Perhaps there were sufficient funds to settle their debts, but their stock still crashed hard. Even if the executives hadn't cashed out, a lot of people would have been out an amazing amount of money.
Also, in recognition of Slashdot's anti-establishment leanings, recognize that the bulk of that money was held not by wealthy financiers or hedge fund managers but by regular people who invested their IRA's and other retirement funds in mutual funds.
In my experience working at big law firms as a summer associate for two summers now (I am a law student), big litigation only truly ends when the parties settle. Shy of that, it has a half life; the amount of activity asymptotically approaches zero but never quite seems to get there. There always seems to be another series of issues that spring out of every issue that is decided.
Of course, nearly all parties will settle when it gets to that point. Eventually, fighting what's left is no longer worth the cost of the lawyers.
What's the problem? That ARC doesn't own the trademark that it's licensing. Also (unmentioned in this story) that it rigorously polices the same trademark that it doesn't own, preventing anyone else who wants to use the universal symbol for "medical assistance." It's a good company that does a lot of good things, but it's behavior with respect to the red cross symbol is very bad and needs to stop.
"They don't want for-profit companies making money off the ARC reputation."
That's funny, since they're sublicensing their red cross trademark -- in violation of their license agreement with J&J -- to for-profit companies.
Just how much slack are you willing to give the ARC for being a non-profit? What are they permitted to do, in your mind, to get more money? Could they steal a bunch of other people's stuff and sell it? Embezzle money from banks? They are a generally good organization, but they did some bad stuff and now need to face the music.
That would be the worst of all worlds for ARC: they'd lose the ability to make a profit from sublicensing the mark AND it would be in the public domain for anyone to use. If they caved completely to J&J, they'd be unable to sublicense the mark, but at least others would be prevented from using it by J&J's continuing trademark, which is better for them.
If you'd RTFA, the ARC started enforcing its trademark against all kinds of other products, including nail clippers, humidifiers, sanitary hand lotion, and so on. They did this simply to extort money. Now, J&J is doing the same to the ARC. Turnabout is fair play, no? Or are non-profits permitted to engage in whatever obscene rent-seeking behavior they want just because they're non-profits?
First, I'm not impressed by my own intellect, mostly because intelligence doesn't exist. I said I was knowledgeable, not intelligent.
No. You said that inheritable intelligence cannot exist, because you had an inbred hillbilly ancestry, [yet you're intelligent]. This last implied step of your inference is a claim to an intellect.
Second, where do you get 80% at?
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Craig, I. W., & McGuffin, P. (2003). Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
There's no way to scientifically arrive at that, so where does it came from? I'd wager that someone made it up, probably using fabricated information, which is not unheard of in the field of intelligence determination.
Twin studies are the obvious answer: test how IQ varies between identical but separated-at-birth twins as compared to adopted strangers. Please substantiate your allegations of widespread (or at least "not unheard of") data fabrication among intelligence research.
Third, let me bring a quote by Stanley Garn, an anthropologist of some renown, to your attention. "If the Aborigine drafted an I.Q. test, all of Western civilization would presumably flunk it." Think about that.
I have thought about it. So have the creators of the "progressive matrices" style of IQ test, which is highly predictive while using no words whatsoever. These tests have, I believe, been independently verified so that their measurement of g is consistent with all of the g-loaded predictions in that other culture. Furthermore, even if you are right that IQ tests are invalid for cultures sufficiently unlike our own, that does not contest the validity of IQ tests within cultures sufficiently like our own.
Fourth, the difference between a state university and the 'upper crust' you speak of is a simple matter of money. Bush went to Yale because daddy bought his way in, just like all those other legacies and people who get in through nonacademic means. Think about that, too.
Definitely not. There are a scant handful of people who get into fancy colleges because their daddies donated a lot of money, but they probably constitute less than five percent of every class. There is a vast, gaping chasm between a state university and the upper crust of private education. Take a look at SAT averages if you don't believe me -- and don't tell me about the effects of test preparation, since (1) the advantage can be statistically measured at far less than the gap between the schools' scores, and (2) most programs are cheap enough (~$1500, tops) that they can be financed on debt. Finally, all great universities have comprehensive financial aid programs that will ease or eliminate the burden on poor students. For example, I believe Harvard is now free for anyone whose family makes under something like $50k/yr.
