The Amish, famous for their renunciation of a lot of technology, are embracing a lab that has been built in the centre of their community because their faith teaches them to "help their fellow man", recognizing that helping scientists better understand the genetic causes of diabetes, mental retardation, and some of the rarer diseases in their families, helps themselves as well as others.
From the article it says, "To the Amish, many of whom travel the few dozen miles or so from their homes by horse and buggy, the clinic has been heaven sent. It very often saves their children, who are disproportionately afflicted by rare and sometimes fatal genetic-based diseases because of 200 years of inbreeding."
The Amish alsolutely have to rely on the outside world for their medical needs. This is just another extension of it. And they have special needs because of all the inbreeding which these genetisists are helping out to deal with.
Face it, their gene pool is so shallow and it's getting shallower with people leaving and not joining that in a few more centuries they'll be freaks.
Inbreeding in this sense is not necessarily harmful. In fact, societies with high rates of close marriages (for example first cousins) can have lower gene frequencies for mutations causing recessive diseases than outbred populations because there is more opportunities for selection to act against the mutation.
You're kidding me right? Have you seen what freaks come out of those kinds of families?
First of all, they produce the ugliest of people. Second, if you have 3-4 kids in such a family, you can expect one to be a total freak.
Like I heard about some Indian family that had a kid whose aging process is accelerated so bad that he dies at age 10 of old age. It was being used to study the genetic basis of aging.
Their lifestyle also has numerous sociological benefits as well. It's fairly self-evident that the level of communal interaction is higher among less technologically oriented societies, as well as overall levels of apathy being a good deal lower. People from such communities tend to care a great deal more about their fellow man, and on a day to day basis, as well...not just when disaster hits. The rest of human society could learn a lot from them.
A professor mine used to say that if you used things like it's self-evident and obvious before a leap of logic, anything could be justified.
I could say that it is obvious that no matter where you put humans they always live sociologically in a smiliar way. Put any animal society anywhere else they'll do the same things - same with humans. So, maybe your whole view is just grass is greener on the other side.
... U of Chicago researchers who have been tracking their geneaologies for decades hypothesize Hutterite females must have some means of detecting when a Hutterite male has matching deliterious recessives.
Yeah, everyone is disgusted with incest and it's built into everyone. Why would the Hutterite females need a super sense?
Marriage and mating is the most intricate of all social practices. Maybe the Hutterite has a mate selection system that minimizes the effects of interbreeding.
Interbreeding is just a bad idea. All of a sudden the chances of problems go through the roof.
It is an instictual response as much as fear of insects and such.
Before contraception, sex meant baby and a baby meant a significant investment of time and energy to carry it 9 months and give birth. So, anyone in the family of a girl would be paranoid about sex as they want their lineage to be as fit as possible.
Now, sex doesn't mean baby all the time. But, we're still paranoid about it. Like we are about insects even though most of them can't do anything to you.
Plenty of other p2p software was introduced almost explicitly for downloading copyrighted material, and advertised as such.
Bittorrent has always been about just "large file distribution" and was initially pushed as an alternative for downloading movie trailers, large Linux distributions, etc
Are you implying that movie trailers and Linux distributions are not copyrighted?
However, check the PhD stats. Fewer women PhD in mathematics than men.
The only exposure most people have to the world of mathematics is via a mathematics teacher. So, most of the girls study math to be a teacher, few to actually study math for math's sake.
Computer science, programming and engineering are very much based on working alone at a task - something women hate. They like interaction and a direct feel of helping other people or working with people.
So, unless the field of programming changes, I think women will still find it not for them.
Somewhat different to your new claim about MP3s. I'm not sure why I should keep responding to you given that you're such a slippery, dishonest debater.
The statical chances of both happening are equally almost zero - I thought my example of George Harrison went right over your head. So, I had to come up with a simpler example for you.
Perhaps you should start doing some research and learn exactly what patents and copyrights are, and how they work, because frankly it's looking right now like you don't have a clue but are blustering a lot to try to make it look like you do.
You're trying to make an argument that if it's not copyrightable but patentable so you don't have to pay it. You have to pay for it either way. Copyrights and patents are made from the same thread. It's stupid to say I will respect copyright but not patents.
