I typically don't respond to ACs unless they get modded up, but you seemed more thoughtful than most, so I will.
I do realize that being in public doesn't mean giving up all of one's privacy. In fact, whenever a Google Street View discussion comes up, I always want to point out the old adage that "quantity has a quality all its own." It's not legitimate to say that because a person can go around taking photos of public roads and the people on them, that therefore Google is justified in going around everywhere and making the photos permanently available to anyone.
But that adage cuts both ways. Placing a limited number of cameras at intersections to monitor compliance with traffic laws is an entirely different matter than establishing a network of CCTV cameras to monitor public activity in general, a la the UK.
Maybe you'll want to invoke a slippery slope argument, and that's fine. On the other hand, in the States, these decisions are done on a local level - my city is considering installing 12 cameras at various intersections.
Furthermore, your assertion that simply because some people think that privacy is at issue, that therefore it is at issue, is just nonsense. People have to justify their reasoning. "Privacy" is not a pass. Explain to me why you think that running red lights on a public road is an activity that deserves not to be recorded by cameras. If you can do that, maybe you have an argument.
The only link I can give you off the top of my head is from Wikipedia; it's simplistic, but looks pretty accurate. I'm sure you can find a book on the matter at any university library.
Historically speaking, inerrancy is a pretty modern notion. Patristic and medieval writers absolutely didn't embrace it; there was a lot of allegorical interpretation going on back then. Wikipedia has some interesting quotes from Augustine, for example.
If anything, movements surrounding inerrancy were probably spurred on by the development and general awareness of modern textual criticism.
There's also a difference between what's known as "inerrancy" and "infallibility", the latter referring to matters of doctrine/theology.
Also, the above only pertains to Christianity. I know there are movements in Judaism that also hold to inerrancy, but I don't know the provenance or history of those.
Evolution is compatible with your believes because you are inconsistent in them, and you choose to randomly accept or reject parts of "The Book" so as to not challenge "your believes".
That's the same argument that fundamentalists use against anyone who does not view the Bible or whatever scripture as the literal word of $GOD.
I highly doubt that he "randomly" accepts/rejects parts of the Bible. Rather, he probably uses some sense, and, e.g., rejects parts that conflict with modern science, since, you know, modern science didn't exist until the last few centuries, and the Bible was written well before that. That's hardly random.
You also ignore the fact that all reading involves interpretation, and even so-called literalists interpret various parts of the Bible metaphorically.
Well, there are a lot of religious folk who don't have a problem with evolution: e.g., Catholics, pretty much any mainstream Protestant church, lots of Jews...
And in fact, many of them have taken just that tack of "evolution as process, God as architect." It's nothing new, either - Darwin's book prompted controversy in religious circles when it was first published, but plenty of religious figures accepted it then, and plenty do now.
If you're interested in reading historical religious perspectives on it, check out The Post-Darwinian Controversies, which looks at a bunch of different religious reactions to Darwin.
While I don't have the time to read each and every one of those studies, I will point out a couple things I've been thinking about.
1. I don't think that simply reducing accidents should be the goal. The goal should be reducing severe accidents, and thus deaths and severe injuries. If we manage to reduce the number of fatalities at a given intersection in exchange for suffering more fender-benders, that may be acceptable.
2. These studies seem to be pretty tricky to conduct properly. For example, in the fifth one on your linked page, it says:
The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. However, a closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group.
So first, the website interprets the data from the report differently than the report itself. Then there's the question of why the control group experienced a significant decrease in accidents. There's probably also issues of selection involved, too, since red-light cameras will naturally be installed at more dangerous intersections.
3. Everyone who chalks up red light running to poor timing/engineering is forgetting something: no matter how well-engineered an intersection is, there is always going to be some percentage of people who run red lights, not because they have a legitimate reason, but because they are irresponsible, irrational drivers who disregard the law. That is a fact of human nature that no amount of engineering is going to change.
And just to throw in some anecdotal evidence, despite the number of people I see running red lights in this city, somehow, I've never found the need to do so at the very same intersections. That makes me question the assertions that they are improperly timed, etc.
Either way, people are asshats. They'd rather run the light and place the other drivers at risk than wait 30 fucking seconds to get to where they are going. I don't like seeing traffic tickets used as a revenue source -- I think they should be set at the smallest amount possible to fund aggressive traffic safety classes.
