Librarians are some of the most under appreciated people in our society. They're far more than just curators of large book collections, many of them care deeply about issues related to privacy, copyright, freedom of access to reading material, and so on, - basically, many of the issues the likes of the EFF deal with a lot.
Finally, on the general subject of librarian appreciation, his seems like a good place to link to Unshelved, a great webcomic about life inside a library.
Actually, the F word is an acronym. During the Victorian era, when there was a crackdown on prostitution, police would write down "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge"
Err, I think I kinda missed the point with my post before, that's what I get for posting in the middle of the night..
I was actually answering the question at literal face value - how can you make an instrumental piece 'your own', with consideration to what I see as the ethical issues present in that question - but not the legal ones. Your reply is depressingly correct, and really goes to show just how restrictive current copyright law is.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go turn myself in to the RIAA.. I think in typing this post I inadvertantly tapped out a copyrighted drum rhythm on my keyboard:(
OK, so given say a piece of instrumental music, how would one "rewrite" that in one's own "words"?
By performing your own interpretation of it on your own instruments... or by writing your own arrangement of it.. or by remixing it to a great enough degree that you have a legitimate claim to it being largely your own work... or perhaps by writing some lyrics to go with it.. or, well, you get the idea
Yes, sad but true. I probably should have mentioned in my post that I was talking about how science is meant to work - and naturally, due to human failings, that isn't always the case. As you say though, it's the same in all human endeavour - a doctor's job is to heal people, and for the overwhelming number of cases that's what they do, but sometimes they make things worse, usually by accident*, but sometimes even on purpose**. Again, that's human falliability.
*recent case springs to mind of a girl in the UK who was given 17 overdoses of radiotherapy treatment, and may be left with brain damage or even paralysed. **For example, Harold Shipman, who used his position as a doctor to murder his patients (and I'm not talking about euthanasia)
Because EVERY YEAR as a kid I wrote a letter to him asking for a Junior Evil Mastermind Science Lab Kit, and EVERY year the smug bugger flew in on his reindeer, came down the chimney, and delivered nothing but SOCKS. I WILL have my revenge.
Replying to my own post, as I forgot to mention something else, and Slashdot's "edit post" button has undergone a total existence failure...
The parent also mentioned that scientific theory is based on authority. This is utter nonsense. Authority counts for nothing in science.
We accept Einstein's theories as being correct. Why? Because he was a really smart guy, and therefore must have been right? No. Because he showed exactly how and why his theories were correct.
If I tell you that water turns to ice or steam sometimes, and that's the way it is, because I say so, and because I'm smarter than you, then you'd probably tell me to get stuffed (and rightly so)
On the other hand, if I tell you that cooling water to 0C causes it to freeze into ice, and heating it to 100C causes it to boil, giving off steam, then you can try for yourself in your own kitchen. It doesn't matter if you think I'm a genius or a raving lunatic - it doesn't even matter if I actually AM a raving lunatic. The only thing that counts is whether it works or not. And the things we accept in science are those that work - and if we don't know, we run with our best current explanation based on the avaliable data until a better one comes along.
That's the wonderful thing about science. It's perfectly possible for some unknown, uneducated nobody with a bright idea to overturn hundreds of years of accepted science.
(of course, it's also rather unlikely, as the simple fact is the vast amount of unknown, uneducated nobodies who try to do that are completely off the mark, and don't have the first clue what they're talking about... doesn't mean it can't happen though.)
"Everthing else [in science] is simply theory. Which is based on some authority and never allowed to be questioned."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and a thousand times wrong! The whole basis of science is that everything is open to question. There are few things more prestigious in science than to refute a previously accepted theory. Ever heard of a guy named Albert Einstein? Yeah, thought you might have. Used to be that Newton's theories were the accepted way in which the universe worked, but Einstein showed differently.
The main reason it seems like some theories are "unquestionable" is simply because most of the ways in which people choose to challenge them have been shown time and time and time again to be false. If you get 100 people a day proposing a design for a perpetual motion machine using a series of cogs, wheels, and magnets, you're not going to take the time to explain to each and every one why their design won't work, instead, you're just going to tell them to bugger off and leave you alone.
Of course, scientists are human, and at times they will reject things inadvertently which they shouldn't. However, if you think you have a good explanation as to how/why we can, in fact, travel faster than the speed of light, instead of whining to Slashdot about how stuck in the mud scientists are, why not publish it? You'd be the next Einstein!
I submit for your viewing pleasure the underwater rocks of Bimini.
Another great example is the Giant's Causeway in Ireland, which looks for all the world like it's been carved or purposely laid down in a particular pattern (but of course, hasn't)
I don't know if you're trolling with your sig ("If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes and not more people?"), mean it as a genuine question, or even as some form of sarcasm, but for what it's worth I'll bite...