Fifth, I do realize that some people are born with various brain ailments, ect, but they are the exception to the rule.
Yes, extreme differences in phsyiology, like autism, are noticeable and rare. But we've demonstrated that there are SOME genetic effects on intelligence; what makes you so sure that there aren't more, subtler, similar conditions? If a given genetic expression made the difference of only 1-5 IQ points, it would be far less likely to have been diagnosed than autism. Enough independent such differences and you end up with a continuum.
I do not make my conclusions based on idealism, but it seems like you, as well as most proponents of IQ, g, divine right ect., make yours out of a need to claim innate superiority.
I never said that and do not believe it. Perhaps it is you who is projecting your insecurities onto me.
I, for one, am comfortable with the fact that I am an equal to anyone who is willing to make an effort to learn.
Yes, and you could also observe that the number of skyscrapers also increases at the same time as a nation's wealth. Therefore, to get rich, countries like Nigeria should start building skyscrapers. Oh, and the number of old people in a society increases tremendously as life expectancy increases -- therefore, we should really be airlifting old people to Nigeria to prevent all the premature deaths that happen there.
Or you could figure out the difference between correlation and causation.
If you're so enamored with pre-civilization arctic life and you really think they were no less happy than we are today, why are you still sitting in front of a computer? There's no chain holding you to civilization. Head north and embrace the naturalistic utopia that has been revealed to you by the movie "Nanook."
Someone smarter than a jar of mayonaise should be able to comprehend the difference between absolute and fatalistic determinism (which IQ is not) and predisposition (which IQ is). Adult IQ is approximately 80% heritable.
As for your earlier assertion that IQ can't be defined and therefore doesn't exist, it's the result of a simple, rigorous factor analysis. A broad population survey of things such as health, income, reading ability, mathematical prowess, education level, romantic success, academic ability, and so on are all interrelated by a single scalar. Again, this scalar doesn't DETERMINE these other traits, but they are correlated, and often highly so. They call that scalar 'g.' IQ test scores correlate very highly with g. So if you want a semi-rigorous definition of IQ, it would be something like "an admittedly error-prone measurement of that single scalar variable uncovered by factor analysis that has proven highly predictive of a variety of abilities listed above." Does it matter that you call artistic ability intelligence? No. "Intelligence" is just how some people interpret g. You don't have to agree. But -- and this is crucial -- your disagreement does not invalidate the empirical reality of g.
As to The Mismeasure of Man, I urge you to familiarize yourself with some of its criticism.
Notably, the popular press loved the book but the scientific community excoriated it. Gould's theses contradict much of mainstream academic psychology, and the discrepancy between the two has only grown in the ten years since his second edition. If you want to believe what reality SHOULD be (in your mind) over what it IS, that's fine, but at least be honest that your beliefs are religious and not scientific. For whatever it's worth, I join you in wishing that there were no such thing as inherent intelligence, that the variability in success owed entirely to strength of character and other worthier traits (ideally not themselves genetically predisposed), and that everyone got to play with the same hand of cards. Likewise, I wish that things such as autism, Down syndrome, and other such marked inborn disabilities did not exist. But neither of these reflects the world we live in, and for both of them, I accept that science disproves my wishful thinking.
Finally, while I know you're very impressed with your own intellect, the honors program of a state university is not exactly the elite upper crust of American education. I wouldn't use your enrollment there as evidence that you're some sort of science-defying luminary. Certainly you're smarter than average, but again, even adult IQ is only 80% heritable.
Because the government will set "standards" of speed, this leaves smaller providers -- who may still be able to provide acceptable speeds -- out of the market. If you won't be able to give the minimum, get out of the market.
Not at all. More accurately, if you can't provide acceptable speeds, you're not allowed to pretend that you can. To my understanding, small providers can still provide smaller access for the same prices; they just can't pretend that it's "broadband." Do you shed tears because small farmers can't sell Grade B meat and pretend it's Grade A? Because small mom-and-pop jewelry shops can't sell cubic zirconium and claim that it's diamond? Because small electronics shops can't sell you an old-generation TV and call it an HDTV? Of course not. They're all free to compete, but they have to do it honestly. It's good that Congress wants to update the requirements of certain terminology so it continues to match the way people use it.
