Standard deviation is what you learn very early in school.
So early in fact that by you forget the details by the time you have had some serious study under your belt. Do you have any idea of the stuff you have to keep in your head to be an endocrinologist? So long as he remembers that it's a measure of variance (which he obviously does), it hardly matters whether he can explain to a mathematician how to derive it? And if OP gets off tripping up specialists with such minutae it ain't the specialist who has issues.
And you are telling me that it's not his "job" to know?
YMMV, but I would prefer to visit an endocrinologist who was an expert on the subject of hormones etc rather than stats.
In theory, no, it is not a big problem. Except for 95% of the population who cannot afford adequate legal representation.
That's a hard statement to reconcile with the recent surge in litigation in Australia. Even so, this is not an area of law that will affect 95% of the population,remember, it's the government that's the potential defendant here.
Now there is potentially a problem with standing. Australia does not have as liberal a concept of amicus curiae as exists in the US, and the most obvious potential applicants will likely (though not inevitably) be overseas (since the is a national firewall). This problem, however, is nowhere as insurmountable as the problem posed by a secret list not subject to judicial oversight.
Everyone has pictures of their child in various amounts of clothing.
We are talking about challenging an administrative decision to list a particular website. How is this is relevant?
With the legal fees of even a short trial easily going into the tens of thousands of dollars as you are pitted against the LIMITLESS resources of the government, even if you win, you lose.
In Australia the losing party bears the court costs of both parties by default. As a practical matter this would probably come before the AAT which is a relatively inexpensive forum.
Sorry, but judicial oversight, at least in court systems like those of the US, is simply no longer a valid protection.
RC material can be perfectly legal, but it will still be blocked.
It's illegal to show RC material, it's illegal to sell RC material. It seems odd to describe RC material as "perfectly legal." And it seems odd to describe material blocked by force of law, as "perfectly legal."
So if the majority of the population think censorship is okay, it becomes okay?
As a matter of law, since the public have decided not to restrict the legislature with regard to rights such as freedom of speech, the Australian public is free to have their parliament enact a regime of censorship. You'll note that I wrote that I cannot object "on democratic grounds alone." Those words did not accidentally slip from my keyboard.
Sorry, but individuals should NOT be subjected to a tyranny of the majority.
I agree, democracy is the worst from of government! Except, as Churchill pointed out, for all the other systems that have been tried. The choice (well it isn't) is to be subject to the will of the majority (at least in theory), or to be subject to the will of a minority, or a single man or book. In fact you are constantly subject to the will of the (theoretical) majority. But perhaps you live somewhere where a right has been conceded in relation to freedom of speech.
If someone wants to look at something that 99% of the population find offensive, he should still have that right.
Where does he get that right from? Remember rights aren't god given or natural, they are historically a concession from those who hold power. Where a People is sovereign, if the people does not give a person a particular right, that person does not have it. What an individual does have, under our legal system is the right (a concession originally from the King), to have their individual case heard based on laws of universal application, not based on their personal popularity of that person or the majority's disposition towards them. Outside that any right you think you have that protects you from the sovereign (whether this be the majority of the public or a dictator) is a mere fantasy.
A censorship system controlled by the people would be subject to personal and public tastes and prejudices and not in the public's best interest.
What is in the public's best interest is for the majority constituted as a public to decide. Which is not to say they decide well. As Spike Milligan put it so aptly, "in a democracy the people get the government they deserve, and I get the government they deserve too!"
As for gray area cases, so far all the judges can come up with to define obscenity is "I know it when I see it."
That's American law for you. But I don't believe it's relevant here. It is my understanding (and I'm open to correction) that in reviewing classification what judges, or administrative tribunal members, are deciding is not whether an item is "obscene," per se, but whether it depicts violent sexuality, promotes drug use etc etc.
How are people who want to create borderline art supposed to work with that?
If anyone wants to create boderline art, surely they absolutely require there to be a censorship regime? It's a of a waste of time working in that area if your work doesn't get banned. But look, actually I agree with you here, artists have an unfairly tough time of it when some morals crusader along with the Murdoch press sets their sights on them.
[W]e need a system of hard, bright lines. No censorship at all, no illegal numbers and no illegal works is a good place to start.
