great job at using a terrible analogy. ASCII and EBCDIC are completely open formats. any half assed programmer could write a program to go between the two if there were any demand. Go pay someone to make your editor that you want. That is the open market. Obviously, you aren't willing to pay enough. But there are loads of very wealthy companies backing very bright programmers trying to write programmers that can accurately mimic the.doc,.xls, and the rest of the ms office programs. Now I wonder, why can't they get one that accurate inputs/outputs my resume in the format? because unlike your flawed examples, none of those formats are truly open. so, try again.
The idea is taking one monopoly and extending it into other monopolies. that is illegal and that is why they are being forced to unbundle software. Now they can't leverage their dominance in the OS market(also earned through illegal means) and build a monopoly in this market. If they want the monopoly, they just have to be the best media player out there.
you should work for the creationists, great job taking a line out of context.
am I forced to get my music from the Itunes music store just so that I can conduct basic business interactions with the community at large? am I in any way forced to buy an Ipod to listen to music because everyone uses fairplay to provide music? The resounding answer is a huge no so try again with a more relevant example.
I did not say the government should in any way determine which text editor I use. I said the government should prevent a company from spreading its monopoly situation in such a way that it effectively determines which text editor I use. Unfortunately for those of us outside a nice bubble, feeling a different text editor is better is a complete non-issue. we must use microsoft office in order to conduct business because other editors are effectively prevented from reading from or writing to such a format.
By preventing bundling, the government is forcing consumers to get slightly more educated. Of course, if they then choose, anyone can go download WMP as easily as anything else, so why should it be bundled?
hm... I didn't know that media was limited to music.....
not to be a complete ass, there are lots of websites that offer streaming video and the likes only in wmv because of this player being on every computer. This is how you illegally leverage your position. Force everyone to have one player and have it support certain locked in formats. Do you think office could have gotten nearly as large if.doc,.xls, adn the rest weren't as locked up as they used to be? Until oo.org, I don't remember a program with which I could modify and save to the.doc format. So even if I don't want to use word for my text editor, I have to simply because there is no other program with which I can conduct business with the rest of the world. I say that is a bit of a catch 22 and I ought to be protected from such a situation.
It sucks even more that many of these schools are public, and the rest all receive tons of NIH money. What again are we paying these clowns for?
I guess I Should preface my response with the fact that my parents are doctors and my sister is about to enter residency.
The purpose is to train doctors who don't bitch and moan that they have already worked more than 40 hours that week when work comes up. you might not realize, but part of being a doctor is to respond to patients to help them until you are incapable of doing it anymore. Residency is meant to train you as an accurate reflection of what it means to be a doctor. Being on call and not going home from Thursday morning until Sunday night is something that happens to alot of doctors(not as much to the big city ones, usually the smaller town ones). It is part of being in the profession. Being a doctor isn't ever supposed to be your "40/week go home nad get to eat dinner and breakfast with your family every day" job. If you can't handle regular 70 hour weeks and be able to work the 130 hour week when it comes up, you shouldn't be a doctor, you aren't fit for what the job demands. That is what it means to be a real world doctor and residency accurately reflects it. medical demands are not like putting together a ford so one shouldn't expect the same.
Anyways, residency has gotten leaps and bounds easier than what it used to be. My father's hours during his four years flucuated between 36 on followed by 12 off to the easier, 36 on followed by 18 off. It is never like that anymore. There is a reason a doctor gets paid so much money when they come out of training(even now in training, they make a great deal more). Going into medicine isn't for the weak of heart. Those who are turned off from working 60 hours a week ought not apply because they will be complete failures in the real world(where you have to work more if you actually care about those you are supposedly trying to help).
of course, your sentiments accurately reflect some of the new age doctors who are coming up and don't want to go work in areas where you might hvae to do consistent 70 hour weeks. There is some wierd idea that even if there are patients that need help, there is such a thing has being "done" and it is an anathema to the profession.
you of course, mean those laws that are set up to prevent any employer from being discriminatory in its practices. equal opportunity employment means you cannot make a hiring decision based on a certain set of criteria(race, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, socio-economic status).
