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
The Wikipedia article on fair use is a wonderful resource for understanding the difference between fair use, infringement, and plagiarism.
The examples of outrages you give, are based on the highly dubious anecdotes provided in the blurb. Anecdotes that many here have already called into question. Even your suggestion of eliminating copyright assignment in the case of (some) academic journals, isn't applicable to fair use. It's a simple change in the policy of the journal. It can be done today. Unlicensed duplication has nothing to do with copyright assignment.
On a more personal note, I suggest you really think about your arguments, because the fact that you believe that you are not understood, is a deficiency in the writing, as the burden of clarity is always on the writer. Read the wikipedia article, and then use specific examples. I seriously doubt that you will though. Instead, I expect a short jejune response.
If that's not what you're saying, then explain what you mean, because I fail to see how interpreting "no longer restricted" can mean anything other than "no restrictions whatsoever." What sort of legal regime would you want that preserves both copyright, but not have any restrictions on what and how something is copied.
Releasing works into the public domain allows them to be freely copied and modified, but citation is still demanded. (Again, copyright infringement versus plagiarism.) Which is the only thing that I see that in any way meets your goals.
Throwing around claptrap like the "information wants to be free!" and screaming "fair use" with no understanding what these words mean and the underlying mechanics of what is going on in legal realm, isn't making an argument. It's sloganeering.
I said you don't know what you're talking about because saying that "fair use should no longer be restricted" makes no sense in a copyright regime. Fair use is defined as what is permitted under copyright law that does not require the consent (i.e. a license) of the copyright holder. The exceptions to the general rule of "do not reproduce in any form" are typically made for criticism and education. While there is no hard and fast rule on what constitutes fair use versus infringement, there are statutory guidelines. The very fact that the restrictions on fair use are defined by the tension between the rights of the copyright holder to and the good to that comes from being able to reproduce reasonable amounts for context, education, and criticism means that your statement, that "[copyright] shouldn't be abolished, but fair use should no longer be restricted" is logically absurd. By removing all restrictions on fair use, you have abolished copyright. When you abolish copyright -- again by maximal expansion of fair use -- you enable wholesale reproduction of another's work. By advocating the maximal expansion of fair use, which enables wholesale reproduction, you are advocating for a regime where the wholesale reproduction of another's work is allowed.
I stand by my statement that you have no idea what you're talking about.
When I took the GRE, they made you write this big long pledge in cursive ("DO NOT PRINT"). It took me forever. It hurt my hand It hurt my arm. It was incredibly frustrating because I knew, they knew, everyone knew, that this form was just going to be turned into a checkbox and then thrown away. I hated every minute of it.
But what really prompted me to post this was seeing the eights in the 8th grade Zaner Bloser assignment linked to in the blurb. The '8' was absolutely horrible. Seeing that horrible version of the S-slash, made me think back to the first grade. Until then, I always wrote my eights as two circles, one over the other one. Then my first grade teacher started marking me, and everyone else who made eights like that, down. I can still see her in that damn salmon colored suit standing there saying, "Some of you are making eights like they're snowmen. That's wrong. The correct way is to make an S, and then draw a line connecting the ends, like this. Practice it. For now on you will make eights the right way, or they will be marked wrong."
And so I changed the way I made my eights. 25 years, I've made eights with the s-slash, mostly without even thinking. Occasionally I remember how I used to make them, and try to reclaim my eight. It never lasts long. I inevitably fall back to the s-slash. My "slave eight" if you will, and when I realize it, I die a little.
Fuck you Mrs. Scheffer. Rot in your fucking grave.
Data sets like this are always have garbage. There's the jackass that rates everything 5 stars. There's the jackass that rates everything 1 star. There's the jackass that rates the worst movies by consensus 5 stars, and vis versa.
There are 61,441,618 ratings by 478,548 unique users in the publicly available training set.
We can play this game all night. We can dream up completely impractical and ideas with no payoff because it appeals to some sort of childhood dream, or we could make actual practical plans.
Deflecting an astroid or comment isn't necessarily that hard. There are multiple proposals, many of which can be employed today.
The fact is, that even after a Chicxulub like event, Earth still infinitely more habitable than the uninhabitable Moon, or Mars.
I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the same time I see people settling the Gobi Desert. The Gobi Desert is about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper and easier to reach. Nobody ever writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well, it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's no good reason to go there and live. It's ugly, it's inhospitable and there's no way to make it pay. Mars is just the same, really. We just romanticize it because it's so hard to reach.