Because society has evolved, historically, to respect the rights and work of others. Copyright embodies respect for intellectual effort and work - much as physical labor has always been respected.
Look up the history of copyright. It was considered by the founding fathers a necessary evil, the evil being a monopoly in a capitalistic market. The British empire used a form of copyright so that people in the colonies could not make products out of rew materials that the colonies themselves produced. They had to go to Britian who made heaps of monopolistic revenue from using these raw material to produce goods. In fact, America was able to break off from Britian by breaking this form of copyright imposed by Britian. Of course this isn't stricly copyright if you want split hairs but it was before the term copyright was coined. The founding fathers idea of copyright was to promote production of ideas but not let the inventor monopolize it for the harm of society. By the continual extension of copyright the original intent of copyright from a necessary evil has been changed to a tool of the rich to further better themselves at the expense of the rest of society. That is what is wrong with modern copyright.
Nope, no psychology class. Sorry. And also sorry because you Can't Copyright Ideas. You should read more on what you can and can't copyright. Similarly, you can't copyright a phone number.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that you independently came up with the theory of rationalization! Well, in that case, I sat down and randomly generated bits and it became that DVD or MP3. Lame lame arguement.
I know ideas can't be copyrighted as much as you can't eat water you have only drink it. Copyright and patents are based on the same philosophy. You can't copyright ideas you patent them. And, so according to you, it's OK to violate patents but not copyright?
Wait a minute, bub. We were talking about copyright. Switching topics mid-stream because you were caught out is a really lame-ass way to get out of a debate you're losing.
Just read my last paragraph about it.
If I came up with the entire song by myself without ever hearing it, that would not be copyright infringement. Do you understand the difference? Or are you just trying to make the best out of your sloppy argument?
Do you really think that if anyone accused of copyright violation could just say I created a large random file and it turned out to be this MP3 file? So, yeah, creating an entire song that's just like another one without hearing it as slim as a snowball's chance in hell. Admit it, you learnt the theory of rationalization from someone else (and admit that you should pay for it's use according to your own view on copyright).
Yes it was. Society, however, has changed since then. The thing is, it's pretty clear that in the case of segregation society was wrong. There is no such clear stance on copyright law - and most people actually think that copyright law is the right way to do things - and that letting people freeload is not.
Well, how do you know that society won't change it's view on copyright in the future? It is pretty clear to me that some portions of copyright law are wrong. You say pretty clear that in the case of segregation society was wrong but then it wasn't so and many people like KKK and others believed segregation was right. How do you know that your view of copyright is right?
Wow, a long bitter response. I must be doing something right.
Hard to use someone else's theory or plagiarize it when you've never even heard of it before.
You might not have heard of Max Weber but you did use his theory and ideas which you probably heard of from other sources (from Psychology class or someone else using it). I don't think you just came up with the idea all on your own. It is a public domain idea that benefits everyone, including you without having to pay for every use of it.
I don't know if you realized this, but theories can't be copyrighted either. The paper that explains them can be, but the theory itsef cannot. The closest approximation of what you're trying to go for is a patent.
That doesn't change the fact that you have to pay when you use something that has been patented. So cough up the money to Max Weber's estate.
And what's more - even if it were possible to copyright a theory - is that if I use someone else's theory without ever having heard of them, I'm creating my own version. That's not copyright infringement.
Just because I don't know the title of a George Harrison song doesn't mean I can write a song that sounds exactly like it and say it is my own version because I used a banjo instead of a sitar. That IS copyright infringement. See this link
And, by the way, it is antisocial - if you won't be governed by society's laws, you're antisocial by definition).
Antisocial heh, then I guess that Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat in the bus was also antisocial since it did violate society's laws.
... whatever it takes for you to feel better about taking someone else's work without compensating them, I guess. It's amazing how easy it is to rationalize those things away, isn't it?
You have used the Max Weber's theory of rationalization in your post without compensating him. Please send send payment to his estate.
I've done straight-through conversions to a standard MIDI file format, but you lose certain features that way (named tracks, loops, etc.).
Why don't you dump it out to AU format instead of MIDI? Then, it's just like tape. It will play on any Mac, Windows, Linux etc etc but of course, unlike MIDI you can't change it. Of course, you can dig out that old Mac and rerun the program. It's like complaining about some piece of ourboard gear that was discontinued and you can't get the same sound as that. Opcode Sequencer is propriatory, reel is not.
