Re:Stumping doctors too
on
Cyberchondria
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This may be a problem with some web-assisted self-diagnosers and medical students. Unfortunately, the typical physician has exactly the opposite problem! If you are unfortunate enough to actually have a rare condition, you will commonly be misdiagnosed for years, sometimes to your great harm, even if your symptoms are a perfect fit for said condition. The smart patient will do research and bring it to his doctor's attention. And if he is not a pompous ass, he will pay attention to it.
People are human and want recognition for their work and ideas.
Your assertion is true. But you cannot use it to argue for copyright. Copyright is not about getting recognition; it is about getting money through the exercise of a state-granted monopoly. You have unwittingly stated a powerful counter to the standard argument that without copyright, no-one would publish anything. They would, for precisely the reason you cite.
Is it worth responding to such bilge? Maybe not, but here goes:
The individuals under discussion are not even afforded the right to prove that they are citizens. Bush says he is only claiming the right to treat non-citizens this way, but in practise, if his bare assertion that someone is an enemy combatant is non-reviewable by any court, then he can declare you, me, a political enemy or anyone else to be such with utter impunity.
I realize the danger of starting another great war on the nature of math here, but I think I may be able to help the poster understand the error of his strong anti-Platonist claim that "math is not explored, it is created". I will not dispute here the weaker claim that math "doesn't necessarily have any connection to "the outside world" or "reality"".
Fortunately, while he skates dangerously close to the absurd anti-logical position that many hold today (as in "On Mars, the Martians may have decided that 2 plus 2 is 3, rather than 4") when he characterizes math as existing only in our minds or our thought (and not externally or independently), he definitely does not go there. He is definitely on the side of logic and certainty. And that is why he should also accept that math is explored. Not that mathematical concepts exist physically in the way that my computer monitor exists, but that even before we explore the far reaches of the theorems that follow from our axioms, those theorems already are true even before we discover them, and even if we all died today, tomorrow they would still be true, pehaps waiting for some Martian to discover them. If he means by "it is created" that we have choices about what directions we build out our knowledge in the space of theorems, I can certainly agree. We finite beings will never be able to follow all the pathways, and will no doubt miss whole fabulous areas of mathematical knowledge. In a sense, the mathematician is creating. But if that is taken far enough to deny the exploration aspect, it is overstated.
By the way, it is curious how, despite his strong anti-Platonic bent, and his disagreement with those who "claim that math is a science", he nevertheless turns around and criticizes those who see math as having "applications as its purpose". Let me finish the sentence for him: "rather than the search for knowledge as an end in itself, that is, pure science".
Isn't it odd how posters use "quite sure" to indicate lack of confidence in an assertion? If they know something, they merely state it. But if they are not sure, they say "I'm quite sure".
I confess that I did not word my post carefully enough. I did not mean it the way it came across. I meant that I hope that DVD-R dies, but that it might well kill off DVD+R instead. I can only agree with you about the mess!
The waste, kickbacks and bribes, which we unfortunately will always have with us, are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the open and 'legal' spending on blatantly unconstitutional 'social programs' and corporate welfare. Merely enforcing the explicitly stated (see Article I) constitutional prohibition of acts outside the powers granted Congress would cut the federal budget by at least half. If you don't believe it, just check out the spending pie charts that the politicos proudly wave.
The politicians just love it when we are distracted by the the relatively inconsequential graft while missing the fact that they are robbing us blind in plain sight.
This is the same species which implies that it could (if we ever figure out that pesky time travel machine) cross breed with the plants growing in the Jurassic age. Modern plants (also descendants, but certainly not of the same species) would not be expected to have this ability.
Hardly. Individuals of the same species cannot, by definition, crossbreed. But individuals of related species often can.
I suggest you read up on the differences in required level of proof between civil and criminal cases. Generally, in civil suits, all that is necessary for the plaintiff to prevail is that he show that it is slightly more likely that you did what you are accused of than that you didn't. In other words, all the ancient principles of due process go out the window.
The moderator may have been shocked at the admittedly amazing facts alleged by this poster with some formal education in international law, and so think that they just couldn't be true. But that does not justify his misuse of 'Flamebait'. Here is the definition of Flamebait in the FAQ:
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
Tell that to all the poor schmucks who have been kidnapped by the US and brought back to stand trial on various federal charges. They are not US citizens, and were neither in the US nor on a US vessel on the high seas. Thus they could not possibly be subject to US laws, if national sovereigny means anything. But the US has simply declared that when it feels that anyone's acts outside the US affect the US or its citizens (which of course could mean anyone doing anything anywhere on the planet), they are subject to US law. And the political hacks on the US Supreme Court has upheld the practise. So the DMCA does in fact apply to every human being in the universe.
