I object to the use of the term "addiction" for any behavior that activates dopaminergic reward pathways. There seems to be a kind of "guilt by association" reasoning going on here--drugs are harmful, behavior {insert anything people like to do a whole lot} activates the same brain regions as drugs, therefore the behavior is harmful.
The reward pathways in which dopamine plays such a prominent role are probably activated in any activity that people enjoy. It is most likely an evolved brain system to encourage organisms to engage in behavior that is beneficial to the organism or its reproductive success.
What distinguishes a drug addiction from other types of intensely reinforcing behavior is that drugs such as cocaine bypass the normal mechanisms that control and moderate activation of this system, triggering activation of reward pathways directly. To apply the term "addiction" to non-drug related behaviors, no matter how intense the enjoyment or how compulsive the behavior, blurs this distinction between drug dependence and simple enjoyment
1. Weather is complicated. The models aren't perfect.
2. No matter how much of a scientific consensus there may be, there will always be a few guys who don't agree.
Conclusion: We don't really know anything about climate or global warming.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
The wonderful thing about these arguments is that no matter what we may discover in the future about climate, they will remain valid (well, as valid as they are today), so you can safely trot them out any time anybody dares to suggest that you should be inconvenienced in any way to reduce global warming.
I find that I cannot play Resident Evil 4 in 480p mode, because it does not generate a true widescreen image without letterboxing. My TV treats any 480p signal as widescreen, so the image is horizontally stretched and looks ugly. I've been thinking about possibly getting rid of my GameCube copy of this game and buying the PS2 one for this reason.
No, this is the case on a lot of widescreen TVs. It reflects the fact that standards were never developed as to which component--display or signal source--should be responsible for aspect ratio control on widescreen TVs. For this reason, many devices, including some DVD players and HD receivers and DVRs, provide aspect ratio control for TVs that presume that any ED or HD signal is 16:9.
So you see, your clamoring for progressive scan and not caring about HD support doesn't really make any sense, as they are one in the same.
Strictly speaking, they are not. There are a fair number of TVs out their that will display ED (progressive) but not HD. My TV is capable of HD, but I find that the perceptual jump in quality is much greater from SD to ED (and from narrow to widescreen) than from ED to HD. This is particularly the case for video games, where the limiting factor of perceived image quality tends to be the geometric detail of the models, not the resolution of the display.
Since my widescreen TV treats any 480p signal as widescreen, having 480p without widescreen support is pretty much worthless to me, because everything ends up stretched. So I often have to use 480i for GameCube games that nominally support 480p. With widescreen becoming more and more standard, all game systems should support widescreen, ideally by generating a 16:9 image or, if there is some good reason not to do that, by providing pillarboxing.
It doesn't claim to be a theory. It does claim to be scientific.
That's really an oxymoron, because there are only two types of information in science: individual observations and theories (which include all scientific generalizations and explanations). If ID is not a theory, then it is not part of science.
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the contemporary notion of a Galilean medium through which light propagates was probably wrong in some way. The experiment was a great contribution to science and to our understanding of the universe. But it did not provide an explanation for how things actually work.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was an observation, suggested upon a theory of how light propagates. It led to a new theory--Lorenz-Fitzgerald contraction, which was ultimately incorporated into the theory of special relativity.
I wouldn't want to watch most of what is on TV on a 60-inch plasma w/ surround sound, let alone a teeny-tiny LCD with earbuds.
In which case your opinion on the present question is not of much use, since it is pretty much limited to the great majority of people who do enjoy some of the things on TV.
Why is it that any thread on TV always gets clogged up with posts by people who seem to be desperate to tell everybody about their superior taste and how they never watch TV.
Nobody is going to prefer to watch TV on a little iPod or cell phone screen. But there may be occasions where they prefer watching TV on a small screen to not watching TV at all.
Ultimately, when you start thinking about origins, you end up running in to the problem that there has to be something that "just is."
So the question is what that something is. Physicists tend to want that something to be very simple, with as few adjustable variables as possible, because simple hypotheses are easy to test. On the other hand, religions like to presume that the something is some kind of a sentient entity, infinitely complex, and preferably benevolent.
