This argument has been around at least since the Victorian era. Basically, when you give up the certainty of Romanticism and Religion, you need to fill the void with something in order to give life meaning and direction, or else there'll be this big empty spot where your heart used to be.
Seriously, just read through the Norton Anthology from the era. Doesn't take that long.
M$ won't care, it's more money for them when your computer gets screwed up and you have to (a) call M$ tech support (b) buy a new PC (c) buy another M$ license (d) take your pc to a repair shop.
I am going to go ahead and make an educated guess that Microsoft has done more to improve computer security for gullible people than you have.
I'm not saying it's perfect--but it's a lot more secure than it used to be, and they want it to be secure, and they spend a lot of money on making machines secure.
Anyone with a grass yard should be planting a small forest of actual trees. Carbon sinks. Much better for the environment, also because there is much less energy spent maintaining them.
Home Depot deployed new card readers at all their stores (of the ones I saw at least) almost overnight shortly after the target breach. I had guessed it was in response to the breach to beef up security...
But it looks like it was the new ones that were compromised... (or else it was coincidental).
The old saying "The Emperor has no clothes" applies here. Copyright law is a distorted abomination. The terms of copyright are outrageous, a work created today will not enter the public domain in my lifetime because the length of protection is so corrupted. Since I will die before Alien (1979) enters the public domain then that means copyright is effectively unlimited. "Expiry" is a lie. Sane copyright law would see works enter the public domain after a reasonable amount of time such as 14 (original term) to 20 years (what would be acceptable). Not only would those works then be able to be freely shared but also new works, with new sane protection terms, would be able to be created in those universes. A new Alien movie which does not need the blessing of the old creators. 20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct. When it comes to copyright laws another saying applies "unjust laws serve to bring all laws into contempt." A primer on the subject can be found here as a freely downloadable PDF: The Public Domain.
Yes and no. A starving artist who makes nothing from his work should continue to receive his small royalty, if he gets any; a project that hasn't earned back its costs should have copyright extended for a *long* time--maybe 40 years or the lifetime of the artist, whichever is longer. But a project that has made its producers hundreds of millions should enter the public domain within five to ten years. There is no justification for copyright beyond that term when a project has been enormously successful.
I think $200k top salary including bonuses far exceeds what many CEO's need for living a basic high quality life. Any more than that would just be wasted on blow and hookers.
Really just ignorantly untrue. Nice houses, second homes, good services, retirement portfolio, helping worse-off relatives, donations to charitable causes--there are many expenses that wealthy people have (or choose to have) which are perfectly legitimate and can easily go past the $200K/year mark.
Scientific consensus is like "you cannot exceed the speed of light." If you happen to demonstrate that you exceeded the speed of light, you want to be careful about how you present it--e.g. "we have this interesting result and can someone help show what we did wrong?"--but the community will take notice if you actually show that the consensus is wrong. The more consensus there is, the better the evidence you need to posit the question, but the community still listens.
I'm sorry, I got my negatives in the wrong place. It does say exactly what you're objecting to, doesn't it?
Well... shoot. I'm not going to defend what I said that was incorrect. But the intent is defending the frequency of causative studies in psychology.
That's fair. These are problems I've seen in a majority or at least large minority of the studies I've seen and that I have seen referenced, but I do not work in the field so may suffer from sample bias.:)
Many studies in psychology and sociology do study correlation. There's nothing wrong with it, it just creates a limitation that it is difficult to reliably develop clinical tools from. You can call the studies "preliminary" if you want, but that doesn't make them invalid.
There are also causative experiments that are interesting and useful. They do not suffer from the same limitation, although others (e.g. common experimental populations) apply.
Correlation or causation depends on the design of the study. When it comes to surveys, those would be correlational studies. When it comes to studying animal behavior, those would be causation.
Absolutely. Most of the studies I have seen discussed or come across in psychology have been correlation-based. While many people are good at saying they don't know for sure what the study means, most people looking at it interpret it to have meaning that fits with their preexisting biases.
Any study's results are only generalizable to the population from which the sample was derived. Thus if the sample was taken from a population of Ohio State university students, those results are only generalizable to that population.
Yes, hence the problem with conducting so many experiments on college students.
Your complaint is with the media and how they report the results no the study's principle investigator.
Not only them. You also see a lot of the same problems in psychology textbooks, for example, and among psychologists. Psychologists are not immune to the problems which plague non-psychologists looking at the research.
I have no problem with any study's principal investigator. I may have problems with their conclusions, but prefer to read a study before I critique it. A broad statement that I have seen certain problems in a field or two does not invalidate the work of any particular person, or even the field as a whole--it simply says that I have seen an issue that the field needs to work on. And it does, to some extent--while psychology is still bad at questioning some underlying tenets, it is much more focused on, for example, cross-cultural research than it was twenty years ago.