I think you missed the name. you probably are referring to the rarely used quota system imposed by some groups but not federally mandated(and at times, ruled as obvious racism). of course, since you probably have never felt what it means to be continually discriminated against, you wouldn't seen the need for such laws. who would have guessed that it is the repressed that benefit from laws that require some semblance of fairness.
you're correct. a private institution can do whatever it pleases as long as ti doesn't violate one of several laws including those against any form of discrimination. But the question here is didn't the school discriminate against this person? i.e. is it some type of policy where they do not allow a certain type of person in. of course, discriminating against insulting asses is not usually consider illegal discrimination....
because I know that guy sitting on the side of the road with a bent clothes hanger is the one I want giving an abortion to some girl I am friends with........
I know, it is being extreme. but what do you have against medical licensing? I mean, I know about cases where the government tried to revoke the lisence if they didn't like what the doctor discussed(i.e. medical weed in califronia) but is there something else other than related practices?
People are still private citizens and not owned by the companies or organizations they join. If they are using the property or in the "domain" of the institution, I think those institutions have a right to censure or dictate conduct standards as long as they are consistent.
However, if Mr. Blogger had told somebody this information and they had made these comments that "so and so told me this dirt about the Marquette" -- the University could do nothing. The same effect either way. If the required privileged information on Mr. Blogger in order to invade his expectation of privacy, then they have also violated his civil rights. If Marquette found out about this by easily obtained public knowledge, then they have not violated his right to privacy.
are you sure you would like it that way? this is a private institution and it makes its own decisions about who to have a relationship with. If you are friends with a child rapist, should I Hold that against you? it doesn't necesarilly effect our relationship, but I think it does reflect on you and thereby reflects on me.
to be a little more reasonable, why is it that you make the distinction about whether or not he states he has a relationship with the university? wouldn't it be necesarry for an honest person to state any relationship he has with an entity he is saying anything about? Why would it be better for this person to hide his relationship and then talk about a group? it may give his opinion an undue amount of respect.
I would say that if he has a relationship with the university, then he needs to state it and there is nothing he can do about being a representative. It is part of being a student there. Why should the university be forced to have a professional relationship wtih someone they do not consider to be a good person? I would not employ someone in my business whom I consider conducts his personal life in a despicable manner, even if it is on his "own time". Just as a person is free to conduct their personal life in any manner they please, I should be free to decide what measuring sticks I use to decide on the extent of a relationship I will have with that person.
In its own way, this is the University's way of conducting PR. They are not saying this man cannot say whatever he feels like about these people with whom he has a personal relationship. They are simply saying that acting in such a manner makes him a person they do not wish to deal with. I don't see why I should have to teach a student that calls me an asshole in a public forum, and this is what the school decided. Blogs are the new public square. It is equivalent to calling your professor an ass to his face. Would one be appropriate and the other not? if so, I would like your thoughts on why.
then you know very little about the law. jail is by no means guaranteed as I could kill you and get out of jail with a guilty verdict under the right circumstances. The chances of going to jail for hitting someone and doing no permanent, serious damage is about nil. I've seen assault against multiple officers get dropped and seen no response when a trouble maker in a bar had his knee shattered, and all he was doing was talking(according to the doctor, it looked as if someone put a 12 gauge to his knee and fired).
yes, there would probably be some lawsuit and that other person might get arrested and go spend a night in the jail cell to "sleep it off" but that isn't being jailed as I understand your use of it.
It is much more likely that you would have a sore jaw for the next day or so and he would leave with a warning and that would be the end of it. And of course, if you tried to sue in civil court without any real claim, you would probably just get laughed out of court for inciting a fight. It is all a matter of how far either of you went. Inciting a fight makes you much less of a sympathy case than you may think.
its true, but you have to realize how the electoral college is chosen. candidates win states. If a candidate has the majority or plurality in a state, he gets all of the electoral seats it represents. The people who end up serving in those seats are going to be approved by him( read: they will most likely vote for him). So in our effective two party system, the people in the college are either approved by kerry or bush(last election, and I believe it is actually the republican or democratic party that chooses) and then they vote along those lines.
