Yes, if anyone had the reference # for the bill that would be awesome. I don't really want to write to my state legislator and be like, "Don't vote for that bill that is nice to the RIAA, you know the one I mean!"
The lack of citations or quotes stems probably from the fact that this book is NOT an academic work,
Ahhh, so plagiarism only counts for academic works. I'll keep that in mind.
Funny how none of the OTHER dozen or two HP reference works have failed to quote and cite where necessary. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that they haven't been sued, and that JKR actually mentioned them on the stand as examples of how reference books should be written, in ways that don't infringe on the author's rights.
Show me one single Star Trek reference book that is primarily made up of unsourced direct quotes from scripts.
You, Card, and many other posters are showing an obvious lack of familiarity with this case.
Here are the problems with Van Der Ark's work:
- 91% of the book is taken nearly word-for-word from the Harry Potter novels with almost no citations or even quotation marks around direct quotes. This is the main problem and anyone with a passing familiarity with the word "plagiarism" should see the problem here.
- Unlike most other Harry Potter reference works out there, only a tiny percentage of the book is original scholarship. During the trial, JKR pointed out other books written about HP that she is okay with and even likes very much. All of these involved original research into etymology, mythology, etc, rather than simple regurgitation of material from JKR's works.
- The reason that JKR did not pursue this earlier was that it was available for free on the web; no attempt to profit from the copy-and-pasting of her content was made. Since Van Der Ark announced his intention to sell this book, she and the lawyers for her, Scholastic, and Warner Brothers have made several attempts to reason with him about the content and what would be acceptable, but neither he nor his publishing house have been willing to make any changes at all. They have been downright belligerent in some respects.
- Even with 91% of the book being JKR's work rather than Van Der Ark's, the small percentage that is his original work contains several factual errors.
I highly recommend the coverage at The Leaky Cauldron, as they had someone at the trial taking detailed notes during all of the testimony.
I'm guessing that thinspiration *is* effective. And for a normal, healthy person, there's nothing wrong with that. Like many dieting techniques, it only becomes a bad thing when someone who is already unhealthy misuses/overuses/abuses it.
Because people who play video games obviously have no other hobbies, right? We're all living in our parents' basements living on Cheetos and Mountain Dew. It's not like this guy and his wife have enough free time to explore outside and then, say, play video games after dark when the outdoors is less accessible/safe. Or that they possibly have out-of-the-home activities that they enjoy separately and then enjoy their gaming together.
Don't mean to be presumptuous
Sadly, you have failed at that. Why are you wasting your time on Slashdot? Shouldn't you be out exploring the world?
You're still going to have that problem with clones. Small differences in prenatal conditions, one puppy getting more milk than another, random mutations - there will be some cloned dogs who aren't as good at it as the original, possibly quite bad at it. What will they do with those dogs?
Fun fact: Identical twins raised apart tend to be extremely, even eerily similar - as adults they often have the same careers, the same hobbies, dress similarly, etc. You'd think this was an argument for everything being highly genetically determined. However, identical twins raised together are NOT as similar as those raised apart - because they've grown up needing to assert their own identity separate from their twin. The differences in identical twins raised together shows how much environment has an impact.
Publicly-traded companies have to do what's in the shareholders' best interest - and most people own stock to make a profit and no other reason.
Lesson: If you want to keep your company focused on helping people, doing things right, and making a reasonable amount of money in the process, don't go public.
Atari was not doing so well - they probably didn't care much what happened to these once it was clear that they wouldn't make it to release. What, was some other company going to swoop in and steal all their crappy games and release them for a dying system?
I doubt this was the case here, but before it's clear that something's going to be a hit often companies are not careful at all about where things go. When Barbie first came out, Mattel let employees (like factory worker level employees) take home broken molds, prototype heads, things like that - all one-of-a-kind collectibles worth a fortune now.
I just have to assume that any information in my profile is going to be available to anyone, even if I put up restrictions and limitations, so I'm careful what I put up there.
Exactly. My face book is under my real name, with real information. I don't put anything on it that I wouldn't want my professors/bosses to see (because they're on my friends list!), which pretty much means anything I wouldn't want the entire world to see.
I have blogs and accounts on other sites that are less connected to my IRL identity. Sure, people who know me could probably figure out it was me, but my name is not on them, nor is any identify information like what college I went to or what year I graduated from high school. I can be a little more free, but I'm still reasonably careful because I know that if ANYONE can connect that to the real me, they can tell others.
