Xenosaga was great, but considering it's ties to the Xenogears universe (I know, I know.... they insist it is completely original, but come on....:) - it probably doesn't fit the criteria of the question being asked (i.e. a completely original game not part of a specific franchise........)
Willy: It's impossible for me to fire a pistol. If you'll check me medical records, you'll see I have a cripplin' arthritis in me index fingerrrs. Look at 'em! I got it from "Space Invaders" in 1977.
Wiggum: Aw, yeah. That was a pretty addictive video game.
Nintendo had previously said at E3 this year that they are working on a new machine for next year, but they also made it pretty clear it was something they wouldn't classify either as a console or handheld. I think that is what this article is really about, and therefore isn't really news. But it seems that Nintendo has already made it clear that whatever this new machine is, it is something they consider to be a new type of device that they wouldn't classify as anything like a GameCube or GBA successor.
Not sure exactly what you mean about "importing". If you just add a music folder to your iTunes music library, it should neither change the location of the music or the folder structure. What iTunes will do, by default, is re-arrange the music that is actually copied into your iTunes Music Folder (or if you set an existing and separate folder as your iTunes Music Folder, instead of the default). If you are just copying, it isn't a big deal any way.
If you don't want it to do this though, all you need to do is go into Preferences, choose Advanced, and uncheck the option for "Keep iTunes Music Folder Organized".
By doing that, it won't change any music folder organization, etc. in even your iTunes Music Folder.
It does not change the folder organization, etc. of separate music folders that are just added to the Library by dragging them onto the Library icon, or choosing Add Folder to Library from the File menu. By doing this, it keeps all the music where it was, and doesn't do anything to the locations (I just checked the various folders I've added to the library and the folder structures are all the same and normal).
If you want to make use of the iTunes Music Folder as a single place for all of your music, you can also go to Preferences/Advanced and choose the option to copy all music added to the library to the iTunes Music Folder. It will then copy it, and leave the original music in it's place as expected..... and then if you decided you wanted to use the "Keep Music Organized" option, you could do that with the copies in your iTunes Music Folder without worrying about the original music in its original location.
Just to comment on one thing about this warning, since I've seen some iTunes for Windows users comment on this.
iTunes DOES leave your music where it is when you add a folder to the library (i.e. by dragging said folder to the Library icon in iTunes, or choosing Add Folder to Library from the File menu). If you do that, it won't make any changes at all to any other music folders that are added to the library (I just confirmed this by looking through various mp3 folders I added to the library, and they are all still the exact same folder structures and file names as before).
However, if you set a folder of mp3's as your root Music directory in iTunes, as described here, it will treat it as the iTunes Music Folder.
If you do want to do that, but don't want it to do the automatic re-sorting, etc. you described, you will want to go to the Preferences, choose Advanced, and uncheck the option for Keep Music Folder Organized. If you do that, it will leave all your music in tact.
Personally I chose to just add folders to the library without making any of them the actual iTunes Music Folder.
The other option available is to copy any music you add to the library to the iTunes Music Folder (which would leave all of your original music in the same place).
I imagine Apple might want to do something to perhaps make this a bit clearer, as people might more by instinct just make their mp3 folder their iTunes Music Folder, instead of just adding folders to the library.
Maybe EphPod changed the name of your iPod to "EphPod"? As far as I know, it is just listing the attached devices you have..... and if your iPod has a custom name, I am pretty sure it will display that name there.
Actually, just to clarify my above post...... it was specifically originally started out to be a 30-45 minute in-flight movie for Japan Airlines, but Miyazaki expanded it into a full length movie. He generally loves flight, etc..... so it was a good movie for him to make.
Just to clarify something based on your comment.... although many Miyazaki movies are made for kids (although even those are generally complex enough to be enjoyable for adults).... Porco Rosso is actually one of them that probably isn't...... it was a movie that Miyazaki specifically made to be shown as in-flight entertainment on airplanes. Still a great flick though.
Yeah, not saying ADV is perfect...... even the best companies have had their share of problems. I guess when it comes to things like audio tracks, etc..... sometimes they just use whatever is provided to them, or they use whatever audio tracks they have the rights to (I don't know, do the Japanese Sailor Moon DVD's have better quality audio?). I think when it comes down to an older show like this though, the amount of audio and video remastering is probably dependent on if it is financiall feasible. If they think there is a market for it and that they can recoup their costs, they might be able to justify doing more work with it. If they feel they couldn't recoup the costs though, they are more likely to just use whatever audio and video they have the rights to and release it like that.
I assume you know more about DVD authoring to know that you could have done a better job on the audio with 5 minutes in Goldwave.... I don't know much about the process, so I didn't realize it was something so simple for them to do. If so, it is certainly a question. Either way, they are hardly the only company to release older titles with just the audio exactly as the Japanese companies gave it to them without doing any touch-up work themselves.
I've read the FAQ.... but your premise is incorrect. First off, the Japanese companies have always had a problem with unlicensed material (wallscrolls, posters, stickers, etc.). They've never tolerated them in the US, Japan, Asia, or anywhere else. Your point that these companies weren't complaining about unlicensed peripheral materials is dependent on the assumption that at one time they turned a blind eye to the companies who produced this unauthorized material.... but that's really never been the case.
But anyway, to answer your fundamental question.... yes, now that it has expanded into the "mainstream", there is a larger complaint about unauthorized peripheral materials like models, toys, stickers, posters, wallscrolls, etc. etc. etc. This is because the presence of them is even more damaging now that there is more money to be made because there is more of a market...... but the value of their products is diluted by bootlegged material. This has always been the case though, so it's not like this has changed... it has just become more prominent.
So, again, I'm not sure what exactly your complaint here is. I guess the point you are trying to make is something along the lines of: anime wouldn't be popular today without bootlegged material.... therefore, the companies somehow owe the bootleggers some leeway and should let them continue bootlegging their material, profiting by selling unauthorized products using copyrighted images, etc.
But I just don't think this holds water. The bootlegged material is basically just people stealing copyrighted material.... these bootlegs were the same in Asia and the US. The presence of bootlegged products in the US wasn't specifically accountable for the rise in popularity of anime, and there is not anything about imported bootlegged material that merits any special treatment.
I think that's ultimately what this boils down to. It wasn't the bootlegged toys, stickers, posters, etc. that were majorly responsible for building the exposure and cult status of anime in the US. Whatever part it did play (i.e. from import shops importing bootlegged material and selling it as legitimate), it wasn't any different than the legitimate posters, stickers, wallscrolls, toys, etc. that were also being sold in the US and imported legitimately. These things, and fansubs, anime clubs, and some early anime releases in various forms (i.e. Star Blazers, a modifed version of Space Battleship Yamato, followed by Robotech, a modified version of SDF Macross, Genesis Climber Mospeada and Southern Cross) helped to get the ball rolling.
