Is it somehow off topic to post about the article submission in the topic dedicated to that submission?
An ad hominem argument is off-topic no matter where it is posted, IMO. If Bonch had bothered to actually dispute what was written, it would be one thing. But instead he just metaphorically threw his hands in the air and complained about biased editorialization on slashdot.
What slashdot chooses to do, even if its in the same topical area as the article, has nothing to do with the RIAA's claims or Google/Wikipedia's presentation and their possible responsibility to present in an unbiased fashion.
He turned it from a discussion of RIAA, SOPA/PIPA, traditional news outlets and Google/Wikipedia as news outlets, to yet another slashdot navel-gazing session. It's a form of ad hominem fallacy where he has successfully diverted the discussion from the content to the messenger.
They have moved on to calling it theft now that "pirate" has been ingrained in the public mind. Maybe in a few years it will be called copyright rape or intellectual property murder.
Nah, we're desensitized to murder and rape -- we hear about them every day on the news. It'd have to be something to elicit a more visceral dislike from the masses... maybe copyright sodomy?
But complaining about it is an example of another commonly-used tactic -- diversion.
Bonch has successfully diverted the discussion at the top of the comments for regular viewers into a discussion of whether it's appropriate to editorialize when presenting news items. He's changed the nature of the discussion, whether intentional or not, into one that has fuck-all to do with the subject of the article.
Just thought I'd point out the possibility that another dirty trick may be in use here.
"Arrest" is legally defined to mean restraint under color of authority.
No, it's not. Where is the source of your "legal" definition? If you're going to lead off your post with a falsehood, it's probably not worth reading the rest of your post.
The test used to determine whether an arrest took place in a particular case is objective, and it turns on whether a reasonable person under these circumstances would believe he or she was restrained or free to go. A reasonable person is one who is not guilty of criminal conduct, overly apprehensive, or insensitive to the seriousness of the circumstances. Reasonableness is not determined in light of a defendant's subjective knowledge or fears. The subjective intent of the police is also normally irrelevant to a court's determination whether an arrest occurred, unless the officer makes that intent known.
Sorry, but most of us don't give two turds about what you choose to accept.
If his claim bothers you, go ahead and do some reading on the subject... if you still think his statement is incorrect, please go ahead and post a refutation.
Or instead, just go ahead with your normal schtick of dismissing out of hand any comments which challenge your assumptions.
If you could put a "window" anywhere, showing any type of scene, what do you care what's actually outside? [1] I know, you can sit this on top of a real window, but I wonder how often that will be done in real life? In an age where all the up and coming adults have been trained since grade school to live with ear buds inserted and head lowered to a 4" display, what chance do us old fogeys who remember fresh air and open views, have, to convince them that houses should have access to the outdoors?
Reminds me of Asimov's description of Trantor in the first story of the Foundation series, where most people went years without venturing out to a roof of the composite building that covered the entire surface of the planet. Asimov wrote some commentary on this subject into story, but I think even he did not foresee the degree to which people would become attached to their devices.
It depends on the subject. I am retaking an accounting class, and that text book is on a update schedule of every year and a half to two years. Now what exactly has changed that much in the practice of accounting? Much of accounting, I will remind everyone, is dictated by the IRS. So again, how much has changed?
I wonder what accounting class you are taking. 100- and 200- level classes will likely not change much year-over-year. But specific tax regulations change annually (sometimes more often!), and a school cannot afford to have its students graduate without the latest knowledge.
Also, wholesale accounting standards are changing worldwide (at differing paces, of course) to IFRS from the hodgepodge of USGAAP or GAAP-like setups for individual nations. This requires retooling of almost all accounting textbooks, though most editions would likely have already made this change.
Although it seems to me professors do not fight for a better price, they do put a good bit of effort into researching the textbooks they use (at least from what I gather from the day-1 speeches).
In my jaded opinion, those day-1 speeches are to mitigate the sticker shock many students go through. My experience tells me that professors have limited choices in the textbooks they offer, and this oligopoly the textbook publishers have sets prices artificially high. Oligarchy + captive market == high profits. Add in the habit of professors using books where people they know are getting royalties, and this complicates the problem. Good luck to a professor that wants to use a cheap alternative text when his department head is an editor of or significant contributor to the more expensive text.