First of all, all your audio files are saved as WAV files - which are basically samples. All your MIDI data is saved as MIDI data. You can import/export it into any program. Furthermore, people are also working on a basic multitrack data standard.
So, what is lost? The automation information, the tracks you colored green? That is also lost in old tape. Do you think all the fader information, outboard effects are not propriotary? Furthermore, tape gets erased and all the editing is destrutive.
Tape is just like a WAV file that you can have around - compare a document in the computer to the one written by you. It's like saying old documents that I made in the computer won't be able to be opened in the future!! You can always export the text and pictures and recreate it. Same with the multitrack audio files.
None of them say he charged anything for it. Read the official report as well - it does not say he charged money for it.
I guess a lot of people have been confused about that. I think it's because of the word PIRATE. It automatically registers as charging. Of course, the articles and the official report doesn't say he didn't charge and makes the fact that he's just a filesharer (to a umpteenth degree with 130,000 files to share) not so evident.
He did NOT charge for access to copyright materials
From the report:
In January 2003, Desir and others set up an online library for a private group to share movies, games, utility software and music. The library grew to about 13,000 titles by the time of the federal raid in April. Transfer logs obtained from the computer service show Desir transferred numerous titles between Aug. 16, 2003, and April 2, 2004. Records show he copied and distributed at least 10 items every six months. He accessed the system from his Iowa City home, records show. No address was provided.
It says that he set up a server where a group of people could share the software. He did not charge people in the group for it.
How is this modded insightful? This is completely wrong !!!!
I think he was just suffering from the downloader's syndrome of trying to have every title in the warez scene in his computer just in case that at some time if the need rises for a particular utility he will have it.
He was just being a librarian and a collector. He wasn't asking money for people to access it. THe people who could access it were probably people on a IRC channel. His crime was probably that he became too good a collector and a librarian.
So in philosophy it is equivalent to a teenager sharing his/her collection of digital goodies he/she's found on the web and stored on his/her computer.
Yes, it does sound like a commericial - misinforming and misleading.
First of all the MBox does 2 channels of recording. Something that can be had for products in the $150-$200 range. Take this for example Behringer BCA2000 has more features. Plus, those boxes have MIDI interfaces which the MBox does not.
They have been advertising the shit of it. Somehow somewhere someone managed to put Pro Tools as a magical word. It's all hype. Cheaper systems and software can be as much nowadays.
Personally, I think it's overpriced and overhyped - hmm, perfectly fits in the Mac user's world.
In case you didn't notice, you were probably riding along with some bums, mentally handicapped nuts and convicted felons.
Yes, those are the only people actually take the bus. I used to ride the bus where about two dozen felons had to be on the bus to go to a certain center that was on my way two times a week. Well, at least they were clean.
Personally, I'd go for the convicted felon look riding the bus. The bus driver might be nicer to you then.
Just buy a car. You can find old old ones that are super cheap. If it breaks down, then junk it and get another one - or learn how to fix cars.
H1B is not for labor competition. It is only issued for labor shortage that requires that a local labor shortage and that the company requesting it has made serious effor to find local labor. Maybe it is being abused, I don't know.
H1Bs are required to be paid as much as an American would. So, in truth, a foreign programmer in his/her own country would be labor competition as outsourcing, the H1Bs in the US would not be as they are filling up seats that could not be filled.
H1B covers anything techical - all the professors in science, math, etc who are from a foreign country are on H1B (unless they have been sponsored and have a green card).
I think you have some pretty standard misconceptions about H1Bs. I'm just stating the facts and philosophies.
Yeah, that's a hotly debated point. It all boils down to how much of our personality is genetic (and thus engrained into the brain structure and thus, immutable) or that our personalities are learnt.
I used to hold on to the belief that everything was learnt - also personality. Anyone could be anybody if they tried.
But, I've changed my mind. I used to have long discussion with my coworker who was a mother and she said babies born came with their personality and didn't change as they grew up. (Somehow that had also convinced her that I would be a terrible father forcing my kids into things:)
But, yeah, I think the best scientifc evidence is identical twins reared apart. They have very similar personalities. Also, there have been other corrational studies among families and such which points to a significant genetic influence
People use language as a big evidence of hardwired brain structure. People learn language without any difficuly for most cases; other animals will never learn no matter how hard you try - some apes learn handful of them. If kids are not taught a language (as a bunch of deaf kids in some country), they invent their own.