So, just to be crystal clear.... those same Japanese companies have always complained about people and companies who illegally used their copyrighted material without authorization. Nothing has really changed in that regard. And the complaint has always been legitimate.
Not really...... the fansubs that helped to pave the way for this were not really being sold (and there wasn't a big market for bootlegged anime)..... most fansub distros distributed fansubs essentially for the cost of the tape and shipping and handling. No-one complained about this because there wasn't much of a commercial anime market anyway, and they did recognize the role fansubs played in getting interest in commercial anime. I don't know about the example you cited.... by 1989 there was a nascent commercial anime market, but i'm not aware of any companies that were selling unauthorized stuff on any significant scale.
As far as people "whining" about their copyright, I don't know exactly what you mean. Which people are you saying are whining? The Japanese companies are "whining" about digital piracy in general to the degree that it is rampant throughout Asia, and it is also devaluing their properties, and there are people profiting from their products. The companies in the US generally are only requesting that people stop fansubbing when they license a show, but they are hardly "whining".... every company is concerned about bootlegging and pirates selling bootlegged material, but I'm not sure what is hard to understand about why companies would dislike this.
Anyway, I hope that clears it up... I'm still not completely sure what you were asking above, but anyway, the US market for anime was helped by fansubbers, fans of these shows who fansubbed and basically helped to distribute anime for no profit, and helped to raise interest in anime, and to some degree to help companies determine what shows might be worth licensing and bringing out commercially. People who sold fansubs or pirated material were never looked upon well..... whatever people were SELLING fansubs or bootlegs at "county fairs in 1989" weren't seen as positive by fansubbers or Japanese or US companies.
Hope this helps. And at least explains the views on fansubbing, and bootlegs sold for profit, etc.
Yeah, there has generally always been an informal understanding, although some newer digisub groups seem to disregard the understanding more and more.
For example, Anime-Kingdom agreed to stop fansubbing and distributing Gundam Seed after Bandai said at Otakon that they wanted people to stop fansubbing it, but AK also took a number of jabs at Bandai and seemed upset about being requested to stop fansubbing it.
Some groups have continued on with subbing Gundam Seed anyway in spite of Bandai's request, such as Anime-Kraze. And although Wolf's Rain was stopped by the main fansub group, it seems that a "temporary group" called Wolfnick sprang up to keep subbing it after the licensing announcement.
There are still plenty of anime fansub groups that do stop fansubbing when a show is licensed, but there are an increasing number of groups which disregard the licensing status of a show and keep fansubbing anyway, and get upset with companies when they are asked to stop.
Well, this is an especially big deal to the original Japanese companies. And it's not just a US issue, but the problem of Japanese anime DVD's being pirated and bootlegged throughout Asia. The Japanese companies have generally expressed an even greater concern about this. In terms of how much it affects the US companies, it's more a different issue. Fansubs generally aren't as much a concern as "import" shops that sell bootlegged anime DVD's, even bootlegged DVD's when the show is licensed and available commercially in the US. Same with eBay auctions, where some companies have been more active in trying to clamp down on bootlegs than others (AnimEigo in particular has tried very hard to deal with the bootlegs of some of the shows they have licensed and released commercially like Kimagure Orange Road and SDF Macross).
And you are right..... the US companies in particular do recognize the role fansubs play, and the general thing they ask for is to stop distributing fansubs of shows when they are licensed..... although the digisubs phenomenon makes this more difficult, because it isn't as easy to halt digisub distribution compared to the VHS fansub days, when a fansub distributor could stop distributing a fansub, and the extent of a fansub's spread after that was less, and the quality wasn't that good anyway compared to commercial releases. This is the big issue that is dealt with regarding digisubs, which can be copied and distributed easily to hundreds or thousands of people at a time, and each subsequent copy isn't degraded like when people copied fansubs for friends, etc.
But anyway, the focus, and the big deal is most definitely the actual bootleg anime DVD's, etc..... fansubs and digisubs aren't seen as quite the same kind of issue.
I'm not sure about this...... I don't think it's been true for quite a while that when anime is brought out commercially in the US that it tends to be butchered, scenes are cut, translations are totally wrong, etc.
There are only a handful of examples of this I can think of, and most of them involve the company 4Kids, which brings out some kids shows.
Outside of that, the major anime companies like ADV, Bandai, Pioneer, Synch-Point, AnimEigo, Central Park Media, Media Blasters, etc. all generally release uncut anime, complete with Japanese audio and subtitles. The DVD's often have dubs too, but the Japanese audio is still almost always there, except in some rare cases when a company doesn't have the rights to the Japanese audio for some reason.
Pirated subbed anime isn't "truer" to the original than commercial subbed anime (I mean, it sounded like you still thought most anime that is brought to the US is released dub only and edited, which just isn't true), and in fact, in many times the translations on subbed pirated anime is worse (sometimes even when the pirates steal a fansub script to use, they still end up screwing up the timing or replacing names or some other weird stuff).
Saying that the only way to get anime that is "true" to the original is with pirated anime is just too far off the mark. The large large majority of most modern anime brought out commercially in the US is not butchered, etc. (we're not living in the 80's of Streamline and Carl Macek any more with stuff like Robotech and the butchered version of Nausicaa released as "Warriors of the Wind").
I agree that there are still a number of good series not brought out in the US, but a much larger number of series are being brought out now, and a much larger variety than even a few years ago, with many different genres represented.
Anyway, just wanted to respond to this, as it seems to reflect a version of commercial anime that doesn't exist in reality (most specifically the notion that only by buying pirated anime can you get a "truer" version of anime).
This notion that the people who pirate anime are people who really "love" the series strikes me as bizarre to.... most of the anime bootleggers and pirates don't have any particular love for most of what they bootleg.... they just care about doing anything that will sell.
The only thing I can think from some of the things you said were that you were using "pirated anime" to refer to fansubs, but for the purposes of this discussion, although fansubs are of course pirated, this also lumps them in with the anime DVD bootleggers, who many of the statements don't apply to.
But either way..... the point you made about dubbed anime doesn't have much to do with it, as commercial anime does almost always have Japanese audio and subtitles, and it's very rare that commercial anime DVD releases are butchered, cut or feature totally wrong translations (the cases where this does happen are the exception generally, and when they do happen, the company who releases it gets slammed by the anime community).
Lastly, I would say that there are more good series that have come out lately that people thought couldn't possibly translate because they were depenent on Japanese culture and language, but I think both fansubbers and commercial anime DVD companies have generally proven this wrong. A show like Excel Saga, which many thought could never be successfully translated, is a good example of this... and it was a pretty big success too. In most cases, they are able to explain the jokes with footnotes, translation notes, on-screen pop-ups and other ideas.