Man did not evolve from apes. Man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. That's it, it's that simple.
If your sig was meant as some kind of irony, then 'scuse me for wasting your time, my irony detector must be broken If it was meant genuinely, then I hope this helped, and I would also direct you to the excellent Evolution 101 website which will fill you in on many other aspects of how evolution works And if it was meant as a troll, well, I guess you got your laugh.
I was actually gonna say something to the effect of "Now watch as someone goes and actually looks up that episode in a series guide" in the original post, but figured if I said that, nobody would.:P
here is a new drug called "Cake" (and they had some cake crumbs in a bag to demonstrate this).
Cake crumbs? Oh, dearie me, no.. if only they had fallen for anything so reasonable. They didn't just present the well intentioned celebs with mere crubs, but a luminous yellow pill approximately the size of a small child's head. And the campaign was run on behalf of the anti-drug groups "F.U.K.D" and "B.O.M.B.D", who's logo was a line of dead babies impaled on a syringe. They had Bernard Manning outraged at the fact that one poor sod had cried all the water out of his own body on this stuff, and a girl had puked up her own thighbone (or possibly pelvis, can't remember) - Rolf Harris warned us of a side effect known as Czech Neck, where the neck swells up so big with water retention that it engulfs the entire head, causing suffocation... and we were even told that some kids had been brained by saucepans used to make the stuff being thrown out of tower block windows.
and that's not to even mention the slag "street" names for the stuff, including "Brummicide", "Chronic Basildon Donuts", "Joss Eckland's Spunky Backpack", and "Hattie Jaques' Pretentious Cheese Wig", or the microblip music.
I actually am of the mind that it's a triple-bluff.
At the end of the show, the actors get out of the simulator, point at the TV and laugh at how stupid the audience were. But then, Channel 4 tells them they've actually BEEN in space.
Doesn't that go more like... At the end of the show, the actors get out of the "simulator", point at the TV, laugh for a second, then choke, turn blue and asphyxiate in the cold depths of space, live on television to the hilarity of the viewing audience?
You can read an excellent analysis of the InfidelGuy wifeswap show by one of the forum's members here (look for the posts by "Buckster", starting with the very second one on the page). It's very revealing about the nature of "reality TV" in general, and just how removed from reality it really is.
Not to say that necessarily means this Space Cadets program is made the same way though, but it's definitely worth bearing in mind. (Major differences that spring to mind: participants not interacting with camera/production crew. Show streamed live on the web much of the time which allows for less editing down to change events without getting caught)
Ha! that's where you're wrong. I am watching this show, perfectly aware that the contestants are actors pretending to be fooled by their surroundings. I watch it and only PRETEND to believe it, thus making it a triple hoax, and putting the joke on the producers of the show, because they think that I think that the contestants think that's it's real. But I don't. So there.
It was SO totally worth my spending almost a minute of my life to write this post. Everything I have ever done is vindicated now. That is all.
I hate to get pedantic over what is basically a one liner joke post, but... this shows a serious misunderstanding of the process of evolution, and it's that kind of thing which allows nonsense like "Intelligent Design" to get as far as it has
Organisms do not evolve new features by developing them that way - for if there are a race of monkeys, and their only food source is tall trees with bananas in, they're gonna spend a lot of time stretching their arms to reach bananas - they'll probably get really really good at it, and with enough stretching their arms might even get a bit longer than they would be without the stretching. So, will this trait be passed on to the kids, resulting, over time, in a species of long armed super-reachers? Well... no, actually, because acquired skills/changes don't cause any genetic change.
On the other hand, those monkeys who just happen by genetic variation to be born with slightly longer arms will find it easier to reach the food. When food becomes scarce they are the ones who will survive - the short armed ones will starve to death, and therefore it's the "long arms" genes which will prosper and be passed down to the next generation.
Aww, cheer up. I'll send you an "I'm sorry you bought Cyber-Monday cards and then Cyber-Monday turned out to be a non-event leaving you with redundant cards" card. They have a section for those right next to "Congratulations Third-Cousin-Twice-Removed! you found the TV remote you thought you'd lost!" cards.
Slashdot Mirror
Librarians are some of the most under appreciated people in our society. They're far more than just curators of large book collections, many of them care deeply about issues related to privacy, copyright, freedom of access to reading material, and so on, - basically, many of the issues the likes of the EFF deal with a lot.
:)
The American Library Association, the largest library association in the world, takes a particularly strong stand on civil liberties, intellectual freedom and privacy, and those who really want to show they care can even order themselves an 'Radical Militant Librarian' badge. Hell, kinda makes me wish I was a librarian
Finally, on the general subject of librarian appreciation, his seems like a good place to link to Unshelved, a great webcomic about life inside a library.