Unfortunately the great "We," don't want those particular lines (as much as the simple do like "hard and bright"). In my experience even people who argue against censorship balk at the idea of child porn openly for sale at the local supermarket.
Now if material is "refused classification", that's slightly different. That then becomes a matter of state law
Not just state law. The Classification Board and Classification Review Board act under the aegis of the Federal Attorney General's Dept. But yes, the states are free to enact their own control regimes.
This IS censorship, and the whole idea of refusing a work classification is offensive. This is material which hasn't broken any laws, but which has been deemed offensive by a review board.
Not so. The refusal of classification has to be made on strictly legal grounds. Either the material has broken laws (by depicting violent sexuality, promoting drug use &tc.), or the decision of the Board is wrong. And the classification scheme is, as you say above, but in regard to prohibited material, "subject to public oversight." Conroy's secret censorship proposal would (dare I still use the modal verb) not be!
Now I happen to think that the legal criteria for restriction are misguided, (I don't actually feel threatened by pot-smoking BDSMers), but that's a different question from the offensiveness of refusing classification per se.
Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between "blocking illegal material", blocking material that is "refused classification" and "censorship"? From where I sit, if I can't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference, well... that material has been censored. What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant: I cannot get to it.
It may be irrelevant to you, however to those of us who worry about democratic process, the fact that the classification is the result of an arbitrary decision, as opposed to a decision made lawfully and subject to public scrutiny, matters a whole lot!
To answer you question, I believe the OP is trying to draw a distinction between down-right prohibited material (the canonical example of which is child porn), and material which on a case to case basis has been refused classification. The effect of an RC decision is, I believe (and I claim no special knowledge of this branch of law), that it is illegal publicly to show, or to offer for sale (and possibly even to import) such material. It is indeed a form of censorship.
As a "dimwitted American":) (I'm quoting you in good humour, no offence intended) what you might not know is that the Australian public has at every opportunity resisted the introduction of a Bill of Rights into our Constitution (and it is the people alone, not the parliament, who have to power to amend that document). And I'm in the minority who want such a Bill. As such the Australian public are not restricted from coming to a democratic decision, via our parliament, to enact (or approve of) a regime of censorship.
Even though I'm in the minority I can't object to that on democratic grounds alone (well I can if it involves censorship of political speech... but I digress). What I can object to, however, is that it be an arbitrary regime. That is inconsistent with the rule of law. Nor, as is the case with th(on moral grounds perhaps yes)e current proposal, ought its workings be removed from public view, since it will then develop a tendency towards the arbitrary. This lack of transparency I object to most vehemently.
My point precisely. Don't try to understand legality/illegality by reference to physical reality, morality or any other kind of "inherent" quality. Sadly not the best illustration because, as the page you cite states "The bill never became law." I was trying to find a reference to the old NSW Measurement Act, which I believe (but don't quote me) implied that the world was flat (by defining parallel lines, for the purposes of land surveying, as extending on an infinite horizontal plane), but it seems to have been repealed in the era before online legislation.:(
Oh, and the the smiley was there to dispel the notion that this could not in fact lead to situations which might properly be called "ridiculous."
The problem with blocking "illegal material" is the definition of "illegal material".
Indeed! The point of passing legislation through parliament is to make law. The material being blocked will be "illegal material" by definition.
Or at least it should be. We won't be able to tell, of course, because the list of what is being blocked is secret. And that is the very worst aspect of the whole scheme.
For example, at what point is a medical textbook photo of a paediatric condition considered "indecent"?
To solve this "problem" we have courts. Judges deal with these sorts of marginal cases every day. It's not a big problem. (One doubts that a bona fide medical textbook of paediatric medicine would ever be judged indecent. As the Henson debacle shows, however, the question of 'art' is more vexed). But again, if the list is secret, how will it be subject to curial oversight?
The real problem is that some random public servant (Sen Fielding's cousin maybe?), will be deciding which site does and which site does not fulfil the legal requirements for being placed on the list AND they will be doing so without the requisite transparency.