Anyway, sorry to go on so long....:)
-Tom
Re:Why aren't they trying to SOLVE any of these?
on
Pirate Anime FAQ Updated
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Regarding the legitimate item not being available, I'm not sure whose fault you are implying here, but you seem to think that if the product isn't available, it's the fault of some particular company, and therefore isn't even bootlegging in this case. Normally there can be a number of factors, including the rights to a show being in limbo, or some other issue. Either way, it doesn't change it from being bootlegging if you buy a bootlegged company of something. Although it is probably lower on the scale of things people worry about (i.e. if something isn't available commercially in any format).
Regarding packaging, I don't know what anime you own, but either way, just because the anime you own has average to crappy packaging doesn't mean that is true of all commercial anime, especially more recent stuff. Certainly some modern anime releases still have poor packaging design, etc. (you can get a good idea of this by reading the reviews on animeondvd.com, which goes into a lot of detail usually on packaging, menu design, etc.). Either way, the main issue with that entry in the Pirate Anime FAQ is that a lot of pirate anime still ends up with good packaging because they are able to spend more on high quality packaging, and for the artwork they usually just steal art and packaging design from the Japanese or US releases.
Not sure what you mean about "not having to know English to do their work". I'm not sure what commercial anime you own, but generally most subtitling is pretty good, although there are still examples of some shows released with sometimes poor translations (or at least inaccurate). But this is more the exception than the rule, and it makes me wonder what commercial anime you have, as generally it is the bootlegs that are known for very poor English translations, which are generally done by people who know very little English. Or are the bootlegs what you were referring to?
Regarding the pricing, most of the cost has to do with the cost of licensing the show, the cost of producing it, translating it, often dubbing it, authoring it and doing the other things that go into domestic anime releases. There are plenty of costs involved, and it's not like they just take a Japanese DVD and slap on some subtitles and that's it. Aside from that, the only DVD's now with only 2 episodes a disc are usually very expensive OVA series (such as FLCL, which is 6 episodes across 3 DVD's.....compared with 6 episodes across 6 DVD's for the original Japanese release). Some shorter series get spread across 3 and 4 eps a disc, and some more high profile series are released with sometimes 3 episodes a disc in order to recoup costs, but it's becoming more common to have 4 or 5 episodes a disc.... there are even companies experimenting with doing things like 7 and 8 episodes a disc, with a higher MSRP.
But the commercial US releases are still considerably cheaper than the Japanese R2 releases..... the point made in the pirate anime FAQ though is that if the prices are insanely low, like a 26 episode series for only $30, then it is likely a bootleg. The general economics of anime can generally explain why no commercial releases can be anywhere as cheap as a bootleg..... prices of commercial anime are coming down a bit, but they still aren't going to compete with bootlegs because bootleggers don't have to really pay for much at all, thus they can sell their stuff for very low prices.
Your assmption that customers want both Japanese and English subtitles isn't really the reason that bootlegs have Chinese subs in addition to English subs. The Chinese subs are generally because the bootlegs are heavily popular in Asia, and so the bootlegs almost always have Chinese subs. I think you might have been saying this might be a reason why people would buy a bootleg, but that really isn't it. There are legitimate Chinese DVD's with actual Chinese subtitles that are legitimate and commercial, so people who want legitimate Chinese subs can buy commercial DVD's, not resort to bootlegs.
Well, something could hold up to scientific testing (i.e. by being able to repeat the phenomenon, etc.) without being able to be explained scientifically. That is the main criteria of a paranormal or supernatural phenomenon. All someone has to do for the challenge is demonstrate some sort of supernatural or paranormal ability. For example, if there was someone who was truly psychic, they might be able to, for example, read someone's mind, and this could be tested, verified, etc. scientifically without being able to explain how the phenomenon works. So, if someone was able to demonstrate this ability, it could still win the challenge, and still be paranormal or supernatural because the action or ability would be scientifically unexplainable.
But yes, something that could be explained or understood scientifically would inherently not be paranormal or supernatural, and it wouldn't be something that would qualify for the challenge. I.e. I couldn't just go up and say "I can count the number of balls in a bag just by feeling around the bag without looking at it" and win the challenge. I would have to go up with a claim that would be clearly supernatural or paranormal, and both of us would agree that it was supernatural or paranormal, and we would determine and agree on what would be a scientifically valid test of it and a criteria that both parties would agree on for it to be successful.... i.e. for psychic claims, to make sure that whatever the results are would be significant, not just the results that one would expect by chance.... which is the general idea behind most of the tests of psychic, ESP, dowsing, etc. claims.
I know this has been modded as flamebait already, but even so, what exactly are you talking about? There are exactly four entries on Hilary Clinton, and I don't see any of them as having the purpose of showing that Hilary Clinton has never lied. The closest I can seem to find is the entry on her getting her name from Sir Edmund Hillary:
But I don't see this as saying she has never lied.... in fact, they even seem to say that the claim seems to have been a lie, although they characterize it as a harmless one (which, frankly, it is).
The other three items were all demonstratably false.
So, how is she using the site as a political tool? She doesn't seem to make the claim she has NEVER lied, just that these particular examples can be looked at for themselves. That they might come up when elections come near has more to do with the fact that false e-mails about Hillary Clinton are inherently going to come about around elections (because people want to spread these around to show she is a liar and shouldn't be voted for or whatever).
One thing you should really note....... you compare the $1 million prize to gambling.
This would be an interesting point, in the sense that it would make it seems like the JREF has a financial stake in not accepting any challengers who might actually be able to win the $1 million.
The problem with this is though, that the $1 million is in a trust, that they don't have access to. This is $1 million that is just sitting there, that has already been dedicated to this claim. It's not like the JREF "loses" $1 million if someone did manage to win it. It would make no difference to them because they have no access to the money, and it makes no difference really if someone were to win it.
But again though, this is why the tests are agreed to by both parties, why they are designed as double-blind tests (so that even if the people administering the test had some bias, it would be irrelevant, since they couldn't affect the outcome of the test consciously or subconsciously.
Anyway, it's not a gamble. This money has been alotted solely to this purpose, and it can't be used for anything else. I can understand why people would think that there is a risk that they would hamper the challenge at the risk of "losing $1 million", but that money is already alotted and can't be used for anything else, so that just isn't a real concern.
You have an interesting point about the nature of the contest, but I can assure you, it is not about disproving the paranormal. The AC above calling you an idiot, etc. was uncalled for, but this point was right.
The nature of the JREF Challenge is to prove the paranormal, not disprove it. The $1 million does serve to bring people in, but I don't think it invalidates the actual challenge itself. It gives people an added incentive to take the challenge. I do agree that there is perhaps an unfortunate tendency to use the challenge itself in unintended ways (i.e. saying "hey, this person would get $1 million if they took the challenge.... since they won't take all that money, it must mean they don't believe they can do what they say they can do").
