When teachers teach something, they don't say "Here is our best understanding of what this means, and here are some other theories." Instead they say "This is what this means." It's much easier to teach something if there is only one right answer. Students aren't taught critical thinking until high school or college (if ever). I do think that life would be much better if all the fanatics (whether they are scientists, gamers, politicians, or clergy) would realize they might be wrong and discuss evidence for and against reasonably, but based on the last 1,000 years of history that's not likely.
Since you're using the word 'racialist' I can only assume you're the same racialist idiot that I replied to earlier. According to Wikipedia, "Racialism refers to the belief in the existence and significance of racial categories." Your emphasis on classifying the Khoi and San people into "Khoisan" and the Bantu into "Negroid" races implies that you think these racial categories are somehow significant. I think you meant to call me 'racist', which implies that I think some races are better than others. 'Racialist' just means you think there are significant differences between races, not what those differences are. 'Black', meanwhile, is just a non-technical term used to refer to skin color, and its usage is widely understood, even by most idiots. You're clearly a well educated idiot, though, since most idiots don't even know big words like 'Khoisan' or 'Bantu'.
Also, I love the way you make points. I can do that too!
Fact: Germans don't consider themselves Irish.
Fact: The Moon is not made of Cheese.
Fact: You're arguing against points no one is making.
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, but whatever it is, you're doing a bad job of it. As far as I can tell, you're arguing that using the term 'black' to describe people is somehow 'racialist'. I think that calling someone 'black' is as insulting as calling them 'red-headed'... that is to say, not insulting at all. I try to care about race as little as possible, and see most of those who obsess over classifying themselves and others as 'Bantu' or 'Aryan' or 'Native American' or 'Indian-but-in-a-higher-caste-than-those-other-Ind ians' as idiots. Guess where that means I classify you?
We care about each other's opinions just enough to make fun of them. It's not like the Khoi or the San refer to themselves as Khoisan, either. These labels are for our benefit, not theirs. Of course, it's not like the rest of your post makes sense- almost everyone cares about the opinions some people have, even if they don't care about yours or mine. I don't expect you to care about my opinion, but I certainly believe it's more valuable than yours.
Scientists, as you point out, often have a 'religious' view of certain theories. We saw it back when the Big Bang theory was first proposed; the scientists of the day saw it as 'thinly veiled creationism'. What drives science forward, though, is when you have two groups of fanatics screaming at each other, the non-fanatics generally cluster to the side with the better arguments and better evidence. That's why the Big Bang theory is now taught in schools, and the various steady state theories are discarded, as are most of the 'Big Crunch' ideas.
Anyway, as far as your 4 theories go: 1. The Universe came into existence completely from nothing, by itself. There was nothing, then everything over time. Start with nothing & work forward.
I believe that Hawkings is actually espousing this idea. It seems highly unlikely to me, since it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, without which all Chemistry, Physics, and Biology is meaningless. 2. The Universe always existed
Seems highly unlikely, given that a) the universe is expanding with no sign of collapsing and b) the Second Law of Thermodynamics. 3. The Universe is an illusion Possible, but a pointless theory. Even if true, the universe behind the illusion still has to follow one of the other 3 possibilities (but #1 and #2 might be possible in a universe with different laws) 4. The Universe was created.
Almost certainly the case, the question is just by what. Perhaps another universe is unaffected by the Second and/or First law of Thermodynamics, and our universe was created there as an experiment/toy/prop. Perhaps our Universe was born from a black hole in another universe- and the black holes in our universe are also creating more universes. God creating this universe seems at least as likely as anything else, but that merely tells us he's insanely smart and/or powerful. He may care about our universe, but not care about us.
Our best science tells us that we can't know how the universe was created. Unless we get the opportunity to witness another Big Bang or talk to God, it seems likely we will never even have that good of an idea.
Maybe it's just me, but I would classify the Khoisan peoples as black. I could classify their skin tone as a 'lovely, dark mahogany color' but black is simpler, and usually even idiots know what you're talking about. Since you don't seem to, I'll list some possible reasons why:
1. You don't know what Khosians look like, and assumed that just because whites and blacks decended from them, that they must be a light brown color.