I beg to differ. Before actual single-celled organisms evolved, certain long chains of molecules evolved by natural selection. Picture a bag of legos the size of a blimp being constantly jostled. Certain pieces would, according to the laws of nature, start systematically sticking together in certain ways.
The fact that some chemical reactions occur in preference to others is not natural selection. To get natural selection to work, you have to have not merely change, but reproduction--for example if one chemical catalyzes the production of additional molecules of the same chemical. Furthermore, there must be inheritance--variations in the structure of the reproducing entity must be passed on to the "offspring" and affect their reproduction.
Intelligent Design contradicts evolution on the variability between and among species. ID says that at least some of the variability between species arises from the intervention of a designer; evolution says there's no. So the argument isn't really about the origin of life, but the origin of species.
Actually, one of the reasons why ID does not qualify as a theory is that it is vague about what did happen. Basically, ID boils down to "Evolution can't explain everything."
Behe--who's virtually the only real biologist in the ID camp--clearly believes that something like a microorganism was created and everything evolved from there, possibly with some supernatural tweaks along the line. But the ID guys keep this pretty quiet, because if they actually advocated this view as part of their "theory," they'd lose the bulk of their support, which comes from fundamentalist Christians who aren't concerned with how the flagella evolved; they want to be reassured that there isn't an ape in their family tree. Behe was very amusing in the recent trial; the opposition kept quoting him passages from the ID tract "Pandas and People," which he supposedly co-edited, and which makes claims such as "various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact," and Behe would have to admit that he didn't agree.
The nicotine is what causes blood vessels in your lungs to constrict and thus kill off your lung tissue. It isn't just the smoke that will screw you over. The smoke may give you lung cancer. The nicotine will give you emphysema.
Then why is it that the risk of emphysema is so much greater for people who smoke cigarettes than for people who smoke a pipe, who inhale less, or who use snuff? Nicotine will get to the lung vasculature no matter how you ingest it.
Dreamcast had most of the best games, even though it was never a great commercial success. So if the XBox360 is going to be like the Dreamcast, I want one. It might not be a great thing for Microsoft, but they can afford it.
I think Ico is still the single most enjoyable game on the PS2 platform. I found it perfect in almost every respect: graphics, style, atmosphere, emotional resonance, music, plot, difficulty of puzzles, balance between action, puzzle, and platform activity.
I'm only partway through Shadow. A beautiful game, but at this point I doubt if it will supplant Ico in my affections.
I could keep it as long as I want (backup to removable media is not required, but I should be able to retain it on a hard disk as long as I can spare the storage)
I have full DVD-like control of play
It is high-definition.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Those quotes say the copies must be made by "employees," not "agents." Copyright law tends to make a distinction in other places, and I believe it's reasonable to extend that distinction here.
This is a hardly an obstacle. Library employees could do the scanning. My guess is that they probably are anyway, because the libraries will want to supervise the handling of their books.
Additionally, the law says the single digital copy must only be available on the premises of the library or archive.
Again, it would be trivial to arrange things with appropriate security and encryption so that the full digital copy is only available (which obviously has nothing to do with where it physically resides) on the premises of the library. Google is not making the digital copy available, but only short snippets of the kind permitted by fair use.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
I think that's misinterpreting the law. First, the law says that the library employees can do the copying, not Google employees
I wouldn't be surprised if library employees are doing the scanning, anyway, just to make sure that the books don't get damaged.
Second, "the reproduction or distribution [must be done] without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage". I think Google, being a corporation, would be hard pressed to say that they're making copies without the purpose of commercial advantage.
On the other hand, if Google is just providing a service to the library, it seems like the question is whether the library is getting any commercial advantage. And it is not even obvious that Google is reaping a commercial advantage. They clearly are not making any money off the Library Project pages, since they don't place ads there. So the question would be whether the publicity and goodwill that Google reaps from the project constitutes a significant "commercial advantage." I suppose that one could argue that it enhances Google's image as the place to go to search--but considering that "to google" has become virtually synonymous with "to do a web search," it is far from evident that they can be even more famous for searching than they already are.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Since Google is doing it for commercial advantage, they don't meet the first criterion
But Google can be seen as working for the library, which reaps no commercial advantage. After all, it would not be a violation for a library employee to reap a commercial advantage (collecting a salary) for making a copy for the library. And even Google does not advertise on the Library Project pages, so at most they are benefitting from the increase in their public profile as the place to go for research.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
It is hard to see what commercial advantage the library makes from participating in this project. Google can be seen as acting as the library's agent to index their holdings. And Google isn't putting ads on the library project pages.
