Yup, based on Dunning and Kruger's work at Cornell. (WARNING: PDF, but a good read.)
A nice sound-bite summary of the problem, from the paper:
Not only do [the incompetent] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.
So, this sample set is rife with issues related to self-reporting competence. Something to consider. Along with possible self-selection problems (i.e., only Mechanical Turk affiliates).
Not a particularly scientific poll survey, really, and I have difficulty believing that the methodology supports the outcome. Intuitively, I trust the outcome, but that's probably confirmation bias.
I'd be interested in seeing this as an actual controlled study. Surely there's a psychology or sociology postgrad out there in/.-land who needs a good thesis idea?
"We have this big hammer. Really big hammer, actually. Just acknowledge that it's our hammer, and that's it's a really big hammer, and that we are allowed to hit you with it at any time, and we promise not to hit you with it."
Makes me wanna rush right out and start developing Mono applications.
We've made a quantum optical transistor out of a single molecule!
The bad news is that the single molecule masses about 2.4 tonnes. Yeah, it's a pretty big molecule. And don't scuff it, either. We don't want to brush any carbon atoms off the surface.
Setting standards non-cooperatively is a risk: Standards group declares "It is thus!" and vendors go "Meh."
Fast forward 18 months. The vendors are richer, fatter, dumber, and happier than ever. The only sound at the standards group's offices is crickets chirping.
An old maxim from my military days: "When leading from the front, it's a good idea to look back once in a while to see if you're still being followed."
Well, in a world of people with strongly-held and violently-opposed opinions, the courts are a slightly less socially damaging decision process than some ofthealternatives.
Also, all of these drugs are apparently just an existing drug + acetaminophen, so reformulating them is not even something that needs to be done.
IANAP (pharmacist), but I'd like to point out one little bitty line from TFA:
Vicodin contains hydrocodone and acetaminophen. Hydrocodone is not available as a separate drug in the United States, so doctors cannot prescribe the two ingredients as a substitute, Ashburn said.
In other words, hydrocodone exists, but does need to be reformulated (i.e., dosages, delivery systems, etc.) and re-certified to become hydrocodone USP. It's not just a matter of reconfiguring the pill presses and pushing "go".
Heroics produce gold (hold on to that vendor trash).
Very true.
Raids produce gold.
You haven't seen my repair bills. Raiding is always a net loss of in-game cash for me, but I suspect someone well-geared AND well-trained in encounter tactics can win without expensively dying. I'm not either, yet. I do dailies to recover gold reserves to pay for raiding. But, obviously, YMMV.
Sure, using a published standard created by a standards organization in collaboration with a proprietary inventor will always shield you from patent litigation.
I'm just sick of how cybersquatters have stolen my name! I, a famous and dead Ukrainian novelist, wanted to set up my own blog using my own domain! I'm heartsick that my name is being squatted because of its passing similarity to some search engine! The injustice!
Why are you advocating the nuclear option? This is an incremental escalation, and a focused response to the specific issue. Amazon would consider boycotting NC if NC made a credible play at their direct sales. NC hasn't, and NC can't.
Good Lord, why don't you just suggest Amazon hire ninja assassins to off NC's legislature? That's about as over-the-top.
So its good for them that they go ahead and push it off to someone else, but they don't take a hit themselves?
They're losing affiliate commissions. It's not huge, but it's a hit. And more to the point, the lost revenue is less then the probable costs of compliance, so it's a sensible business decision.
'I'm not going to let you sell my stuff because your state did something bad sorry it hurts you, by the way, I don't really want to get hurt myself, so I'm going to keep selling all day long and continue making money while you don't.'
You have an odd habit. You make up internal monologue for other people. This allows you to project whatever suspicions, frustrations, and unproven biases you have into the words and thoughts of other people. Maybe if you make your own explanations for other peoples' actions, you can justify your spittle-flinging ranting about them? I bet you're lovely in traffic. Why yes, they are cutting you off to PERSONALLY offend you.
