The issue is not about Harvard -- and believe me, they make their researchers pay them not vice versa. (Schools used skim off about half of their researcher's grants.)
I'm no Harvard apologist, I went there. The size of their endowmen, like their tuition is frightening. The Canadians won't be changing that.
I know Americans mocked as a bunch of greedbags, perhaps not unfairly, but a "new" mouse also costs $$$ (US or Canadian) to develop. In the classic IP paradigm, will there be money to develop new mice if money can't be made from them? The sick humans potentially lose.
Gene research is still pricy. Eventually scientists will just dial what they need into the Mouse-o-matic(TM) to get what they want -- and ironically Canada will give it a patent -- but for now, I don't know. (I said way up top that patenting animals weirds me out.)
My personal preference would be gov't funding for this sort of thing, but with great caution so we don't turn it into a big socialist mess like in... never mind. Anyway, it comes down to money one way or another.
I wonder, though, whether there's a question that hasn't been asked many times? He hasn't done any real work lately, so there's no fresh meat. And as I imply, he doesn't have to give interviews, especially freebies (?) like this.
Ex: "Reputation as a bad actor" is a bad Q, but he could have said something sympathetic about it, explained what it is like to be criticized unfairly or typecasted, what he thinks his best work is, and so on. Yes, he's probably said it somewhere else, but we don't know the answers.
After all -- he's the expert on interviewing William Shatner! And I seriously doubt that if a novel queswtion came alone, he'd do it justice. (I cite in a parallel thread a Jeri Ryan interview I liked -- she's no philosopher, but she's polite, and has a sense of humor about herself.)
Most of the Star Trek people keep a lower profile outside of the cons -- I think Shatner likes the attention, and promotes himself doing it. But where's the quid pro quo?
I agree the questions were, er, sub-optimum (the editors have thin skins). Of course, they were all tendered by people here. I'm glad they didn't give him mine (you can search if you like) because I know he would have butchered it. The video I saw of him was evidently an exceptional performance.
But neither were the Q's insulting, and nothing stops one from digressing a bit to flesh things out, or even make up for an amateur interviewer. I mean, they ask pretty dumb questions on The Tonight Show etc. but that doesn't stop the celebrities from doing their darndest to be entertaining, because it reflects on them. They know people expect something when they show up to listen to you. I also know from what I've seen that Shatner can do better -- though for him it always seems like an act.
To show I'm not an implacable meany, here is an online interview with Jeri Ryan I enjoyed. I thought she did a nice job, provided some insight to the kind of person she is, and was funny. The questions are not generally "Barbara Walters" deep thought questions.
You can wander through the legalisms, but basically I've been uncomfortable with the overlap between the doman of patent law and, well, God (and/or whatever evolutionary variant one subscribes to -- I'm on the science side of the fence, but "God" is a heck of a lot more poetic).
I wonder if this could cause U.S.-Canadian tensions? The IP people in the states are riding high these days.
No, I'm always evil. (Consider your SNL skit analogy... who was on the ball and who was a greedbag, evil Kirk or good Kirk?)
Actually, being evil, I LOVE SHATNER!
Well, to be brutally honest, my first Trek talent pick to hang with would be, in no particular order, Majel R.... Nimoy... or Nichols... or Takei... or Doohan... or Koenig... or Stewart... or Brooks... or Meaney... or Auberjonois... or Dorn (definitely!)... or Visitor... or Siddig... or Grodénchik (Rom)... or Mulgrew... or Picardo... or Ryan (in a pinch:)... or McFadden... or Spiner... or Goldberg (not even a regular)... or de Lancie... or Bakula... or Blalock... or Park... or of course Wheaton...
He knows Kelley's dead (I hope), but is saying that if we could get a hold of him in... wherever dead actors go... and asked him what it was like being dead, he'd cough up a better answer than, "Oh I try not to think about that."
"De" was supposed to have been a very cool guy. They always die first -- God's redshirts.:(
This is a SURPRISE?
on
Bigfoot A Hoax?
·
· Score: 4, Informative
I was *so* relieved when the Lock Ness pranksters came clean. How cruel, exploiting the weak-minded, vulnerable and credulous... journalists, conspiracy theorists, etc. Then there was that ship-eating squid thing a few years ago.:)
There are so many real scientific puzzles and the press preoccupies itself instead with the mystery of Michael Jackson's deflating nose (which has be checking my nose all the time now to see if the cartilage is poking through like his....).
Bigfoot, we never knew ye. What will the Weekly World News do? Their circulation has been battered enough already.