2. You think that calling someone 'black' is offensive. Instead you use words like 'African American', because you assume they were descended from Africans, just like every other human alive. Or perhaps you avoid all descriptive words, including 'tall', 'red-headed', 'overweight', and 'intelligent' because you think it's offensive to point out difference between individuals.
3. Perhaps Jesse Jackson is your role model. "Ignoring differences in race and sex is racism and sexism!" -J. Jackson
I know it's hard to fit common sense into your politically correct view of the world, but deal with it.
Adam and Eve were black? Next you'll be telling us that Jesus was Jewish!
Seriously, though, the creationists I respect go to the Bible/Koran/Talmud and say "God created the heavens and the earth" then go to a science textbook to figure out how he did it.
You already had all 3 games systems. Would having Link available cause you to purchase a GameCube with Soul Caliber 2 instead of purchasing Soul Caliber 2 for XBox?
He's basing the rate of decay off actual data: What books remain in print after X years, etc. I don't have a problem with his numbers- he even shos that depending on the numbers you can get a range of 3 to 50 years. My problem is not with his numbers, it's with the assumption that the goal of copyright legislation should be maximizing the welfare of the public.
I know that sounds odd, but what's in the best interests of the public is not really fair to individuals. For instance, let's look at George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire , an amazing fantasy series. The first book in the series was written in 1996. He'll probably finish the series in 2015 or so. With a 14 year copyright, half of his series (3 books out of 7) would be in the public domain by the time he's finished writing, which means that the publishers will be selling the first 3 books still at discount rates, but Martin won't be seeing any of the profits. To me, this seems as unfair as taking half of Gate's wealth and forcibly donating it to charity- while it may promote the public welfare, it isn't fair, at least how most of us see fairness. What's worse (to me) is that Martin would probably have written a much less epic fantasy if shorter copyright terms were involved.
To conclude, even if 14 years is optimal for public welfare, I feel that artists/authors deserve more. (As did several of our founding fathers, who had 28 more serve as the duration of copyright). If you're going to attack the article, I would do it on those grounds than going after their reasonable numbers.
It's not like either of us copied your idea. I will even assume that he didn't copy my idea, because my idea was a flat fee after 20 years instead of a percentage (which makes much more sense). Maybe next time you can patent your idea, (we'll call it the intelligent reform of IP law Patent) and then sue everyone else who thinks of your simple, logical idea.
On a serious note, I do think that a system like this is the best way to deal with copyright madness. Because of the Berne convention it really needs to be a flat fee after 50 years, but even that would free up works written/filmed up to the 1950s. Basically, though, this system would open up a lot of IP and still keep Disney and similar companies reasonably happy- they can afford spending a few million dollars a year to protect Mickey Mouse, as it's only slightly more expensive than buying congressmen anyway.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with attribution or non-mutilation of the work (I haven't seen the movie, but I have to assume that it treats the WarHammer universe with respect). They have banned all movies using 40k references. Contrast with Star Wars/Star Trek, where fans are allowed to make fanfic videos if they want, so long as they don't make a profit off them.
As far as I can tell, everything that's not allowed by fair use (in the U.S.) is forbidden. If memory serves, the U.K. has no 'fair use' provisions in its IP law, so it may technically be more permissive than the default U.K. policy. Either way, it does seem like it hurts the fans without helping Games Workshop make any money.
As long as they don't object to everyone watching them. A Society where everything is open is better than one where most things are hidden, but both are better than a society where the 'elites' (Be they governments, corporations, or secret societies) get to know everything about me but make it illegal for me to look up information about them. All I want is the same level of privacy that our Senators and Police receive.
The same way that we said General Sherman invaded the south during the U.S. Civil war. When one group of people shoot everyone trying to stop them from entering somewhere they're not wanted, we usually call it an 'invasion'
I think it's clear that people should be allowed to rip their own music, even the RIAA has mentioned that it doesn't want to start suing people who do this (that's too much bad publicity even for them). Certainly iTunes allows you to rip music and movies and put them on your iPod, and you don't see the RIAA suing Apple now, do you? Admittedly, Copyright law doesn't specifically spell that out as fair use yet, but if that ever got tested in court most of us are confident that ripping your own CDs for your mp3 player would be considered fair use, just like the copy of this post your computer makes when viewing Slashdot is considered fair use and not copyright infringement.