Now, back in the early 1800's, we had several cases but that was because we were more like a regular democracy. there were several candidates. See the election of (I think) 1824. It used to be the person with the most votes became president and the second most votes became vice president. In this election, there were back room dealings and the college voted differently than what had been standard. It was because there were 4 reasonably strong candidates(one of them being andrew Jackson who went on to win in 28 and 32, mainly to spite such a situation). The interesting point here is that while jackson won the popoular vote and the college, he didn't have a majority. So back then, the House got the choice of the president, and they chose Adams and made Jackson the VP(at that time, political suicide as no VP had ever had a shot at becoming president). Clay, the 3rd place man because secratary of state, believed to be the position to vault yourself to the presidency the next year. it was seen as a corrupt bargain because clay was also speaker of the house and many believe he used his influence to sway how things were cast.
actually, yes you do. and if you studied japanese culture and lived there, you would quickly realize that most common words have a trove of definitions and most of the time, you never translate them the same unless the situation is the same. Its because a lot of japanese in inferred from the situation and your previous relationships with the person.
just them saying the japanese word ani/oniisan doesn't mean it always means brother. the tone, implication, and situation all change the meaning. It can range from saying the name of the person in english to the actual word brother, to king or prince depending on what time period the translator is trying to imitate. If you think there is always a one to one correspondance when translating at all, you need to just study an eastern language.
I"m not saying the pro's are always better or always more accurate. most of the time, both are really good. but when there are discrepencies, its usually because of a translator's perogative, not skill.
I'm not sure what you are referencing, but r and l are interchangable in Japanese. It's because there isnt' a definitive r or l sound, just a mix that somewhat favors the r. So the translation might not be off, just an acceptable difference. another good example is Kenpo and Kempo. In some cases, n and m are interchangable, but not in all.
you do know Japanese nad english are worlds apart right? so why would you expect the timing to sync up if htey did an exact translation every time. Sometimes, you have to let go of the original just so it doesn't start looking like one of those terribly translated old chinese movies.
its hard to do. I can speak japanese(not exceptionally well but more than good enough to understand most anime if I have a dictionary) and lots of lines wouldn't work in english, at least given teh time constraints.
you have a pretty limited view of what a right provided by the people is. all rights are provided by the people. The fact that copyright law exists means the right has been provided and you, as a single person, do you have the right to take it away. That is called democracy.
anyways, reading the statute of anne, its interesting to note that nothing about tax revenue was written there. It was a 21 year right in order to encourage creation of writing to keep authors from going hungry. I'm not sure what at all that has to do with your belief that you shouldn't pay for the dvd at all(if you really want, you could buy the dvd from japan(maximum money to authors) and then download a fansub, feeling secure that you have already paid for the material).
Of course, you could just be honest with yourself and say "I don't want to pay that much for something when there is a free alternative, no matter the legality" and quit making excuses about why you do it.
do you know Japanese? fluently? then you probably shouldn't comment on the quality of the subtitles. unless you are fluent in japanese, All you know is that you prefer the way fans translate things.
I know htere are a lot of other factors involved. I was just pointing out that as real dollars spent goes, it seems people do respond to movies that are considered very artistic(especially if you cross correlate with oscars won).
but I have no desire to get population distribution statistics from the US government and look up historical data as to which screens played the movie(of course, weighting the screen for the number of weeks it showed the movie). I think a lot of htat data is almost impossible to get if we talk about something more than 30 yeras ago anyways and most of htese movies fall under that category.
because we can all agree that the top grossing films ever had absolutely no artisitc value?
note, that link goes to inflation adjusted box office numbers. Looking at it the other way, while not a level playing field, would have me agreeing with you.