So... you really think the world would be functionally the same today if Gore had won in 2000 instead of Bush? You think he is lying about his commitment to stop global warming, or that he would change his mind if he were in office? Granted, neither party is perfect, but they have real and dramatic differences and it's petty and foolish to pretend that their imperfection is a reason to give up altogether.
It is, incidentally, precisely that attitude that gave us Bush in the first place. Remember, it was Nader's line, and he cost Gore the election.
Your post reflects a classical intuition of your own -- that for some reason, "macro" time travel must be impossible even if "micro" time travel isn't. What fundamental universal force will permit the latter but forbid the former? Unless you believe in the Time Police or some divine equivalent, what evidence do you have that we would be unable to amplify even a micro effect? Certainly that COULD be the case, but I can't think of any reason to suspect that it WILL except for a general hunch that time travel is too "science fiction"-ish to be possible -- which is, of course, exactly the sort of "classical intuition" you rightly repudiate.
If anything, it's a defense of windows -- i.e. "next time you experience a certain issue, realize that the fault is with your hardware and NOTwith windows."
The problem with your suggestion is that there is never any political will to go after the corrupt cops the way there is to go after the (obviously guilty) suspect. The cop performs an illegal search? "Whatever," think the prosecutors, fellow cops, and voting public, "it was for a good cause, and now this dangerous criminal is behind bars." You think these same prosecutors for whom the bad cop did such a favor will prosecute him? Not very likely.
The exclusionary rule, on the other hand, is enforced by the judge who is insulated from the political process and can take the long view and see that the gradual erosion of civil liberties is a much graver harm than one bad guy going free. It's a pure alignment of incentives: the only reason to violate a suspect's civil rights is to get him behind bars, and if violating his civil rights sets him free, there is no reason left to do it.
This incentive works well enough that it is the VERY RARE CASE where a suspect actually gets sprung by the exclusionary rule. These very rare cases are highly publicized so they probably seem like a higher proportion than they are, but that's also a good thing, since it wakes up the electorate and holds the corrupt cops and prosecutors responsible for their violations of suspects' civil rights.
The exclusionary rule is an enduring genius of the American legal system.
That's like saying you don't need a mailbox outside your house because you've adopted email -- the problem being, of course, that everyone else still uses mail. It may be that you're on the forward-thinking end of the tech curve, but it's still your problem.
Computers and the internet are the 2 greatest inventions in the last 100 years
Why must you dilute the quality of your post with such exaggeration? Antibiotics, cars, airplanes, and plastic are all much more important than computers or the internet.
I guess I'm not entirely sure why we "should" care about anything at all, so if you're going to get all nihilist on me I guess that's the end of the discussion. I know that I *personally* prefer that the universe(s) carry on, and I'd bet a lot of money that I'm far from alone in that preference. Some things are axiomatic: love is good, pain is bad, roses smell nice, and eternal cosmic death should be avoided if at all possible. If you don't adopt those axioms, so be it.
No; the astronomy blog that discussed the math -- linked in the summary -- claims that the divergent models made divergent predictions that can be tested experimentally within a few years.
empty posturing. What does Universal lose by signing a short-term contract instead of a long-term one? Probably nothing. What do they gain? Marginally more credibility in the back-and-forth threats between Apple and the record companies. Wake me up when they explicitly threaten to cancel their contract and remove their media from iTunes if an express list of demands is not met. Until then, it means nothing. And even then, they'll likely return to the bargaining table before pulling the plug. Both sides know where their interests lie, and neither wants to pull the plug.
My long-term prediction? More of the status quo. Both sides are winning, and there is no external stimulus that seems like it might upset the equilibrium that has developed. Apple doesn't want to lose a third of its collection, and Universal doesn't want to be tied to the misfits and rejects that compose the rest of the playing field.
I've always held that asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what is North of the North Pole? It's a grammatically correct question but we can't expect it to mean anything.... I think once I came to understand what this really meant, it's very a beautiful truth about the world. I am sceptical of any theory that talks about a "before" the Big Bang - I think it misses one of the most important truths there is to know!
I agree that it's a beautiful concept, but it might not be right. It's testable, and they're going to test it. If you want call your arguments scientific, you have to accept that in science, the most beautiful explanation is not always the correct one. I think that both geocentrism and flat-earth theory are beautiful in a kind of fairy tale aesthetic, but we had to let them go because they were wrong. If they run the experiments and conclude that time extended prior to the big bang, so be it.