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.
And the entire copy is not being made available to the public, but only small snippets of the sort allowed by the Fair Use exemption. What is clear is that it is not a violation for the library (or Google, acting on behalf of the library) to possess a complete digital copy. It even provides off-site backup to the library in the event of loss of the original by fire or flood.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
The mere fact that Google is undertaking it means that Google itself believes they will reap real profits from Print, in some form or other. (granted, there are things like corporate charity that is either less directly commercially beneficial or is sometimes actual benevolence, but Google Print isn't being touted in this fashion at all)
I think that Google's library project is indeed being touted in this fashion. It doesn't yield any commercial benefit to Google, aside from the public good will and publicity that other corporate charities yield.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 1
Interesting, though it specifically says only 1 copy is allowed, and that only the library's employees are allowed to do the copying. Also, that section says "the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage", and the my.mp3.com [wikipedia.org] ruling clearly stated that even though it was only based on ad revenue, my.mp3.com was still classified as commercial activity.
It would be easy enough to arrange for the library's employees to run the books through the scanner, if that were the critical issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the libraries involved are insisting on this anyway, just to make sure that the books are properly handled. And since Google is not placing any ads on the Library Project pages, the case for commercial advantage is pretty weak, too--particularly since this could reasonably be seen as an activity of the library, with Google acting as their agents.
Re:Libraries are terrible, terrible institutions.
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Google is copying 100% of the books. It's fairly well established that it's not legal to copy an entire book in your library's copier, that it's only legal to copy some subset of the pages.
Slashdot Mirror
I object to the use of the term "addiction" for any behavior that activates dopaminergic reward pathways. There seems to be a kind of "guilt by association" reasoning going on here--drugs are harmful, behavior {insert anything people like to do a whole lot} activates the same brain regions as drugs, therefore the behavior is harmful.
The reward pathways in which dopamine plays such a prominent role are probably activated in any activity that people enjoy. It is most likely an evolved brain system to encourage organisms to engage in behavior that is beneficial to the organism or its reproductive success.
What distinguishes a drug addiction from other types of intensely reinforcing behavior is that drugs such as cocaine bypass the normal mechanisms that control and moderate activation of this system, triggering activation of reward pathways directly. To apply the term "addiction" to non-drug related behaviors, no matter how intense the enjoyment or how compulsive the behavior, blurs this distinction between drug dependence and simple enjoyment
The standard argument against global warming:
1. Weather is complicated. The models aren't perfect.
2. No matter how much of a scientific consensus there may be, there will always be a few guys who don't agree.
Conclusion: We don't really know anything about climate or global warming.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
The wonderful thing about these arguments is that no matter what we may discover in the future about climate, they will remain valid (well, as valid as they are today), so you can safely trot them out any time anybody dares to suggest that you should be inconvenienced in any way to reduce global warming.
I find that I cannot play Resident Evil 4 in 480p mode, because it does not generate a true widescreen image without letterboxing. My TV treats any 480p signal as widescreen, so the image is horizontally stretched and looks ugly. I've been thinking about possibly getting rid of my GameCube copy of this game and buying the PS2 one for this reason.
No, this is the case on a lot of widescreen TVs. It reflects the fact that standards were never developed as to which component--display or signal source--should be responsible for aspect ratio control on widescreen TVs. For this reason, many devices, including some DVD players and HD receivers and DVRs, provide aspect ratio control for TVs that presume that any ED or HD signal is 16:9.
So you see, your clamoring for progressive scan and not caring about HD support doesn't really make any sense, as they are one in the same.
Strictly speaking, they are not. There are a fair number of TVs out their that will display ED (progressive) but not HD. My TV is capable of HD, but I find that the perceptual jump in quality is much greater from SD to ED (and from narrow to widescreen) than from ED to HD. This is particularly the case for video games, where the limiting factor of perceived image quality tends to be the geometric detail of the models, not the resolution of the display.