Compare this to how classification is done now. When the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board decide to refuse classification for a film (effectively censoring it), we all know which film has be refused. We can
also read the reasons for the decision. We, as a public, can then debate the question of whether the
particular item ought, or ought not be refused, and possibly get the decision overturned.
As the people are the ultimate sovereign in Australia (ACTV v C'th), it is to us that the censors must be answerable. Yet Sen. Conroy proposes not to answer to us. What to do with a servant like that?
While secrecy might be an operational necessity in matters of national security (as courts recognise), it can hardly be argued that the threat from online information is so serious as to require the abrogation of normal democratic process. We've survived, relatively unscathed, for a decade or so.
... the concept of illegal numbers, then it all starts getting ridiculous.
What is ridiculous about illegal numbers? If the parliament says a number is illegal, (and that parliament has the power to legislate with respect to the legality of numbers), then that number is illegal. It's all terribly straightforward.;)
It certainly is NOT a troll to mention paedophilia with regard to Lewis Carroll.
I won't pretend to expertise as regards the jurisprudence appropriate to trolls. However, I doubt that notion of prior art constitutes a defence here.;)
The fact that... all play into that notion. That isn't to say it's true.
IAAL and where I'm from, before we accuse people of serious wrongdoing such as sexually interfering with children, we make sure we have the EVIDENCE to back up such a charge. Moreover we would hope such evidence is more than merely circumstantial.
[A]ny biography of the man would be sorely incomplete without mentioning that the theory of Carroll as repressed paedophile permeated much 20th century analysis of the man and his work.
Nonsense. A biography of the man could simply rely on documented events in his life. You can leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Now if you were to write "any historical review of Carroll scholarship would be sorely incomplete...," I could not disagree. Let me remind you, however, that the original statement you are defending as not-a-troll was something to the effect that Alice in Wonderland is not a book about maths, but a book about paedophilia.
the traditional scholarly conception of Lewis Carroll is as a celibate paedophile
Again where I come from I would like an act as well as the intent to commit act before I condemn someone.
Most adults I know can't stand classical music either.
I would hazard a guess and say that the people who dreamt up this scheme don't either. I do wonder why this is news though, this idea was tried out at least a decade ago.
I looked through the study. He very carefully picked only studies that agreed with his conclusion, and it's a small and not at all representative sample of the body of work regarding "violent" play.
Really. I was looking earlier and it hasn't apparently made it onto any of the online publishers we can access. Where did you find it?
Or I can look at it, observe and analyze its methodology, check up on which "studies" it chooses to put into its "metastudy"...
Getting much warmer! Making better choices now!
... cherry-picked study, and rightfully call it pure, refined nuclear weapons-grade bolognium.
A shame. You still can quite free yourself from your the-how-I-wish-reality-was preconceptions, huh?
What I find particularly interesting about you, given the teleological approach to research you seem to be harbouring, is that you, of all people, should accuse others of trying to reach pre-picked conclusions. A canonical example of projection?
Why merely use stats when you can lie with statistics?
You can use stats to deceive as well as illuminate? You don't say!
Sorry. The people taking science by the neck and slitting its throat these days are the ones who produce cherry-picked "metastudies" trying to reach a pre-picked "conclusion" and call it "science."
Sorry. You can dismiss a statistical meta-study out of hand without an even cursory glance at it's methodology, because it doesn't agree with the conclusions you would wish for. And then opine at length about the "small minority" who "can become desensitized," or those who might "temporarily" become violent after playing games, and insist, against all the assembled evidence, that the harmful effects are restricted to "those who are predisposed to go nutso anyways." Why use stats when unsubstantiated conjecture confirms personal prejudice so much more effectively?
Science is indeed is having its throat slit by those "trying to reach... pre-picked conclusion[s]."
The funniest thing about the whole debate to me is those that "believe in" AGW demean those that don't "believe" by calling them "skeptics."
Nonsense it's the anti-science guys who call themselves "skeptics." Scientists call the climate science deniers, "denialists." The denialists then get all huffy and demand to be called "skeptics."
But really given all the crazy pseudo-scientific arguments which AGW denialists accept without the least bit of skepticism, how can you call them that? At least without using inverted commas. If you were a true skeptic you would be highly skeptical of the arguments of Global Warming "Skeptics."