I heard that E-harmony includes people that are no longer active on the site in your "matches". Back when I tried eharmony, I had written to a lot of people who never wrote back. I had a decent profile and am not a freak or too bad looking, (basically your average guy) so it's more likely I was just talking to a wall.
I doubt that there was any sort of deception. Geographic distance has a lot to do with it. Also, I believe providing either too little or too much information (i.e. length of bio).
I think you're right about the selection criteria, but you left out one, physical appearance. It sounds shallow, but honestly, most people wouldn't even consider dating someone that they weren't at least somewhat physically attracted to. You may be in my age range, live right down the street, share all my interests, but if you're 400 pounds, I don't care.
While independence is a good thing, let's say there's multiple elections with multiple candidates from multiple parties, over multiple years. Each election cycle, you hide the party affiliations of the candidates and so that you are not inclined to vote for the party and not the candidate. After a few years you go back and reveal all the political affiliations of everyone you voted for. 75% of time you voted for candidates from party A, and 20% of the time from party B, and a combined 5% from parties C though Z.
You're now asked to self identify as with a political affiliation. What's your affiliation?
The majority of European scientists used to agree that the earth was flat, and at the center of the universe. The Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, and Indians knew better, evidently well before Galileo.
That's just Horwitz crap. If you look at political affiliations throughout university departments in the US, you'll find many more republicans in areas like business and economics. The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade. They're the party that tries to teach creationism. They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming. They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research. Why? Because they're for the status quo. There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.
There was an article about this very thing. Indian immigrant basketball coach pressed on ever turn over. The outcome? He's much less talented team won -- again and again -- while simultaneously pissing off the opposing coaches.
As for why this tactic isn't used at the elite levels here's one theory.
No the better analogy would be playing basketball the other players have decided that you shouldn't pass the ball. Or playing chess where each piece only moves one space.
How is teleporting people in front of NPC bots designed to enforce a safe zone instead of beating someone up yourself "playing correctly?" Especially when he was attacking people who didn't want to PVP by abusing a mechanism intended to protect people who didn't want to PVP?
"Designed to enforce a safe zone?" Where are you getting that? The robots kill people. If they were to create a safe zone, you wouldn't have the robots, you'd have a shield that prevented anyone from entering or leaving. But that's not what they do. They kill people. They kill whoever gets in front of them. You're supposed to kill people. He killed people in the most efficient way possible. This wasn't exploiting some bug. This wasn't using some cheat. This is just using an established tool in a novel way to achieve the stated objective.
Especially when he was attacking people who didn't want to PVP by abusing a mechanism intended to protect people who didn't want to PVP?
If you don't want to PvP don't join the PvP server! It's just that simple. You decide to go somewhere where the stated objective of going there is to kill or be killed, and then you whine when you're killed? Grow up.
So, a researcher enters a foreign land. He obeys the strict letter of the law, but ignores the customs and rules of polite behavior.
He had been playing since the game came out in 2004. He knew the customs, he knew the rules. He played the game as designed. He was a hero who defeated villains in a PvP server. He played the game correctly, while everyone else wasn't.
This is the thing with MMOs and really modern gamers. People lament that you can't actually role play in a computer RPG, but here's a guy doing that, and he's an outcast. Heros don't hang out and chat with villains. They fight. What we have here was people that didn't actually want to play the game. They just wanted to rack up (dubious) "achievements".
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think any modern psychologist or psychiatrist seriously follows Freud. The most common response I've heard from psychs was, "That guy really wanted to fuck his mom, and it colored everything he did."
And that still be breaking and entering, and you would still go to jail for a long time. My roommate accidently left the door wide open yesterday. If I found someone in my apartment, you're damn right I'd call the cops, and maybe even punch them. And you know what? I'd be in the right.
If it's not yours, you have no right to do anything to it. It's just that simple.
Self diagnosed no doubt.
All it takes is one civilization to say "Screw you" to the Federation, and your Prime Directive idea is shot to hell. (Like the Romulans, or hell the Borg, gave a shit about the Prime Directive.)