You do seem pretty convinced that the real "purpose" of the challenge is to make all paranormal claims look false, but I don't really think that is the case. I haven't really heard James Randi say that the inability for anyone to win the challenge is "proof" that all paranormal claims are false. He has highlighted the inability of many of the kooks and charlatans to pass this test though, but this is more a point about the kooks and charlatans, frankly.
The non-kooks and non-charlatans are free to try and take the challenge though, and it would be interesting if more of them did.
Your point that Randi himself has a bias is a valid one, but it's worth noting that his bias doesn't affect the challenge itself. The tests are usually admitted by third parties, the tests are designed to be double or sometimes even triple blind. Everything is done so that Randi doesn't need to be involved unless the claimants want or agree him to be there. Your point that Randi has a bias is notable, but he also makes a strong point in ensuring that his own biases don't affect the larger work of the JREF.
I can also realize that Randi's attitude about these things is perhaps upsetting..... but it's worth noting that his insults and derision are generally reserved for the charlatans and people who are using their "gifts" to sucker people out of money, to sell things which they know don't do anything to the most vulnerable. His insults and derision are most specifically reserved for those who play on the deepest emotions of people in order to get their money (i.e. by claiming to let them talk to their dead relatives, by selling people junk that they claim will cure them of cancer, etc.).
Sometimes I think Randi does come across as too abrasive, but it doesn't make some of his fundamental points invalid. I personally share the derision for those who take advantage of the most vulnerable in society, and get people to forego getting serious diseases treated so they can sell them some crystals or something. These are the people that Randi's insults and derision are most reserved for, because they take advantage of the inherent nature of humans to believe in things to make money while at the same time preying on their emotional vulnerability and their love for their departed, or their desperation at having a serious disease.
I find these people contemptable, and these are the people that the JREF wants most to "challenge", to have them back up their claims by proving them.
Why not try and actually read the Snopes entry:
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm
What they say is that the claim that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet is false, and they explain why, by showing the original quote.
Snopes also does not say that Gore created it either. Quite the opposite, they explain that even validating the claim is iffy, and they explain why.
Your characterization of Snopes' entry on this subject and accusation of them getting it wrong is in itself wrong, if you would read the actual entry:
"...it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet."
It's true that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet) and has introduced a few bills dealing with education and the Internet, but even though Congressman, Senator, and Vice-President Gore may always have been interested in and well-informed about information technology issues, that's a far cry from having taken an active, vital leadership role in bringing about those technologies. Even if Al Gore had never entered the political arena, we'd probably still be reading web pages via the Internet today."
Nowhere in this entry does Snopes say that he created the Internet, or that even the claim he made is necessarily true. From their research, they find that even Al Gore's original claim is probably not true.
So, seriously.... read that entry and tell me exactly where Snopes got anything wrong? Do you just have some bone to pick with Snopes, and don't care about the accuracy of your accusations against them?
All I can think is that perhaps you are confusing the listing of their entry as False? Note that the entry is about whether it's true that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. If you read the entry, they start off showing that that claim that has been attributed to him is false. But they they go on to research the actual quote and point out that whatever role he might have played, they don't find any evidence to support even the notion that he helped to create it in any way by supporting legislation, etc. since much of the legislation and work had happened before his time anyway.
I can't help but think this seems like nitpicking a bit...... the word "myth" has long since extended to a more modern usage beyond just stories about the origins of the world. There are multiple definitions of myth, and although snopes deals with folklore, it deals with other things as well. Clearly though, an "urban myth" doesn't have to refer to myth in the sense of a story about the way the world was formed.
You are right, after taking the tests, many of the claimants have set out to complain about how the test was done, etc.
This is of course their right, but the problem again is that before taking the test, they are the ones who help to come up with what the test will be, and what the terms will be. They aren't forced to do anything that they don't agree they should be able to do.
And you are right, not everything is provable. That doesn't mean though that some people can't try though. If someone claims to be able to psychically "see" what color is on 10 cards, for example, they can work to come up with a test where they would be tested on this. Most of these claims are technically very simple, and someone with psychic abilities should be able to in fact pass a test like this with flying colors, so to speak.
James Randi or the JREF don't use the lack of success in anyone winning the challenge (again, you speak of a specific test, which there isn't..... each claimant can come up with their own test, which they both work on to make sure it is valid, double-blind, etc.) to "prove" that there is no substance to any paranormal claims.
Granted, a lot of people accuse him of this, but he has never really said that himself. The JREF takes any claimants who want to apply for the challenge seriously, and everyone is given a chance to demonstrate paranormal abilities.
But outside of that, James Randi does not say that the paranormal is impossible or that there is no substance. He does bring up some interesting questions though, which some people would rather not answer and instead attack Randi and the JREF.
Anyway.... as you said, many of these things inherently couldn't be proven. The JREF Challenge is open to anyone who wants to try it though, and while many paranormal things couldn't be proven, other abilities have had scientifically sound tests designed that both parties have originally agreed to (no-one is forced to take a test that they don't agree to the design of or that they feel they can pass).
As you said though, a lot of people have later complained about the "nature" of the tests. They have come up with all sorts of excuses for why the tests they helped to design and agree to weren't fair. Some claimants have gone very far, and said things like their "psychic vision" was interrupted because of James Randi's presence in the room (i.e. his "negative vibes" or disbelief interefering for some reason with their psychic abilities). Generally, Randi has done a lot to accomodate these concerns.... when claimants claim his presence makes it impossible to work, he has left the building and sometimes even left miles outside of the area.
Anyway, I think people will continue to say after the fact that the tests weren't fair, that James Randi is dishonorable, etc. I would just say that it is worth really looking at what they felt wasn't fair, since there are always two sides to a story. My main problem with many of Randi's critics is that they heavily distort the nature of the challenge, and they have a disturbing tendency to come up with any excuse they can to explain why they couldn't pass a test of their abilities.
It's popular to attack James Randi, even though these tests are designed so that he doesn't even have any direct involvement most of the time. There is something fundamental about the JREF Challenge that nothing proceeds until the claimant is satisfied with the terms of the test, and has agreed that they should be able to do whatever the test they design says they can do. No-one says that the lack of ability to pass these tests mean that, say, dowsing is a fraud. But the lack of any dowser to be able to actually do anything under the conditions of a certain condition certainly brings in to question the "art" of dowsing.... and this goes beyond the JREF..... any dowser, for example, who could actually prove their abilities (Dowsing tests are incredibly simple, because the tests of dowsing abilities and the ability to validate them are incred
Again, James Randi does not assume that all paranormal events are false. Where do you get this from? The most he ever does is go by experience, and so if he sees someone claiming to be able to do something that has been previously shown to be impossible, he will make an assumption that it is probably false.