And if you had paid attention when the news broke, you would have known of (some of) the publications that had graphs and data that were the output of the code in question.
You paid attention to the wrong sources. Or you failed to pay attention after the news broke. In any case you are not able to provide a source for "some of" because in fact there is none. The code in question has only been published subsequently to its theft.
Demanding citations is the internets "nuh-uh, PROVE IT!". Do some research of your own if you care about the topic.
I agree it's overused, but since you are saying there exists >1 publication using this code, and since it's common knowledge that that is a lie, you really do need to put up or shut up. I've done the research. The research says, that morsel of code was never used in the published literature. The only reason I'm not asking you for a citation is that it's unkind to ask the impossible.
There are no fucking sides in science - just truth.
Exactly!
Fuck off if you've just picked a side and want to internet fight about it. (So fuck off.)
Have you just picked a side, or were you genuinely taken in by that disinformation? You need to exercise a little more skepticism.
Slashdot Mirror
Standard deviation is what you learn very early in school.
So early in fact that by you forget the details by the time you have had some serious study under your belt. Do you have any idea of the stuff you have to keep in your head to be an endocrinologist? So long as he remembers that it's a measure of variance (which he obviously does), it hardly matters whether he can explain to a mathematician how to derive it? And if OP gets off tripping up specialists with such minutae it ain't the specialist who has issues.
And you are telling me that it's not his "job" to know?
YMMV, but I would prefer to visit an endocrinologist who was an expert on the subject of hormones etc rather than stats.
Linux
But linux can't be the yanks!!! It's communist, remember?
In theory, no, it is not a big problem. Except for 95% of the population who cannot afford adequate legal representation.
That's a hard statement to reconcile with the recent surge in litigation in Australia. Even so, this is not an area of law that will affect 95% of the population,remember, it's the government that's the potential defendant here.
Now there is potentially a problem with standing. Australia does not have as liberal a concept of amicus curiae as exists in the US, and the most obvious potential applicants will likely (though not inevitably) be overseas (since the is a national firewall). This problem, however, is nowhere as insurmountable as the problem posed by a secret list not subject to judicial oversight.
Everyone has pictures of their child in various amounts of clothing.
We are talking about challenging an administrative decision to list a particular website. How is this is relevant?
With the legal fees of even a short trial easily going into the tens of thousands of dollars as you are pitted against the LIMITLESS resources of the government, even if you win, you lose.
In Australia the losing party bears the court costs of both parties by default. As a practical matter this would probably come before the AAT which is a relatively inexpensive forum.
Sorry, but judicial oversight, at least in court systems like those of the US, is simply no longer a valid protection.
You never miss your water till you well runs dry.
RC material can be perfectly legal, but it will still be blocked.
It's illegal to show RC material, it's illegal to sell RC material. It seems odd to describe RC material as "perfectly legal." And it seems odd to describe material blocked by force of law, as "perfectly legal."
So if the majority of the population think censorship is okay, it becomes okay?
As a matter of law, since the public have decided not to restrict the legislature with regard to rights such as freedom of speech, the Australian public is free to have their parliament enact a regime of censorship. You'll note that I wrote that I cannot object "on democratic grounds alone." Those words did not accidentally slip from my keyboard.
Sorry, but individuals should NOT be subjected to a tyranny of the majority.
I agree, democracy is the worst from of government! Except, as Churchill pointed out, for all the other systems that have been tried. The choice (well it isn't) is to be subject to the will of the majority (at least in theory), or to be subject to the will of a minority, or a single man or book. In fact you are constantly subject to the will of the (theoretical) majority. But perhaps you live somewhere where a right has been conceded in relation to freedom of speech.
If someone wants to look at something that 99% of the population find offensive, he should still have that right.
Where does he get that right from? Remember rights aren't god given or natural, they are historically a concession from those who hold power. Where a People is sovereign, if the people does not give a person a particular right, that person does not have it. What an individual does have, under our legal system is the right (a concession originally from the King), to have their individual case heard based on laws of universal application, not based on their personal popularity of that person or the majority's disposition towards them. Outside that any right you think you have that protects you from the sovereign (whether this be the majority of the public or a dictator) is a mere fantasy.