Studies in economics and psychology tend to suffer from certain problems which limit their real-world application and the likelihood that they actually mean what people think they mean.
First, they are often based on correlation rather than causation. This is especially true with psychology studies, and readily allows confirmation bias, incorrect interpretations of data, and interpretations of data which are heavily influenced by the perspective of the researcher.
Second, they are often done on western college students. This tends not to yield rules of general applicability.
Third, most economics (and psychology of economics) experiments are advertising experiments. They are done by corporations for financial gain and the results are generally kept secret because they are part of a company's IP and help the company sell its products, and because it simply saves the company money to not bother publishing.
2) If Russia used tactical nukes, at least against NATO troops, it would go *very* badly for Russia. We're talking collapse-their-economy bad at the absolute minimum.
The more people who know about the developer, the safer he is, at least while he is being harassed by relatively minor officials. We should be happy to accept a post or two about a nerd who is under threat by a government seeking to hide the truth about a military invasion.
Science is done best when it is done with the free exchange of truthful information and ideas. A nation which hides the truth is operating in a way fundamentally contrary both to the ideals of the open source community and to the spirit of intellectual exploration.
Nerds who don't care about that aren't nerds at all. There are a lot of diatribes about the authenticity of geekdom or nerdery. Most are just people trying to identify with one group or another and somehow believing the label affects their status in a way that people around them care about. But at the core of all Slashdot-related identities lie knowledge, intellectual expression, and the taking of joy in the exchange of information.
Until a proposed system to make automated vehicles feasible on public roads in mass is proposed, developed, protocols and legal procedures released related to this come about, this is nothing but a scare topic making vague assumptions about things that aren't even a topic for development yet.
Not really. We already have self-driving cars, and we have a lot of data about traffic accidents and mortality. The cars aren't available at retail yet, but they exist. Teaching them to drive in a way that makes the right safety tradeoffs is appropriate. (E.g. driving slowly through a stoplight might cause more accidents and fewer deaths; that's a hunch, but we have lots of data so there's a moral calculation that should be made based on the data and desired outcomes.)
A "seriously" tag should also exist. It's not the satire that's problematic--it's the real news that is so absurd it seems to be satire. This pops up with amazing frequency.
This is entirely about marketshare. Apple decided its market in China was worth making it really easy for China to take Apple's data and use it against people. It's an understandable business decision. You know, like when the Pope didn't denounce Hitler.
Not necessarily. Suppose the back of the ticket agreed in advance to sell the copyright to any media you take, or to grant an exclusive, irrevocable license, or the like. Then you get to fight about whether that's a valid agreement, but you may not own the copyright.
Correct. There is no such thing as fair use in the UK. But if the video/twitter feed is hosted in the US then I am not sure where the 'infringement' is considered to have taken place.
The lawyers and judges will be happy to spend hundreds of hours trying to figure it out.
Even in the US, it is arguable how much context, and what kind, you would need to give the video in order to make it fall under "fair use." Even major television studios avoid using game footage without permission, even when they know they have an absolute right to use it, in part because of reputation issues but really because they don't want to be sued. You also have the issue of breaking copy protection by using the analog gap, at least in theory.
Bottom-line: if you're risk-averse, don't do it. Instead, describe it with your pretty words. If you want to do it, pay a copyright and sports law expert in your jurisdiction a few hundred euros to give you his best answer and listen to his advice. Do not get legal advice on slashdot.
History has always been altered. Napoleon was the greatest general in the world not because of his generalling, but because he *bought the newspapers*.
People who had a bad reputation used to be able to move to another town. Now we have tracking.
That's good because it warns us when someone actually has molested children, but bad because it makes people unemployable even a thousand miles from their home because of stupid mistakes they made when they were 18 or 19, for example.
It's not black and white that all history should be preserved. Some history hurts the future more than it helps it. If tomorrow the whole world forgot the Israel-Palestine conflict, would it make the future better?
Slashdot Mirror
This argument has been around at least since the Victorian era. Basically, when you give up the certainty of Romanticism and Religion, you need to fill the void with something in order to give life meaning and direction, or else there'll be this big empty spot where your heart used to be.
Seriously, just read through the Norton Anthology from the era. Doesn't take that long.
I (a man) would be welcome with open arms to a crocheting class. Women are not treated as equals in a CS course. Source: I taught CS classes.
They are in many CS classes. My undergrad found significantly more retention of women in CS when women were also teaching the class.
So the rover is driving 2.8 miles per year.
Obviously used to DC Traffic.