I think a lot of opponents of red light cameras don't believe that there can be a culture of disrespect and douchebaggery, if you will. In the thread I linked to above, another poster suggested that the reason I see so many people run red lights in my city must be because of a technical problem with light timing, etc. From my experience, that's just not the case. People run red lights on residential streets where there are no timing or traffic flow problems.
Your idea of forcing people to take classes is good. Some people have a problem with red light fines because they slap people with a standard fine, and if you're wealthy it's no big deal. In my city, though, there are a lot of poor people to whom a $100 fine is a big deal. I seem to remember hearing about a Scandinavian country that had set traffic fines as a percentage of your income, but I don't think that would fly here in the states. On the other hand, making people give up a Saturday has the potential to be much fairer across the board.
I know what you mean. I commented on this the other day.
I know this goes against the general/. attitude, but I used to be against red light cameras on principle. That was before I moved to my current city and saw how people behaved. I don't think they're appropriate everywhere, but I do think that my city could certainly use them. It just depends on the location and people's behavior.
Also, I have a hard time understanding how privacy comes into play. When you are driving, you are doing it in a public place; why should there be any expectation of privacy?
On the other hand, if Congress tries to rewrite it, every industry lobbyist will be pushing their own agenda at Congress. And I would tend to think that the USPTO has a better idea of what needs to be done in terms of reform than Congress.
A somewhat better description of the rules can be found here.
They include things like limiting the number of claims to 25 (some patents include hundreds of claims, I believe; these are the heart of the patent, as they define what exactly might be infringed); and setting a limit on the number of requests for reexamination (I think that currently, you can just refile indefinitely, and that many applicants do just that, hoping that eventually an examiner will give up and accept their patent application).
Yeah. I believe that some of Comcast's universal remotes are also JP1 compatible - the one I've seen has the 6 pin connector, though I've never tried to use it.
You justified the hiding of ACTA... and then called people ill-informed.
No I didn't. I want ACTA revealed. I just think that a more accurate headline of "National security concerns invoked to hide trade treaty", maybe with a subtitle of "Drug and Chemical companies among those with primary interest" would be better. That way all those people who merely read headlines won't be going around with the idea that ACTA is primarily about the recording industry.
"Obama appointees help RIAA sue Teenagers" or "Government uses national security claim to protect the recording industry"
It's exactly this sort of thing that buttresses my doubts about democracy. I know you were going for catchy headlines, but both of them are grossly oversimplified.
As I noted the other day, the DOJ's brief is an attempt to uphold the constitutionality of the statutory damages that Copyright Act permits. That issue cuts both ways, because if you emasculate statutory damages completely, when a big label rips off an independent musician, the musician won't be able to take them to task.
And regarding ACTA, the recording industry is peanuts compared to other players involved there. All of the major pharmaceutical and chemical companies are involved with ACTA, and those industries are far more important than the RIAA, no matter how you look at it. If anything, the national security claim is aimed at protecting their interests, and the RIAA is just along for the ride.
So while a lot of comments are along the lines of "why doesn't the government listen to the people more", keep in mind that a lot of times people are ill-informed and likely to act based on emotion rather than reason.
Nope. You just have to make a convincing case that you didn't have access to the work you're accused of infringing.
Mack's song was at the top of the charts, which made for a compelling argument that Harrison had access to it, even if the copying was subconscious. If Mack's song had received only minimal airplay, things might have turned out differently.
Since direct evidence of copying is rarely available, copying may be established by proof of access and substantial similarity. NIMMER 141.2 at 613. Although in some circumstances the mere proof of access and substantial similarity will not demand that the trier automatically find copying, the absence of any countervailing evidence of creation independent of the copyrighted source may well render clearly erroneous a finding that there was not copying.
If you had evidence that you had created your independently (e.g., in the form of earlier drafts or versions that lacked the some of the "substantially similar" characteristics), you might very well be able to substantiate independent creation.
I love articles that proclaim the impending death of $TECHNOLOGY just because you can now use some other device as a half-assed supplement.
Yeah, I really want to be lying on the couch underneath a blanket, and fiddling with/rolling over onto my touchscreen smartphone. Also, show me a smartphone that has the battery life of a good old remote control that can last for months or more.
There is no condition of novelty for copyright. Copyright law allows for independent creation of identical works. Of course it's unlikely, but if you just so happened to write or compose a "substantially similar" work as someone else, and it's clear you never had access to their work, you have not infringed.