So, don't be blinded by one side of the arguement. I guess people can be whatever they want but sometimes people are limited. Being 5'8" and with bad vision makes me a shitty basketball player but better for sports that require fast reaction times (nerve pathways are shorter and thus, fast reaction time...). The idea is that maybe there are some mental differences that land people into one category or other.
But, yeah, don't nag or lecture your spouse about not wanting to change though. Or your children. Or anyone for that matter. It's like the proverbial trying to teach a donkey to speak. Not only will you get furstrated it will also piss off the donkey.
The only reason some people don't change (as in the spousal example before), is simply because they don't want to. No, I think in spousal examples, people want their spouse to be more outgoing, or more motivated, or open-minded and such. These are personality traits (possibly disguised as something else) which doesn't change. Either it's hardwired into the brain or develops very early on but once it's set it doesn't change. Unless of course massive head injury or disease. Then, nice people can turn into horrible people.
Of course, this is all speculative. I prob. can't provide concrete scientific evidence for it
Have you ever known someone who moved from the Northern US to the Southern US? Eventually they gain the accent. People can and DO in fact change. I meant a change of personality - unless he/she sustains a massive brain injury or a smiliar disease. People are mostly always themselves. They don't grow into another type of personality. Certain things do change - like accents and weight and skill - but personality does not. Of course, you'd have to refer to specific psychology papers to for a precise definition of personality.
Ha, so you're basically saying that better at academics = high social prestige among your peers.
Yeah, the problem is not that we are lazy. Is a child lazy at learning language? Is a child lazy at recognizing objects?
The problem is we aren't designed to be learning math. Nobody likes to learn math. However, as humans we will do things that will give us more social prestige. So, we will do and be good in math if it means that our social prestige depends on it.
Slashdot Mirror
The Amish, famous for their renunciation of a lot of technology, are embracing a lab that has been built in the centre of their community because their faith teaches them to "help their fellow man", recognizing that helping scientists better understand the genetic causes of diabetes, mental retardation, and some of the rarer diseases in their families, helps themselves as well as others.
From the article it says, "To the Amish, many of whom travel the few dozen miles or so from their homes by horse and buggy, the clinic has been heaven sent. It very often saves their children, who are disproportionately afflicted by rare and sometimes fatal genetic-based diseases because of 200 years of inbreeding."
The Amish alsolutely have to rely on the outside world for their medical needs. This is just another extension of it. And they have special needs because of all the inbreeding which these genetisists are helping out to deal with.
Face it, their gene pool is so shallow and it's getting shallower with people leaving and not joining that in a few more centuries they'll be freaks.
Inbreeding in this sense is not necessarily harmful. In fact, societies with high rates of close marriages (for example first cousins) can have lower gene frequencies for mutations causing recessive diseases than outbred populations because there is more opportunities for selection to act against the mutation.
You're kidding me right? Have you seen what freaks come out of those kinds of families?
First of all, they produce the ugliest of people. Second, if you have 3-4 kids in such a family, you can expect one to be a total freak.
Like I heard about some Indian family that had a kid whose aging process is accelerated so bad that he dies at age 10 of old age. It was being used to study the genetic basis of aging.
Their lifestyle also has numerous sociological benefits as well. It's fairly self-evident that the level of communal interaction is higher among less technologically oriented societies, as well as overall levels of apathy being a good deal lower. People from such communities tend to care a great deal more about their fellow man, and on a day to day basis, as well...not just when disaster hits. The rest of human society could learn a lot from them.
A professor mine used to say that if you used things like it's self-evident and obvious before a leap of logic, anything could be justified.
I could say that it is obvious that no matter where you put humans they always live sociologically in a smiliar way. Put any animal society anywhere else they'll do the same things - same with humans. So, maybe your whole view is just grass is greener on the other side.
Yeah, everyone is disgusted with incest and it's built into everyone. Why would the Hutterite females need a super sense?
Marriage and mating is the most intricate of all social practices. Maybe the Hutterite has a mate selection system that minimizes the effects of interbreeding.