The article linked to doesn't go into whether/how much they've looked at thoughts about movement with no movement intended. Recent research has shown that when you're thinking about doing an activity, the same motor neurons light up as when you actually do it. Even watching someone else do the activity has an effect.
Hopefully they've thought of this already, but I could totally see them getting bogged down in studies of the nature "Ok, try to pick up cup A, now cup B" etc and overlooking what the device would do during the rest of the time when you're NOT picking up a cup.
But even informative filenames are ambiguous if you don't already know what's in the file.
Take the file "rape.avi" - is it an actual video of someone being raped? A video of a lecture on rape? A commercial promoting rape awareness? A comedy sketch about rape? A BDSM video with pretend rape? Chances are good that if it's in my files, I know which of these it is and there's a good chance that it's uniquely-enough named for me. But someone just snooping through my P2P traffic will have no idea.
A DNA profile can identify you and basic traits but it can't "identify tendency to irrational behaviors" etc.
You know that, I know that, the scientists who work on these kinds of things know that... But unfortunately, most of our lawmakers (and lawkeepers) don't understand the science of it beyond what gets sensationalized in news outlets. If CNN says they've "found the gene" for schizophrenia, well by golly, there must be a specific sequence that guarantees you're schizo or you're not. And why not require everyone who has that gene to go on anti-psychotics? Etc etc.
I think it's very funny that you cut out the portion of the quote where he defines rich as "over $200,000" and then go on to show that that's exactly right. Of course, he was wrong that only 5% make over $200,000, but instead of just pointing that out you go get all high and mighty.
In the past year, I've found the eBay + PayPal fees to have climbed too high to make it worth it to sell most of my stuff there. I've found both craigslist and amazon to be good selling alternatives. (Though I did list one book both at amazon and half.com and it sold faster on half, so I have used ebay once.)
Are you using scholar.google.com? If so, I find it hard to believe that you sorted through the thousands of studies and found nothing legitimate. For starters, try Fisch, Truglio, & Cole 1999, a review of 30 years' worth of research on Sesame Street. There's also a bunch on the impact of video games on spatial reasoning - a recent one is Feng, Spence, & Pratt 2007. Though these don't tend to specifically use children, they're a start showing that the games can have positive cognitive effects.
You obviously haven't looked too hard. Here's a hint: The positive ones don't get picked up by the media, so you'll have to actually use Google scholar or something. Although I will warn you, there are real, good studies giving converging evidence that TV isn't great for the youngest kids (like, pre-preschool aged). You may have to accept that sometimes science finds out things you don't like. But there are studies showing actual benefits to both video games and TV under the right circumstances.
I guarantee you that with that game time, a Blue Back Speller, and a few sheets of number tables, I could teach those kids far more than the game will ever teach them.
Because all you need in life is basic phonics decoding skills and the multiplication tables, amirite?
The Edutainment boom was full of two types of games: the very behaviorist/conditioning kind where if you add enough numbers right, you get to play a game at the end; and the motivation-for-rote-learning kind like Fraction Fever. These don't show much results over other methods because they're exactly like the other methods just on a computer screen. Instead of a gold star or five minutes extra recess, you get to shoot UFOs for a few minutes before doing another page of math problems.
As Jim Gee (used to be at U Wisconsin-Madison, where there's a lot of game research, now he's at Arizona State) points out in his work, video games are inherently good learning environments. They have to be. You start out at the beginning of the game knowing nothing about this new world you've entered - its rules, its customs, your abilities, your goals, etc. The game has to teach you about all this, AND it has to do it at just the right pace for every player. Goes too slow, you'll get bored. Too quickly, and you'll find it impossible - either way you'll lose interest and it won't sell well. And games do it well all the time - you learn the physical skills like timing and aiming, you learn what tools do what, you learn the maps and the tricks and you solve the puzzles. THAT is what the new round of attempts at educational gaming are trying to capitalize on - make games that are fun games and work well as games, and people will learn what they need to to get through them.
Here's an example I recently heard a talk on: Yasmin Kafai at UCLA has been looking at an online social game called Whyville. Originally, it was very much like the old edutainment - it's a world where kids 10-16 can go online to socialize, etc, and in order to earn money to spruce up your avatar you play little science games that aren't really very good. Very behaviorist - learn your science and you get a prize. She's currently working with them on introducing new elements to the game. For instance, there's a disease called Whypox that breaks out every few months. Players who are interested can go to a special area to track the outbreak and try to figure out how it's spreading and how to prevent it. If you catch it, it messes up your avatar and chatting, so they're motivated to figure out how not to get it. The process of tracking the spread of the outbreak involves collecting data, graphing it, and analyzing it to figure out the pattern (it spreads via a different pattern every outbreak).