Now, those asides dealt with... I believe higher education in the US is going to undergo dramatic, market-driven change in the next generation or two. Digital texts will become the norm -- hell, digital classrooms will likely become the norm. The cost of maintaining and operating the infrastructure of a university is climbing too fast, and will likely be countered by virtualization.
I know this is rather long-winded, so I hope you're still reading... but it's not just the textbook industry that Apple is going after. In the long run, it's the entire higher education industry. The concept of a lecture, even of office hours, is silly and outdated with the technology we have today. And I'm sure Apple would like to ensure that their devices are the ones used for the pursuit of higher education.
Basically it being copyrighted has generated wealth. People have decided that they are willing to do work for 2 minutes or 10 minutes or even an hour to earn the money to pay to see that video. It has generated real work, and people wanting to work to buy something is what spins the wheels of the economy.
Broken window fallacy.
The copyright on that video has not generated any wealth. It has shifted wealth from some people to some other people. To boot, Dr Rev MLK Jr would have made the speech without pecuniary incentive... thus even the spirit of the intention of copyright has no bearing.
The short and simple of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.
The long and complex of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.
Linezolid is a oxazolidinone antibiotic, they've been in use since the 1950s.
Daptomycin is over 30 years old, but didn't get FDA approval until 2003 due to high incidence of bad side effects (which is why Lilly stopped development during Phase II trials, then sold the rights to Cubist).
I think the point of the OP was that novel methods of attack against bacterial infectious agents aren't being developed... and it's novel methods we need, as resistance generally develops against entire classes of antibiotics.
Yeah, I've heard about this. In particular, about them being given out like M&Ms, even for viral infections where the doctors knew damn well that they'd do nothing useful, but wanted to pander to the patients. That's not even the OP's "overuse", it's blatant and irresponsible misuse that was obviously going to cause major grief at some point- well, here we are.
And, to make things even worse, the standard from what I've seen among the Indians I have worked with is to take the antibiotics until starting to feel better, then stop taking them. This results in recurrent infections of resistant bacteria. I've also observed this a lot with people from the Caribbean.
Micro is about running a business. Macro is about nations.
No. Micro is about the decisions of individual actors in a market; macro is an outgrowth of the intersection of monetary theory and business cycles.
There is intersection of micro and macro here, but what you're referring to is the decision of an individual actor based on the costs they face. We're talking about whether externialities are captured in the prices and taxes that consumers pay.
It's a micro effect.
If anyone needs remedial classes here, it's you.
And while you're at it, some lessons in civility would be a good idea.
Telling Iran that you were formerly in the US army is not the kind of thing you would do if you were an actual spy.
Unless, of course, you are the type of person who would feign having military experience because Iran is the type of country to assume if you did that that you weren't a spy.
What it boils down to, is are you the type of guy who would put the military experience in your own dossier? Or would you instead put the military experience in my dossier?
Truly, I have a dizzying intellect.
* Besides which, we know that we shouldn't make the second greatest mistake, which would be to get involved in a land war in Asia.
I agree with all of your post, but the problem with whiteboarding in interviews is that it is biased against lefties.
Seriously. It's really hard to connect with your interviewer(s) when you have to face the whiteboard and look over your shoulder at them while writing. I've been working on ways to overcome this, as I have the problem also at meetings, presentations, etc. I haven't come up with a good solution other than using a projector.
Of course you'd still have to have some compartmentalization for "noxious trades" like rendering plants, sewage treatment, etc. OTOH, the reason why so many of us cannot walk to a store without passing miles and miles of bland cooki-cutter tract homes is this bad zoning. It looks neat on a map. It's polluting and making us fat in real life.
That ship has sailed, we'll not get rid of Euclidean zoning. But not just because of now-historical land use... but because the scale of commercial and industrial operations has changed. It's not efficient to have retail scattered throughout residential areas, unless the population density is very high.
Euclidean zoning combined with mass transit is probably the best answer... the problem is what to do about the residential sprawl that exists. IMO, zoning needs to be tweaked for more high-density residential, making mass transit more efficient.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry when politcians talk about the need for affordable housing. We got that, and they called it a "housing crisis".
The housing crisis as not given us affordable housing. Any market where there are jobs, housing prices have still appreciated more than inflation since 2001. It's not affordable housing if it's not cheaply commutable to employment. Where I live, it's still over $250k for a crap two-bedroom condo less than 1000 sq ft, with a wage factor of 1.37 (Wages are 37% higher than natl average here). Renting is actually more expensive than owning.
