In mild defense of astrology, someone like Randi who actively seeks to debunk astrology and the supernatural is probably not terribly invested in designing a fair test.
Why not try reading the application before you go any further. Especially this part:
Applicants must state clearly what they claim as their special ability, and test procedures must be agreed upon by both parties before any testing will take place. All tests must be designed in such a way that the results are self-evident, and no judging process is required. We do not design the protocol independently of the applicant, who must provide clear guidelines so that the test may be properly set.
Randi stakes his credibility on a fair test. And every applicant has agreed that his/her test was fair.
This kind of screw-up could have happened regardless of the method being used to tally the votes! The REAL problem is not that the electronic voting machines are unreliable, it's that humans are, and without the paper trail that normal procedures generate, there's no way to go back and fix mistakes.
But the fact that there was no paper trail is a consequence of the fact that they used electronic voting machines. Any other method would have created a paper trail automatically.
Bilbo was 51 when he set off on his adventure. Frodo is 50 when he sets off on his.
Frodo is 50 in the books. Not in the movies. In the books, 17 years passes between Bilbo's birthday party and the start of Frodo's quest. I doubt that it took movie-Gandalf 17 years to go to Minas Tirith and back, which is about all that happens between the party and Frodo's departure.
Big business should be honourable. And that honour should be enforced by Samauari Code. Also, corporate takeovers should involve sword battles between the upper management of two companies.
it wasn't Oscar worthy. [....] that doesn't make it the best film of the year!
You seem to be operating under the assumption that the Academy's pick for Best Picture is actually supposed to have anything to do with the best film of the year. What an interesting notion.
Hell, they usually fail even to nominate the best film.
"the creators of the copyrighted material do deserve to make a living off of their work"
Yes. The creators. The RIAA does not create music
What a non-answer. You're throwing out the baby with the bath water if you would eliminate copyright just to spite the RIAA.
Courtney Love herself said that the average artist would do a lot better working for tips.
But don't you see, she wasn't arguing in favor of tips. She was trying to illustrate how bad the average record deal is for the artist. "Worse than tips" is not an argument in favor of tips.
Besides, do you really want to base your entire solution to the problem on something that Courtney Love said?
I will say it one more time. I have bought MORE music after I listen to it online before buying it.
The problem is, not everyone is like you. Other people use p2p as a way to avoid paying for music and movies altogether. It's not entirely clear which is the more typical behavior, but I have a hunch it's the latter.
The use of the word "property" in "intellectual property" is itself misleading. It is similar to the common lie of calling copyright infringement "theft". I prefer the term "copyrighted material".
That's odd, since to me the word "material" usually implies a physical substance.
Yes, there are other definitions of "material," but there are other definitions of "property," too.
Ah, but my wife is a woman, you see, and as such, she wouldn't even be able to get the computer case open by herself. Likewise with the TV/DVD/VCR/TiVo... Disconnect one cable, and she'd be helpless. So yes, I am in charge, to that extent. At least while the kids are still young.
Once a year for a week I just force myself to unplug. I yank the network cards and modems out of my machines, unplug the controllers on my game systems, take my tv remote, monitor power cord, PDA and cel phone - put it all in a box and drop it off at a friend's house.
Clearly, you don't have a wife or kids. If I ever tried this, there would be a mutiny.
Absolutely; I would love to have an autotuning guitar. I was just trying to explain that this isn't going to "make new players give up less easily" or some such nonsense.
Next on the list is maybe a Piano? Or a Harp? Any stringed instrument could benefit from this.
Well, yes and no. It seems much more useful for instruments with fingerboards, and fewer strings. Since a piano already has strings covering every chromatic pitch, I don't see a need for autotuning one on the fly unless you want to depart from the equal-tempered scale and get into something more avant-garde. Not many people have that need.
Also, just to stay in tune, a guitarist will need to retune several times during a single gig, whereas a piano can hold its intonation pretty well for months at a time. It would take a long time for most people to break even on an autotuner for your piano, compared to just paying a professional.
Interestingly, harps already have a limited kind of mechanical autotuning, by means of foot pedals. So again, this technology would probably not confer much benefit to a harpist beyond just keeping in tune, or avant-garde stuff.
I think an auto-tuning mandolin would be very cool... Or a dulcimer, so that you could change the drone pitch on the fly.
An automatic transmission increases the price of inexpensive cars about 10%.
I could be wrong, but when automatic transmissions first hit the market, I doubt that they cost 20-40 times as much as a cheap new car. I don't think that this is a good analogy.
I think autotuners will eventually come down in price to a similar level, perhaps 20-50% of the cheapest guitars.
That's a pretty bold assertion. You're saying that this $4000 tech might some day cost as little as $20. I'll believe it when I see it.
I know people that are aware of their own tone-deafedness enough to never even pick up a guitar. Think of people too afraid to sing: some tone-deaf people will still sing a drunken karaoke song but many won't. Autotuning will be a comfort for people that feel the same about musical instruments.
This problem has already been solved by cheap electronic tuners, which are already available for 10% of the cost of the cheapest guitars. No matter how much the cost of autotuning comes down, electronic tuners will always be cheaper. They are simpler, they have no moving parts, you only need ONE of them to tune every guitar you own (and most other kinds of instruments, for that matter), and they've already been on the market for decades.