It's interesting to see that this post has been moderated to "Troll", even though it clearly is not a troll, and the moderators know full well that it is not a troll (though it is off-topic). They moderated it "Troll" because they hate truth, and "Troll" is their highest insult. With perfect consistency, they have no compunction about being dishonest in their moderating. Mr. Boyd should take this as an unintended compliment.
Practically all the comments here (except "The article is lousy" (#6318621)) are based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of copyright: the notion that copyright protects the ideas (themes, style, atmosphere, characterization, etc.) embodied in a literary work. It does not. It protects only the particular embodiment of those ideas, in other words, the particular phrases and sentences that make up a work. If those are not copied (or translated*), then there is no copyright violation. The Slate article author touches on this a little, but not strongly enough.
All the long threads about derivative works, the thin line between parody and knockoff, and fair use are simply beside the point. If Tanya Grotter does not contain any of the English text of Harry Potter, or Russian translation of that text, then no copying has occurred, and thus no violation of copyright.
Derivative works include some portion or portions of the original work. In other words, they are partially copies of the original, plus some original matter. Without a license, they are generally illegal. Derivative works that parody the original have a special exemption (but it is certainly also possible to parody a work without deriving from it at all). Fair use also is a special limited license to copy. But if no copying is being done, then fair use need not be invoked.
* This actually opens up some very interesting philosophical questions related to the logical coherence of copyright laws, since given the right translation rule, any string can be translated into any other.
"In the US there is [a fundamental right to earn a living by making music]. It's in the Constitution."
Now who's trolling? Obviousy, there is no fundamental right to have people be forced to pay you for any particular thing you try to sell so that you can earn a living off it. Surely the poster does not really believe that I have a natural right to earn a living selling, say, very fine mud pies.
And even if he only means that there is a fundamental right to a monopoly on the copying of one's creations, he still shows a profound ignorance of the relevant Constitutional clause. If he enrolled in a course on I. P. law, he would learn in the first week that the Constitution is not recognizing a natural right in this area, but creating an unnatural, artifical right for the purpose of promoting creation of useful works. The passage even states its purpose explicitly, and further makes the point clear by requiring that it be limited in time, which it would not be if it were a natural right.
Wrong. A simulation that would be able to fool us must simulate the whole ball of wax. A game engine, to maintain consistency and continuity so that the players do not notice problems, must continue to simulate even what is not currently being viewed.
Would it not be more correct to say that there are 2D geometries in which pi does not exist, because in them the ratio of circumference to distance is variable? If so, then your criticism of the parent post fails. He was right to attack the naive notion expressed in his parent post that we could easily construct a simulation in which pi is 5.
The Anonymous Coward's post starts out strong, with the most profound comment in the thread, but weakens as it proceeds. Pi cannot logically be other than what it is. To even speak of pi being equal to, say, 5 is to speak incoherently. Not just incorrectly, but incoherently. A simulation cannot just 'set pi to equal 5'. Such a simulation could not be written, and it could not run. It's not just that things would be "so different".
Even with its flaws, though, it still should be moderated up as Interesting!
You have the right idea about patents in general. However, a few years ago Congress decided to let discoverers of genes patent them. This is certainly a legal oddity (conflicting with the core meaning of patents in US law), but they wanted to encourage such discovery, and the patent system was a practical tool for effecting the policy.
The name of the Christian Science Monitor might lead those unfamiliar with it to think that it is a Christian news publication focused on science. Actually, it is a news organization associated withis a small religious group known as "Christian Science" (offically "The Church of Christ, Scientist"), which has very little in common with Christianity.
It's ALL of the problem. The only way to eliminate cheating is to rigidly follow two simple cardinal rules:
1. Place no reliance on the trustworthiness of players.
2. Place no reliance on the ignorance of players of any fact.
To adhere to these rules while ensuring fairness to all players will require that you:
1. Design the client-server interface such that no more information is provided to a client than you want any client and/or player to be aware of and take advantage of, including storing information for later recall.
2. Make the interface bullet-proof. No buffer overruns, etc.
3. Publish the complete interface definition. Hold back nothing.
4. Publicly announce and adhere to the policy that any and all clients are legal.
That leaves the really hard problem, one that will require great creativity and skill: designing an interface and gameworld mechanics that will prevent robots from playing better than human beings.
Slashdot Mirror
This may be a problem with some web-assisted self-diagnosers and medical students. Unfortunately, the typical physician has exactly the opposite problem! If you are unfortunate enough to actually have a rare condition, you will commonly be misdiagnosed for years, sometimes to your great harm, even if your symptoms are a perfect fit for said condition. The smart patient will do research and bring it to his doctor's attention. And if he is not a pompous ass, he will pay attention to it.