Personally, I think there's no one interesting out there. We're the apex. You need sentience, intelligence, and tool use. Let's say for sake of argument that there are Space Whales with equal intelligence to humans. It doesn't matter though. No hands. No (relevant) tools. Completely undetectable, and really, not that interesting. Even if Earth whales had as much raw intelligence as humans, it doesn't matter. They have no technology at all, because in all honesty, it's not required for them to survive. In all honesty, the jury is still out on whether intelligence is viable adaptation.
Your faith in the existence long lived, superiorly intelligent, and technologically advanced alien race that has solved all problems and perhaps can even manipulate universal constants at whim is laughable. You might as well be saying, "But the pegasus riding leprechauns..."
I've been saying that for years. We're the most advanced life form around. While it may sound arrogant, we don't have any evidence to the contrary, and let's face it. Someone has to be on top, why not us?
Oh yeah, that's too depressing.
Again, you show no understanding of what fair use actually is. It is not codified in law. It is instead an an affirmative defense , that means that the defense has the burden of proof, not the plaintiff. Each case is different, and it is up the judge using the facts as described during the trial, prior court rulings, and common law tradition. This means that the assertion that "the restrictions should be limited to those embodied in the law itself" is meaningless in the case, as there are no restrictions in the law. Even the unspoken premise that the current guidelines on what determines fair and unfair use are somehow (at least partially) extra-legal, betrays a grave misunderstanding not only the the doctrine of fair use, but of the very legal process itself.
The relevant portion of the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. Â 107, says:
The Wikipedia article on fair use is a wonderful resource for understanding the difference between fair use, infringement, and plagiarism.
The examples of outrages you give, are based on the highly dubious anecdotes provided in the blurb. Anecdotes that many here have already called into question. Even your suggestion of eliminating copyright assignment in the case of (some) academic journals, isn't applicable to fair use. It's a simple change in the policy of the journal. It can be done today. Unlicensed duplication has nothing to do with copyright assignment.
On a more personal note, I suggest you really think about your arguments, because the fact that you believe that you are not understood, is a deficiency in the writing, as the burden of clarity is always on the writer. Read the wikipedia article, and then use specific examples. I seriously doubt that you will though. Instead, I expect a short jejune response.
If that's not what you're saying, then explain what you mean, because I fail to see how interpreting "no longer restricted" can mean anything other than "no restrictions whatsoever." What sort of legal regime would you want that preserves both copyright, but not have any restrictions on what and how something is copied.
Releasing works into the public domain allows them to be freely copied and modified, but citation is still demanded. (Again, copyright infringement versus plagiarism.) Which is the only thing that I see that in any way meets your goals.
Throwing around claptrap like the "information wants to be free!" and screaming "fair use" with no understanding what these words mean and the underlying mechanics of what is going on in legal realm, isn't making an argument. It's sloganeering.
I'm the AC.
I said you don't know what you're talking about because saying that "fair use should no longer be restricted" makes no sense in a copyright regime. Fair use is defined as what is permitted under copyright law that does not require the consent (i.e. a license) of the copyright holder. The exceptions to the general rule of "do not reproduce in any form" are typically made for criticism and education. While there is no hard and fast rule on what constitutes fair use versus infringement, there are statutory guidelines. The very fact that the restrictions on fair use are defined by the tension between the rights of the copyright holder to and the good to that comes from being able to reproduce reasonable amounts for context, education, and criticism means that your statement, that "[copyright] shouldn't be abolished, but fair use should no longer be restricted" is logically absurd. By removing all restrictions on fair use, you have abolished copyright. When you abolish copyright -- again by maximal expansion of fair use -- you enable wholesale reproduction of another's work. By advocating the maximal expansion of fair use, which enables wholesale reproduction, you are advocating for a regime where the wholesale reproduction of another's work is allowed.
I stand by my statement that you have no idea what you're talking about.
When I took the GRE, they made you write this big long pledge in cursive ("DO NOT PRINT"). It took me forever. It hurt my hand It hurt my arm. It was incredibly frustrating because I knew, they knew, everyone knew, that this form was just going to be turned into a checkbox and then thrown away. I hated every minute of it.
But what really prompted me to post this was seeing the eights in the 8th grade Zaner Bloser assignment linked to in the blurb. The '8' was absolutely horrible. Seeing that horrible version of the S-slash, made me think back to the first grade. Until then, I always wrote my eights as two circles, one over the other one. Then my first grade teacher started marking me, and everyone else who made eights like that, down. I can still see her in that damn salmon colored suit standing there saying, "Some of you are making eights like they're snowmen. That's wrong. The correct way is to make an S, and then draw a line connecting the ends, like this. Practice it. For now on you will make eights the right way, or they will be marked wrong."