But he doesn't say it is necessarily false, which is why he does what he does. He affords anyone the opportunity to work with him to design a test both sides can agree on (you mentioned reading the specifics of his tests, but this makes no sense.... he doesn't have one set test, since each claim is different..... the JREF works with claimants to develop a test, set of rules, etc. that BOTH parties agree to, and then set out to enact it).
The details of the JREF Challenge can be read here (and I would suggest reading it carefully because many of the JREF's critics misconstrue a lot about how it works, or complain that the tests aren't fair, etc. even though the challenge clearly states that the tests are designed together by both parties, and nothing happens until the claimant themselves is happy with the conditions): JREF Challenge
But again, Randi never starts out assuming that all paranormal events are false. He simply starts out saying they should be able to pass a test that can show they can do what they claim to do.
One of the most popular types of claims he gets, for example, are dowsers. So, they work to develop a test of their abilities, by setting up a double or triple blind test of their dowsing abilities. And they both agree on what would be a reasonable success rate (i.e. something that would be better than just what someone would get by chance). Randi and the JREF don't automatically assume these are false, but the nice thing about designing double and triple blind tests is that Randi's personal opinions are irrelevant.
Whether Randi personally believes a claimant can do what they say has nothing to do with whether they can pass a test they agree to. If Randi's personal beliefs did affect it, it would be pointless.
And again, Randi doesn't automatically assume that all dowsers, for example, who come to him are not what they say they are. The most he will do is say "I've seen hundreds of dowsers come and try to prove what they can do, and they can't do it" and he will go on that to have a pretty clear idea that a dowser might not be able to do what they say they can do.
But again, that has nothing to do with it, and if someone with a legitimate ability to demonstrate dowsing or any other paranormal abilities would have every opportunity to do it.
But again, I can't stress this strongly enough. Randi's own trustworthiness isn't and can't be related to the tests themselves. If a claimant doesn't want Randi involved in any way, he can make that part of the terms of the test. Randi isn't the one who makes the decisions, and if someone ever could pass a scientific test they all agreed on, that would be it.
Anyway, you're right, it's good to see all sides of an argument, and people can be free to make up their own minds from looking at sites like survivalscience.org and the various other groups and individuals that criticize James Randi, and then they can also look at the arguments of his supporters.
I'm sorry, but this is a complete distortion of what James Randi and the JREF do. Anyone who really cares about this can read Randi's work for themselves at the JREF Website
Clearly though the folks at Survival Science have a bone to pick with people like him and other debunkers.
But either way, what you have said is not in line with what James Randi does. He doesn't take the vantage point that anything paranormal must be false. He simply says that it should be something that should hold up to scientific testing.
Saying he ditches the scientific method is ridiculous, and he has documented the exact tests they have worked with claimants to develop, and these are almost always scientifically sound.
But again, trying to argue about the scientific method with someone from SurvivalScience.org is probably futile, as I'm sure you're convinced that your brand of science is much more valid than anything that is done by the folks associated with the JREF.
As someone else pointed out, the fine print of the user agreement for buymusic.com makes it clear that the term "buy" is misleading at best. It seems that what you are doing is sublicensing the right to listen to the music from buymusic.com, and they seem to say that any use of the terms "buy", "purchase", etc. in regards to owning music on the site are essentially irrelevant.
Slashdot Mirror
-Tom
Wiggum: Aw, yeah. That was a pretty addictive video game.
Willy: Video game?
-Tom
-Tom
If you don't want it to do this though, all you need to do is go into Preferences, choose Advanced, and uncheck the option for "Keep iTunes Music Folder Organized".
By doing that, it won't change any music folder organization, etc. in even your iTunes Music Folder.
It does not change the folder organization, etc. of separate music folders that are just added to the Library by dragging them onto the Library icon, or choosing Add Folder to Library from the File menu. By doing this, it keeps all the music where it was, and doesn't do anything to the locations (I just checked the various folders I've added to the library and the folder structures are all the same and normal).
If you want to make use of the iTunes Music Folder as a single place for all of your music, you can also go to Preferences/Advanced and choose the option to copy all music added to the library to the iTunes Music Folder. It will then copy it, and leave the original music in it's place as expected..... and then if you decided you wanted to use the "Keep Music Organized" option, you could do that with the copies in your iTunes Music Folder without worrying about the original music in its original location.
-Tom
iTunes DOES leave your music where it is when you add a folder to the library (i.e. by dragging said folder to the Library icon in iTunes, or choosing Add Folder to Library from the File menu). If you do that, it won't make any changes at all to any other music folders that are added to the library (I just confirmed this by looking through various mp3 folders I added to the library, and they are all still the exact same folder structures and file names as before).
However, if you set a folder of mp3's as your root Music directory in iTunes, as described here, it will treat it as the iTunes Music Folder.
If you do want to do that, but don't want it to do the automatic re-sorting, etc. you described, you will want to go to the Preferences, choose Advanced, and uncheck the option for Keep Music Folder Organized. If you do that, it will leave all your music in tact.
Personally I chose to just add folders to the library without making any of them the actual iTunes Music Folder.
The other option available is to copy any music you add to the library to the iTunes Music Folder (which would leave all of your original music in the same place).
I imagine Apple might want to do something to perhaps make this a bit clearer, as people might more by instinct just make their mp3 folder their iTunes Music Folder, instead of just adding folders to the library.
-Tom
-Tom
-Tom
-Tom
I assume you know more about DVD authoring to know that you could have done a better job on the audio with 5 minutes in Goldwave.... I don't know much about the process, so I didn't realize it was something so simple for them to do. If so, it is certainly a question. Either way, they are hardly the only company to release older titles with just the audio exactly as the Japanese companies gave it to them without doing any touch-up work themselves.
-Tom
But anyway, to answer your fundamental question.... yes, now that it has expanded into the "mainstream", there is a larger complaint about unauthorized peripheral materials like models, toys, stickers, posters, wallscrolls, etc. etc. etc. This is because the presence of them is even more damaging now that there is more money to be made because there is more of a market...... but the value of their products is diluted by bootlegged material. This has always been the case though, so it's not like this has changed... it has just become more prominent.
So, again, I'm not sure what exactly your complaint here is. I guess the point you are trying to make is something along the lines of: anime wouldn't be popular today without bootlegged material.... therefore, the companies somehow owe the bootleggers some leeway and should let them continue bootlegging their material, profiting by selling unauthorized products using copyrighted images, etc.
But I just don't think this holds water. The bootlegged material is basically just people stealing copyrighted material.... these bootlegs were the same in Asia and the US. The presence of bootlegged products in the US wasn't specifically accountable for the rise in popularity of anime, and there is not anything about imported bootlegged material that merits any special treatment.