People are human and want recognition for their work and ideas.
Your assertion is true. But you cannot use it to argue for copyright. Copyright is not about getting recognition; it is about getting money through the exercise of a state-granted monopoly. You have unwittingly stated a powerful counter to the standard argument that without copyright, no-one would publish anything. They would, for precisely the reason you cite.
It would be much clearer to call them 24h-per-Martian-day watches.
PDF
HTML
Is it worth responding to such bilge? Maybe not, but here goes:
The individuals under discussion are not even afforded the right to prove that they are citizens. Bush says he is only claiming the right to treat non-citizens this way, but in practise, if his bare assertion that someone is an enemy combatant is non-reviewable by any court, then he can declare you, me, a political enemy or anyone else to be such with utter impunity.
I realize the danger of starting another great war on the nature of math here, but I think I may be able to help the poster understand the error of his strong anti-Platonist claim that "math is not explored, it is created". I will not dispute here the weaker claim that math "doesn't necessarily have any connection to "the outside world" or "reality"".
Fortunately, while he skates dangerously close to the absurd anti-logical position that many hold today (as in "On Mars, the Martians may have decided that 2 plus 2 is 3, rather than 4") when he characterizes math as existing only in our minds or our thought (and not externally or independently), he definitely does not go there. He is definitely on the side of logic and certainty. And that is why he should also accept that math is explored. Not that mathematical concepts exist physically in the way that my computer monitor exists, but that even before we explore the far reaches of the theorems that follow from our axioms, those theorems already are true even before we discover them, and even if we all died today, tomorrow they would still be true, pehaps waiting for some Martian to discover them. If he means by "it is created" that we have choices about what directions we build out our knowledge in the space of theorems, I can certainly agree. We finite beings will never be able to follow all the pathways, and will no doubt miss whole fabulous areas of mathematical knowledge. In a sense, the mathematician is creating. But if that is taken far enough to deny the exploration aspect, it is overstated.
By the way, it is curious how, despite his strong anti-Platonic bent, and his disagreement with those who "claim that math is a science", he nevertheless turns around and criticizes those who see math as having "applications as its purpose". Let me finish the sentence for him: "rather than the search for knowledge as an end in itself, that is, pure science".
Did DOJ follow its own published guide to Exemption 5? Slog through DOJ Guide to FOIA Exemption 5 and decide for yourself.
Isn't it odd how posters use "quite sure" to indicate lack of confidence in an assertion? If they know something, they merely state it. But if they are not sure, they say "I'm quite sure".
I confess that I did not word my post carefully enough. I did not mean it the way it came across. I meant that I hope that DVD-R dies, but that it might well kill off DVD+R instead. I can only agree with you about the mess!
We can only hope. Remember Beta?
The waste, kickbacks and bribes, which we unfortunately will always have with us, are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the open and 'legal' spending on blatantly unconstitutional 'social programs' and corporate welfare. Merely enforcing the explicitly stated (see Article I) constitutional prohibition of acts outside the powers granted Congress would cut the federal budget by at least half. If you don't believe it, just check out the spending pie charts that the politicos proudly wave.
The politicians just love it when we are distracted by the the relatively inconsequential graft while missing the fact that they are robbing us blind in plain sight.
This is the same species which implies that it could (if we ever figure out that pesky time travel machine) cross breed with the plants growing in the Jurassic age. Modern plants (also descendants, but certainly not of the same species) would not be expected to have this ability.
Hardly. Individuals of the same species cannot, by definition, crossbreed. But individuals of related species often can.
I suggest you read up on the differences in required level of proof between civil and criminal cases. Generally, in civil suits, all that is necessary for the plaintiff to prevail is that he show that it is slightly more likely that you did what you are accused of than that you didn't. In other words, all the ancient principles of due process go out the window.
The moderator may have been shocked at the admittedly amazing facts alleged by this poster with some formal education in international law, and so think that they just couldn't be true. But that does not justify his misuse of 'Flamebait'. Here is the definition of Flamebait in the FAQ:
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
Tell that to all the poor schmucks who have been kidnapped by the US and brought back to stand trial on various federal charges. They are not US citizens, and were neither in the US nor on a US vessel on the high seas. Thus they could not possibly be subject to US laws, if national sovereigny means anything. But the US has simply declared that when it feels that anyone's acts outside the US affect the US or its citizens (which of course could mean anyone doing anything anywhere on the planet), they are subject to US law. And the political hacks on the US Supreme Court has upheld the practise. So the DMCA does in fact apply to every human being in the universe.