Not necessarily in person- you should be able to send him anonymous emails/leave notes on his desk that show average salaries for your area. He probably just doesn't realize what the average salary is for IT positions. If he can't take the hint, then deal with it while looking for a new job...
I primarily work with/for manufacturing types, so they are usually in jeans and t-shirts themselves. When I deal with our clients directly I do, of course, try to dress appropriately.
My point is not that you should always dress casually, my point is that, all else being equal, a job where casual clothes are appropriate is slightly better than a job where casual clothes are inappropriate.
They only have Linux and Apple sections because they are rarer than Windows, and thus more interesting. If Linux or Apple ever gets 90% market share the need for special sections for them will disappear.
Having to wear nicer (read: more expensive) clothing is a cost, both in terms of purchasing clothes and the time it takes to put them on and iron them (it takes more time to button up a shirt and tie a tie than to toss on a T-shirt). Plus, it's more comfortable. It's probably worth 1-2% of my salary to avoid wearing such things. (Of course, it's a personal preference- it's probably worth 10-20% for my boss, who's picky about such things, and ~0.5% to another coworker, who doesn't mind dressing up, but still sees a slight advantage to not doing so).
Assuming that all XBox failures are independent, then the probability of failure to the eleventh power is the probability of getting 11 failures in a row. So 5%^11 = 1/(20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20). If you assume that the odds of getting 11 failures in a row is 1 in 12 million, then the odds of each failure have to be equal to (1/12,000,000)^(1/11) ~= 1/4.4 ~= 22.7%.
But the GP (whom I was replying to) said to ignore the probable higher failure rate of the returned XBox units. 23% seems ridiculously high, I imagine that it's closer to 5% base failure rate with a 25% failure rate on returned XBoxes (which is painfully high).
All humans have opinions, and for any opinion it's possible to find someone who disagrees with it, no matter how wrong they are. Thus, even a perfectly impartial, reasonable, intelligent and just Person serving in office would have thousands (perhaps even millions) of people who thought they were biased, unreasonable, stupid, and unfair. Since neither of us are perfect, we'd also sometimes disagree with a perfect individual (though hopefully we'd agree with them more often than not).
Odds of getting 11 Failed XBox360s given a 5% failure rate: 1 in 20^11 or 204,800,000,000,000 (204 Trillion). If we assume a 10% failure rate we have 1 in 10^11 or 10,000,000,000 (10 Billion). Given that there are only about 12 Million units sold, and assuming that this guy was the least lucky person, but there were no enviromental hazards killing his 360s (which is a dangerous assumption), We can estimate a failure rate of about 23%. The error rate and confidence ranges will need to wait until another post.
My Wii ran fine out of the box, but a friend of mine had to send her Wii back to Nintendo- some of the first batch of Wiis had some defect (I can't remember the details). This doesn't even include the stonger straps they had to add after some people broke theirs. Not to rip on Nintendo, just pointing out that it's nearly impossible to make perfect software/hardware.
If enough popular idiots pronounce a word wrong, it becomes an acceptable pronounciation. From Wiktionary:
Clearly, it is not a pronunciation consistent with the word's etymology, as nuclear is derived from the word nucleus about which there is no debate regarding pronunciation. It is therefore logical to conclude that the latter pronunciation came about through common usage in culture as a variation on the original pronunciation dictated by etymology.
It has been conjectured that the reason for the nu-ky&-l&r variation to be so common is that the English language contains no other vowel clusters pronounced like the ea in nukl, whereas the words "particular" and "spectacular", for example, are examples of the fairly common pronunciation of the "cular" syllables found in the latter pronunciation for nuclear. See bartleby.com
Slashdot Mirror
When teachers teach something, they don't say "Here is our best understanding of what this means, and here are some other theories." Instead they say "This is what this means." It's much easier to teach something if there is only one right answer. Students aren't taught critical thinking until high school or college (if ever). I do think that life would be much better if all the fanatics (whether they are scientists, gamers, politicians, or clergy) would realize they might be wrong and discuss evidence for and against reasonably, but based on the last 1,000 years of history that's not likely.