Let's at least pretend to be factually accurate. Amazon said "We are discontinuing our affiliate relationship with you (i.e., no longer advertising your products and facilitating your sales) because it exposes us to unjustified taxation." The rest of your little "quote" is just in your head.
They are using their affiliates like pawns, while taking very little risk themselves. It may not be illegal, but it sure as fuck doesn't fall into the 'right thing to do' category.
I'd be curious to hear a reasoned, rational explanation of the "right thing to do" according to you. If that's possible. As far as I can tell, Amazon has done the right thing: refuse to be bullied into a taxation relationship it has no obligation to enter into. Or are you one of those "the government is always right, because it's the government" whackjobs? We don't get many of those here.
If they wanted to do the right thing, they'd stop selling in NC completely
Why? That has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is tax exposure. Direct sales, they have no tax exposure, so they have no issue. Affiliate sales, they do. So, avoid the issue, terminate the affiliations, problem solved.
If they download from my server, then the image is public domain. It is even stated in the image tag. If they donwload from their server and they slapped a copyright on it I can't do anything about it. That is public domain.
That is, indeed, public domain: without effective registration and protection, an attactive nuisance. Tossing pretty toys and dollar bills onto the freeway of commerce, inviting the unsuspecting to get squashed.
If they try to pusue someone who downloaded from me (using my copyright) then I guess they will have a weak case.
You don't have a copyright. You disclaimed it. I'll just assume you meant "public domain dedication". Anyways, what the "bad guys" will have is a cause to vex, trouble, and bully someone you thought you were helping. Maybe the technical facts will pose a sufficient defense, but it won't give the victim back their time and peace of mind.
But if I download images from the public domain and use them to create my art and I want to be paid for it, it is my choice.
Indeed, but choices have consequences, and one is the possibility of after-the-fact copyright infringement. (Yes, such a thing does not actually exist in law, but the possibility exists for a miscarriage of justice to create the effect of such a thing. Poor judicial decisions create law as binding and lasting as good ones.)
I think you've avoided seeing the point.
If they download your PD image, slap their own copyright on it, and SUE YOU for using THEIR copyrighted image... what do you do? You go to court. Or don't, and suffer a default judgment. Or comply with their demand and lose the right to use what was, originally, your work. Again. (Because it's gonna happen repeatedly.)
And, in fact, the underlying (and retroactively useless) moral lesson is this: no one is looking out for your best interests but you. If you "tl;dr" a contract, don't be surprised if you agreed to something just short of legally unconscionable. And don't be surprised if that agreement is enforced.
(This is the bitter voice of experience speaking.)
"OMG I didn't agree to that!"
"Yes you did. Here's the contract, here's the clause, [page flip, page flip], here's your signature."
"OMG You are trying to rip me off!"
"Wrong. I have succeeded in ripping you off. With your full concurrence. Thanks!"
I am planning on releasing a lot of digital images I made to the public domain. For free. And if someone takes those and enhances them in any way or uses them to make their own art (like sampling in the music industry) they are free to make their own choice about which copyright to use.
If this enhancement process only means a bot will download them and rename them to sell them on a different website then I will have to live with that.
Will you live with having someone copy your work, claim exclusive proprietary ownership of that work (i.e., copyright), and pursue everyone else who uses your work?
By analogy (not/.-approved car analogy, but still):
You can throw cat food out for all the feral kitties living in your neighborhood, but what can you do if one cat drives all the others away? What if that cat attacks you to take away the cat food you have?
Market dominance based on technical superiority is anti-competitive. Market dominance based on FUD, dirty tricks, bribery, intimidation, and theft is just business success.
I understand now, Microsoft! Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Well, now, there are two aspects to this: brain growth, and learning.