M$ won't care, it's more money for them when your computer gets screwed up and you have to (a) call M$ tech support (b) buy a new PC (c) buy another M$ license (d) take your pc to a repair shop.
I am going to go ahead and make an educated guess that Microsoft has done more to improve computer security for gullible people than you have.
I'm not saying it's perfect--but it's a lot more secure than it used to be, and they want it to be secure, and they spend a lot of money on making machines secure.
If you actually knew an oscilloscope from your ass from a hole in the ground, you'd be able to spell "Tektronix".
PROTIP: It's written on the front of all the Tektronix oscilloscopes that you've CLEARLY NEVER SEEN.
Now back under your bridge, troll.
Don't be mean.
This is arguably a violation of 47 U.S.C. Section 333 (2012), prohibiting willful or malicious interference with radio communications.
So let's do something useful.
Anyone with a grass yard should be planting a small forest of actual trees. Carbon sinks. Much better for the environment, also because there is much less energy spent maintaining them.
Home Depot deployed new card readers at all their stores (of the ones I saw at least) almost overnight shortly after the target breach. I had guessed it was in response to the breach to beef up security...
But it looks like it was the new ones that were compromised... (or else it was coincidental).
The old saying "The Emperor has no clothes" applies here. Copyright law is a distorted abomination. The terms of copyright are outrageous, a work created today will not enter the public domain in my lifetime because the length of protection is so corrupted. Since I will die before Alien (1979) enters the public domain then that means copyright is effectively unlimited. "Expiry" is a lie. Sane copyright law would see works enter the public domain after a reasonable amount of time such as 14 (original term) to 20 years (what would be acceptable). Not only would those works then be able to be freely shared but also new works, with new sane protection terms, would be able to be created in those universes. A new Alien movie which does not need the blessing of the old creators. 20 years is long enough, long enough for Terminator 2 to now be public domain and Skynet to be a free literary construct. When it comes to copyright laws another saying applies "unjust laws serve to bring all laws into contempt." A primer on the subject can be found here as a freely downloadable PDF: The Public Domain.
Yes and no. A starving artist who makes nothing from his work should continue to receive his small royalty, if he gets any; a project that hasn't earned back its costs should have copyright extended for a *long* time--maybe 40 years or the lifetime of the artist, whichever is longer. But a project that has made its producers hundreds of millions should enter the public domain within five to ten years. There is no justification for copyright beyond that term when a project has been enormously successful.
I think $200k top salary including bonuses far exceeds what many CEO's need for living a basic high quality life. Any more than that would just be wasted on blow and hookers.
Really just ignorantly untrue. Nice houses, second homes, good services, retirement portfolio, helping worse-off relatives, donations to charitable causes--there are many expenses that wealthy people have (or choose to have) which are perfectly legitimate and can easily go past the $200K/year mark.
Scientific consensus is like "you cannot exceed the speed of light." If you happen to demonstrate that you exceeded the speed of light, you want to be careful about how you present it--e.g. "we have this interesting result and can someone help show what we did wrong?"--but the community will take notice if you actually show that the consensus is wrong. The more consensus there is, the better the evidence you need to posit the question, but the community still listens.
I'm sorry, I got my negatives in the wrong place. It does say exactly what you're objecting to, doesn't it?
Well... shoot. I'm not going to defend what I said that was incorrect. But the intent is defending the frequency of causative studies in psychology.
That's fair. These are problems I've seen in a majority or at least large minority of the studies I've seen and that I have seen referenced, but I do not work in the field so may suffer from sample bias. :)
Many studies in psychology and sociology do study correlation. There's nothing wrong with it, it just creates a limitation that it is difficult to reliably develop clinical tools from. You can call the studies "preliminary" if you want, but that doesn't make them invalid.
There are also causative experiments that are interesting and useful. They do not suffer from the same limitation, although others (e.g. common experimental populations) apply.
Correlation or causation depends on the design of the study. When it comes to surveys, those would be correlational studies. When it comes to studying animal behavior, those would be causation.
Absolutely. Most of the studies I have seen discussed or come across in psychology have been correlation-based. While many people are good at saying they don't know for sure what the study means, most people looking at it interpret it to have meaning that fits with their preexisting biases.
Any study's results are only generalizable to the population from which the sample was derived. Thus if the sample was taken from a population of Ohio State university students, those results are only generalizable to that population.
Yes, hence the problem with conducting so many experiments on college students.
Your complaint is with the media and how they report the results no the study's principle investigator.
Not only them. You also see a lot of the same problems in psychology textbooks, for example, and among psychologists. Psychologists are not immune to the problems which plague non-psychologists looking at the research.