The open-ended questions could have been better, but this was an invitation for him to be reflective -- not cross-examined. I guess no one did the research to find out that "Bill can't reflect."
You guys are SO nice! Calling his answer "brief" is tactful. How about terse, concise, laconic, dismissive, flippant, hasty, or good old rude? (I have more suggestions, more profane.)
I could have written the replies for him -- and been more interesting. He phoned this in.
Review the Q&A and it's obvious he simply ducked most of the questions or gave his equivalent of "no comment." Only on the topic of Nerine Shatner did he seem engaged.
This confirms everything I have heard about him being a sophomoric self-centered jerk. It's disrespectful -- the editors probably spent ten times to time preparing the Q's as he did ansering them.
Yeah, I know the whole bit about how he shouldn't be chained to a role from 25 years ago, and how he really isn't blowhard James T. Kirk, but he doesn't have to give interviews, book signings,, and the like except to promote himself -- and make money. He's milked the Trek thing for every penny while complaining all the while how oppressed he is. Contrasted with actors like Patrick Stewart, by all accounts a 24/7 class act, or Avery Brooks, who wants no part of the Trek typecasting and so doesn't do the interviews, book signings, and the like. I respect either choice and not Shatner's.
I think the statute of limitations for respecting him for his past work has expired.
These remotes already have too many &*#^*&(! buttons.
A programmable remote such as available at smarthome should work. $$$ -- shop around. I also recall a site that does *nothing* but advanced remotes -- name eludes me -- but they have everything.
Trade secret law binds more than parties to a contract. On point, receiving (or revealing) trade secrets by legal means but knowing that their disclosure is prohibited is illegal. I was a little surprised by this, but it does act to bar publication by a journalist, free speech notwithstanding. So civil remedied such as injunction and damages may be available.
Obviously there is a lot of room for debate about what is a trade secret and what weight free speech concerns carry.
Trade secret theft or "misappropriation" can also be a criminal offense basically because it is considered a form of theft. Example.
YMMV. Consult a lawyer before doing anything adventuresome.
Or patent or trademark or whatever the heck Mickey is at this point. The Sonny Bono Act will only carry them so far. (Don't blame him for what Disney forces him to lobby for.)
Genetically engineered mice can be patented, so bioengineered or cloned progeny of Mickey may be attractive to Disney Genetics and Licensing, Inc. There is some suspicion Mickey himself is engineered, as he has not aged in over 60 years.
A statue should be copyrightable, as soon as it's made it is, I would think.
The semantics I was trying to bring back to earth, at least as I think the dictionary of the law woulkd understand them There may be little practical difference.
Best wishes with the book -- and, no, I'm not an agent! A publisher might object to you posting it online, given their investment in printing and maybe promoting it. I have no idea how they handle copyright.
I'm not a Heineken fan -- in the States, associating something with yuppies is usually a put-down.... heineken for as many years as I can remember as been closely associated with the yuppie sort.
I'm more inclined towards Guinness on tap.... But most Americans like lighter lagers.
What I was repeating is pretty much the Betamax test -- the legal v. illegal uses of an item determine its legality. Check EFF.org for info.
I'm pretty sure of what *I* think, but I'd like to hear what others thing. I'm not necessarily looking to be talked out of anything....
The hypothetical, perhaps could be worded better, but I said, "What would be the absolute best thing for a starving artist who wants to distribute internet only and can't afford to lose revenue to copying?" The key words were "distribute internet only" -- no stores. This might be desirable for an artist who can't attract a label, or doesn't want to put up with their nonsense.
Yep. I'm not terribly naive about the law or the practice of file sharing, but I'm curious how people perceive what's going on. There's a lot of pious claims that file sharers, though they may be breaking the law, actually benefit the artists, despite the artists thinking Napster and P2P are all dens of thieves. The losses are there, not as much as the recording industry claims (only some of the users of "free music" would buy it if it were unavailable for free), but there for sure.
Quantifying the proportion of legal sharing will be an important issue. I'm hinting at the "Betamax defense" which failed for Napster. But where is the data?
For a heavy-gauge discussion from IAAL check the EFF discussion of P2P.
I fear P2P will be shot down, at least temporarily, perhaps out of the court's misunderstanding. But if it does, we know who's the skunk at the garden party.
How is this different than marketing studies where they have people push buttons based on their like or dislike of a product?
Because the button pushers can lie and play mind games with the anxious marketers.