I think that's ultimately what this boils down to. It wasn't the bootlegged toys, stickers, posters, etc. that were majorly responsible for building the exposure and cult status of anime in the US. Whatever part it did play (i.e. from import shops importing bootlegged material and selling it as legitimate), it wasn't any different than the legitimate posters, stickers, wallscrolls, toys, etc. that were also being sold in the US and imported legitimately. These things, and fansubs, anime clubs, and some early anime releases in various forms (i.e. Star Blazers, a modifed version of Space Battleship Yamato, followed by Robotech, a modified version of SDF Macross, Genesis Climber Mospeada and Southern Cross) helped to get the ball rolling.
So, just to be crystal clear.... those same Japanese companies have always complained about people and companies who illegally used their copyrighted material without authorization. Nothing has really changed in that regard. And the complaint has always been legitimate.
-Tom
As far as people "whining" about their copyright, I don't know exactly what you mean. Which people are you saying are whining? The Japanese companies are "whining" about digital piracy in general to the degree that it is rampant throughout Asia, and it is also devaluing their properties, and there are people profiting from their products. The companies in the US generally are only requesting that people stop fansubbing when they license a show, but they are hardly "whining".... every company is concerned about bootlegging and pirates selling bootlegged material, but I'm not sure what is hard to understand about why companies would dislike this.
Anyway, I hope that clears it up... I'm still not completely sure what you were asking above, but anyway, the US market for anime was helped by fansubbers, fans of these shows who fansubbed and basically helped to distribute anime for no profit, and helped to raise interest in anime, and to some degree to help companies determine what shows might be worth licensing and bringing out commercially. People who sold fansubs or pirated material were never looked upon well..... whatever people were SELLING fansubs or bootlegs at "county fairs in 1989" weren't seen as positive by fansubbers or Japanese or US companies.
Hope this helps. And at least explains the views on fansubbing, and bootlegs sold for profit, etc.
-Tom
For example, Anime-Kingdom agreed to stop fansubbing and distributing Gundam Seed after Bandai said at Otakon that they wanted people to stop fansubbing it, but AK also took a number of jabs at Bandai and seemed upset about being requested to stop fansubbing it.
Some groups have continued on with subbing Gundam Seed anyway in spite of Bandai's request, such as Anime-Kraze. And although Wolf's Rain was stopped by the main fansub group, it seems that a "temporary group" called Wolfnick sprang up to keep subbing it after the licensing announcement.
There are still plenty of anime fansub groups that do stop fansubbing when a show is licensed, but there are an increasing number of groups which disregard the licensing status of a show and keep fansubbing anyway, and get upset with companies when they are asked to stop.
-Tom
And you are right..... the US companies in particular do recognize the role fansubs play, and the general thing they ask for is to stop distributing fansubs of shows when they are licensed..... although the digisubs phenomenon makes this more difficult, because it isn't as easy to halt digisub distribution compared to the VHS fansub days, when a fansub distributor could stop distributing a fansub, and the extent of a fansub's spread after that was less, and the quality wasn't that good anyway compared to commercial releases. This is the big issue that is dealt with regarding digisubs, which can be copied and distributed easily to hundreds or thousands of people at a time, and each subsequent copy isn't degraded like when people copied fansubs for friends, etc.
But anyway, the focus, and the big deal is most definitely the actual bootleg anime DVD's, etc..... fansubs and digisubs aren't seen as quite the same kind of issue.
-Tom
There are only a handful of examples of this I can think of, and most of them involve the company 4Kids, which brings out some kids shows.
Outside of that, the major anime companies like ADV, Bandai, Pioneer, Synch-Point, AnimEigo, Central Park Media, Media Blasters, etc. all generally release uncut anime, complete with Japanese audio and subtitles. The DVD's often have dubs too, but the Japanese audio is still almost always there, except in some rare cases when a company doesn't have the rights to the Japanese audio for some reason.
Pirated subbed anime isn't "truer" to the original than commercial subbed anime (I mean, it sounded like you still thought most anime that is brought to the US is released dub only and edited, which just isn't true), and in fact, in many times the translations on subbed pirated anime is worse (sometimes even when the pirates steal a fansub script to use, they still end up screwing up the timing or replacing names or some other weird stuff).
Saying that the only way to get anime that is "true" to the original is with pirated anime is just too far off the mark. The large large majority of most modern anime brought out commercially in the US is not butchered, etc. (we're not living in the 80's of Streamline and Carl Macek any more with stuff like Robotech and the butchered version of Nausicaa released as "Warriors of the Wind").
I agree that there are still a number of good series not brought out in the US, but a much larger number of series are being brought out now, and a much larger variety than even a few years ago, with many different genres represented.
Anyway, just wanted to respond to this, as it seems to reflect a version of commercial anime that doesn't exist in reality (most specifically the notion that only by buying pirated anime can you get a "truer" version of anime).
This notion that the people who pirate anime are people who really "love" the series strikes me as bizarre to.... most of the anime bootleggers and pirates don't have any particular love for most of what they bootleg.... they just care about doing anything that will sell.
The only thing I can think from some of the things you said were that you were using "pirated anime" to refer to fansubs, but for the purposes of this discussion, although fansubs are of course pirated, this also lumps them in with the anime DVD bootleggers, who many of the statements don't apply to.
But either way..... the point you made about dubbed anime doesn't have much to do with it, as commercial anime does almost always have Japanese audio and subtitles, and it's very rare that commercial anime DVD releases are butchered, cut or feature totally wrong translations (the cases where this does happen are the exception generally, and when they do happen, the company who releases it gets slammed by the anime community).
Lastly, I would say that there are more good series that have come out lately that people thought couldn't possibly translate because they were depenent on Japanese culture and language, but I think both fansubbers and commercial anime DVD companies have generally proven this wrong. A show like Excel Saga, which many thought could never be successfully translated, is a good example of this... and it was a pretty big success too. In most cases, they are able to explain the jokes with footnotes, translation notes, on-screen pop-ups and other ideas.
Anyway, sorry to go on so long....:)
-Tom
Regarding packaging, I don't know what anime you own, but either way, just because the anime you own has average to crappy packaging doesn't mean that is true of all commercial anime, especially more recent stuff. Certainly some modern anime releases still have poor packaging design, etc. (you can get a good idea of this by reading the reviews on animeondvd.com, which goes into a lot of detail usually on packaging, menu design, etc.). Either way, the main issue with that entry in the Pirate Anime FAQ is that a lot of pirate anime still ends up with good packaging because they are able to spend more on high quality packaging, and for the artwork they usually just steal art and packaging design from the Japanese or US releases.
Not sure what you mean about "not having to know English to do their work". I'm not sure what commercial anime you own, but generally most subtitling is pretty good, although there are still examples of some shows released with sometimes poor translations (or at least inaccurate). But this is more the exception than the rule, and it makes me wonder what commercial anime you have, as generally it is the bootlegs that are known for very poor English translations, which are generally done by people who know very little English. Or are the bootlegs what you were referring to?