Since you're using the word 'racialist' I can only assume you're the same racialist idiot that I replied to earlier. According to Wikipedia, "Racialism refers to the belief in the existence and significance of racial categories." Your emphasis on classifying the Khoi and San people into "Khoisan" and the Bantu into "Negroid" races implies that you think these racial categories are somehow significant. I think you meant to call me 'racist', which implies that I think some races are better than others. 'Racialist' just means you think there are significant differences between races, not what those differences are. 'Black', meanwhile, is just a non-technical term used to refer to skin color, and its usage is widely understood, even by most idiots. You're clearly a well educated idiot, though, since most idiots don't even know big words like 'Khoisan' or 'Bantu'.
d ians' as idiots. Guess where that means I classify you?
Also, I love the way you make points. I can do that too!
Fact: Germans don't consider themselves Irish.
Fact: The Moon is not made of Cheese.
Fact: You're arguing against points no one is making.
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make, but whatever it is, you're doing a bad job of it. As far as I can tell, you're arguing that using the term 'black' to describe people is somehow 'racialist'. I think that calling someone 'black' is as insulting as calling them 'red-headed'... that is to say, not insulting at all. I try to care about race as little as possible, and see most of those who obsess over classifying themselves and others as 'Bantu' or 'Aryan' or 'Native American' or 'Indian-but-in-a-higher-caste-than-those-other-In
We care about each other's opinions just enough to make fun of them. It's not like the Khoi or the San refer to themselves as Khoisan, either. These labels are for our benefit, not theirs. Of course, it's not like the rest of your post makes sense- almost everyone cares about the opinions some people have, even if they don't care about yours or mine. I don't expect you to care about my opinion, but I certainly believe it's more valuable than yours.
Scientists, as you point out, often have a 'religious' view of certain theories. We saw it back when the Big Bang theory was first proposed; the scientists of the day saw it as 'thinly veiled creationism'. What drives science forward, though, is when you have two groups of fanatics screaming at each other, the non-fanatics generally cluster to the side with the better arguments and better evidence. That's why the Big Bang theory is now taught in schools, and the various steady state theories are discarded, as are most of the 'Big Crunch' ideas.
Anyway, as far as your 4 theories go:
1. The Universe came into existence completely from nothing, by itself. There was nothing, then everything over time. Start with nothing & work forward.
I believe that Hawkings is actually espousing this idea. It seems highly unlikely to me, since it violates the First Law of Thermodynamics, without which all Chemistry, Physics, and Biology is meaningless.
2. The Universe always existed
Seems highly unlikely, given that a) the universe is expanding with no sign of collapsing and b) the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
3. The Universe is an illusion
Possible, but a pointless theory. Even if true, the universe behind the illusion still has to follow one of the other 3 possibilities (but #1 and #2 might be possible in a universe with different laws)
4. The Universe was created.
Almost certainly the case, the question is just by what. Perhaps another universe is unaffected by the Second and/or First law of Thermodynamics, and our universe was created there as an experiment/toy/prop. Perhaps our Universe was born from a black hole in another universe- and the black holes in our universe are also creating more universes. God creating this universe seems at least as likely as anything else, but that merely tells us he's insanely smart and/or powerful. He may care about our universe, but not care about us.
Our best science tells us that we can't know how the universe was created. Unless we get the opportunity to witness another Big Bang or talk to God, it seems likely we will never even have that good of an idea.
Maybe it's just me, but I would classify the Khoisan peoples as black. I could classify their skin tone as a 'lovely, dark mahogany color' but black is simpler, and usually even idiots know what you're talking about. Since you don't seem to, I'll list some possible reasons why:
1. You don't know what Khosians look like, and assumed that just because whites and blacks decended from them, that they must be a light brown color.
2. You think that calling someone 'black' is offensive. Instead you use words like 'African American', because you assume they were descended from Africans, just like every other human alive. Or perhaps you avoid all descriptive words, including 'tall', 'red-headed', 'overweight', and 'intelligent' because you think it's offensive to point out difference between individuals.