I have no problem with any study's principal investigator. I may have problems with their conclusions, but prefer to read a study before I critique it. A broad statement that I have seen certain problems in a field or two does not invalidate the work of any particular person, or even the field as a whole--it simply says that I have seen an issue that the field needs to work on. And it does, to some extent--while psychology is still bad at questioning some underlying tenets, it is much more focused on, for example, cross-cultural research than it was twenty years ago.
It's actually much worse than that.
Studies in economics and psychology tend to suffer from certain problems which limit their real-world application and the likelihood that they actually mean what people think they mean.
First, they are often based on correlation rather than causation. This is especially true with psychology studies, and readily allows confirmation bias, incorrect interpretations of data, and interpretations of data which are heavily influenced by the perspective of the researcher.
Second, they are often done on western college students. This tends not to yield rules of general applicability.
Third, most economics (and psychology of economics) experiments are advertising experiments. They are done by corporations for financial gain and the results are generally kept secret because they are part of a company's IP and help the company sell its products, and because it simply saves the company money to not bother publishing.
Would you rather be surrounded by smart people or by normal people?
Better schools give you smarter peer groups, and you learn from and with smarter peer groups.
1) Putin is just posturing re: tactical nukes.
2) If Russia used tactical nukes, at least against NATO troops, it would go *very* badly for Russia. We're talking collapse-their-economy bad at the absolute minimum.
I just don't want to have to listen to drones buzzing by for any reason. The convenience factor is not worth the loss of quality of life for everyone.
Power lines make communities much, much uglier if you actually stop to look at them. Convenience almost always trumps annoying the reticent.
The more people who know about the developer, the safer he is, at least while he is being harassed by relatively minor officials. We should be happy to accept a post or two about a nerd who is under threat by a government seeking to hide the truth about a military invasion.
Science is done best when it is done with the free exchange of truthful information and ideas. A nation which hides the truth is operating in a way fundamentally contrary both to the ideals of the open source community and to the spirit of intellectual exploration.
Nerds who don't care about that aren't nerds at all. There are a lot of diatribes about the authenticity of geekdom or nerdery. Most are just people trying to identify with one group or another and somehow believing the label affects their status in a way that people around them care about. But at the core of all Slashdot-related identities lie knowledge, intellectual expression, and the taking of joy in the exchange of information.
Until a proposed system to make automated vehicles feasible on public roads in mass is proposed, developed, protocols and legal procedures released related to this come about, this is nothing but a scare topic making vague assumptions about things that aren't even a topic for development yet.
Not really. We already have self-driving cars, and we have a lot of data about traffic accidents and mortality. The cars aren't available at retail yet, but they exist. Teaching them to drive in a way that makes the right safety tradeoffs is appropriate. (E.g. driving slowly through a stoplight might cause more accidents and fewer deaths; that's a hunch, but we have lots of data so there's a moral calculation that should be made based on the data and desired outcomes.)
A "seriously" tag should also exist. It's not the satire that's problematic--it's the real news that is so absurd it seems to be satire. This pops up with amazing frequency.
Parent A/C is right.
This is entirely about marketshare. Apple decided its market in China was worth making it really easy for China to take Apple's data and use it against people. It's an understandable business decision. You know, like when the Pope didn't denounce Hitler.
Not necessarily. Suppose the back of the ticket agreed in advance to sell the copyright to any media you take, or to grant an exclusive, irrevocable license, or the like. Then you get to fight about whether that's a valid agreement, but you may not own the copyright.
Correct. There is no such thing as fair use in the UK. But if the video/twitter feed is hosted in the US then I am not sure where the 'infringement' is considered to have taken place.
The lawyers and judges will be happy to spend hundreds of hours trying to figure it out.
Even in the US, it is arguable how much context, and what kind, you would need to give the video in order to make it fall under "fair use." Even major television studios avoid using game footage without permission, even when they know they have an absolute right to use it, in part because of reputation issues but really because they don't want to be sued. You also have the issue of breaking copy protection by using the analog gap, at least in theory.
Bottom-line: if you're risk-averse, don't do it. Instead, describe it with your pretty words. If you want to do it, pay a copyright and sports law expert in your jurisdiction a few hundred euros to give you his best answer and listen to his advice. Do not get legal advice on slashdot.
History has always been altered. Napoleon was the greatest general in the world not because of his generalling, but because he *bought the newspapers*.
People who had a bad reputation used to be able to move to another town. Now we have tracking.
That's good because it warns us when someone actually has molested children, but bad because it makes people unemployable even a thousand miles from their home because of stupid mistakes they made when they were 18 or 19, for example.
It's not black and white that all history should be preserved. Some history hurts the future more than it helps it. If tomorrow the whole world forgot the Israel-Palestine conflict, would it make the future better?