And the back of your bookshelf is the perfect place to hang that giant goatse poster your aunt got you for Christmas...
Actually, the F word is an acronym. During the Victorian era, when there was a crackdown on prostitution, police would write down "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge"
Actually, that's a load of fucking bollocks.
Maybe you'd better stop waving it around like a feather duster, then!
Err, I think I kinda missed the point with my post before, that's what I get for posting in the middle of the night..
:(
I was actually answering the question at literal face value - how can you make an instrumental piece 'your own', with consideration to what I see as the ethical issues present in that question - but not the legal ones.
Your reply is depressingly correct, and really goes to show just how restrictive current copyright law is.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go turn myself in to the RIAA.. I think in typing this post I inadvertantly tapped out a copyrighted drum rhythm on my keyboard
OK, so given say a piece of instrumental music, how would one "rewrite" that in one's own "words"?
By performing your own interpretation of it on your own instruments... or by writing your own arrangement of it.. or by remixing it to a great enough degree that you have a legitimate claim to it being largely your own work... or perhaps by writing some lyrics to go with it.. or, well, you get the idea
Yes, sad but true. I probably should have mentioned in my post that I was talking about how science is meant to work - and naturally, due to human failings, that isn't always the case.
As you say though, it's the same in all human endeavour - a doctor's job is to heal people, and for the overwhelming number of cases that's what they do, but sometimes they make things worse, usually by accident*, but sometimes even on purpose**. Again, that's human falliability.
*recent case springs to mind of a girl in the UK who was given 17 overdoses of radiotherapy treatment, and may be left with brain damage or even paralysed.
**For example, Harold Shipman, who used his position as a doctor to murder his patients (and I'm not talking about euthanasia)
"Why do you hate God?"
Because EVERY YEAR as a kid I wrote a letter to him asking for a Junior Evil Mastermind Science Lab Kit, and EVERY year the smug bugger flew in on his reindeer, came down the chimney, and delivered nothing but SOCKS. I WILL have my revenge.
Replying to my own post, as I forgot to mention something else, and Slashdot's "edit post" button has undergone a total existence failure...
The parent also mentioned that scientific theory is based on authority. This is utter nonsense. Authority counts for nothing in science.
We accept Einstein's theories as being correct. Why? Because he was a really smart guy, and therefore must have been right? No. Because he showed exactly how and why his theories were correct.
If I tell you that water turns to ice or steam sometimes, and that's the way it is, because I say so, and because I'm smarter than you, then you'd probably tell me to get stuffed (and rightly so)
On the other hand, if I tell you that cooling water to 0C causes it to freeze into ice, and heating it to 100C causes it to boil, giving off steam, then you can try for yourself in your own kitchen. It doesn't matter if you think I'm a genius or a raving lunatic - it doesn't even matter if I actually AM a raving lunatic. The only thing that counts is whether it works or not. And the things we accept in science are those that work - and if we don't know, we run with our best current explanation based on the avaliable data until a better one comes along.
That's the wonderful thing about science. It's perfectly possible for some unknown, uneducated nobody with a bright idea to overturn hundreds of years of accepted science.
(of course, it's also rather unlikely, as the simple fact is the vast amount of unknown, uneducated nobodies who try to do that are completely off the mark, and don't have the first clue what they're talking about... doesn't mean it can't happen though.)
"Everthing else [in science] is simply theory. Which is based on some authority and never allowed to be questioned."
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and a thousand times wrong!
The whole basis of science is that everything is open to question. There are few things more prestigious in science than to refute a previously accepted theory. Ever heard of a guy named Albert Einstein? Yeah, thought you might have. Used to be that Newton's theories were the accepted way in which the universe worked, but Einstein showed differently.
The main reason it seems like some theories are "unquestionable" is simply because most of the ways in which people choose to challenge them have been shown time and time and time again to be false.
If you get 100 people a day proposing a design for a perpetual motion machine using a series of cogs, wheels, and magnets, you're not going to take the time to explain to each and every one why their design won't work, instead, you're just going to tell them to bugger off and leave you alone.
Of course, scientists are human, and at times they will reject things inadvertently which they shouldn't. However, if you think you have a good explanation as to how/why we can, in fact, travel faster than the speed of light, instead of whining to Slashdot about how stuck in the mud scientists are, why not publish it? You'd be the next Einstein!
>but she let's him put a hulk doll on top of the TV
<Comic Book Guy>
That is not a doll, that is a rare and highly valuable fully poseable action figure with Hulk Smash movement.
Wouldn't that be racial profiling?
Arrr! Ye just be harrassing me 'cuz o' me pegleg! Bet ye wouldn't be treatin' a ninja like this!
They didn't forget, they're just skipping straight to EEEXXXTTTEEERRRMMMIIINNNAAATTEEE
I submit for your viewing pleasure the underwater rocks of Bimini.