Anyway, isn't it more appealing that time is cyclical rather than terminal? Consider the alternative: all the rich vibrancy of the universe slowly dying of metastasized entropy until it is an ever-expanding fossil of inert dust. How much nicer that there may be a cure for entropy, even if it is one that we will not survive!
Okay, well, using that sense of the word, you don't 'know' much of anything at all, really. Cue Descartes: you THINK you're sitting in an office chair, but it could be a giant Martix-like illusion.
In the sense of the word that actually has some value in our world and that enjoys actual usage, you use Occam's Razor all the time. How much would you be willing to bet that if you throw open your sock drawer right now, you will not find a little green goblin inside? Probably dollars to donuts -- proof, I think, of at least subjective knowledge that there is no little green goblin in there -- and yet it is only Occam's Razor that convinces you to ignore models of the world that include little green goblins sneaking into your sock drawer.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps there were sufficient funds to settle their debts, but their stock still crashed hard. Even if the executives hadn't cashed out, a lot of people would have been out an amazing amount of money. Also, in recognition of Slashdot's anti-establishment leanings, recognize that the bulk of that money was held not by wealthy financiers or hedge fund managers but by regular people who invested their IRA's and other retirement funds in mutual funds.
In my experience working at big law firms as a summer associate for two summers now (I am a law student), big litigation only truly ends when the parties settle. Shy of that, it has a half life; the amount of activity asymptotically approaches zero but never quite seems to get there. There always seems to be another series of issues that spring out of every issue that is decided.
Of course, nearly all parties will settle when it gets to that point. Eventually, fighting what's left is no longer worth the cost of the lawyers.
What's the problem? That ARC doesn't own the trademark that it's licensing. Also (unmentioned in this story) that it rigorously polices the same trademark that it doesn't own, preventing anyone else who wants to use the universal symbol for "medical assistance." It's a good company that does a lot of good things, but it's behavior with respect to the red cross symbol is very bad and needs to stop.
"They don't want for-profit companies making money off the ARC reputation."
That's funny, since they're sublicensing their red cross trademark -- in violation of their license agreement with J&J -- to for-profit companies.
Just how much slack are you willing to give the ARC for being a non-profit? What are they permitted to do, in your mind, to get more money? Could they steal a bunch of other people's stuff and sell it? Embezzle money from banks? They are a generally good organization, but they did some bad stuff and now need to face the music.
That would be the worst of all worlds for ARC: they'd lose the ability to make a profit from sublicensing the mark AND it would be in the public domain for anyone to use. If they caved completely to J&J, they'd be unable to sublicense the mark, but at least others would be prevented from using it by J&J's continuing trademark, which is better for them.
If you'd RTFA, the ARC started enforcing its trademark against all kinds of other products, including nail clippers, humidifiers, sanitary hand lotion, and so on. They did this simply to extort money. Now, J&J is doing the same to the ARC. Turnabout is fair play, no? Or are non-profits permitted to engage in whatever obscene rent-seeking behavior they want just because they're non-profits?
No. You said that inheritable intelligence cannot exist, because you had an inbred hillbilly ancestry, [yet you're intelligent]. This last implied step of your inference is a claim to an intellect.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Craig, I. W., & McGuffin, P. (2003). Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Twin studies are the obvious answer: test how IQ varies between identical but separated-at-birth twins as compared to adopted strangers. Please substantiate your allegations of widespread (or at least "not unheard of") data fabrication among intelligence research.
I have thought about it. So have the creators of the "progressive matrices" style of IQ test, which is highly predictive while using no words whatsoever. These tests have, I believe, been independently verified so that their measurement of g is consistent with all of the g-loaded predictions in that other culture. Furthermore, even if you are right that IQ tests are invalid for cultures sufficiently unlike our own, that does not contest the validity of IQ tests within cultures sufficiently like our own.
Definitely not. There are a scant handful of people who get into fancy colleges because their daddies donated a lot of money, but they probably constitute less than five percent of every class. There is a vast, gaping chasm between a state university and the upper crust of private education. Take a look at SAT averages if you don't believe me -- and don't tell me about the effects of test preparation, since (1) the advantage can be statistically measured at far less than the gap between the schools' scores, and (2) most programs are cheap enough (~$1500, tops) that they can be financed on debt. Finally, all great universities have comprehensive financial aid programs that will ease or eliminate the burden on poor students. For example, I believe Harvard is now free for anyone whose family makes under something like $50k/yr.