A censorship system controlled by the people would be subject to personal and public tastes and prejudices and not in the public's best interest.
What is in the public's best interest is for the majority constituted as a public to decide. Which is not to say they decide well. As Spike Milligan put it so aptly, "in a democracy the people get the government they deserve, and I get the government they deserve too!"
As for gray area cases, so far all the judges can come up with to define obscenity is "I know it when I see it."
That's American law for you. But I don't believe it's relevant here. It is my understanding (and I'm open to correction) that in reviewing classification what judges, or administrative tribunal members, are deciding is not whether an item is "obscene," per se, but whether it depicts violent sexuality, promotes drug use etc etc.
How are people who want to create borderline art supposed to work with that?
If anyone wants to create boderline art, surely they absolutely require there to be a censorship regime? It's a of a waste of time working in that area if your work doesn't get banned. But look, actually I agree with you here, artists have an unfairly tough time of it when some morals crusader along with the Murdoch press sets their sights on them.
[W]e need a system of hard, bright lines. No censorship at all, no illegal numbers and no illegal works is a good place to start.
Unfortunately the great "We," don't want those particular lines (as much as the simple do like "hard and bright"). In my experience even people who argue against censorship balk at the idea of child porn openly for sale at the local supermarket.
Now if material is "refused classification", that's slightly different. That then becomes a matter of state law
Not just state law. The Classification Board and Classification Review Board act under the aegis of the Federal Attorney General's Dept. But yes, the states are free to enact their own control regimes.
This IS censorship, and the whole idea of refusing a work classification is offensive. This is material which hasn't broken any laws, but which has been deemed offensive by a review board.
Not so. The refusal of classification has to be made on strictly legal grounds. Either the material has broken laws (by depicting violent sexuality, promoting drug use &tc.), or the decision of the Board is wrong. And the classification scheme is, as you say above, but in regard to prohibited material, "subject to public oversight." Conroy's secret censorship proposal would (dare I still use the modal verb) not be!
Now I happen to think that the legal criteria for restriction are misguided, (I don't actually feel threatened by pot-smoking BDSMers), but that's a different question from the offensiveness of refusing classification per se.
Would you care to explain to this dimwitted American the effective difference between "blocking illegal material", blocking material that is "refused classification" and "censorship"? From where I sit, if I can't access a Web address because of government-mandated interference, well ... that material has been censored. What particular arbitrary classification a particular government regime places that information into is irrelevant: I cannot get to it.
It may be irrelevant to you, however to those of us who worry about democratic process, the fact that the classification is the result of an arbitrary decision, as opposed to a decision made lawfully and subject to public scrutiny, matters a whole lot!
To answer you question, I believe the OP is trying to draw a distinction between down-right prohibited material (the canonical example of which is child porn), and material which on a case to case basis has been refused classification. The effect of an RC decision is, I believe (and I claim no special knowledge of this branch of law), that it is illegal publicly to show, or to offer for sale (and possibly even to import) such material. It is indeed a form of censorship.
As a "dimwitted American" :) (I'm quoting you in good humour, no offence intended) what you might not know is that the Australian public has at every opportunity resisted the introduction of a Bill of Rights into our Constitution (and it is the people alone, not the parliament, who have to power to amend that document). And I'm in the minority who want such a Bill. As such the Australian public are not restricted from coming to a democratic decision, via our parliament, to enact (or approve of) a regime of censorship.
Even though I'm in the minority I can't object to that on democratic grounds alone (well I can if it involves censorship of political speech ... but I digress). What I can object to, however, is that it be an arbitrary regime. That is inconsistent with the rule of law. Nor, as is the case with th(on moral grounds perhaps yes)e current proposal, ought its workings be removed from public view, since it will then develop a tendency towards the arbitrary. This lack of transparency I object to most vehemently.
Yes, terribly straightforward.
My point precisely. Don't try to understand legality/illegality by reference to physical reality, morality or any other kind of "inherent" quality. Sadly not the best illustration because, as the page you cite states "The bill never became law." I was trying to find a reference to the old NSW Measurement Act, which I believe (but don't quote me) implied that the world was flat (by defining parallel lines, for the purposes of land surveying, as extending on an infinite horizontal plane), but it seems to have been repealed in the era before online legislation. :(
Oh, and the the smiley was there to dispel the notion that this could not in fact lead to situations which might properly be called "ridiculous."