Another great example is the Giant's Causeway in Ireland, which looks for all the world like it's been carved or purposely laid down in a particular pattern (but of course, hasn't)
I don't know if you're trolling with your sig ("If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes and not more people?"), mean it as a genuine question, or even as some form of sarcasm, but for what it's worth I'll bite...
Man did not evolve from apes. Man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.
That's it, it's that simple.
If your sig was meant as some kind of irony, then 'scuse me for wasting your time, my irony detector must be broken
If it was meant genuinely, then I hope this helped, and I would also direct you to the excellent Evolution 101 website which will fill you in on many other aspects of how evolution works
And if it was meant as a troll, well, I guess you got your laugh.
But I WILL be able to though, right?
I was actually gonna say something to the effect of "Now watch as someone goes and actually looks up that episode in a series guide" in the original post, but figured if I said that, nobody would. :P
Although I agree with your noble and poetic sentiment, the fact remains that you cannot destroy a plane with a book. Not in any literal sense, anyhow.
MacGyver. Season 4, episode 3.
here is a new drug called "Cake" (and they had some cake crumbs in a bag to demonstrate this).
Cake crumbs? Oh, dearie me, no.. if only they had fallen for anything so reasonable.
They didn't just present the well intentioned celebs with mere crubs, but a luminous yellow pill approximately the size of a small child's head. And the campaign was run on behalf of the anti-drug groups "F.U.K.D" and "B.O.M.B.D", who's logo was a line of dead babies impaled on a syringe.
They had Bernard Manning outraged at the fact that one poor sod had cried all the water out of his own body on this stuff, and a girl had puked up her own thighbone (or possibly pelvis, can't remember) - Rolf Harris warned us of a side effect known as Czech Neck, where the neck swells up so big with water retention that it engulfs the entire head, causing suffocation... and we were even told that some kids had been brained by saucepans used to make the stuff being thrown out of tower block windows.
and that's not to even mention the slag "street" names for the stuff, including "Brummicide", "Chronic Basildon Donuts", "Joss Eckland's Spunky Backpack", and "Hattie Jaques' Pretentious Cheese Wig", or the microblip music.
I actually am of the mind that it's a triple-bluff.
At the end of the show, the actors get out of the simulator, point at the TV and laugh at how stupid the audience were. But then, Channel 4 tells them they've actually BEEN in space.
Doesn't that go more like...
At the end of the show, the actors get out of the "simulator", point at the TV, laugh for a second, then choke, turn blue and asphyxiate in the cold depths of space, live on television to the hilarity of the viewing audience?
You can read an excellent analysis of the InfidelGuy wifeswap show by one of the forum's members here (look for the posts by "Buckster", starting with the very second one on the page). It's very revealing about the nature of "reality TV" in general, and just how removed from reality it really is.
Not to say that necessarily means this Space Cadets program is made the same way though, but it's definitely worth bearing in mind. (Major differences that spring to mind: participants not interacting with camera/production crew. Show streamed live on the web much of the time which allows for less editing down to change events without getting caught)
Ha! that's where you're wrong.
I am watching this show, perfectly aware that the contestants are actors pretending to be fooled by their surroundings. I watch it and only PRETEND to believe it, thus making it a triple hoax, and putting the joke on the producers of the show, because they think that I think that the contestants think that's it's real. But I don't. So there.
It was SO totally worth my spending almost a minute of my life to write this post. Everything I have ever done is vindicated now. That is all.
I hate to get pedantic over what is basically a one liner joke post, but... this shows a serious misunderstanding of the process of evolution, and it's that kind of thing which allows nonsense like "Intelligent Design" to get as far as it has
Organisms do not evolve new features by developing them that way - for if there are a race of monkeys, and their only food source is tall trees with bananas in, they're gonna spend a lot of time stretching their arms to reach bananas - they'll probably get really really good at it, and with enough stretching their arms might even get a bit longer than they would be without the stretching. So, will this trait be passed on to the kids, resulting, over time, in a species of long armed super-reachers? Well... no, actually, because acquired skills/changes don't cause any genetic change.
On the other hand, those monkeys who just happen by genetic variation to be born with slightly longer arms will find it easier to reach the food. When food becomes scarce they are the ones who will survive - the short armed ones will starve to death, and therefore it's the "long arms" genes which will prosper and be passed down to the next generation.
You forgot Vista Turbo, Vista Championship Edition, and Vista EX 3 Plus Alpha Ultra Combo
Aww, cheer up. I'll send you an "I'm sorry you bought Cyber-Monday cards and then Cyber-Monday turned out to be a non-event leaving you with redundant cards" card. They have a section for those right next to "Congratulations Third-Cousin-Twice-Removed! you found the TV remote you thought you'd lost!" cards.