They feel apart because they were split up into those baby bells you are talking about, forcibly. I"m not arguing they weren't a monopoly, but a great deal of their success was because they controlled all the phone lines(which they did put up). other companies were able to compete with them when the government mandated the sharing of phone lines. The goverment also forbade any company from serving both local and long distance markets except under very stringent circumstances. competition didn't just spring up, it was cut out of the original company.
The new regulations allowed a different type of company to succeed. But it doesn't change the fact the company was started and originally made successful by a very shrewd inventor who was also a great business man. 100 years passed between the two events.
keep in mind, google is a mix of both. Most of its great products its brought out besides the search were aquired (i.e. exactly what group B does). Also, most successful companies we see were started by geeks who ended up learning how to be a suit to succeed. No matter how much you hate them, Dell, Apple, and MS were all started by geeks and became successful because those geeks understood how a business needs to be run to be successful.
I think those companies that become the big fish are a mix of both. an old example:
AT&T (its called Bell Labs after the founder and inventor of the same name)
do make the distinction that those numbers are only for native speakers. those numbers for english don't even add up well when you consider that there are at least 4 english speaking countries I can think of, UK, US, Canada, and Australia. I believe there are three African countries that speak english nad then New Zealand but I'm not positive.
Those numbers ignore the millions of people in India nad China who learn english. In india, it is required to get into college(as they all are taught in english).
I was pretty sure we weren't competing with phones but I guess i Just haven't had the luck you have. if I can ask, what wireless card do you use? it could be a problem of a really shitty card but I'm not sure about that. My computer usually got through but two computers using dell cards that came with the system couldn't ever get a reasonable connection.
I"m not sure what scientific journals you read, but every one I have access to at college takes the ethics of the researchers into account in a very real way. If a standard ethics violation occurred, they won't publish the results a lot of the time. Its probably a good thing because it would become incredibly attractive for struggling researchers to commit severe violations (all that has been admitted to or shown is that this guyed covered up what happened) and have faith that if they are successful, Nature will still publish their work(which is a godsend to most beginning researchers).
it is always your business to decide if you want to have business dealings with people you find unethical. Some people don't shop at wal mart because they find the pay structure there unethical. Its the same thing. Nature is prying because if they didn't, it would seem they tacitly agree with using unethical means to get research done.
note, I don't think this situation is a breach of ethics of medical science. it is a violation of trust that when you publish research, you have everything be as truthful as possible. My real question when did he know it and how much did he know(gotta love nixon, so many great pseudo quotes to be had).
I Think your solution goes way too far. Why should he throw out the results(assuming he got the results before he found out who's egg he used)? the results are just as relevant with regards to the eggs used. to waste research like this would be like saying we should throw out all the research done by the Nazi's because about all of it went against our codes of ethics. of course we don't do that.
he ought to have been a heartless bastard and fired the women and publicly ruined their careers. That way, he could have held himself above blame by saying he did everything he could. of course, that would make him a heartless bastard, wouldn't it?
obviously, you've never listened to the green day song. that male researcher who invented the microscope could have GONE BLIND!!! are you willing to live with that??
wait a second.... he gets eggs from a hospital, having never met the patients who donated eggs, and is suppose to divine who they came from? its pretty damn easy to use a false name and volunteer to do something. Most of the time, because of the need, people aren't expecting liars to come in and fool them.
anyways, where did you get the idea that people were paid for their eggs? The only mention of this in teh article(and any other I have read) was that they were paid without the knowledge of the lead researcher.
so if the women weren't asked, and were once turned down by him because of ethical concerns, I'm not sure what you're ranting about. or do you feel that he should have been at every stage of the research to know exactly what happened? if so, you probably have never done research. its way too complex especially in the medical sciences field for one person to have first hand knowledge.
of course, you seem to not believe what he said. you just make assertions not realizing that science is a lot like politics, even the whiff of somethign unethical sends scientists running for the hills.