A human's brain is pretty close to adult size and mass by the age of 5. You can say that this is the scaffold on which the remaining 5% of mass growth is built on. But more importantly, the cells (both in that initial 95% and subsequent 5%) are growing connections to each other, and these connections seem to be based on learning. White matter also is slowly replaced to a small degree with gray matter; white matter is "wiring" between active cells of gray matter "processors".
This may explain, to some extent, why the (physiologically very) young lady in TFA is functioning intellectually like a toddler: her uneven growth affects the basic brain development you'd expect in early childhood (the 95% mass mentioned earlier), so the brain lacks structural complexity to grow "learning connections". I suppose restricted brain growth is fortunate, in a sense; if her cranium hasn't grown, age-appropriate brain growth would be bad.
IANADoctor. This is just how the described phenomena match up in my mind with the little childhood development (psychology/anatomy) studies and basic physiology I've learned here and there. YMMV.
The fairings did provide some yaw stability, since their aggregate area was probably 30-50% (guesstimate) of a dedicated vertical stabilizer required of an airframe that size, but torque and the aerodynamic effects of the counterrotating propellers probably were the greater proportion of it.
Frankly, I've seen both explanations, so they're both parts of the equation.
Now, to put all of this back into context, as far as I can tell the Horten IX (or HO-229, as this article calls it) had no yaw stabilization features. No fins, no fairings, no propellers. How did they do it? I'm a bit amazed.
I'm not sure if the tiny propshaft fairings count as meaningful stabilizers. And neither the N-9M nor the X/YB-35 family had any kind of vertical stabilization.
As to stability problems, I recall reading that the entire prop-driven Northrop flying wing family was pretty stable once the pilot got used to the aircraft's characteristics. One obvious potential instability, yaw axis, seemed to have not been a problem because of aerodynamic and gyroscopic effects caused by the engines and long propshafts. OTOH, those same complicated engines (P&W Wasp Majors powering a really complicated dual-prop counterrotating transmission) seemed to be the source of most of the development program's crashes.
The same can't be said of the jet conversion, the XB-49. Yaw stability seemed to become a problem with the removal of the propshafts, even with the large vertical stabilizers added to the aircraft.
But they're not forcing anybody to invest in their venture, so it's really not any worse than talking somebody into investing in a restaurant that you insist on putting in a place that gets no foot traffic, has no parking, and to which you stand no chance of attracting patrons. Somebody might buy into the wishful thinking, but a rational investor will realize that it's not easy (or ever likely) money.
Well, more accurately, like a restaurant which specializes only in imaginary (say, Elbonian) cuisine, has no kitchen, and has no plan to ever try to acquire real food (even in a cynical attempt to pawn it off as the aforementioned imaginary cuisine.) Especially if the business plan consists of hiding the investment and going bankrupt when it all falls apart.
Now, if they're actually defrauding investors by falsifying data, that's another matter. But they seem to be walking the line pretty cannily, here. At which point, the investors get what they deserve.
I think presenting marketing material touting technology entirely contradictory to established laws of physics sufficiently constitutes fraudulent solicitation. No falsified experimental data necessary; the failure to provide scientific evidence cannot be permitted to be used as a defense, as an intentional lie of omission is still a lie.
let people know that this was meant to be funny, not true. Perhaps it was just too subtle for you.
Perhaps you just fail at "funny". Since your comment was clearly not funny*, the only plausible explanation was "sincerely believed as true, no matter how wrong.
*NB: factually and incontrovertibly not funny. Don't bother trying to salve your ego by blaming your readers' sense of humor. Their sense of humor is not defective; your attempt at humor was.
Slashdot Mirror
Yup, based on Dunning and Kruger's work at Cornell. (WARNING: PDF, but a good read.)
A nice sound-bite summary of the problem, from the paper:
So, this sample set is rife with issues related to self-reporting competence. Something to consider. Along with possible self-selection problems (i.e., only Mechanical Turk affiliates).