3. Perhaps Jesse Jackson is your role model. "Ignoring differences in race and sex is racism and sexism!" -J. Jackson
I know it's hard to fit common sense into your politically correct view of the world, but deal with it.
Adam and Eve were black? Next you'll be telling us that Jesus was Jewish!
Seriously, though, the creationists I respect go to the Bible/Koran/Talmud and say "God created the heavens and the earth" then go to a science textbook to figure out how he did it.
Think of it this way: if you flip 10 coins, and get a 6:4 ration, that's normal.
If you flip 1000 coins, and get 600 heads to 400 tails, a 6:4 ratio, that's exceedingly abnormal. You'd expect something like 525:475. (5.25:4.75)
If you flip 100,000 coins, and get 52500 heads to 47500 tails, that's also abnormal. You'd expect a something like 50125 to 49875. (5.0125:4.9875).
You may notice that as the number of coins flips increases, the observed ratios get closer to 5:5 (which is the same as 1:1).
You already had all 3 games systems. Would having Link available cause you to purchase a GameCube with Soul Caliber 2 instead of purchasing Soul Caliber 2 for XBox?
He's basing the rate of decay off actual data: What books remain in print after X years, etc. I don't have a problem with his numbers- he even shos that depending on the numbers you can get a range of 3 to 50 years. My problem is not with his numbers, it's with the assumption that the goal of copyright legislation should be maximizing the welfare of the public.
I know that sounds odd, but what's in the best interests of the public is not really fair to individuals. For instance, let's look at George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire , an amazing fantasy series. The first book in the series was written in 1996. He'll probably finish the series in 2015 or so. With a 14 year copyright, half of his series (3 books out of 7) would be in the public domain by the time he's finished writing, which means that the publishers will be selling the first 3 books still at discount rates, but Martin won't be seeing any of the profits. To me, this seems as unfair as taking half of Gate's wealth and forcibly donating it to charity- while it may promote the public welfare, it isn't fair, at least how most of us see fairness. What's worse (to me) is that Martin would probably have written a much less epic fantasy if shorter copyright terms were involved.
To conclude, even if 14 years is optimal for public welfare, I feel that artists/authors deserve more. (As did several of our founding fathers, who had 28 more serve as the duration of copyright). If you're going to attack the article, I would do it on those grounds than going after their reasonable numbers.
It's not like either of us copied your idea. I will even assume that he didn't copy my idea, because my idea was a flat fee after 20 years instead of a percentage (which makes much more sense). Maybe next time you can patent your idea, (we'll call it the intelligent reform of IP law Patent) and then sue everyone else who thinks of your simple, logical idea.
On a serious note, I do think that a system like this is the best way to deal with copyright madness. Because of the Berne convention it really needs to be a flat fee after 50 years, but even that would free up works written/filmed up to the 1950s. Basically, though, this system would open up a lot of IP and still keep Disney and similar companies reasonably happy- they can afford spending a few million dollars a year to protect Mickey Mouse, as it's only slightly more expensive than buying congressmen anyway.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do with attribution or non-mutilation of the work (I haven't seen the movie, but I have to assume that it treats the WarHammer universe with respect). They have banned all movies using 40k references. Contrast with Star Wars/Star Trek, where fans are allowed to make fanfic videos if they want, so long as they don't make a profit off them.
As far as I can tell, everything that's not allowed by fair use (in the U.S.) is forbidden. If memory serves, the U.K. has no 'fair use' provisions in its IP law, so it may technically be more permissive than the default U.K. policy. Either way, it does seem like it hurts the fans without helping Games Workshop make any money.
As long as they don't object to everyone watching them. A Society where everything is open is better than one where most things are hidden, but both are better than a society where the 'elites' (Be they governments, corporations, or secret societies) get to know everything about me but make it illegal for me to look up information about them. All I want is the same level of privacy that our Senators and Police receive.