Regarding the pricing, most of the cost has to do with the cost of licensing the show, the cost of producing it, translating it, often dubbing it, authoring it and doing the other things that go into domestic anime releases. There are plenty of costs involved, and it's not like they just take a Japanese DVD and slap on some subtitles and that's it. Aside from that, the only DVD's now with only 2 episodes a disc are usually very expensive OVA series (such as FLCL, which is 6 episodes across 3 DVD's.....compared with 6 episodes across 6 DVD's for the original Japanese release). Some shorter series get spread across 3 and 4 eps a disc, and some more high profile series are released with sometimes 3 episodes a disc in order to recoup costs, but it's becoming more common to have 4 or 5 episodes a disc.... there are even companies experimenting with doing things like 7 and 8 episodes a disc, with a higher MSRP.
But the commercial US releases are still considerably cheaper than the Japanese R2 releases..... the point made in the pirate anime FAQ though is that if the prices are insanely low, like a 26 episode series for only $30, then it is likely a bootleg. The general economics of anime can generally explain why no commercial releases can be anywhere as cheap as a bootleg..... prices of commercial anime are coming down a bit, but they still aren't going to compete with bootlegs because bootleggers don't have to really pay for much at all, thus they can sell their stuff for very low prices.
Your assmption that customers want both Japanese and English subtitles isn't really the reason that bootlegs have Chinese subs in addition to English subs. The Chinese subs are generally because the bootlegs are heavily popular in Asia, and so the bootlegs almost always have Chinese subs. I think you might have been saying this might be a reason why people would buy a bootleg, but that really isn't it. There are legitimate Chinese DVD's with actual Chinese subtitles that are legitimate and commercial, so people who want legitimate Chinese subs can buy commercial DVD's, not resort to bootlegs.
To answer
But yes, something that could be explained or understood scientifically would inherently not be paranormal or supernatural, and it wouldn't be something that would qualify for the challenge. I.e. I couldn't just go up and say "I can count the number of balls in a bag just by feeling around the bag without looking at it" and win the challenge. I would have to go up with a claim that would be clearly supernatural or paranormal, and both of us would agree that it was supernatural or paranormal, and we would determine and agree on what would be a scientifically valid test of it and a criteria that both parties would agree on for it to be successful.... i.e. for psychic claims, to make sure that whatever the results are would be significant, not just the results that one would expect by chance.... which is the general idea behind most of the tests of psychic, ESP, dowsing, etc. claims.
-Tom
Hillary vs. Hillary
But I don't see this as saying she has never lied.... in fact, they even seem to say that the claim seems to have been a lie, although they characterize it as a harmless one (which, frankly, it is).
The other three items were all demonstratably false.
So, how is she using the site as a political tool? She doesn't seem to make the claim she has NEVER lied, just that these particular examples can be looked at for themselves. That they might come up when elections come near has more to do with the fact that false e-mails about Hillary Clinton are inherently going to come about around elections (because people want to spread these around to show she is a liar and shouldn't be voted for or whatever).
-Tom
This would be an interesting point, in the sense that it would make it seems like the JREF has a financial stake in not accepting any challengers who might actually be able to win the $1 million.
The problem with this is though, that the $1 million is in a trust, that they don't have access to. This is $1 million that is just sitting there, that has already been dedicated to this claim. It's not like the JREF "loses" $1 million if someone did manage to win it. It would make no difference to them because they have no access to the money, and it makes no difference really if someone were to win it.
But again though, this is why the tests are agreed to by both parties, why they are designed as double-blind tests (so that even if the people administering the test had some bias, it would be irrelevant, since they couldn't affect the outcome of the test consciously or subconsciously.
Anyway, it's not a gamble. This money has been alotted solely to this purpose, and it can't be used for anything else. I can understand why people would think that there is a risk that they would hamper the challenge at the risk of "losing $1 million", but that money is already alotted and can't be used for anything else, so that just isn't a real concern.
-Tom
The nature of the JREF Challenge is to prove the paranormal, not disprove it. The $1 million does serve to bring people in, but I don't think it invalidates the actual challenge itself. It gives people an added incentive to take the challenge. I do agree that there is perhaps an unfortunate tendency to use the challenge itself in unintended ways (i.e. saying "hey, this person would get $1 million if they took the challenge.... since they won't take all that money, it must mean they don't believe they can do what they say they can do").
You do seem pretty convinced that the real "purpose" of the challenge is to make all paranormal claims look false, but I don't really think that is the case. I haven't really heard James Randi say that the inability for anyone to win the challenge is "proof" that all paranormal claims are false. He has highlighted the inability of many of the kooks and charlatans to pass this test though, but this is more a point about the kooks and charlatans, frankly.
The non-kooks and non-charlatans are free to try and take the challenge though, and it would be interesting if more of them did.
Your point that Randi himself has a bias is a valid one, but it's worth noting that his bias doesn't affect the challenge itself. The tests are usually admitted by third parties, the tests are designed to be double or sometimes even triple blind. Everything is done so that Randi doesn't need to be involved unless the claimants want or agree him to be there. Your point that Randi has a bias is notable, but he also makes a strong point in ensuring that his own biases don't affect the larger work of the JREF.
I can also realize that Randi's attitude about these things is perhaps upsetting..... but it's worth noting that his insults and derision are generally reserved for the charlatans and people who are using their "gifts" to sucker people out of money, to sell things which they know don't do anything to the most vulnerable. His insults and derision are most specifically reserved for those who play on the deepest emotions of people in order to get their money (i.e. by claiming to let them talk to their dead relatives, by selling people junk that they claim will cure them of cancer, etc.).
Sometimes I think Randi does come across as too abrasive, but it doesn't make some of his fundamental points invalid. I personally share the derision for those who take advantage of the most vulnerable in society, and get people to forego getting serious diseases treated so they can sell them some crystals or something. These are the people that Randi's insults and derision are most reserved for, because they take advantage of the inherent nature of humans to believe in things to make money while at the same time preying on their emotional vulnerability and their love for their departed, or their desperation at having a serious disease.
I find these people contemptable, and these are the people that the JREF wants most to "challenge", to have them back up their claims by proving them.
-Tom
Snopes also does not say that Gore created it either. Quite the opposite, they explain that even validating the claim is iffy, and they explain why.
Your characterization of Snopes' entry on this subject and accusation of them getting it wrong is in itself wrong, if you would read the actual entry:
"...it's hard to find any specific action of Gore's (such as his sponsoring a Congressional bill or championing a particular piece of legislation) that one could claim helped bring the Internet into being, much less validate Gore's statement of having taken the "initiative in creating the Internet."