Slashdot Mirror
great job at using a terrible analogy. ASCII and EBCDIC are completely open formats. any half assed programmer could write a program to go between the two if there were any demand. Go pay someone to make your editor that you want. That is the open market. Obviously, you aren't willing to pay enough. But there are loads of very wealthy companies backing very bright programmers trying to write programmers that can accurately mimic the .doc, .xls, and the rest of the ms office programs. Now I wonder, why can't they get one that accurate inputs/outputs my resume in the format? because unlike your flawed examples, none of those formats are truly open. so, try again.
The idea is taking one monopoly and extending it into other monopolies. that is illegal and that is why they are being forced to unbundle software. Now they can't leverage their dominance in the OS market(also earned through illegal means) and build a monopoly in this market. If they want the monopoly, they just have to be the best media player out there.
you should work for the creationists, great job taking a line out of context.
am I forced to get my music from the Itunes music store just so that I can conduct basic business interactions with the community at large? am I in any way forced to buy an Ipod to listen to music because everyone uses fairplay to provide music? The resounding answer is a huge no so try again with a more relevant example.
I did not say the government should in any way determine which text editor I use. I said the government should prevent a company from spreading its monopoly situation in such a way that it effectively determines which text editor I use. Unfortunately for those of us outside a nice bubble, feeling a different text editor is better is a complete non-issue. we must use microsoft office in order to conduct business because other editors are effectively prevented from reading from or writing to such a format.
By preventing bundling, the government is forcing consumers to get slightly more educated. Of course, if they then choose, anyone can go download WMP as easily as anything else, so why should it be bundled?
hm... I didn't know that media was limited to music.....
.doc, .xls, adn the rest weren't as locked up as they used to be? Until oo.org, I don't remember a program with which I could modify and save to the .doc format. So even if I don't want to use word for my text editor, I have to simply because there is no other program with which I can conduct business with the rest of the world. I say that is a bit of a catch 22 and I ought to be protected from such a situation.
not to be a complete ass, there are lots of websites that offer streaming video and the likes only in wmv because of this player being on every computer. This is how you illegally leverage your position. Force everyone to have one player and have it support certain locked in formats. Do you think office could have gotten nearly as large if
It sucks even more that many of these schools are public, and the rest all receive tons of NIH money. What again are we paying these clowns for?
I guess I Should preface my response with the fact that my parents are doctors and my sister is about to enter residency.
The purpose is to train doctors who don't bitch and moan that they have already worked more than 40 hours that week when work comes up. you might not realize, but part of being a doctor is to respond to patients to help them until you are incapable of doing it anymore. Residency is meant to train you as an accurate reflection of what it means to be a doctor. Being on call and not going home from Thursday morning until Sunday night is something that happens to alot of doctors(not as much to the big city ones, usually the smaller town ones). It is part of being in the profession. Being a doctor isn't ever supposed to be your "40/week go home nad get to eat dinner and breakfast with your family every day" job. If you can't handle regular 70 hour weeks and be able to work the 130 hour week when it comes up, you shouldn't be a doctor, you aren't fit for what the job demands. That is what it means to be a real world doctor and residency accurately reflects it. medical demands are not like putting together a ford so one shouldn't expect the same.
Anyways, residency has gotten leaps and bounds easier than what it used to be. My father's hours during his four years flucuated between 36 on followed by 12 off to the easier, 36 on followed by 18 off. It is never like that anymore. There is a reason a doctor gets paid so much money when they come out of training(even now in training, they make a great deal more). Going into medicine isn't for the weak of heart. Those who are turned off from working 60 hours a week ought not apply because they will be complete failures in the real world(where you have to work more if you actually care about those you are supposedly trying to help).
of course, your sentiments accurately reflect some of the new age doctors who are coming up and don't want to go work in areas where you might hvae to do consistent 70 hour weeks. There is some wierd idea that even if there are patients that need help, there is such a thing has being "done" and it is an anathema to the profession.
you of course, mean those laws that are set up to prevent any employer from being discriminatory in its practices. equal opportunity employment means you cannot make a hiring decision based on a certain set of criteria(race, sexual orientation, marital status, religion, socio-economic status).