It's interesting to see that this post has been moderated to "Troll", even though it clearly is not a troll, and the moderators know full well that it is not a troll (though it is off-topic). They moderated it "Troll" because they hate truth, and "Troll" is their highest insult. With perfect consistency, they have no compunction about being dishonest in their moderating. Mr. Boyd should take this as an unintended compliment.
Practically all the comments here (except "The article is lousy" (#6318621)) are based on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of copyright: the notion that copyright protects the ideas (themes, style, atmosphere, characterization, etc.) embodied in a literary work. It does not. It protects only the particular embodiment of those ideas, in other words, the particular phrases and sentences that make up a work. If those are not copied (or translated*), then there is no copyright violation. The Slate article author touches on this a little, but not strongly enough.
All the long threads about derivative works, the thin line between parody and knockoff, and fair use are simply beside the point. If Tanya Grotter does not contain any of the English text of Harry Potter, or Russian translation of that text, then no copying has occurred, and thus no violation of copyright.
Derivative works include some portion or portions of the original work. In other words, they are partially copies of the original, plus some original matter. Without a license, they are generally illegal. Derivative works that parody the original have a special exemption (but it is certainly also possible to parody a work without deriving from it at all). Fair use also is a special limited license to copy. But if no copying is being done, then fair use need not be invoked.
* This actually opens up some very interesting philosophical questions related to the logical coherence of copyright laws, since given the right translation rule, any string can be translated into any other.
"In the US there is [a fundamental right to earn a living by making music]. It's in the Constitution."
Now who's trolling? Obviousy, there is no fundamental right to have people be forced to pay you for any particular thing you try to sell so that you can earn a living off it. Surely the poster does not really believe that I have a natural right to earn a living selling, say, very fine mud pies.
And even if he only means that there is a fundamental right to a monopoly on the copying of one's creations, he still shows a profound ignorance of the relevant Constitutional clause. If he enrolled in a course on I. P. law, he would learn in the first week that the Constitution is not recognizing a natural right in this area, but creating an unnatural, artifical right for the purpose of promoting creation of useful works. The passage even states its purpose explicitly, and further makes the point clear by requiring that it be limited in time, which it would not be if it were a natural right.
If you had read my response to Spongman in this thread, you might not have wasted time lecturing me on elementary matters of which I am well aware.
My response to the Anonymous Coward's post was tailored to it, so as to point out its logical inadequacy, and did not need to go further.
Wrong. A simulation that would be able to fool us must simulate the whole ball of wax. A game engine, to maintain consistency and continuity so that the players do not notice problems, must continue to simulate even what is not currently being viewed.
Would it not be more correct to say that there are 2D geometries in which pi does not exist, because in them the ratio of circumference to distance is variable? If so, then your criticism of the parent post fails. He was right to attack the naive notion expressed in his parent post that we could easily construct a simulation in which pi is 5.
The Anonymous Coward's post starts out strong, with the most profound comment in the thread, but weakens as it proceeds. Pi cannot logically be other than what it is. To even speak of pi being equal to, say, 5 is to speak incoherently. Not just incorrectly, but incoherently. A simulation cannot just 'set pi to equal 5'. Such a simulation could not be written, and it could not run. It's not just that things would be "so different".
Even with its flaws, though, it still should be moderated up as Interesting!
You have the right idea about patents in general. However, a few years ago Congress decided to let discoverers of genes patent them. This is certainly a legal oddity (conflicting with the core meaning of patents in US law), but they wanted to encourage such discovery, and the patent system was a practical tool for effecting the policy.
The name of the Christian Science Monitor might lead those unfamiliar with it to think that it is a Christian news publication focused on science. Actually, it is a news organization associated withis a small religious group known as "Christian Science" (offically "The Church of Christ, Scientist"), which has very little in common with Christianity.
It's ALL of the problem. The only way to eliminate cheating is to rigidly follow two simple cardinal rules:
1. Place no reliance on the trustworthiness of players.
2. Place no reliance on the ignorance of players of any fact.
To adhere to these rules while ensuring fairness to all players will require that you:
1. Design the client-server interface such that no more information is provided to a client than you want any client and/or player to be aware of and take advantage of, including storing information for later recall.
2. Make the interface bullet-proof. No buffer overruns, etc.
3. Publish the complete interface definition. Hold back nothing.
4. Publicly announce and adhere to the policy that any and all clients are legal.
That leaves the really hard problem, one that will require great creativity and skill: designing an interface and gameworld mechanics that will prevent robots from playing better than human beings.