Not a particularly scientific poll survey, really, and I have difficulty believing that the methodology supports the outcome. Intuitively, I trust the outcome, but that's probably confirmation bias.
I'd be interested in seeing this as an actual controlled study. Surely there's a psychology or sociology postgrad out there in /.-land who needs a good thesis idea?
Yeah, the implied threat is quite menacing.
"We have this big hammer. Really big hammer, actually. Just acknowledge that it's our hammer, and that's it's a really big hammer, and that we are allowed to hit you with it at any time, and we promise not to hit you with it."
Makes me wanna rush right out and start developing Mono applications.
We've made a quantum optical transistor out of a single molecule!
The bad news is that the single molecule masses about 2.4 tonnes. Yeah, it's a pretty big molecule. And don't scuff it, either. We don't want to brush any carbon atoms off the surface.
Setting standards non-cooperatively is a risk: Standards group declares "It is thus!" and vendors go "Meh."
Fast forward 18 months. The vendors are richer, fatter, dumber, and happier than ever. The only sound at the standards group's offices is crickets chirping.
An old maxim from my military days: "When leading from the front, it's a good idea to look back once in a while to see if you're still being followed."
Well, in a world of people with strongly-held and violently-opposed opinions, the courts are a slightly less socially damaging decision process than some of the alternatives.
Also, all of these drugs are apparently just an existing drug + acetaminophen, so reformulating them is not even something that needs to be done.
IANAP (pharmacist), but I'd like to point out one little bitty line from TFA:
In other words, hydrocodone exists, but does need to be reformulated (i.e., dosages, delivery systems, etc.) and re-certified to become hydrocodone USP. It's not just a matter of reconfiguring the pill presses and pushing "go".
Ha! We are immune to your Jedi mind tricks! Now move along, since these aren't the droids we're looking for.
"Round" is a shape. So is "ovoid" and "pear-like". "Bulbous" too.
Dailies produce gold.
True.
Heroics produce gold (hold on to that vendor trash).
Very true.
Raids produce gold.
You haven't seen my repair bills. Raiding is always a net loss of in-game cash for me, but I suspect someone well-geared AND well-trained in encounter tactics can win without expensively dying. I'm not either, yet. I do dailies to recover gold reserves to pay for raiding. But, obviously, YMMV.
Sure, using a published standard created by a standards organization in collaboration with a proprietary inventor will always shield you from patent litigation.
Look at how well it worked out for Rambus' victims.
See also "Submarine patent" and "Patent ambush".
It would be utterly unaffordable for Ford to pay for fifty domains.
FTFT. http://www.google.com/search?q=2%5E50*35
I'm just sick of how cybersquatters have stolen my name! I, a famous and dead Ukrainian novelist, wanted to set up my own blog using my own domain! I'm heartsick that my name is being squatted because of its passing similarity to some search engine! The injustice!
Signed,
Nikolai Gogol
Oh? They couldn't boycott NC themselves?
Why are you advocating the nuclear option? This is an incremental escalation, and a focused response to the specific issue. Amazon would consider boycotting NC if NC made a credible play at their direct sales. NC hasn't, and NC can't.
Good Lord, why don't you just suggest Amazon hire ninja assassins to off NC's legislature? That's about as over-the-top.
So its good for them that they go ahead and push it off to someone else, but they don't take a hit themselves?
They're losing affiliate commissions. It's not huge, but it's a hit. And more to the point, the lost revenue is less then the probable costs of compliance, so it's a sensible business decision.
'I'm not going to let you sell my stuff because your state did something bad sorry it hurts you, by the way, I don't really want to get hurt myself, so I'm going to keep selling all day long and continue making money while you don't.'
You have an odd habit. You make up internal monologue for other people. This allows you to project whatever suspicions, frustrations, and unproven biases you have into the words and thoughts of other people. Maybe if you make your own explanations for other peoples' actions, you can justify your spittle-flinging ranting about them? I bet you're lovely in traffic. Why yes, they are cutting you off to PERSONALLY offend you.