Been there, done that.:)
In the end no matter the images that are pushed onto people, it doesn't hide the truth of what's underneath for long. The entrepeneur turns out to be a swindler, the sports hero's a thug, and the trusted religious leader is a child molester.
And an ad exec is... an ad exec. No loss of innocence there.
So even with all the technology in the world, nobody's going to convince us that we should buy crap that is in fact crap.
Subliminal adverts were excluded by the FCC from radio and television only, and I think the film people agreed to ban them voluntarily. In any event, there is scant evidence they work. Hey, I was disappointed. I mentioned this elsewhere here.
Example: The annoying beer commercials designed to associate their beer with having fun.
You sound so dismissive. Personally, I associate fun with having beer.
My problem with the beer ads is that they're pitching such lowbrow fun, or whatever passes for yuppie fun (Heinekens), or the promise that you can get tanked without getting fat (light "beer").
Anyway, liquor's quicker.
*
On a more sober note, advertising is largely an attempt to link your ego and libido with your product choices. (Occasionally it brings a new product to your attention that you might want to try.) This is kind of sad, like if I wear Nikes I'll be cool or beutiful women will want to sleep with me if only I drink that beer, but is does evidently work, and so we have all the bitter fighting over trademarks witnessed amply elsewhere in this forum. Personally I try to buy generics, but I'm old and out of the marketers prime demographic anyway. Next, they'll be trying to sell me Volvos and Preparation H, the antithesis to sex appeal. I'll take the Nikes first.
Slashdot Mirror
The issue is not about Harvard -- and believe me, they make their researchers pay them not vice versa. (Schools used skim off about half of their researcher's grants.)
I'm no Harvard apologist, I went there. The size of their endowmen, like their tuition is frightening. The Canadians won't be changing that.
I know Americans mocked as a bunch of greedbags, perhaps not unfairly, but a "new" mouse also costs $$$ (US or Canadian) to develop. In the classic IP paradigm, will there be money to develop new mice if money can't be made from them? The sick humans potentially lose.
Gene research is still pricy. Eventually scientists will just dial what they need into the Mouse-o-matic(TM) to get what they want -- and ironically Canada will give it a patent -- but for now, I don't know. (I said way up top that patenting animals weirds me out.)
My personal preference would be gov't funding for this sort of thing, but with great caution so we don't turn it into a big socialist mess like in... never mind. Anyway, it comes down to money one way or another.
a simplified explanation of things we don't understand -- the lazy man's way of saying "I don't know"
I thought it was politics? Hmm, maybe this is a common tactic.
I wonder, though, whether there's a question that hasn't been asked many times? He hasn't done any real work lately, so there's no fresh meat. And as I imply, he doesn't have to give interviews, especially freebies (?) like this.
Ex: "Reputation as a bad actor" is a bad Q, but he could have said something sympathetic about it, explained what it is like to be criticized unfairly or typecasted, what he thinks his best work is, and so on. Yes, he's probably said it somewhere else, but we don't know the answers.
After all -- he's the expert on interviewing William Shatner! And I seriously doubt that if a novel queswtion came alone, he'd do it justice. (I cite in a parallel thread a Jeri Ryan interview I liked -- she's no philosopher, but she's polite, and has a sense of humor about herself.)
Most of the Star Trek people keep a lower profile outside of the cons -- I think Shatner likes the attention, and promotes himself doing it. But where's the quid pro quo?
I agree the questions were, er, sub-optimum (the editors have thin skins). Of course, they were all tendered by people here. I'm glad they didn't give him mine (you can search if you like) because I know he would have butchered it. The video I saw of him was evidently an exceptional performance.
But neither were the Q's insulting, and nothing stops one from digressing a bit to flesh things out, or even make up for an amateur interviewer. I mean, they ask pretty dumb questions on The Tonight Show etc. but that doesn't stop the celebrities from doing their darndest to be entertaining, because it reflects on them. They know people expect something when they show up to listen to you. I also know from what I've seen that Shatner can do better -- though for him it always seems like an act.
To show I'm not an implacable meany, here is an online interview with Jeri Ryan I enjoyed. I thought she did a nice job, provided some insight to the kind of person she is, and was funny. The questions are not generally "Barbara Walters" deep thought questions.
You can wander through the legalisms, but basically I've been uncomfortable with the overlap between the doman of patent law and, well, God (and/or whatever evolutionary variant one subscribes to -- I'm on the science side of the fence, but "God" is a heck of a lot more poetic).