The whole point of the case you cited was that George Harrison did have access to Mack's original work. As Owen says:
Did Harrison deliberately use the music of He's So Fine? I do not believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He's So Fine with different words, and Harrison had access to He's So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished.
If Mack's song had never received the airplay it did, Harrison could have argued that the similarity between the two was entirely coincidental.
BTW, if a passage that is substantially similar to a published article shows up in an essay I write for school, it would probably be treated as plagiarism, even if I did it subconsciously.
Either way this isn't a good thing, but it may be premature to conclude that this indicates any particular bias towards towards the RIAA.
I agree with you there. As was noted the last time this was brought up, their brief really isn't about the RIAA or file-sharing so much as the constitutionality of the statutory damages part of the Copyright Act.
On the other hand, that way of looking at the Eight Amendment is so sketch. It basically amounts to saying, "We (the Government) can't exact ridiculously high fines from you, but we can write a law that allows other to do so, with our consent and enforcement."
Degree in Divinity: While typically granted by 'Christian' universities, this degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of Christian texts and their interpretations and translations. In practice, it is only slightly different from having a degree in any the study of any ancient manuscripts.
FYI, some of the best universities in the country offer degrees in divinity. E.g., Yale, Harvard, U Chicago, and Duke, just off the top of my head. Of course, there are also a lot of crazy schools that offer it...
Subfields within it could be history of Christianity (so, as you said, church history, manuscripts, etc.), biblical studies (more manuscripts, textual criticism, biblical languages), theology, ethics, and liturgy.
Additionally, just because someone got a degree from (or teaches) in a divinity school doesn't mean they're a nut. There are plenty of people in, e.g., biblical studies, who are just interested in the material for its own sake.
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
I wish I lived where you live.
Unfortunately, this just isn't the case everywhere. In my city (New Haven, CT), people run red lights because - well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they're in a hurry (to get to the next light). Maybe it's because they're too lazy to move their foot.
It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them).
It is a blatant disregard for the law and safety. Or maybe it's stupidity. I don't know, but one thing is for sure - it's dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers (and I am all three of those at various times). The police department has better things to do, like dealing with shootings (or patronizing prostitutes while on duty, as it turns out).
Before I moved here, I used to be opposed to the idea of red light cameras. After living in this city for about two years, I would welcome them.
As I pointed out the other day, ACTA is about so much more than copyright. This "counterfeiting" treaty will almost certainly include provisions for stricter controls on generic pharmaceuticals, amongst other things.
Just take a look at some of the companies that are represented on that list: Eli Lilly, Merck, Monsanto, Schering-Plough... I guarantee they're not there because of pirated CDs.
Just to clarify, I don't think that changes the fact that the "national security" claim is bogus. It's just further proof of the enormous democratic deficit that exists at the international level.
Setting aside for the moment the fact that Obama's policies don't come close to actual socialism, it would be quite possible to have a republican (small r) form of government that supported socialist economic policies.
I'm reminded of that scene in Religulous where Maher is talking to the Vatican astronomer, I think.
The astronomer is showing him this timeline that includes the Bible, written between maybe 800 BCE and 100 CE, and modern science, which has only been around for the last couple centuries. And the astronomer asks, how can you possibly think you can get modern science, which didn't even exist until 1500 years after the last parts of the Bible were written, from the Bible?
Being able to connect directly to PubMed (for biosciences), search and then directly import references from pubmed is a *huge* timesaver.
This is exactly why I started using Zotero. My old system was a mishmash of saving bookmarks and a folder full of PDF articles. Now all I have to do is click a little icon in the address bar, and all the relevant citation information is extracted and stored. It's a godsend.
Slashdot Mirror
I typically don't respond to ACs unless they get modded up, but you seemed more thoughtful than most, so I will.
I do realize that being in public doesn't mean giving up all of one's privacy. In fact, whenever a Google Street View discussion comes up, I always want to point out the old adage that "quantity has a quality all its own." It's not legitimate to say that because a person can go around taking photos of public roads and the people on them, that therefore Google is justified in going around everywhere and making the photos permanently available to anyone.
But that adage cuts both ways. Placing a limited number of cameras at intersections to monitor compliance with traffic laws is an entirely different matter than establishing a network of CCTV cameras to monitor public activity in general, a la the UK.
Maybe you'll want to invoke a slippery slope argument, and that's fine. On the other hand, in the States, these decisions are done on a local level - my city is considering installing 12 cameras at various intersections.