Yes, extreme differences in phsyiology, like autism, are noticeable and rare. But we've demonstrated that there are SOME genetic effects on intelligence; what makes you so sure that there aren't more, subtler, similar conditions? If a given genetic expression made the difference of only 1-5 IQ points, it would be far less likely to have been diagnosed than autism. Enough independent such differences and you end up with a continuum.
I never said that and do not believe it. Perhaps it is you who is projecting your insecurities onto me.
Yes, and you could also observe that the number of skyscrapers also increases at the same time as a nation's wealth. Therefore, to get rich, countries like Nigeria should start building skyscrapers. Oh, and the number of old people in a society increases tremendously as life expectancy increases -- therefore, we should really be airlifting old people to Nigeria to prevent all the premature deaths that happen there.
Or you could figure out the difference between correlation and causation.
"while from the research that has been done happiness does not seem to be significantly a function of wealth or life expectancy"
The research I've seen disagrees with basically everything in this sentence. Happiness is highly correlated with wealth and longevity.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/hastef/0207.html
If you're so enamored with pre-civilization arctic life and you really think they were no less happy than we are today, why are you still sitting in front of a computer? There's no chain holding you to civilization. Head north and embrace the naturalistic utopia that has been revealed to you by the movie "Nanook."
Someone smarter than a jar of mayonaise should be able to comprehend the difference between absolute and fatalistic determinism (which IQ is not) and predisposition (which IQ is). Adult IQ is approximately 80% heritable.
n #Criticisms
Yes, this article is from Wikipedia, but it is well sourced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ#Heritability
As for your earlier assertion that IQ can't be defined and therefore doesn't exist, it's the result of a simple, rigorous factor analysis. A broad population survey of things such as health, income, reading ability, mathematical prowess, education level, romantic success, academic ability, and so on are all interrelated by a single scalar. Again, this scalar doesn't DETERMINE these other traits, but they are correlated, and often highly so. They call that scalar 'g.' IQ test scores correlate very highly with g. So if you want a semi-rigorous definition of IQ, it would be something like "an admittedly error-prone measurement of that single scalar variable uncovered by factor analysis that has proven highly predictive of a variety of abilities listed above." Does it matter that you call artistic ability intelligence? No. "Intelligence" is just how some people interpret g. You don't have to agree. But -- and this is crucial -- your disagreement does not invalidate the empirical reality of g.
As to The Mismeasure of Man, I urge you to familiarize yourself with some of its criticism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mismeasure_of_Ma
Notably, the popular press loved the book but the scientific community excoriated it. Gould's theses contradict much of mainstream academic psychology, and the discrepancy between the two has only grown in the ten years since his second edition. If you want to believe what reality SHOULD be (in your mind) over what it IS, that's fine, but at least be honest that your beliefs are religious and not scientific. For whatever it's worth, I join you in wishing that there were no such thing as inherent intelligence, that the variability in success owed entirely to strength of character and other worthier traits (ideally not themselves genetically predisposed), and that everyone got to play with the same hand of cards. Likewise, I wish that things such as autism, Down syndrome, and other such marked inborn disabilities did not exist. But neither of these reflects the world we live in, and for both of them, I accept that science disproves my wishful thinking.
Finally, while I know you're very impressed with your own intellect, the honors program of a state university is not exactly the elite upper crust of American education. I wouldn't use your enrollment there as evidence that you're some sort of science-defying luminary. Certainly you're smarter than average, but again, even adult IQ is only 80% heritable.
So... you really think the world would be functionally the same today if Gore had won in 2000 instead of Bush? You think he is lying about his commitment to stop global warming, or that he would change his mind if he were in office? Granted, neither party is perfect, but they have real and dramatic differences and it's petty and foolish to pretend that their imperfection is a reason to give up altogether. It is, incidentally, precisely that attitude that gave us Bush in the first place. Remember, it was Nader's line, and he cost Gore the election.
Your post reflects a classical intuition of your own -- that for some reason, "macro" time travel must be impossible even if "micro" time travel isn't. What fundamental universal force will permit the latter but forbid the former? Unless you believe in the Time Police or some divine equivalent, what evidence do you have that we would be unable to amplify even a micro effect? Certainly that COULD be the case, but I can't think of any reason to suspect that it WILL except for a general hunch that time travel is too "science fiction"-ish to be possible -- which is, of course, exactly the sort of "classical intuition" you rightly repudiate.