Let's at least pretend to be factually accurate. Amazon said "We are discontinuing our affiliate relationship with you (i.e., no longer advertising your products and facilitating your sales) because it exposes us to unjustified taxation." The rest of your little "quote" is just in your head.
They are using their affiliates like pawns, while taking very little risk themselves. It may not be illegal, but it sure as fuck doesn't fall into the 'right thing to do' category.
I'd be curious to hear a reasoned, rational explanation of the "right thing to do" according to you. If that's possible. As far as I can tell, Amazon has done the right thing: refuse to be bullied into a taxation relationship it has no obligation to enter into. Or are you one of those "the government is always right, because it's the government" whackjobs? We don't get many of those here.
If they wanted to do the right thing, they'd stop selling in NC completely
Why? That has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is tax exposure. Direct sales, they have no tax exposure, so they have no issue. Affiliate sales, they do. So, avoid the issue, terminate the affiliations, problem solved.
Theres a word for this sort of treatment ...
Yeah. It's called rational business.
If they download from my server, then the image is public domain. It is even stated in the image tag. If they donwload from their server and they slapped a copyright on it I can't do anything about it. That is public domain.
That is, indeed, public domain: without effective registration and protection, an attactive nuisance. Tossing pretty toys and dollar bills onto the freeway of commerce, inviting the unsuspecting to get squashed.
If they try to pusue someone who downloaded from me (using my copyright) then I guess they will have a weak case.
You don't have a copyright. You disclaimed it. I'll just assume you meant "public domain dedication". Anyways, what the "bad guys" will have is a cause to vex, trouble, and bully someone you thought you were helping. Maybe the technical facts will pose a sufficient defense, but it won't give the victim back their time and peace of mind.
But if I download images from the public domain and use them to create my art and I want to be paid for it, it is my choice.
Indeed, but choices have consequences, and one is the possibility of after-the-fact copyright infringement. (Yes, such a thing does not actually exist in law, but the possibility exists for a miscarriage of justice to create the effect of such a thing. Poor judicial decisions create law as binding and lasting as good ones.)
I think you've avoided seeing the point.
If they download your PD image, slap their own copyright on it, and SUE YOU for using THEIR copyrighted image... what do you do? You go to court. Or don't, and suffer a default judgment. Or comply with their demand and lose the right to use what was, originally, your work. Again. (Because it's gonna happen repeatedly.)
OH NOES! Skullcrusher Mountain asploded!
And, in fact, the underlying (and retroactively useless) moral lesson is this: no one is looking out for your best interests but you. If you "tl;dr" a contract, don't be surprised if you agreed to something just short of legally unconscionable. And don't be surprised if that agreement is enforced.
(This is the bitter voice of experience speaking.)
"OMG I didn't agree to that!"
"Yes you did. Here's the contract, here's the clause, [page flip, page flip], here's your signature."
"OMG You are trying to rip me off!"
"Wrong. I have succeeded in ripping you off. With your full concurrence. Thanks!"
Cootys Rat Semen... nahhhh!
Dmmi, now I hve to replce his keyboard. Pepsi spewed ll over i. hnks soooo much.
I am planning on releasing a lot of digital images I made to the public domain. For free. And if someone takes those and enhances them in any way or uses them to make their own art (like sampling in the music industry) they are free to make their own choice about which copyright to use.
If this enhancement process only means a bot will download them and rename them to sell them on a different website then I will have to live with that.
Will you live with having someone copy your work, claim exclusive proprietary ownership of that work (i.e., copyright), and pursue everyone else who uses your work?
By analogy (not /.-approved car analogy, but still):
You can throw cat food out for all the feral kitties living in your neighborhood, but what can you do if one cat drives all the others away? What if that cat attacks you to take away the cat food you have?
Market dominance based on technical superiority is anti-competitive. Market dominance based on FUD, dirty tricks, bribery, intimidation, and theft is just business success.