I think you missed the name. you probably are referring to the rarely used quota system imposed by some groups but not federally mandated(and at times, ruled as obvious racism). of course, since you probably have never felt what it means to be continually discriminated against, you wouldn't seen the need for such laws. who would have guessed that it is the repressed that benefit from laws that require some semblance of fairness.
you're correct. a private institution can do whatever it pleases as long as ti doesn't violate one of several laws including those against any form of discrimination. But the question here is didn't the school discriminate against this person? i.e. is it some type of policy where they do not allow a certain type of person in. of course, discriminating against insulting asses is not usually consider illegal discrimination....
because I know that guy sitting on the side of the road with a bent clothes hanger is the one I want giving an abortion to some girl I am friends with........
I know, it is being extreme. but what do you have against medical licensing? I mean, I know about cases where the government tried to revoke the lisence if they didn't like what the doctor discussed(i.e. medical weed in califronia) but is there something else other than related practices?
People are still private citizens and not owned by the companies or organizations they join. If they are using the property or in the "domain" of the institution, I think those institutions have a right to censure or dictate conduct standards as long as they are consistent.
However, if Mr. Blogger had told somebody this information and they had made these comments that "so and so told me this dirt about the Marquette" -- the University could do nothing. The same effect either way. If the required privileged information on Mr. Blogger in order to invade his expectation of privacy, then they have also violated his civil rights. If Marquette found out about this by easily obtained public knowledge, then they have not violated his right to privacy.
are you sure you would like it that way? this is a private institution and it makes its own decisions about who to have a relationship with. If you are friends with a child rapist, should I Hold that against you? it doesn't necesarilly effect our relationship, but I think it does reflect on you and thereby reflects on me.
to be a little more reasonable, why is it that you make the distinction about whether or not he states he has a relationship with the university? wouldn't it be necesarry for an honest person to state any relationship he has with an entity he is saying anything about? Why would it be better for this person to hide his relationship and then talk about a group? it may give his opinion an undue amount of respect.
I would say that if he has a relationship with the university, then he needs to state it and there is nothing he can do about being a representative. It is part of being a student there. Why should the university be forced to have a professional relationship wtih someone they do not consider to be a good person? I would not employ someone in my business whom I consider conducts his personal life in a despicable manner, even if it is on his "own time". Just as a person is free to conduct their personal life in any manner they please, I should be free to decide what measuring sticks I use to decide on the extent of a relationship I will have with that person.
In its own way, this is the University's way of conducting PR. They are not saying this man cannot say whatever he feels like about these people with whom he has a personal relationship. They are simply saying that acting in such a manner makes him a person they do not wish to deal with. I don't see why I should have to teach a student that calls me an asshole in a public forum, and this is what the school decided. Blogs are the new public square. It is equivalent to calling your professor an ass to his face. Would one be appropriate and the other not? if so, I would like your thoughts on why.
then you know very little about the law. jail is by no means guaranteed as I could kill you and get out of jail with a guilty verdict under the right circumstances. The chances of going to jail for hitting someone and doing no permanent, serious damage is about nil. I've seen assault against multiple officers get dropped and seen no response when a trouble maker in a bar had his knee shattered, and all he was doing was talking(according to the doctor, it looked as if someone put a 12 gauge to his knee and fired).
yes, there would probably be some lawsuit and that other person might get arrested and go spend a night in the jail cell to "sleep it off" but that isn't being jailed as I understand your use of it.
It is much more likely that you would have a sore jaw for the next day or so and he would leave with a warning and that would be the end of it. And of course, if you tried to sue in civil court without any real claim, you would probably just get laughed out of court for inciting a fight. It is all a matter of how far either of you went. Inciting a fight makes you much less of a sympathy case than you may think.
its true, but you have to realize how the electoral college is chosen. candidates win states. If a candidate has the majority or plurality in a state, he gets all of the electoral seats it represents. The people who end up serving in those seats are going to be approved by him( read: they will most likely vote for him). So in our effective two party system, the people in the college are either approved by kerry or bush(last election, and I believe it is actually the republican or democratic party that chooses) and then they vote along those lines.