Interbreeding is just a bad idea. All of a sudden the chances of problems go through the roof.
What's causing this 'fear of sex' anyways?
It is an instictual response as much as fear of insects and such.
Before contraception, sex meant baby and a baby meant a significant investment of time and energy to carry it 9 months and give birth. So, anyone in the family of a girl would be paranoid about sex as they want their lineage to be as fit as possible.
Now, sex doesn't mean baby all the time. But, we're still paranoid about it. Like we are about insects even though most of them can't do anything to you.
Plenty of other p2p software was introduced almost explicitly for downloading copyrighted material, and advertised as such.
Bittorrent has always been about just "large file distribution" and was initially pushed as an alternative for downloading movie trailers, large Linux distributions, etc
Are you implying that movie trailers and Linux distributions are not copyrighted?
However, check the PhD stats. Fewer women PhD in mathematics than men.
The only exposure most people have to the world of mathematics is via a mathematics teacher. So, most of the girls study math to be a teacher, few to actually study math for math's sake.
Computer science, programming and engineering are very much based on working alone at a task - something women hate. They like interaction and a direct feel of helping other people or working with people.
So, unless the field of programming changes, I think women will still find it not for them.
Good point.
It's like saying I'm going to put a Pentium CPU into my playstation and replace the playstation CPU.
That would make very little sense to do.
Somewhat different to your new claim about MP3s. I'm not sure why I should keep responding to you given that you're such a slippery, dishonest debater.
The statical chances of both happening are equally almost zero - I thought my example of George Harrison went right over your head. So, I had to come up with a simpler example for you.
Perhaps you should start doing some research and learn exactly what patents and copyrights are, and how they work, because frankly it's looking right now like you don't have a clue but are blustering a lot to try to make it look like you do.
You're trying to make an argument that if it's not copyrightable but patentable so you don't have to pay it. You have to pay for it either way. Copyrights and patents are made from the same thread. It's stupid to say I will respect copyright but not patents.
Because society has evolved, historically, to respect the rights and work of others. Copyright embodies respect for intellectual effort and work - much as physical labor has always been respected.
Look up the history of copyright. It was considered by the founding fathers a necessary evil, the evil being a monopoly in a capitalistic market. The British empire used a form of copyright so that people in the colonies could not make products out of rew materials that the colonies themselves produced. They had to go to Britian who made heaps of monopolistic revenue from using these raw material to produce goods. In fact, America was able to break off from Britian by breaking this form of copyright imposed by Britian. Of course this isn't stricly copyright if you want split hairs but it was before the term copyright was coined. The founding fathers idea of copyright was to promote production of ideas but not let the inventor monopolize it for the harm of society. By the continual extension of copyright the original intent of copyright from a necessary evil has been changed to a tool of the rich to further better themselves at the expense of the rest of society. That is what is wrong with modern copyright.
Nope, no psychology class. Sorry. And also sorry because you Can't Copyright Ideas. You should read more on what you can and can't copyright. Similarly, you can't copyright a phone number.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that you independently came up with the theory of rationalization! Well, in that case, I sat down and randomly generated bits and it became that DVD or MP3. Lame lame arguement.
I know ideas can't be copyrighted as much as you can't eat water you have only drink it. Copyright and patents are based on the same philosophy. You can't copyright ideas you patent them. And, so according to you, it's OK to violate patents but not copyright?
Wait a minute, bub. We were talking about copyright. Switching topics mid-stream because you were caught out is a really lame-ass way to get out of a debate you're losing.
Just read my last paragraph about it.
If I came up with the entire song by myself without ever hearing it, that would not be copyright infringement. Do you understand the difference? Or are you just trying to make the best out of your sloppy argument?
Do you really think that if anyone accused of copyright violation could just say I created a large random file and it turned out to be this MP3 file? So, yeah, creating an entire song that's just like another one without hearing it as slim as a snowball's chance in hell. Admit it, you learnt the theory of rationalization from someone else (and admit that you should pay for it's use according to your own view on copyright).
Yes it was. Society, however, has changed since then. The thing is, it's pretty clear that in the case of segregation society was wrong. There is no such clear stance on copyright law - and most people actually think that copyright law is the right way to do things - and that letting people freeload is not.