Since my widescreen TV treats any 480p signal as widescreen, having 480p without widescreen support is pretty much worthless to me, because everything ends up stretched. So I often have to use 480i for GameCube games that nominally support 480p. With widescreen becoming more and more standard, all game systems should support widescreen, ideally by generating a 16:9 image or, if there is some good reason not to do that, by providing pillarboxing.
I don't care that much about HD, but I would like to see routine support for widescreen and progressive scan
It doesn't claim to be a theory. It does claim to be scientific.
That's really an oxymoron, because there are only two types of information in science: individual observations and theories (which include all scientific generalizations and explanations). If ID is not a theory, then it is not part of science.
The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the contemporary notion of a Galilean medium through which light propagates was probably wrong in some way. The experiment was a great contribution to science and to our understanding of the universe. But it did not provide an explanation for how things actually work.
The Michelson-Morley experiment was an observation, suggested upon a theory of how light propagates. It led to a new theory--Lorenz-Fitzgerald contraction, which was ultimately incorporated into the theory of special relativity.
I wouldn't want to watch most of what is on TV on a 60-inch plasma w/ surround sound, let alone a teeny-tiny LCD with earbuds.
In which case your opinion on the present question is not of much use, since it is pretty much limited to the great majority of people who do enjoy some of the things on TV.
Why is it that any thread on TV always gets clogged up with posts by people who seem to be desperate to tell everybody about their superior taste and how they never watch TV.
Hold it closer to your face? What are you, nuts? I'm not watching a two hour movie while holding a cell phone six inches in front of my face.
Heck, at my age, the resolution could be 64 by 48, and at that range I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Nobody is going to prefer to watch TV on a little iPod or cell phone screen. But there may be occasions where they prefer watching TV on a small screen to not watching TV at all.
Ultimately, when you start thinking about origins, you end up running in to the problem that there has to be something that "just is."
So the question is what that something is. Physicists tend to want that something to be very simple, with as few adjustable variables as possible, because simple hypotheses are easy to test. On the other hand, religions like to presume that the something is some kind of a sentient entity, infinitely complex, and preferably benevolent.
I beg to differ. Before actual single-celled organisms evolved, certain long chains of molecules evolved by natural selection. Picture a bag of legos the size of a blimp being constantly jostled. Certain pieces would, according to the laws of nature, start systematically sticking together in certain ways.
The fact that some chemical reactions occur in preference to others is not natural selection. To get natural selection to work, you have to have not merely change, but reproduction--for example if one chemical catalyzes the production of additional molecules of the same chemical. Furthermore, there must be inheritance--variations in the structure of the reproducing entity must be passed on to the "offspring" and affect their reproduction.
Intelligent Design contradicts evolution on the variability between and among species. ID says that at least some of the variability between species arises from the intervention of a designer; evolution says there's no. So the argument isn't really about the origin of life, but the origin of species.
Actually, one of the reasons why ID does not qualify as a theory is that it is vague about what did happen. Basically, ID boils down to "Evolution can't explain everything."
Behe--who's virtually the only real biologist in the ID camp--clearly believes that something like a microorganism was created and everything evolved from there, possibly with some supernatural tweaks along the line. But the ID guys keep this pretty quiet, because if they actually advocated this view as part of their "theory," they'd lose the bulk of their support, which comes from fundamentalist Christians who aren't concerned with how the flagella evolved; they want to be reassured that there isn't an ape in their family tree. Behe was very amusing in the recent trial; the opposition kept quoting him passages from the ID tract "Pandas and People," which he supposedly co-edited, and which makes claims such as "various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact," and Behe would have to admit that he didn't agree.
The nicotine is what causes blood vessels in your lungs to constrict and thus kill off your lung tissue. It isn't just the smoke that will screw you over. The smoke may give you lung cancer. The nicotine will give you emphysema.
Then why is it that the risk of emphysema is so much greater for people who smoke cigarettes than for people who smoke a pipe, who inhale less, or who use snuff? Nicotine will get to the lung vasculature no matter how you ingest it.
Dreamcast had most of the best games, even though it was never a great commercial success. So if the XBox360 is going to be like the Dreamcast, I want one. It might not be a great thing for Microsoft, but they can afford it.