And so I changed the way I made my eights. 25 years, I've made eights with the s-slash, mostly without even thinking. Occasionally I remember how I used to make them, and try to reclaim my eight. It never lasts long. I inevitably fall back to the s-slash. My "slave eight" if you will, and when I realize it, I die a little.
Fuck you Mrs. Scheffer. Rot in your fucking grave.
Data sets like this are always have garbage. There's the jackass that rates everything 5 stars. There's the jackass that rates everything 1 star. There's the jackass that rates the worst movies by consensus 5 stars, and vis versa.
There are 61,441,618 ratings by 478,548 unique users in the publicly available training set.
It just doesn't matter.
And when the universe reaches maximum entropy?
We can play this game all night. We can dream up completely impractical and ideas with no payoff because it appeals to some sort of childhood dream, or we could make actual practical plans.
Deflecting an astroid or comment isn't necessarily that hard. There are multiple proposals, many of which can be employed today.
The fact is, that even after a Chicxulub like event, Earth still infinitely more habitable than the uninhabitable Moon, or Mars.
I suggest you remember what Bruce Sterling said about this:
How did you setup time machine to do that, since it doesn't work out of the box like that.
I doubt that there was any sort of deception. Geographic distance has a lot to do with it. Also, I believe providing either too little or too much information (i.e. length of bio).
I think you're right about the selection criteria, but you left out one, physical appearance. It sounds shallow, but honestly, most people wouldn't even consider dating someone that they weren't at least somewhat physically attracted to. You may be in my age range, live right down the street, share all my interests, but if you're 400 pounds, I don't care.
Photos are important.
And when the sun expands to a red giant, what then?
It's not a "preconceived" if there's evidence for it.
While independence is a good thing, let's say there's multiple elections with multiple candidates from multiple parties, over multiple years. Each election cycle, you hide the party affiliations of the candidates and so that you are not inclined to vote for the party and not the candidate. After a few years you go back and reveal all the political affiliations of everyone you voted for. 75% of time you voted for candidates from party A, and 20% of the time from party B, and a combined 5% from parties C though Z.
You're now asked to self identify as with a political affiliation. What's your affiliation?
Someone better tell that to Eratosthenes.
That's just Horwitz crap. If you look at political affiliations throughout university departments in the US, you'll find many more republicans in areas like business and economics. The real problem with scientists and the gop is that the gop has for the last 20 years engaged in an antiscience crusade. They're the party that tries to teach creationism. They're the party that denies the overwhelming evidence of man made global warming. They're the party that band the creation of useful stem cell lines for research. Why? Because they're for the status quo. There's simply no reason why anyone who even has a passing interest in the advancement of science should vote republican.
There was an article about this very thing. Indian immigrant basketball coach pressed on ever turn over.
The outcome? He's much less talented team won -- again and again -- while simultaneously pissing off the opposing coaches.
As for why this tactic isn't used at the elite levels here's one theory.
No the better analogy would be playing basketball the other players have decided that you shouldn't pass the ball. Or playing chess where each piece only moves one space.
"Designed to enforce a safe zone?" Where are you getting that? The robots kill people. If they were to create a safe zone, you wouldn't have the robots, you'd have a shield that prevented anyone from entering or leaving. But that's not what they do. They kill people. They kill whoever gets in front of them. You're supposed to kill people. He killed people in the most efficient way possible. This wasn't exploiting some bug. This wasn't using some cheat. This is just using an established tool in a novel way to achieve the stated objective.
If you don't want to PvP don't join the PvP server! It's just that simple. You decide to go somewhere where the stated objective of going there is to kill or be killed, and then you whine when you're killed? Grow up.
He had been playing since the game came out in 2004. He knew the customs, he knew the rules. He played the game as designed. He was a hero who defeated villains in a PvP server. He played the game correctly, while everyone else wasn't.
This is the thing with MMOs and really modern gamers. People lament that you can't actually role play in a computer RPG, but here's a guy doing that, and he's an outcast. Heros don't hang out and chat with villains. They fight. What we have here was people that didn't actually want to play the game. They just wanted to rack up (dubious) "achievements".
The prof did exactly right.
Fixed it for you.