Well, how do you know that society won't change it's view on copyright in the future? It is pretty clear to me that some portions of copyright law are wrong. You say pretty clear that in the case of segregation society was wrong but then it wasn't so and many people like KKK and others believed segregation was right. How do you know that your view of copyright is right?
Wow, a long bitter response. I must be doing something right.
Hard to use someone else's theory or plagiarize it when you've never even heard of it before.
You might not have heard of Max Weber but you did use his theory and ideas which you probably heard of from other sources (from Psychology class or someone else using it). I don't think you just came up with the idea all on your own. It is a public domain idea that benefits everyone, including you without having to pay for every use of it.
I don't know if you realized this, but theories can't be copyrighted either. The paper that explains them can be, but the theory itsef cannot. The closest approximation of what you're trying to go for is a patent.
That doesn't change the fact that you have to pay when you use something that has been patented. So cough up the money to Max Weber's estate.
And what's more - even if it were possible to copyright a theory - is that if I use someone else's theory without ever having heard of them, I'm creating my own version. That's not copyright infringement.
Just because I don't know the title of a George Harrison song doesn't mean I can write a song that sounds exactly like it and say it is my own version because I used a banjo instead of a sitar. That IS copyright infringement. See this link
And, by the way, it is antisocial - if you won't be governed by society's laws, you're antisocial by definition).
Antisocial heh, then I guess that Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat in the bus was also antisocial since it did violate society's laws.
You have used the Max Weber's theory of rationalization in your post without compensating him. Please send send payment to his estate.
I've done straight-through conversions to a standard MIDI file format, but you lose certain features that way (named tracks, loops, etc.).
Why don't you dump it out to AU format instead of MIDI? Then, it's just like tape. It will play on any Mac, Windows, Linux etc etc but of course, unlike MIDI you can't change it. Of course, you can dig out that old Mac and rerun the program. It's like complaining about some piece of ourboard gear that was discontinued and you can't get the same sound as that. Opcode Sequencer is propriatory, reel is not.
Oh, come on. This is ridiculous!!!
First of all, all your audio files are saved as WAV files - which are basically samples. All your MIDI data is saved as MIDI data. You can import/export it into any program. Furthermore, people are also working on a basic multitrack data standard.
So, what is lost? The automation information, the tracks you colored green? That is also lost in old tape. Do you think all the fader information, outboard effects are not propriotary? Furthermore, tape gets erased and all the editing is destrutive.
Tape is just like a WAV file that you can have around - compare a document in the computer to the one written by you. It's like saying old documents that I made in the computer won't be able to be opened in the future!! You can always export the text and pictures and recreate it. Same with the multitrack audio files.
Except illegal drug distribution is linear, file sharing is exponential. Big difference.
The distribution of drugs for money is the problem whereas in file sharing it's the distribution of files for no money that is the problem.
Yeah, our local store also has that. It alerts the cashier. The cashier without looking always accepts it.
How do I know? I read the articles.
None of them say he charged anything for it. Read the official report as well - it does not say he charged money for it.
I guess a lot of people have been confused about that. I think it's because of the word PIRATE. It automatically registers as charging. Of course, the articles and the official report doesn't say he didn't charge and makes the fact that he's just a filesharer (to a umpteenth degree with 130,000 files to share) not so evident.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO
He did NOT charge for access to copyright materials
From the report:
In January 2003, Desir and others set up an online library for a private group to share movies, games, utility software and music. The library grew to about 13,000 titles by the time of the federal raid in April. Transfer logs obtained from the computer service show Desir transferred numerous titles between Aug. 16, 2003, and April 2, 2004. Records show he copied and distributed at least 10 items every six months. He accessed the system from his Iowa City home, records show. No address was provided.
It says that he set up a server where a group of people could share the software. He did not charge people in the group for it.
How is this modded insightful? This is completely wrong !!!!
I think he was just suffering from the downloader's syndrome of trying to have every title in the warez scene in his computer just in case that at some time if the need rises for a particular utility he will have it.
He was just being a librarian and a collector. He wasn't asking money for people to access it. THe people who could access it were probably people on a IRC channel. His crime was probably that he became too good a collector and a librarian.
So in philosophy it is equivalent to a teenager sharing his/her collection of digital goodies he/she's found on the web and stored on his/her computer.