Furthermore, your assertion that simply because some people think that privacy is at issue, that therefore it is at issue, is just nonsense. People have to justify their reasoning. "Privacy" is not a pass. Explain to me why you think that running red lights on a public road is an activity that deserves not to be recorded by cameras. If you can do that, maybe you have an argument.
The only link I can give you off the top of my head is from Wikipedia; it's simplistic, but looks pretty accurate. I'm sure you can find a book on the matter at any university library.
Historically speaking, inerrancy is a pretty modern notion. Patristic and medieval writers absolutely didn't embrace it; there was a lot of allegorical interpretation going on back then. Wikipedia has some interesting quotes from Augustine, for example.
If anything, movements surrounding inerrancy were probably spurred on by the development and general awareness of modern textual criticism.
There's also a difference between what's known as "inerrancy" and "infallibility", the latter referring to matters of doctrine/theology.
Also, the above only pertains to Christianity. I know there are movements in Judaism that also hold to inerrancy, but I don't know the provenance or history of those.
Evolution is compatible with your believes because you are inconsistent in them, and you choose to randomly accept or reject parts of "The Book" so as to not challenge "your believes".
That's the same argument that fundamentalists use against anyone who does not view the Bible or whatever scripture as the literal word of $GOD.
I highly doubt that he "randomly" accepts/rejects parts of the Bible. Rather, he probably uses some sense, and, e.g., rejects parts that conflict with modern science, since, you know, modern science didn't exist until the last few centuries, and the Bible was written well before that. That's hardly random.
You also ignore the fact that all reading involves interpretation, and even so-called literalists interpret various parts of the Bible metaphorically.
Well, there are a lot of religious folk who don't have a problem with evolution: e.g., Catholics, pretty much any mainstream Protestant church, lots of Jews...
And in fact, many of them have taken just that tack of "evolution as process, God as architect." It's nothing new, either - Darwin's book prompted controversy in religious circles when it was first published, but plenty of religious figures accepted it then, and plenty do now.
If you're interested in reading historical religious perspectives on it, check out The Post-Darwinian Controversies, which looks at a bunch of different religious reactions to Darwin.
While I don't have the time to read each and every one of those studies, I will point out a couple things I've been thinking about.
1. I don't think that simply reducing accidents should be the goal. The goal should be reducing severe accidents, and thus deaths and severe injuries. If we manage to reduce the number of fatalities at a given intersection in exchange for suffering more fender-benders, that may be acceptable.
2. These studies seem to be pretty tricky to conduct properly. For example, in the fifth one on your linked page, it says:
The report also concludes that there was an overall reduction in serious accidents and angle collisions. However, a closer look at the data found in this government-sponsored report show that intersections monitored by cameras experienced, overall, a 2 percent increase in fatal and injury collisions compared to a decrease of 12.7 percent in the camera-free intersections that were used as a control group.
So first, the website interprets the data from the report differently than the report itself. Then there's the question of why the control group experienced a significant decrease in accidents. There's probably also issues of selection involved, too, since red-light cameras will naturally be installed at more dangerous intersections.
3. Everyone who chalks up red light running to poor timing/engineering is forgetting something: no matter how well-engineered an intersection is, there is always going to be some percentage of people who run red lights, not because they have a legitimate reason, but because they are irresponsible, irrational drivers who disregard the law. That is a fact of human nature that no amount of engineering is going to change.
And just to throw in some anecdotal evidence, despite the number of people I see running red lights in this city, somehow, I've never found the need to do so at the very same intersections. That makes me question the assertions that they are improperly timed, etc.
Either way, people are asshats. They'd rather run the light and place the other drivers at risk than wait 30 fucking seconds to get to where they are going. I don't like seeing traffic tickets used as a revenue source -- I think they should be set at the smallest amount possible to fund aggressive traffic safety classes.
I think a lot of opponents of red light cameras don't believe that there can be a culture of disrespect and douchebaggery, if you will. In the thread I linked to above, another poster suggested that the reason I see so many people run red lights in my city must be because of a technical problem with light timing, etc. From my experience, that's just not the case. People run red lights on residential streets where there are no timing or traffic flow problems.
Your idea of forcing people to take classes is good. Some people have a problem with red light fines because they slap people with a standard fine, and if you're wealthy it's no big deal. In my city, though, there are a lot of poor people to whom a $100 fine is a big deal. I seem to remember hearing about a Scandinavian country that had set traffic fines as a percentage of your income, but I don't think that would fly here in the states. On the other hand, making people give up a Saturday has the potential to be much fairer across the board.