Of course, the question is, will any of this transfer beyond the game? That's unclear. One thing that I've heard multiple researchers mention is that people who practice sophisticated skills in or because of a game often don't consider themselves to really have those skills. For instance, people who create elaborate spreadsheets to keep track of statistics on World of Warcraft so that they can analyze them and try to reverse-engineer some of the AI don't think they're doing science. But they are utilizing and developing many of the science process skills that schools would kill to teach them.
So if I owned 1% of Yahoo, I'd get one vote, too? So we'd each have one vote, and if our votes differed (and everyone else abstained), it'd be a tie? Even though his one vote is six times the size of mine?
alligators as a species have always had these antibiotics
Okay, then their most recent ancestors evolved it.
Either you think that all species got their present form due to natural selection, or you don't. You can't say "Weeeelllll, sure, some did, but this particular species probably just sprang up fully-formed out of the ether."
Well, okay, you can say that, but don't expect scientists to agree.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if anyone had the reference # for the bill that would be awesome. I don't really want to write to my state legislator and be like, "Don't vote for that bill that is nice to the RIAA, you know the one I mean!"
Ahhh, so plagiarism only counts for academic works. I'll keep that in mind.
Funny how none of the OTHER dozen or two HP reference works have failed to quote and cite where necessary. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that they haven't been sued, and that JKR actually mentioned them on the stand as examples of how reference books should be written, in ways that don't infringe on the author's rights.
Show me one single Star Trek reference book that is primarily made up of unsourced direct quotes from scripts.
Here are the problems with Van Der Ark's work:
I highly recommend the coverage at The Leaky Cauldron, as they had someone at the trial taking detailed notes during all of the testimony.
I'm guessing that thinspiration *is* effective. And for a normal, healthy person, there's nothing wrong with that. Like many dieting techniques, it only becomes a bad thing when someone who is already unhealthy misuses/overuses/abuses it.
Don't mean to be presumptuous
Sadly, you have failed at that. Why are you wasting your time on Slashdot? Shouldn't you be out exploring the world?
Fun fact: Identical twins raised apart tend to be extremely, even eerily similar - as adults they often have the same careers, the same hobbies, dress similarly, etc. You'd think this was an argument for everything being highly genetically determined. However, identical twins raised together are NOT as similar as those raised apart - because they've grown up needing to assert their own identity separate from their twin. The differences in identical twins raised together shows how much environment has an impact.
Lesson: If you want to keep your company focused on helping people, doing things right, and making a reasonable amount of money in the process, don't go public.
I doubt this was the case here, but before it's clear that something's going to be a hit often companies are not careful at all about where things go. When Barbie first came out, Mattel let employees (like factory worker level employees) take home broken molds, prototype heads, things like that - all one-of-a-kind collectibles worth a fortune now.
If this is anything like Janet Jackson's boobies, they do have the power to leverage lots of huge fines!
Exactly. My face book is under my real name, with real information. I don't put anything on it that I wouldn't want my professors/bosses to see (because they're on my friends list!), which pretty much means anything I wouldn't want the entire world to see.
I have blogs and accounts on other sites that are less connected to my IRL identity. Sure, people who know me could probably figure out it was me, but my name is not on them, nor is any identify information like what college I went to or what year I graduated from high school. I can be a little more free, but I'm still reasonably careful because I know that if ANYONE can connect that to the real me, they can tell others.
If someone can get good grades on your tests and projects by just memorizing, then you're writing bad tests/assignments.
Hopefully they've thought of this already, but I could totally see them getting bogged down in studies of the nature "Ok, try to pick up cup A, now cup B" etc and overlooking what the device would do during the rest of the time when you're NOT picking up a cup.
Take the file "rape.avi" - is it an actual video of someone being raped? A video of a lecture on rape? A commercial promoting rape awareness? A comedy sketch about rape? A BDSM video with pretend rape? Chances are good that if it's in my files, I know which of these it is and there's a good chance that it's uniquely-enough named for me. But someone just snooping through my P2P traffic will have no idea.
Dude, I would MUCH rather they sit around and name state cakes than pass laws like this.
Based on your post, I have to question this statement.