Yes, it does sound like a commericial - misinforming and misleading.
First of all the MBox does 2 channels of recording. Something that can be had for products in the $150-$200 range. Take this for example Behringer BCA2000 has more features. Plus, those boxes have MIDI interfaces which the MBox does not.
They have been advertising the shit of it. Somehow somewhere someone managed to put Pro Tools as a magical word. It's all hype. Cheaper systems and software can be as much nowadays.
Personally, I think it's overpriced and overhyped - hmm, perfectly fits in the Mac user's world.
In case you didn't notice, you were probably riding along with some bums, mentally handicapped nuts and convicted felons.
Yes, those are the only people actually take the bus. I used to ride the bus where about two dozen felons had to be on the bus to go to a certain center that was on my way two times a week. Well, at least they were clean.
Personally, I'd go for the convicted felon look riding the bus. The bus driver might be nicer to you then.
Just buy a car. You can find old old ones that are super cheap. If it breaks down, then junk it and get another one - or learn how to fix cars.
H1B is not for labor competition. It is only issued for labor shortage that requires that a local labor shortage and that the company requesting it has made serious effor to find local labor. Maybe it is being abused, I don't know.
H1Bs are required to be paid as much as an American would. So, in truth, a foreign programmer in his/her own country would be labor competition as outsourcing, the H1Bs in the US would not be as they are filling up seats that could not be filled.
H1B covers anything techical - all the professors in science, math, etc who are from a foreign country are on H1B (unless they have been sponsored and have a green card).
I think you have some pretty standard misconceptions about H1Bs. I'm just stating the facts and philosophies.
Yeah, that's a hotly debated point. It all boils down to how much of our personality is genetic (and thus engrained into the brain structure and thus, immutable) or that our personalities are learnt.
I used to hold on to the belief that everything was learnt - also personality. Anyone could be anybody if they tried.
But, I've changed my mind. I used to have long discussion with my coworker who was a mother and she said babies born came with their personality and didn't change as they grew up. (Somehow that had also convinced her that I would be a terrible father forcing my kids into things :)
But, yeah, I think the best scientifc evidence is identical twins reared apart. They have very similar personalities. Also, there have been other corrational studies among families and such which points to a significant genetic influence
People use language as a big evidence of hardwired brain structure. People learn language without any difficuly for most cases; other animals will never learn no matter how hard you try - some apes learn handful of them. If kids are not taught a language (as a bunch of deaf kids in some country), they invent their own.
So, don't be blinded by one side of the arguement. I guess people can be whatever they want but sometimes people are limited. Being 5'8" and with bad vision makes me a shitty basketball player but better for sports that require fast reaction times (nerve pathways are shorter and thus, fast reaction time...). The idea is that maybe there are some mental differences that land people into one category or other.
But, yeah, don't nag or lecture your spouse about not wanting to change though. Or your children. Or anyone for that matter. It's like the proverbial trying to teach a donkey to speak. Not only will you get furstrated it will also piss off the donkey.
The only reason some people don't change (as in the spousal example before), is simply because they don't want to. No, I think in spousal examples, people want their spouse to be more outgoing, or more motivated, or open-minded and such. These are personality traits (possibly disguised as something else) which doesn't change. Either it's hardwired into the brain or develops very early on but once it's set it doesn't change. Unless of course massive head injury or disease. Then, nice people can turn into horrible people.
Of course, this is all speculative. I prob. can't provide concrete scientific evidence for it
Have you ever known someone who moved from the Northern US to the Southern US? Eventually they gain the accent. People can and DO in fact change. I meant a change of personality - unless he/she sustains a massive brain injury or a smiliar disease. People are mostly always themselves. They don't grow into another type of personality. Certain things do change - like accents and weight and skill - but personality does not. Of course, you'd have to refer to specific psychology papers to for a precise definition of personality.
Ha, so you're basically saying that better at academics = high social prestige among your peers.
Yeah, the problem is not that we are lazy. Is a child lazy at learning language? Is a child lazy at recognizing objects?
The problem is we aren't designed to be learning math. Nobody likes to learn math. However, as humans we will do things that will give us more social prestige. So, we will do and be good in math if it means that our social prestige depends on it.