I wonder if this could cause U.S.-Canadian tensions? The IP people in the states are riding high these days.
:)
... who was on the ball and who was a greedbag, evil Kirk or good Kirk?)
... Nimoy ... or Nichols ... or Takei ... or Doohan ... or Koenig ... or Stewart ... or Brooks ... or Meaney ... or Auberjonois ... or Dorn (definitely!) ... or Visitor ... or Siddig ... or Grodénchik (Rom) ... or Mulgrew ... or Picardo ... or Ryan (in a pinch :) ... or McFadden ... or Spiner ... or Goldberg (not even a regular) ... or de Lancie ... or Bakula ... or Blalock ... or Park ... or of course Wheaton...
:)
No, I'm always evil. (Consider your SNL skit analogy
Actually, being evil, I LOVE SHATNER!
Well, to be brutally honest, my first Trek talent pick to hang with would be, in no particular order, Majel R.
OR EVEN KELLEY! I could bring a book.
But you probably get my drift.
He knows Kelley's dead (I hope), but is saying that if we could get a hold of him in ... wherever dead actors go ... and asked him what it was like being dead, he'd cough up a better answer than, "Oh I try not to think about that."
:(
"De" was supposed to have been a very cool guy. They always die first -- God's redshirts.
I was *so* relieved when the Lock Ness pranksters came clean. How cruel, exploiting the weak-minded, vulnerable and credulous ... journalists, conspiracy theorists, etc. Then there was that ship-eating squid thing a few years ago. :)
There are so many real scientific puzzles and the press preoccupies itself instead with the mystery of Michael Jackson's deflating nose (which has be checking my nose all the time now to see if the cartilage is poking through like his....).
Bigfoot, we never knew ye. What will the Weekly World News do? Their circulation has been battered enough already.
Maybe he's coming out.
:)
Think about that, Wil. You interested in a (grand)father figure?
Now I know what "warp drive" really means.
P.S. Don't tell the wife. She might not understand.
Sorry, thi sis the last of my multipost rant before they kick me out of here.
Bill is being as polite as possible to say "leave me alone".
BS. Polite would have been to decline the interview. Easy. Bill doesn't do polite.
Maybe this was the best he could do. Plausible, and sad.
That's one of the only questions he ANSWERED.
The open-ended questions could have been better, but this was an invitation for him to be reflective -- not cross-examined. I guess no one did the research to find out that "Bill can't reflect."
Before some nattering nabob of nwgativism corrects me, I do realize it has been 33+ years since Trek was on the air (not 25).
That and the typos are due to my irritation, and determination not to spend more time on my comment than he did on his alleged interview.
Earth to Shatner: Your life support is running out. Phttt. To think I bothered reading this.
You guys are SO nice! Calling his answer "brief" is tactful. How about terse, concise, laconic, dismissive, flippant, hasty, or good old rude? (I have more suggestions, more profane.)
I could have written the replies for him -- and been more interesting. He phoned this in.
Review the Q&A and it's obvious he simply ducked most of the questions or gave his equivalent of "no comment." Only on the topic of Nerine Shatner did he seem engaged.
This confirms everything I have heard about him being a sophomoric self-centered jerk. It's disrespectful -- the editors probably spent ten times to time preparing the Q's as he did ansering them.
Yeah, I know the whole bit about how he shouldn't be chained to a role from 25 years ago, and how he really isn't blowhard James T. Kirk, but he doesn't have to give interviews, book signings,, and the like except to promote himself -- and make money. He's milked the Trek thing for every penny while complaining all the while how oppressed he is. Contrasted with actors like Patrick Stewart, by all accounts a 24/7 class act, or Avery Brooks, who wants no part of the Trek typecasting and so doesn't do the interviews, book signings, and the like. I respect either choice and not Shatner's.
I think the statute of limitations for respecting him for his past work has expired.
These remotes already have too many &*#^*&(! buttons.
A programmable remote such as available at smarthome should work. $$$ -- shop around. I also recall a site that does *nothing* but advanced remotes -- name eludes me -- but they have everything.
Drive carefully...
Trade secret law binds more than parties to a contract. On point, receiving (or revealing) trade secrets by legal means but knowing that their disclosure is prohibited is illegal. I was a little surprised by this, but it does act to bar publication by a journalist, free speech notwithstanding. So civil remedied such as injunction and damages may be available.
Obviously there is a lot of room for debate about what is a trade secret and what weight free speech concerns carry.
Trade secret theft or "misappropriation" can also be a criminal offense basically because it is considered a form of theft. Example.