You know that, I know that, the scientists who work on these kinds of things know that... But unfortunately, most of our lawmakers (and lawkeepers) don't understand the science of it beyond what gets sensationalized in news outlets. If CNN says they've "found the gene" for schizophrenia, well by golly, there must be a specific sequence that guarantees you're schizo or you're not. And why not require everyone who has that gene to go on anti-psychotics? Etc etc.
I think it's very funny that you cut out the portion of the quote where he defines rich as "over $200,000" and then go on to show that that's exactly right. Of course, he was wrong that only 5% make over $200,000, but instead of just pointing that out you go get all high and mighty.
In the past year, I've found the eBay + PayPal fees to have climbed too high to make it worth it to sell most of my stuff there. I've found both craigslist and amazon to be good selling alternatives. (Though I did list one book both at amazon and half.com and it sold faster on half, so I have used ebay once.)
Are you using scholar.google.com? If so, I find it hard to believe that you sorted through the thousands of studies and found nothing legitimate. For starters, try Fisch, Truglio, & Cole 1999, a review of 30 years' worth of research on Sesame Street. There's also a bunch on the impact of video games on spatial reasoning - a recent one is Feng, Spence, & Pratt 2007. Though these don't tend to specifically use children, they're a start showing that the games can have positive cognitive effects.
You obviously haven't looked too hard. Here's a hint: The positive ones don't get picked up by the media, so you'll have to actually use Google scholar or something. Although I will warn you, there are real, good studies giving converging evidence that TV isn't great for the youngest kids (like, pre-preschool aged). You may have to accept that sometimes science finds out things you don't like. But there are studies showing actual benefits to both video games and TV under the right circumstances.
Because all you need in life is basic phonics decoding skills and the multiplication tables, amirite?
The Edutainment boom was full of two types of games: the very behaviorist/conditioning kind where if you add enough numbers right, you get to play a game at the end; and the motivation-for-rote-learning kind like Fraction Fever. These don't show much results over other methods because they're exactly like the other methods just on a computer screen. Instead of a gold star or five minutes extra recess, you get to shoot UFOs for a few minutes before doing another page of math problems.
As Jim Gee (used to be at U Wisconsin-Madison, where there's a lot of game research, now he's at Arizona State) points out in his work, video games are inherently good learning environments. They have to be. You start out at the beginning of the game knowing nothing about this new world you've entered - its rules, its customs, your abilities, your goals, etc. The game has to teach you about all this, AND it has to do it at just the right pace for every player. Goes too slow, you'll get bored. Too quickly, and you'll find it impossible - either way you'll lose interest and it won't sell well. And games do it well all the time - you learn the physical skills like timing and aiming, you learn what tools do what, you learn the maps and the tricks and you solve the puzzles. THAT is what the new round of attempts at educational gaming are trying to capitalize on - make games that are fun games and work well as games, and people will learn what they need to to get through them.
Here's an example I recently heard a talk on: Yasmin Kafai at UCLA has been looking at an online social game called Whyville. Originally, it was very much like the old edutainment - it's a world where kids 10-16 can go online to socialize, etc, and in order to earn money to spruce up your avatar you play little science games that aren't really very good. Very behaviorist - learn your science and you get a prize. She's currently working with them on introducing new elements to the game. For instance, there's a disease called Whypox that breaks out every few months. Players who are interested can go to a special area to track the outbreak and try to figure out how it's spreading and how to prevent it. If you catch it, it messes up your avatar and chatting, so they're motivated to figure out how not to get it. The process of tracking the spread of the outbreak involves collecting data, graphing it, and analyzing it to figure out the pattern (it spreads via a different pattern every outbreak).
Of course, the question is, will any of this transfer beyond the game? That's unclear. One thing that I've heard multiple researchers mention is that people who practice sophisticated skills in or because of a game often don't consider themselves to really have those skills. For instance, people who create elaborate spreadsheets to keep track of statistics on World of Warcraft so that they can analyze them and try to reverse-engineer some of the AI don't think they're doing science. But they are utilizing and developing many of the science process skills that schools would kill to teach them.
Anyhow, I'll stop now.
Math. Get you some.
This is likely to be very useful to many of us if this deal ever winds up going through.
That's why they ship Linux
How sad/pathetic is it that upon reading this, my first thought was, "They ship Linux and who?"
Okay, then their most recent ancestors evolved it.
Either you think that all species got their present form due to natural selection, or you don't. You can't say "Weeeelllll, sure, some did, but this particular species probably just sprang up fully-formed out of the ether."
Well, okay, you can say that, but don't expect scientists to agree.