Again, autotuning will never be a standard feature. It is for professionals who need to retune or change tuning systems instantly. Not for beginners who can't be bothered to learn to tune by ear. The latter already have a better solution.
I wasn't saying that you should be able to learn an instrument in 3-4 months. I was saying just the opposite, in fact -- that if it only takes you 3-4 months to learn to play barre chords, you have no cause for complaint.
Autotuning guitars will eventually become a standard feature and it will make guitars available to a wider audience.
It will never become a standard feature, because it's two orders of magnitude more expensive than ordinary tuning pegs. The price will come down, but not by that much.
It will not make guitars available to a wider audience. No one gives up the guitar because it's too hard to tune. Tuning is easy, especially with electronic tuners. And beginners generally don't seem to care or notice that they're not in perfect tune anyway.
Hypothetically, if this did become a standard feature, it would probably discourage beginners, because a cheap starter instrument would suddenly be 5-10 times more expensive.
It seems to me that impinging upon the liberty of an entire state is a little bit too extreme. Perhaps tougher penalties and larger fines for people who actually drive drunk would be a better idea.
Sure, it would be a better idea. The problem is getting the tougher penalties to pass. These kinds of initiatives are usually shot down, because so many people feel that it is their God-given right to drive drunk. So, while I don't support this ignition interlock idea, you can't blame them for trying. Other less intrusive avenues have been tried, and closed off.
Did you miss this sentence: If you believe and you are wrong, you've at least led a good life;?
The suggestion that "belief" is correlated with "living a good life" is simply argument by assertion. It is possible that there is no correlation, or that it is negative; it is also possible that it is true for some people but not others.
The reason why this continues to be a controversial issue, IMHO, is that most people insist on seeing things in black-and-white terms. Either video games are responsible for turning kids into killers, or they have no effect whatsoever. It's easy for people on either side of the issue to knock down the appropriate strawman.
Actually, this is what a copyright lawyer would call a "derivative work," and it is always owned by the owner of the original.
That's untrue, but irrelevant. In the case of a Van Gogh, we're talking about something that is in the public domain. No one owns a copyright on the original.
This is why I can't take the Linux source, modify a single line, and claim that I now own the copyright.
You are seriously mixing apples and oranges here. Linux isn't public domain. (But if it were, you could claim ownership of the line that you changed.)
No one suggested that making a print of a Van Gogh would give you a copyright to the original painting. But a derivative work can be copyrighted. Go to your local book store and take a look inside the cover of a brand new copy of Shakespeare's complete works. You will see a copyright notice. This does not mean that the publisher owns a copyright to Shakespeare's original works. It simply means that they own a copyright to this edition, to prevent others from profiting off of the hard work that went into editing it.
This is why Project Gutenberg takes nearly all of their material from pre-1923 editions.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, they usually fail even to nominate the best film.
Besides, do you really want to base your entire solution to the problem on something that Courtney Love said?
Yes, there are other definitions of "material," but there are other definitions of "property," too.
Ah, but my wife is a woman, you see, and as such, she wouldn't even be able to get the computer case open by herself. Likewise with the TV/DVD/VCR/TiVo... Disconnect one cable, and she'd be helpless. So yes, I am in charge, to that extent. At least while the kids are still young.
Also, just to stay in tune, a guitarist will need to retune several times during a single gig, whereas a piano can hold its intonation pretty well for months at a time. It would take a long time for most people to break even on an autotuner for your piano, compared to just paying a professional.
Interestingly, harps already have a limited kind of mechanical autotuning, by means of foot pedals. So again, this technology would probably not confer much benefit to a harpist beyond just keeping in tune, or avant-garde stuff.
I think an auto-tuning mandolin would be very cool... Or a dulcimer, so that you could change the drone pitch on the fly.
Again, autotuning will never be a standard feature. It is for professionals who need to retune or change tuning systems instantly. Not for beginners who can't be bothered to learn to tune by ear. The latter already have a better solution.
I wasn't saying that you should be able to learn an instrument in 3-4 months. I was saying just the opposite, in fact -- that if it only takes you 3-4 months to learn to play barre chords, you have no cause for complaint.
It will not make guitars available to a wider audience. No one gives up the guitar because it's too hard to tune. Tuning is easy, especially with electronic tuners. And beginners generally don't seem to care or notice that they're not in perfect tune anyway.
Hypothetically, if this did become a standard feature, it would probably discourage beginners, because a cheap starter instrument would suddenly be 5-10 times more expensive.
Is 3-4 months to learn an instrument really so unreasonable?
No reason to assume that they responded to spam. I hear ads for this kind of thing on local radio all the time.
The reason why this continues to be a controversial issue, IMHO, is that most people insist on seeing things in black-and-white terms. Either video games are responsible for turning kids into killers, or they have no effect whatsoever. It's easy for people on either side of the issue to knock down the appropriate strawman.
No one suggested that making a print of a Van Gogh would give you a copyright to the original painting. But a derivative work can be copyrighted. Go to your local book store and take a look inside the cover of a brand new copy of Shakespeare's complete works. You will see a copyright notice. This does not mean that the publisher owns a copyright to Shakespeare's original works. It simply means that they own a copyright to this edition, to prevent others from profiting off of the hard work that went into editing it.
This is why Project Gutenberg takes nearly all of their material from pre-1923 editions.
GINAL (Googlefight is not a lawyer), but for what it's worth.
You misspelled David Hemmings.