The same way that we said General Sherman invaded the south during the U.S. Civil war. When one group of people shoot everyone trying to stop them from entering somewhere they're not wanted, we usually call it an 'invasion'
I think it's clear that people should be allowed to rip their own music, even the RIAA has mentioned that it doesn't want to start suing people who do this (that's too much bad publicity even for them). Certainly iTunes allows you to rip music and movies and put them on your iPod, and you don't see the RIAA suing Apple now, do you? Admittedly, Copyright law doesn't specifically spell that out as fair use yet, but if that ever got tested in court most of us are confident that ripping your own CDs for your mp3 player would be considered fair use, just like the copy of this post your computer makes when viewing Slashdot is considered fair use and not copyright infringement.
Not necessarily in person- you should be able to send him anonymous emails/leave notes on his desk that show average salaries for your area. He probably just doesn't realize what the average salary is for IT positions. If he can't take the hint, then deal with it while looking for a new job...
I primarily work with/for manufacturing types, so they are usually in jeans and t-shirts themselves. When I deal with our clients directly I do, of course, try to dress appropriately.
My point is not that you should always dress casually, my point is that, all else being equal, a job where casual clothes are appropriate is slightly better than a job where casual clothes are inappropriate.
They only have Linux and Apple sections because they are rarer than Windows, and thus more interesting. If Linux or Apple ever gets 90% market share the need for special sections for them will disappear.
Having to wear nicer (read: more expensive) clothing is a cost, both in terms of purchasing clothes and the time it takes to put them on and iron them (it takes more time to button up a shirt and tie a tie than to toss on a T-shirt). Plus, it's more comfortable. It's probably worth 1-2% of my salary to avoid wearing such things. (Of course, it's a personal preference- it's probably worth 10-20% for my boss, who's picky about such things, and ~0.5% to another coworker, who doesn't mind dressing up, but still sees a slight advantage to not doing so).
Assuming that all XBox failures are independent, then the probability of failure to the eleventh power is the probability of getting 11 failures in a row. So 5%^11 = 1/(20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20*20). If you assume that the odds of getting 11 failures in a row is 1 in 12 million, then the odds of each failure have to be equal to (1/12,000,000)^(1/11) ~= 1/4.4 ~= 22.7%.
But the GP (whom I was replying to) said to ignore the probable higher failure rate of the returned XBox units. 23% seems ridiculously high, I imagine that it's closer to 5% base failure rate with a 25% failure rate on returned XBoxes (which is painfully high).
All humans have opinions, and for any opinion it's possible to find someone who disagrees with it, no matter how wrong they are. Thus, even a perfectly impartial, reasonable, intelligent and just Person serving in office would have thousands (perhaps even millions) of people who thought they were biased, unreasonable, stupid, and unfair. Since neither of us are perfect, we'd also sometimes disagree with a perfect individual (though hopefully we'd agree with them more often than not).
Odds of getting 11 Failed XBox360s given a 5% failure rate: 1 in 20^11 or 204,800,000,000,000 (204 Trillion). If we assume a 10% failure rate we have 1 in 10^11 or 10,000,000,000 (10 Billion). Given that there are only about 12 Million units sold, and assuming that this guy was the least lucky person, but there were no enviromental hazards killing his 360s (which is a dangerous assumption), We can estimate a failure rate of about 23%. The error rate and confidence ranges will need to wait until another post.
My Wii ran fine out of the box, but a friend of mine had to send her Wii back to Nintendo- some of the first batch of Wiis had some defect (I can't remember the details). This doesn't even include the stonger straps they had to add after some people broke theirs. Not to rip on Nintendo, just pointing out that it's nearly impossible to make perfect software/hardware.
If enough popular idiots pronounce a word wrong, it becomes an acceptable pronounciation. From Wiktionary:
Clearly, it is not a pronunciation consistent with the word's etymology, as nuclear is derived from the word nucleus about which there is no debate regarding pronunciation. It is therefore logical to conclude that the latter pronunciation came about through common usage in culture as a variation on the original pronunciation dictated by etymology.
It has been conjectured that the reason for the nu-ky&-l&r variation to be so common is that the English language contains no other vowel clusters pronounced like the ea in nukl, whereas the words "particular" and "spectacular", for example, are examples of the fairly common pronunciation of the "cular" syllables found in the latter pronunciation for nuclear. See bartleby.com