YMMV. Consult a lawyer before doing anything adventuresome.
Or patent or trademark or whatever the heck Mickey is at this point. The Sonny Bono Act will only carry them so far. (Don't blame him for what Disney forces him to lobby for.)
Genetically engineered mice can be patented, so bioengineered or cloned progeny of Mickey may be attractive to Disney Genetics and Licensing, Inc. There is some suspicion Mickey himself is engineered, as he has not aged in over 60 years.
Set Mickey free!
A statue should be copyrightable, as soon as it's made it is, I would think.
The semantics I was trying to bring back to earth, at least as I think the dictionary of the law woulkd understand them There may be little practical difference.
Best wishes with the book -- and, no, I'm not an agent! A publisher might object to you posting it online, given their investment in printing and maybe promoting it. I have no idea how they handle copyright.
I'm not a Heineken fan -- in the States, associating something with yuppies is usually a put-down.... heineken for as many years as I can remember as been closely associated with the yuppie sort.
I'm more inclined towards Guinness on tap.... But most Americans like lighter lagers.
What I was repeating is pretty much the Betamax test -- the legal v. illegal uses of an item determine its legality. Check EFF.org for info.
I'm pretty sure of what *I* think, but I'd like to hear what others thing. I'm not necessarily looking to be talked out of anything....
The hypothetical, perhaps could be worded better, but I said, "What would be the absolute best thing for a starving artist who wants to distribute internet only and can't afford to lose revenue to copying?" The key words were "distribute internet only" -- no stores. This might be desirable for an artist who can't attract a label, or doesn't want to put up with their nonsense.
Yep. I'm not terribly naive about the law or the practice of file sharing, but I'm curious how people perceive what's going on. There's a lot of pious claims that file sharers, though they may be breaking the law, actually benefit the artists, despite the artists thinking Napster and P2P are all dens of thieves. The losses are there, not as much as the recording industry claims (only some of the users of "free music" would buy it if it were unavailable for free), but there for sure.
Quantifying the proportion of legal sharing will be an important issue. I'm hinting at the "Betamax defense" which failed for Napster. But where is the data?
For a heavy-gauge discussion from IAAL check the EFF discussion of P2P.
I fear P2P will be shot down, at least temporarily, perhaps out of the court's misunderstanding. But if it does, we know who's the skunk at the garden party.
Well, here are my answers -- this is pretty easy?:
Adhesive gauze strip?.....Store brand.
Acetametaphine?...........Store brand.
Chlorine Bleach?..........Store brand.
Pressed Chicken Strips?...Breast meat, not "pressed." (yuck)
Facial Tissue?............Store brand.
Battery?..................Cheapest. Alkaline.
Any questions?
Yeah, I'm jaded. Advertisers barely bother with me, so my favorite shows keep getting cancelled.
How is this different than marketing studies where they have people push buttons based on their like or dislike of a product?
:)
... an ad exec. No loss of innocence there.
Because the button pushers can lie and play mind games with the anxious marketers.
Been there, done that.
In the end no matter the images that are pushed onto people, it doesn't hide the truth of what's underneath for long. The entrepeneur turns out to be a swindler, the sports hero's a thug, and the trusted religious leader is a child molester.
And an ad exec is
So even with all the technology in the world, nobody's going to convince us that we should buy crap that is in fact crap.
Well.... How do you explain Amstel Light?
Subliminal adverts were excluded by the FCC from radio and television only, and I think the film people agreed to ban them voluntarily. In any event, there is scant evidence they work. Hey, I was disappointed. I mentioned this elsewhere here.
Example: The annoying beer commercials designed to associate their beer with having fun.
You sound so dismissive. Personally, I associate fun with having beer.
My problem with the beer ads is that they're pitching such lowbrow fun, or whatever passes for yuppie fun (Heinekens), or the promise that you can get tanked without getting fat (light "beer").
Anyway, liquor's quicker.
*
On a more sober note, advertising is largely an attempt to link your ego and libido with your product choices. (Occasionally it brings a new product to your attention that you might want to try.) This is kind of sad, like if I wear Nikes I'll be cool or beutiful women will want to sleep with me if only I drink that beer, but is does evidently work, and so we have all the bitter fighting over trademarks witnessed amply elsewhere in this forum. Personally I try to buy generics, but I'm old and out of the marketers prime demographic anyway. Next, they'll be trying to sell me Volvos and Preparation H, the antithesis to sex appeal. I'll take the Nikes first.