Now, back in the early 1800's, we had several cases but that was because we were more like a regular democracy. there were several candidates. See the election of (I think) 1824. It used to be the person with the most votes became president and the second most votes became vice president. In this election, there were back room dealings and the college voted differently than what had been standard. It was because there were 4 reasonably strong candidates(one of them being andrew Jackson who went on to win in 28 and 32, mainly to spite such a situation). The interesting point here is that while jackson won the popoular vote and the college, he didn't have a majority. So back then, the House got the choice of the president, and they chose Adams and made Jackson the VP(at that time, political suicide as no VP had ever had a shot at becoming president). Clay, the 3rd place man because secratary of state, believed to be the position to vault yourself to the presidency the next year. it was seen as a corrupt bargain because clay was also speaker of the house and many believe he used his influence to sway how things were cast.
actually, yes you do. and if you studied japanese culture and lived there, you would quickly realize that most common words have a trove of definitions and most of the time, you never translate them the same unless the situation is the same. Its because a lot of japanese in inferred from the situation and your previous relationships with the person.
just them saying the japanese word ani/oniisan doesn't mean it always means brother. the tone, implication, and situation all change the meaning. It can range from saying the name of the person in english to the actual word brother, to king or prince depending on what time period the translator is trying to imitate. If you think there is always a one to one correspondance when translating at all, you need to just study an eastern language.
I"m not saying the pro's are always better or always more accurate. most of the time, both are really good. but when there are discrepencies, its usually because of a translator's perogative, not skill.
It's Alucard not Arucard
I'm not sure what you are referencing, but r and l are interchangable in Japanese. It's because there isnt' a definitive r or l sound, just a mix that somewhat favors the r. So the translation might not be off, just an acceptable difference. another good example is Kenpo and Kempo. In some cases, n and m are interchangable, but not in all.
you do know Japanese nad english are worlds apart right? so why would you expect the timing to sync up if htey did an exact translation every time. Sometimes, you have to let go of the original just so it doesn't start looking like one of those terribly translated old chinese movies.
its hard to do. I can speak japanese(not exceptionally well but more than good enough to understand most anime if I have a dictionary) and lots of lines wouldn't work in english, at least given teh time constraints.
you have a pretty limited view of what a right provided by the people is. all rights are provided by the people. The fact that copyright law exists means the right has been provided and you, as a single person, do you have the right to take it away. That is called democracy.
anyways, reading the statute of anne, its interesting to note that nothing about tax revenue was written there. It was a 21 year right in order to encourage creation of writing to keep authors from going hungry. I'm not sure what at all that has to do with your belief that you shouldn't pay for the dvd at all(if you really want, you could buy the dvd from japan(maximum money to authors) and then download a fansub, feeling secure that you have already paid for the material).
Of course, you could just be honest with yourself and say "I don't want to pay that much for something when there is a free alternative, no matter the legality" and quit making excuses about why you do it.
do you know Japanese? fluently? then you probably shouldn't comment on the quality of the subtitles. unless you are fluent in japanese, All you know is that you prefer the way fans translate things.
I know htere are a lot of other factors involved. I was just pointing out that as real dollars spent goes, it seems people do respond to movies that are considered very artistic(especially if you cross correlate with oscars won).
but I have no desire to get population distribution statistics from the US government and look up historical data as to which screens played the movie(of course, weighting the screen for the number of weeks it showed the movie). I think a lot of htat data is almost impossible to get if we talk about something more than 30 yeras ago anyways and most of htese movies fall under that category.
ps. forgive the really terrible spelling
because we can all agree that the top grossing films ever had absolutely no artisitc value? note, that link goes to inflation adjusted box office numbers. Looking at it the other way, while not a level playing field, would have me agreeing with you.
um... get your history correct.