If anything, it's a defense of windows -- i.e. "next time you experience a certain issue, realize that the fault is with your hardware and NOTwith windows."
The problem with your suggestion is that there is never any political will to go after the corrupt cops the way there is to go after the (obviously guilty) suspect. The cop performs an illegal search? "Whatever," think the prosecutors, fellow cops, and voting public, "it was for a good cause, and now this dangerous criminal is behind bars." You think these same prosecutors for whom the bad cop did such a favor will prosecute him? Not very likely.
The exclusionary rule, on the other hand, is enforced by the judge who is insulated from the political process and can take the long view and see that the gradual erosion of civil liberties is a much graver harm than one bad guy going free. It's a pure alignment of incentives: the only reason to violate a suspect's civil rights is to get him behind bars, and if violating his civil rights sets him free, there is no reason left to do it.
This incentive works well enough that it is the VERY RARE CASE where a suspect actually gets sprung by the exclusionary rule. These very rare cases are highly publicized so they probably seem like a higher proportion than they are, but that's also a good thing, since it wakes up the electorate and holds the corrupt cops and prosecutors responsible for their violations of suspects' civil rights.
The exclusionary rule is an enduring genius of the American legal system.
That's like saying you don't need a mailbox outside your house because you've adopted email -- the problem being, of course, that everyone else still uses mail. It may be that you're on the forward-thinking end of the tech curve, but it's still your problem.
I guess I'm not entirely sure why we "should" care about anything at all, so if you're going to get all nihilist on me I guess that's the end of the discussion. I know that I *personally* prefer that the universe(s) carry on, and I'd bet a lot of money that I'm far from alone in that preference. Some things are axiomatic: love is good, pain is bad, roses smell nice, and eternal cosmic death should be avoided if at all possible. If you don't adopt those axioms, so be it.
No; the astronomy blog that discussed the math -- linked in the summary -- claims that the divergent models made divergent predictions that can be tested experimentally within a few years.
empty posturing. What does Universal lose by signing a short-term contract instead of a long-term one? Probably nothing. What do they gain? Marginally more credibility in the back-and-forth threats between Apple and the record companies. Wake me up when they explicitly threaten to cancel their contract and remove their media from iTunes if an express list of demands is not met. Until then, it means nothing. And even then, they'll likely return to the bargaining table before pulling the plug. Both sides know where their interests lie, and neither wants to pull the plug.
My long-term prediction? More of the status quo. Both sides are winning, and there is no external stimulus that seems like it might upset the equilibrium that has developed. Apple doesn't want to lose a third of its collection, and Universal doesn't want to be tied to the misfits and rejects that compose the rest of the playing field.
I agree that it's a beautiful concept, but it might not be right. It's testable, and they're going to test it. If you want call your arguments scientific, you have to accept that in science, the most beautiful explanation is not always the correct one. I think that both geocentrism and flat-earth theory are beautiful in a kind of fairy tale aesthetic, but we had to let them go because they were wrong. If they run the experiments and conclude that time extended prior to the big bang, so be it.
Anyway, isn't it more appealing that time is cyclical rather than terminal? Consider the alternative: all the rich vibrancy of the universe slowly dying of metastasized entropy until it is an ever-expanding fossil of inert dust. How much nicer that there may be a cure for entropy, even if it is one that we will not survive!
Okay, well, using that sense of the word, you don't 'know' much of anything at all, really. Cue Descartes: you THINK you're sitting in an office chair, but it could be a giant Martix-like illusion.
In the sense of the word that actually has some value in our world and that enjoys actual usage, you use Occam's Razor all the time. How much would you be willing to bet that if you throw open your sock drawer right now, you will not find a little green goblin inside? Probably dollars to donuts -- proof, I think, of at least subjective knowledge that there is no little green goblin in there -- and yet it is only Occam's Razor that convinces you to ignore models of the world that include little green goblins sneaking into your sock drawer.
How do you know that there isn't an invisible pink unicorn in the room with you? Occam's Razor isn't THAT pitiful.
They don't have to. Copyright law comes with statutory minimum damages if the copyright is registered (which they are).