I know what you mean. I commented on this the other day.
I know this goes against the general /. attitude, but I used to be against red light cameras on principle. That was before I moved to my current city and saw how people behaved. I don't think they're appropriate everywhere, but I do think that my city could certainly use them. It just depends on the location and people's behavior.
Also, I have a hard time understanding how privacy comes into play. When you are driving, you are doing it in a public place; why should there be any expectation of privacy?
On the other hand, if Congress tries to rewrite it, every industry lobbyist will be pushing their own agenda at Congress. And I would tend to think that the USPTO has a better idea of what needs to be done in terms of reform than Congress.
A somewhat better description of the rules can be found here.
They include things like limiting the number of claims to 25 (some patents include hundreds of claims, I believe; these are the heart of the patent, as they define what exactly might be infringed); and setting a limit on the number of requests for reexamination (I think that currently, you can just refile indefinitely, and that many applicants do just that, hoping that eventually an examiner will give up and accept their patent application).
Yeah. I believe that some of Comcast's universal remotes are also JP1 compatible - the one I've seen has the 6 pin connector, though I've never tried to use it.
You justified the hiding of ACTA... and then called people ill-informed.
No I didn't. I want ACTA revealed. I just think that a more accurate headline of "National security concerns invoked to hide trade treaty", maybe with a subtitle of "Drug and Chemical companies among those with primary interest" would be better. That way all those people who merely read headlines won't be going around with the idea that ACTA is primarily about the recording industry.
I like how you justify keeping people uninformed by claiming that they're ignorant. :)
Care to explain how exactly I do that?
I absolutely wish people were more informed. I also don't think the way that will happen is for others to feed them sensationalistic headlines.
"Obama appointees help RIAA sue Teenagers" or "Government uses national security claim to protect the recording industry"
It's exactly this sort of thing that buttresses my doubts about democracy. I know you were going for catchy headlines, but both of them are grossly oversimplified.
As I noted the other day, the DOJ's brief is an attempt to uphold the constitutionality of the statutory damages that Copyright Act permits. That issue cuts both ways, because if you emasculate statutory damages completely, when a big label rips off an independent musician, the musician won't be able to take them to task.
And regarding ACTA, the recording industry is peanuts compared to other players involved there. All of the major pharmaceutical and chemical companies are involved with ACTA, and those industries are far more important than the RIAA, no matter how you look at it. If anything, the national security claim is aimed at protecting their interests, and the RIAA is just along for the ride.
So while a lot of comments are along the lines of "why doesn't the government listen to the people more", keep in mind that a lot of times people are ill-informed and likely to act based on emotion rather than reason.
But without democracy, Premier Election Systems will have no one to sell their voting machines to! That's why they'll lobby against totalitarianism.
I see lots of other places around the world where folks insist on segregating themselves by ethnicity and/or religion.
Yeah, I can't think of any fanatic groups of people who cling to various beliefs like so many religions, segregating themselves from others.
Excuse me while I go sacrifice a goat to Larry Wall.
Nope. You just have to make a convincing case that you didn't have access to the work you're accused of infringing.
Mack's song was at the top of the charts, which made for a compelling argument that Harrison had access to it, even if the copying was subconscious. If Mack's song had received only minimal airplay, things might have turned out differently.
E.g., consider Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.:
Since direct evidence of copying is rarely available, copying may be established by proof of access and substantial similarity. NIMMER 141.2 at 613. Although in some circumstances the mere proof of access and substantial similarity will not demand that the trier automatically find copying, the absence of any countervailing evidence of creation independent of the copyrighted source may well render clearly erroneous a finding that there was not copying.
If you had evidence that you had created your independently (e.g., in the form of earlier drafts or versions that lacked the some of the "substantially similar" characteristics), you might very well be able to substantiate independent creation.
I love articles that proclaim the impending death of $TECHNOLOGY just because you can now use some other device as a half-assed supplement.
Yeah, I really want to be lying on the couch underneath a blanket, and fiddling with/rolling over onto my touchscreen smartphone. Also, show me a smartphone that has the battery life of a good old remote control that can last for months or more.
There is no condition of novelty for copyright. Copyright law allows for independent creation of identical works. Of course it's unlikely, but if you just so happened to write or compose a "substantially similar" work as someone else, and it's clear you never had access to their work, you have not infringed.