The problem with blocking "illegal material" is the definition of "illegal material".
Indeed! The point of passing legislation through parliament is to make law. The material being blocked will be "illegal material" by definition.
Or at least it should be. We won't be able to tell, of course, because the list of what is being blocked is secret. And that is the very worst aspect of the whole scheme.
For example, at what point is a medical textbook photo of a paediatric condition considered "indecent"?
To solve this "problem" we have courts. Judges deal with these sorts of marginal cases every day. It's not a big problem. (One doubts that a bona fide medical textbook of paediatric medicine would ever be judged indecent. As the Henson debacle shows, however, the question of 'art' is more vexed). But again, if the list is secret, how will it be subject to curial oversight?
The real problem is that some random public servant (Sen Fielding's cousin maybe?), will be deciding which site does and which site does not fulfil the legal requirements for being placed on the list AND they will be doing so without the requisite transparency.
Compare this to how classification is done now. When the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board decide to refuse classification for a film (effectively censoring it), we all know which film has be refused. We can also read the reasons for the decision. We, as a public, can then debate the question of whether the particular item ought, or ought not be refused, and possibly get the decision overturned.
As the people are the ultimate sovereign in Australia (ACTV v C'th), it is to us that the censors must be answerable. Yet Sen. Conroy proposes not to answer to us. What to do with a servant like that?
While secrecy might be an operational necessity in matters of national security (as courts recognise), it can hardly be argued that the threat from online information is so serious as to require the abrogation of normal democratic process. We've survived, relatively unscathed, for a decade or so.
What is ridiculous about illegal numbers? If the parliament says a number is illegal, (and that parliament has the power to legislate with respect to the legality of numbers), then that number is illegal. It's all terribly straightforward. ;)
We were forced to learn 'TrueBASIC' in Standard Grade, it didn't have line numbers or GOTO statements
In which case it hardly qualifies as 'BASIC' for the purposes of Dijkstra's admonition, does it?
Wow. That was *so* insightful.
So was that.
Take from that what you will, but I would consider it to be at least a "whiff of impropriety."
No prizes for guessing where you fall on the Bill Henson dispute then?
It certainly is NOT a troll to mention paedophilia with regard to Lewis Carroll.
I won't pretend to expertise as regards the jurisprudence appropriate to trolls. However, I doubt that notion of prior art constitutes a defence here. ;)
The fact that ... all play into that notion. That isn't to say it's true.
IAAL and where I'm from, before we accuse people of serious wrongdoing such as sexually interfering with children, we make sure we have the EVIDENCE to back up such a charge. Moreover we would hope such evidence is more than merely circumstantial.
[A]ny biography of the man would be sorely incomplete without mentioning that the theory of Carroll as repressed paedophile permeated much 20th century analysis of the man and his work.
Nonsense. A biography of the man could simply rely on documented events in his life. You can leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. Now if you were to write "any historical review of Carroll scholarship would be sorely incomplete ...," I could not disagree. Let me remind you, however, that the original statement you are defending as not-a-troll was something to the effect that Alice in Wonderland is not a book about maths, but a book about paedophilia.
the traditional scholarly conception of Lewis Carroll is as a celibate paedophile
Again where I come from I would like an act as well as the intent to commit act before I condemn someone.
Do they have sarcasm on your planet?
Sarcasm?!!
Sarcasm is prevarication and prevarication is sarcasm. Wake Up! Sarcasm is just as evil as all the other rhetorical devices.
sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...
What is it at the other times?
While the phrasing may not have been the best, I don't know that it's necessarily a troll to mention pedophilia wrt Lewis Carroll.
You don't know? OK, let me help you out there, it is.
He *did* spend a lot of time around young children ...
What proportion of his time was that?
one of his hobbies was photography, his favorite subject young children.
Quick! Let's run out and lynch Anne Geddes! (Well that might not be such a bad idea ;)
And he named the main character of and dedicated "Alice" to a certain young girl he spent an excessive amount of time with.