They feel apart because they were split up into those baby bells you are talking about, forcibly. I"m not arguing they weren't a monopoly, but a great deal of their success was because they controlled all the phone lines(which they did put up). other companies were able to compete with them when the government mandated the sharing of phone lines. The goverment also forbade any company from serving both local and long distance markets except under very stringent circumstances. competition didn't just spring up, it was cut out of the original company.
The new regulations allowed a different type of company to succeed. But it doesn't change the fact the company was started and originally made successful by a very shrewd inventor who was also a great business man. 100 years passed between the two events.
keep in mind, google is a mix of both. Most of its great products its brought out besides the search were aquired (i.e. exactly what group B does). Also, most successful companies we see were started by geeks who ended up learning how to be a suit to succeed. No matter how much you hate them, Dell, Apple, and MS were all started by geeks and became successful because those geeks understood how a business needs to be run to be successful.
I think those companies that become the big fish are a mix of both. an old example:
AT&T (its called Bell Labs after the founder and inventor of the same name)
do make the distinction that those numbers are only for native speakers.
those numbers for english don't even add up well when you consider that there are at least 4 english speaking countries I can think of, UK, US, Canada, and Australia. I believe there are three African countries that speak english nad then New Zealand but I'm not positive.
Those numbers ignore the millions of people in India nad China who learn english. In india, it is required to get into college(as they all are taught in english).
I was pretty sure we weren't competing with phones but I guess i Just haven't had the luck you have. if I can ask, what wireless card do you use? it could be a problem of a really shitty card but I'm not sure about that. My computer usually got through but two computers using dell cards that came with the system couldn't ever get a reasonable connection.
I"m not sure what scientific journals you read, but every one I have access to at college takes the ethics of the researchers into account in a very real way. If a standard ethics violation occurred, they won't publish the results a lot of the time. Its probably a good thing because it would become incredibly attractive for struggling researchers to commit severe violations (all that has been admitted to or shown is that this guyed covered up what happened) and have faith that if they are successful, Nature will still publish their work(which is a godsend to most beginning researchers).
it is always your business to decide if you want to have business dealings with people you find unethical. Some people don't shop at wal mart because they find the pay structure there unethical. Its the same thing. Nature is prying because if they didn't, it would seem they tacitly agree with using unethical means to get research done.
note, I don't think this situation is a breach of ethics of medical science. it is a violation of trust that when you publish research, you have everything be as truthful as possible. My real question when did he know it and how much did he know(gotta love nixon, so many great pseudo quotes to be had).
I Think your solution goes way too far. Why should he throw out the results(assuming he got the results before he found out who's egg he used)? the results are just as relevant with regards to the eggs used. to waste research like this would be like saying we should throw out all the research done by the Nazi's because about all of it went against our codes of ethics. of course we don't do that.
he ought to have been a heartless bastard and fired the women and publicly ruined their careers. That way, he could have held himself above blame by saying he did everything he could. of course, that would make him a heartless bastard, wouldn't it?
obviously, you've never listened to the green day song. that male researcher who invented the microscope could have GONE BLIND!!! are you willing to live with that??
wait a second.... he gets eggs from a hospital, having never met the patients who donated eggs, and is suppose to divine who they came from? its pretty damn easy to use a false name and volunteer to do something. Most of the time, because of the need, people aren't expecting liars to come in and fool them.
anyways, where did you get the idea that people were paid for their eggs? The only mention of this in teh article(and any other I have read) was that they were paid without the knowledge of the lead researcher.
so if the women weren't asked, and were once turned down by him because of ethical concerns, I'm not sure what you're ranting about. or do you feel that he should have been at every stage of the research to know exactly what happened? if so, you probably have never done research. its way too complex especially in the medical sciences field for one person to have first hand knowledge.
of course, you seem to not believe what he said. you just make assertions not realizing that science is a lot like politics, even the whiff of somethign unethical sends scientists running for the hills.