The whole point of the case you cited was that George Harrison did have access to Mack's original work. As Owen says:
Did Harrison deliberately use the music of He's So Fine? I do not believe he did so deliberately. Nevertheless, it is clear that My Sweet Lord is the very same song as He's So Fine with different words, and Harrison had access to He's So Fine. This is, under the law, infringement of copyright, and is no less so even though subconsciously accomplished.
If Mack's song had never received the airplay it did, Harrison could have argued that the similarity between the two was entirely coincidental.
BTW, if a passage that is substantially similar to a published article shows up in an essay I write for school, it would probably be treated as plagiarism, even if I did it subconsciously.
Either way this isn't a good thing, but it may be premature to conclude that this indicates any particular bias towards towards the RIAA.
I agree with you there. As was noted the last time this was brought up, their brief really isn't about the RIAA or file-sharing so much as the constitutionality of the statutory damages part of the Copyright Act.
On the other hand, that way of looking at the Eight Amendment is so sketch. It basically amounts to saying, "We (the Government) can't exact ridiculously high fines from you, but we can write a law that allows other to do so, with our consent and enforcement."
Degree in Divinity: While typically granted by 'Christian' universities, this degree requires that the student have an advanced understanding of Christian texts and their interpretations and translations. In practice, it is only slightly different from having a degree in any the study of any ancient manuscripts.
FYI, some of the best universities in the country offer degrees in divinity. E.g., Yale, Harvard, U Chicago, and Duke, just off the top of my head. Of course, there are also a lot of crazy schools that offer it...
Subfields within it could be history of Christianity (so, as you said, church history, manuscripts, etc.), biblical studies (more manuscripts, textual criticism, biblical languages), theology, ethics, and liturgy.
Additionally, just because someone got a degree from (or teaches) in a divinity school doesn't mean they're a nut. There are plenty of people in, e.g., biblical studies, who are just interested in the material for its own sake.
1. People run red lights because either a. The light is POORLY timed, creating the accident. or b. They have made an error they truly did not want to do.
I wish I lived where you live.
Unfortunately, this just isn't the case everywhere. In my city (New Haven, CT), people run red lights because - well, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because they're in a hurry (to get to the next light). Maybe it's because they're too lazy to move their foot.
It is essentially standard practice here to run red lights. Drivers expect it. I've learned to expect it, which means waiting for one or two cars to clear the intersection after my light has turned green. Every time I walk outside in this city, I am nearly guaranteed to see at least one person run a red light (and no, usually there are not people behind them).
It is a blatant disregard for the law and safety. Or maybe it's stupidity. I don't know, but one thing is for sure - it's dangerous. Dangerous to pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers (and I am all three of those at various times). The police department has better things to do, like dealing with shootings (or patronizing prostitutes while on duty, as it turns out).
Before I moved here, I used to be opposed to the idea of red light cameras. After living in this city for about two years, I would welcome them.
As I pointed out the other day, ACTA is about so much more than copyright. This "counterfeiting" treaty will almost certainly include provisions for stricter controls on generic pharmaceuticals, amongst other things.
Just take a look at some of the companies that are represented on that list: Eli Lilly, Merck, Monsanto, Schering-Plough... I guarantee they're not there because of pirated CDs.
Just to clarify, I don't think that changes the fact that the "national security" claim is bogus. It's just further proof of the enormous democratic deficit that exists at the international level.
"Republic" refers to form of government.
"Socialism" refers to an economic system.
Setting aside for the moment the fact that Obama's policies don't come close to actual socialism, it would be quite possible to have a republican (small r) form of government that supported socialist economic policies.
I'm reminded of that scene in Religulous where Maher is talking to the Vatican astronomer, I think.
The astronomer is showing him this timeline that includes the Bible, written between maybe 800 BCE and 100 CE, and modern science, which has only been around for the last couple centuries. And the astronomer asks, how can you possibly think you can get modern science, which didn't even exist until 1500 years after the last parts of the Bible were written, from the Bible?
Being able to connect directly to PubMed (for biosciences), search and then directly import references from pubmed is a *huge* timesaver.
This is exactly why I started using Zotero. My old system was a mishmash of saving bookmarks and a folder full of PDF articles. Now all I have to do is click a little icon in the address bar, and all the relevant citation information is extracted and stored. It's a godsend.