It's true that Gore was popularizing the term "information superhighway" in the early 1990s (when few people outside academia or the computer/defense industries had heard of the Internet) and has introduced a few bills dealing with education and the Internet, but even though Congressman, Senator, and Vice-President Gore may always have been interested in and well-informed about information technology issues, that's a far cry from having taken an active, vital leadership role in bringing about those technologies. Even if Al Gore had never entered the political arena, we'd probably still be reading web pages via the Internet today."
Nowhere in this entry does Snopes say that he created the Internet, or that even the claim he made is necessarily true. From their research, they find that even Al Gore's original claim is probably not true.
So, seriously.... read that entry and tell me exactly where Snopes got anything wrong? Do you just have some bone to pick with Snopes, and don't care about the accuracy of your accusations against them?
All I can think is that perhaps you are confusing the listing of their entry as False? Note that the entry is about whether it's true that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet. If you read the entry, they start off showing that that claim that has been attributed to him is false. But they they go on to research the actual quote and point out that whatever role he might have played, they don't find any evidence to support even the notion that he helped to create it in any way by supporting legislation, etc. since much of the legislation and work had happened before his time anyway.
-Tom
-Tom
This is of course their right, but the problem again is that before taking the test, they are the ones who help to come up with what the test will be, and what the terms will be. They aren't forced to do anything that they don't agree they should be able to do.
And you are right, not everything is provable. That doesn't mean though that some people can't try though. If someone claims to be able to psychically "see" what color is on 10 cards, for example, they can work to come up with a test where they would be tested on this. Most of these claims are technically very simple, and someone with psychic abilities should be able to in fact pass a test like this with flying colors, so to speak.
James Randi or the JREF don't use the lack of success in anyone winning the challenge (again, you speak of a specific test, which there isn't..... each claimant can come up with their own test, which they both work on to make sure it is valid, double-blind, etc.) to "prove" that there is no substance to any paranormal claims.
Granted, a lot of people accuse him of this, but he has never really said that himself. The JREF takes any claimants who want to apply for the challenge seriously, and everyone is given a chance to demonstrate paranormal abilities.
But outside of that, James Randi does not say that the paranormal is impossible or that there is no substance. He does bring up some interesting questions though, which some people would rather not answer and instead attack Randi and the JREF.
Anyway.... as you said, many of these things inherently couldn't be proven. The JREF Challenge is open to anyone who wants to try it though, and while many paranormal things couldn't be proven, other abilities have had scientifically sound tests designed that both parties have originally agreed to (no-one is forced to take a test that they don't agree to the design of or that they feel they can pass).
As you said though, a lot of people have later complained about the "nature" of the tests. They have come up with all sorts of excuses for why the tests they helped to design and agree to weren't fair. Some claimants have gone very far, and said things like their "psychic vision" was interrupted because of James Randi's presence in the room (i.e. his "negative vibes" or disbelief interefering for some reason with their psychic abilities). Generally, Randi has done a lot to accomodate these concerns.... when claimants claim his presence makes it impossible to work, he has left the building and sometimes even left miles outside of the area.
Anyway, I think people will continue to say after the fact that the tests weren't fair, that James Randi is dishonorable, etc. I would just say that it is worth really looking at what they felt wasn't fair, since there are always two sides to a story. My main problem with many of Randi's critics is that they heavily distort the nature of the challenge, and they have a disturbing tendency to come up with any excuse they can to explain why they couldn't pass a test of their abilities.
It's popular to attack James Randi, even though these tests are designed so that he doesn't even have any direct involvement most of the time. There is something fundamental about the JREF Challenge that nothing proceeds until the claimant is satisfied with the terms of the test, and has agreed that they should be able to do whatever the test they design says they can do. No-one says that the lack of ability to pass these tests mean that, say, dowsing is a fraud. But the lack of any dowser to be able to actually do anything under the conditions of a certain condition certainly brings in to question the "art" of dowsing.... and this goes beyond the JREF..... any dowser, for example, who could actually prove their abilities (Dowsing tests are incredibly simple, because the tests of dowsing abilities and the ability to validate them are incred
But he doesn't say it is necessarily false, which is why he does what he does. He affords anyone the opportunity to work with him to design a test both sides can agree on (you mentioned reading the specifics of his tests, but this makes no sense.... he doesn't have one set test, since each claim is different..... the JREF works with claimants to develop a test, set of rules, etc. that BOTH parties agree to, and then set out to enact it).
The details of the JREF Challenge can be read here (and I would suggest reading it carefully because many of the JREF's critics misconstrue a lot about how it works, or complain that the tests aren't fair, etc. even though the challenge clearly states that the tests are designed together by both parties, and nothing happens until the claimant themselves is happy with the conditions): JREF Challenge
But again, Randi never starts out assuming that all paranormal events are false. He simply starts out saying they should be able to pass a test that can show they can do what they claim to do.
One of the most popular types of claims he gets, for example, are dowsers. So, they work to develop a test of their abilities, by setting up a double or triple blind test of their dowsing abilities. And they both agree on what would be a reasonable success rate (i.e. something that would be better than just what someone would get by chance). Randi and the JREF don't automatically assume these are false, but the nice thing about designing double and triple blind tests is that Randi's personal opinions are irrelevant.
Whether Randi personally believes a claimant can do what they say has nothing to do with whether they can pass a test they agree to. If Randi's personal beliefs did affect it, it would be pointless.
And again, Randi doesn't automatically assume that all dowsers, for example, who come to him are not what they say they are. The most he will do is say "I've seen hundreds of dowsers come and try to prove what they can do, and they can't do it" and he will go on that to have a pretty clear idea that a dowser might not be able to do what they say they can do.
But again, that has nothing to do with it, and if someone with a legitimate ability to demonstrate dowsing or any other paranormal abilities would have every opportunity to do it.
But again, I can't stress this strongly enough. Randi's own trustworthiness isn't and can't be related to the tests themselves. If a claimant doesn't want Randi involved in any way, he can make that part of the terms of the test. Randi isn't the one who makes the decisions, and if someone ever could pass a scientific test they all agreed on, that would be it.
Anyway, you're right, it's good to see all sides of an argument, and people can be free to make up their own minds from looking at sites like survivalscience.org and the various other groups and individuals that criticize James Randi, and then they can also look at the arguments of his supporters.
-Tom
Clearly though the folks at Survival Science have a bone to pick with people like him and other debunkers.
But either way, what you have said is not in line with what James Randi does. He doesn't take the vantage point that anything paranormal must be false. He simply says that it should be something that should hold up to scientific testing.
Saying he ditches the scientific method is ridiculous, and he has documented the exact tests they have worked with claimants to develop, and these are almost always scientifically sound.
But again, trying to argue about the scientific method with someone from SurvivalScience.org is probably futile, as I'm sure you're convinced that your brand of science is much more valid than anything that is done by the folks associated with the JREF.
-Tom
-Tom