I understand now, Microsoft! Thanks for clarifying that for us.
Well, now, there are two aspects to this: brain growth, and learning.
A human's brain is pretty close to adult size and mass by the age of 5. You can say that this is the scaffold on which the remaining 5% of mass growth is built on. But more importantly, the cells (both in that initial 95% and subsequent 5%) are growing connections to each other, and these connections seem to be based on learning. White matter also is slowly replaced to a small degree with gray matter; white matter is "wiring" between active cells of gray matter "processors".
This may explain, to some extent, why the (physiologically very) young lady in TFA is functioning intellectually like a toddler: her uneven growth affects the basic brain development you'd expect in early childhood (the 95% mass mentioned earlier), so the brain lacks structural complexity to grow "learning connections". I suppose restricted brain growth is fortunate, in a sense; if her cranium hasn't grown, age-appropriate brain growth would be bad.
IANADoctor. This is just how the described phenomena match up in my mind with the little childhood development (psychology/anatomy) studies and basic physiology I've learned here and there. YMMV.
The fairings did provide some yaw stability, since their aggregate area was probably 30-50% (guesstimate) of a dedicated vertical stabilizer required of an airframe that size, but torque and the aerodynamic effects of the counterrotating propellers probably were the greater proportion of it.
Frankly, I've seen both explanations, so they're both parts of the equation.
Now, to put all of this back into context, as far as I can tell the Horten IX (or HO-229, as this article calls it) had no yaw stabilization features. No fins, no fairings, no propellers. How did they do it? I'm a bit amazed.
"School-issue speculums" just doesn't have a comforting ring about it.
But does sound AWESOME for the name of a punk rock band.
I'm not sure if the tiny propshaft fairings count as meaningful stabilizers. And neither the N-9M nor the X/YB-35 family had any kind of vertical stabilization.
As to stability problems, I recall reading that the entire prop-driven Northrop flying wing family was pretty stable once the pilot got used to the aircraft's characteristics. One obvious potential instability, yaw axis, seemed to have not been a problem because of aerodynamic and gyroscopic effects caused by the engines and long propshafts. OTOH, those same complicated engines (P&W Wasp Majors powering a really complicated dual-prop counterrotating transmission) seemed to be the source of most of the development program's crashes.
The same can't be said of the jet conversion, the XB-49. Yaw stability seemed to become a problem with the removal of the propshafts, even with the large vertical stabilizers added to the aircraft.
But they're not forcing anybody to invest in their venture, so it's really not any worse than talking somebody into investing in a restaurant that you insist on putting in a place that gets no foot traffic, has no parking, and to which you stand no chance of attracting patrons. Somebody might buy into the wishful thinking, but a rational investor will realize that it's not easy (or ever likely) money.
Well, more accurately, like a restaurant which specializes only in imaginary (say, Elbonian) cuisine, has no kitchen, and has no plan to ever try to acquire real food (even in a cynical attempt to pawn it off as the aforementioned imaginary cuisine.) Especially if the business plan consists of hiding the investment and going bankrupt when it all falls apart.
Now, if they're actually defrauding investors by falsifying data, that's another matter. But they seem to be walking the line pretty cannily, here. At which point, the investors get what they deserve.
I think presenting marketing material touting technology entirely contradictory to established laws of physics sufficiently constitutes fraudulent solicitation. No falsified experimental data necessary; the failure to provide scientific evidence cannot be permitted to be used as a defense, as an intentional lie of omission is still a lie.
let people know that this was meant to be funny, not true. Perhaps it was just too subtle for you.
Perhaps you just fail at "funny". Since your comment was clearly not funny*, the only plausible explanation was "sincerely believed as true, no matter how wrong.
*NB: factually and incontrovertibly not funny. Don't bother trying to salve your ego by blaming your readers' sense of humor. Their sense of humor is not defective; your attempt at humor was.