I think Ico is still the single most enjoyable game on the PS2 platform. I found it perfect in almost every respect: graphics, style, atmosphere, emotional resonance, music, plot, difficulty of puzzles, balance between action, puzzle, and platform activity.
I'm only partway through Shadow. A beautiful game, but at this point I doubt if it will supplant Ico in my affections.
I'd pay $3.99, IF
I could keep it as long as I want (backup to removable media is not required, but I should be able to retain it on a hard disk as long as I can spare the storage)
I have full DVD-like control of play
It is high-definition.
Those quotes say the copies must be made by "employees," not "agents." Copyright law tends to make a distinction in other places, and I believe it's reasonable to extend that distinction here.
This is a hardly an obstacle. Library employees could do the scanning. My guess is that they probably are anyway, because the libraries will want to supervise the handling of their books.
Additionally, the law says the single digital copy must only be available on the premises of the library or archive.
Again, it would be trivial to arrange things with appropriate security and encryption so that the full digital copy is only available (which obviously has nothing to do with where it physically resides) on the premises of the library. Google is not making the digital copy available, but only short snippets of the kind permitted by fair use.
I think that's misinterpreting the law. First, the law says that the library employees can do the copying, not Google employees
I wouldn't be surprised if library employees are doing the scanning, anyway, just to make sure that the books don't get damaged.
Second, "the reproduction or distribution [must be done] without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage". I think Google, being a corporation, would be hard pressed to say that they're making copies without the purpose of commercial advantage.
On the other hand, if Google is just providing a service to the library, it seems like the question is whether the library is getting any commercial advantage. And it is not even obvious that Google is reaping a commercial advantage. They clearly are not making any money off the Library Project pages, since they don't place ads there. So the question would be whether the publicity and goodwill that Google reaps from the project constitutes a significant "commercial advantage." I suppose that one could argue that it enhances Google's image as the place to go to search--but considering that "to google" has become virtually synonymous with "to do a web search," it is far from evident that they can be even more famous for searching than they already are.
Since Google is doing it for commercial advantage, they don't meet the first criterion
But Google can be seen as working for the library, which reaps no commercial advantage. After all, it would not be a violation for a library employee to reap a commercial advantage (collecting a salary) for making a copy for the library. And even Google does not advertise on the Library Project pages, so at most they are benefitting from the increase in their public profile as the place to go for research.
(1) the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage;
It is hard to see what commercial advantage the library makes from participating in this project. Google can be seen as acting as the library's agent to index their holdings. And Google isn't putting ads on the library project pages.
(2) any such copy or phonorecord that is reproduced in digital format is not made available to the public in that format outside the premises of the library or archives in lawful possession of such copy.
And the entire copy is not being made available to the public, but only small snippets of the sort allowed by the Fair Use exemption. What is clear is that it is not a violation for the library (or Google, acting on behalf of the library) to possess a complete digital copy. It even provides off-site backup to the library in the event of loss of the original by fire or flood.
The mere fact that Google is undertaking it means that Google itself believes they will reap real profits from Print, in some form or other. (granted, there are things like corporate charity that is either less directly commercially beneficial or is sometimes actual benevolence, but Google Print isn't being touted in this fashion at all)
I think that Google's library project is indeed being touted in this fashion. It doesn't yield any commercial benefit to Google, aside from the public good will and publicity that other corporate charities yield.
Interesting, though it specifically says only 1 copy is allowed, and that only the library's employees are allowed to do the copying. Also, that section says "the reproduction or distribution is made without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage", and the my.mp3.com [wikipedia.org] ruling clearly stated that even though it was only based on ad revenue, my.mp3.com was still classified as commercial activity.
It would be easy enough to arrange for the library's employees to run the books through the scanner, if that were the critical issue. I wouldn't be surprised if the libraries involved are insisting on this anyway, just to make sure that the books are properly handled. And since Google is not placing any ads on the Library Project pages, the case for commercial advantage is pretty weak, too--particularly since this could reasonably be seen as an activity of the library, with Google acting as their agents.
Google is copying 100% of the books. It's fairly well established that it's not legal to copy an entire book in your library's copier, that it's only legal to copy some subset of the pages.
Actually, the law does allow libraries to make a copy of an entire work. Since Google is essentially acting as an agent of the participating libraries, it seems like this exception is applicable.