Quick, let's run out and lynch all children's books writers especially those who spend more than a hour with a child.
There are a *lot* of "but that doesn't *mean* he's a pedophile" examples you can pull from Charles Dodgson's life.
He was a mathematician. "But that doesn't *mean* he's a pedophile" Oh look you're right.
Enough that the possibility is certainly up there.
It's just as possible that you are, surely?
Though you can't necessarily prove anything
Yeah that would be because of the complete lack of evidence.
There is not the least suggestion not the merest whiff of any impropriety. To level an accusation like that is a troll at best.
Most adults I know can't stand classical music either.
I would hazard a guess and say that the people who dreamt up this scheme don't either. I do wonder why this is news though, this idea was tried out at least a decade ago.
But it's not for free. The authorities using this music pay for public performance licenses. Copyright is being respected, you can breathe easily.
[R]ecorded music is just a BAD thing to listen to ... /me posting this listening to Beethoven's Grosse Fuge op.133
You're posting during a live performance? Have some respect dude. ;)
I looked through the study. He very carefully picked only studies that agreed with his conclusion, and it's a small and not at all representative sample of the body of work regarding "violent" play.
Really. I was looking earlier and it hasn't apparently made it onto any of the online publishers we can access. Where did you find it?
Or I can look at it, observe and analyze its methodology, check up on which "studies" it chooses to put into its "metastudy" ...
Getting much warmer! Making better choices now!
A shame. You still can quite free yourself from your the-how-I-wish-reality-was preconceptions, huh?
What I find particularly interesting about you, given the teleological approach to research you seem to be harbouring, is that you, of all people, should accuse others of trying to reach pre-picked conclusions. A canonical example of projection?
Why merely use stats when you can lie with statistics?
You can use stats to deceive as well as illuminate? You don't say!
Sorry. The people taking science by the neck and slitting its throat these days are the ones who produce cherry-picked "metastudies" trying to reach a pre-picked "conclusion" and call it "science."
Sorry. You can dismiss a statistical meta-study out of hand without an even cursory glance at it's methodology, because it doesn't agree with the conclusions you would wish for. And then opine at length about the "small minority" who "can become desensitized," or those who might "temporarily" become violent after playing games, and insist, against all the assembled evidence, that the harmful effects are restricted to "those who are predisposed to go nutso anyways." Why use stats when unsubstantiated conjecture confirms personal prejudice so much more effectively?
Science is indeed is having its throat slit by those "trying to reach ... pre-picked conclusion[s]."
The funniest thing about the whole debate to me is those that "believe in" AGW demean those that don't "believe" by calling them "skeptics."
Nonsense it's the anti-science guys who call themselves "skeptics." Scientists call the climate science deniers, "denialists." The denialists then get all huffy and demand to be called "skeptics."
But really given all the crazy pseudo-scientific arguments which AGW denialists accept without the least bit of skepticism, how can you call them that? At least without using inverted commas. If you were a true skeptic you would be highly skeptical of the arguments of Global Warming "Skeptics."
Do you "believe in" electricity?
And if you had paid attention when the news broke, you would have known of (some of) the publications that had graphs and data that were the output of the code in question.
You paid attention to the wrong sources. Or you failed to pay attention after the news broke. In any case you are not able to provide a source for "some of" because in fact there is none. The code in question has only been published subsequently to its theft.
Demanding citations is the internets "nuh-uh, PROVE IT!". Do some research of your own if you care about the topic.
I agree it's overused, but since you are saying there exists >1 publication using this code, and since it's common knowledge that that is a lie, you really do need to put up or shut up. I've done the research. The research says, that morsel of code was never used in the published literature. The only reason I'm not asking you for a citation is that it's unkind to ask the impossible.
There are no fucking sides in science - just truth.
Exactly!
Fuck off if you've just picked a side and want to internet fight about it. (So fuck off.)
Have you just picked a side, or were you genuinely taken in by that disinformation? You need to exercise a little more skepticism.
It's touching how you dance around the hard facts of the code
Show me this code.
to quote something completely irrelevant
Why do you think that the code that is actually used, and publicly available, is irrelevant? You are not making sense.