The biggest argument for ownership, "I want to pound a nail" can be resolved with clear cut procedures in the lease for... pounding nails!
That's not the biggest argument for ownership. The biggest argument for ownership is to be investing your housing cash, rather than just throwing it away as rent. A -10% return (appreciation less maintenance cost and interest expense) is far better than a -100% return (rent).
I don't know if you've ever spent any time around economists or economics departments of major universities. I have and Economics is an even softer science than psychology. When it comes to intellectual rigor, even Womens' Studies professors think economists are lightweights.Ummm.... horseshit. Certainly there are economics programs out there that may fit your bill, but it's far from true that this is the case at most of the economics programs I'm familiar with (U Chicago, MIT, Harvard, Berkeley).
You mock what you don't understand, which is a surefire hallmark of a willful idiot. It's like when young-earth creationists mock evolutionary theory.
Whatever you think..taxes should not be used for behavioral manipulations.
Taxes are for funding the govt services we all need...that should be it...period.
Then how would you advocate solving the tragedy of the commons, which is a part of the gas consumption problem?
And who bears the cost of environmental mitigation caused by fuel consumption? Do heavy polluters get a free ride?
However, it seems to me that if any movie is not sold out by about 5 minutes before the show, movie theaters could do last minute "fire sales" - discount the remaining tickets 30-50% to try to get people who are cheap to fill up those remaining seats.
I'm not sure that makes any sense. Those people who might buy the "fire sale" tickets are already at the theater, and are already committed to seeing a movie at full price, since that's the only price the theater offers.
Also, if a theater did that, many many moviegoers would just wait until just before start time to buy their tickets. The ploy would fail soon after theatergoers knew the game.
What? We are still run by Keynesians! Where are the free markets? Everywhere you look, there is government involvement in the markets. Government intervention, government bailouts, government funded spending programs, government regulations, government, government, government!
This quote highlights that either you don't know what Keynesian economics are, or you are conflating Keynesian economic policy with a host of other things.
Keynesian doesn't mean "government involvement in markets". It is not the antithesis to free market theory, though those who espouse free market economics have bones to pick with Keynesian economics.
But everyone had faith in their "Maestro" and his apprentice
"The Maestro" wasn't Keynesian.
It appears you are very confused. Please do try to educate yourself, your rants are getting sillier and sillier as it becomes apparent that you are profoundly lacking in the education necessary to rationally discuss Keynesian economics.
The local chambers are non-profit entities whose purpose is promoting local businesses.
That's one purpose, and it depends on how you define "promote". They also have other purposes, such as local-level lobbying to influence zoning boards, municipal regulations, etc.
Where I grew up, they were also active in promoting unregulated capitalism (they called it free-market, though it isn't in the economic sense of the term free-market) in the schools. It's "funny" that they (local Chambers) sponsored programming in the high schools to educate students about political topics that the state-level Chamber was pushing for. My recollection of those assemblies, in-class speakers, etc was that they were unabashedly pushing the Chamber's viewpoint... though it's only in hindsight that I became aware of what they were doing.
Slashdot Mirror
An ad hominem argument is off-topic no matter where it is posted, IMO. If Bonch had bothered to actually dispute what was written, it would be one thing. But instead he just metaphorically threw his hands in the air and complained about biased editorialization on slashdot.
What slashdot chooses to do, even if its in the same topical area as the article, has nothing to do with the RIAA's claims or Google/Wikipedia's presentation and their possible responsibility to present in an unbiased fashion.
He turned it from a discussion of RIAA, SOPA/PIPA, traditional news outlets and Google/Wikipedia as news outlets, to yet another slashdot navel-gazing session. It's a form of ad hominem fallacy where he has successfully diverted the discussion from the content to the messenger.
Nah, we're desensitized to murder and rape -- we hear about them every day on the news. It'd have to be something to elicit a more visceral dislike from the masses... maybe copyright sodomy?
But complaining about it is an example of another commonly-used tactic -- diversion.
Bonch has successfully diverted the discussion at the top of the comments for regular viewers into a discussion of whether it's appropriate to editorialize when presenting news items. He's changed the nature of the discussion, whether intentional or not, into one that has fuck-all to do with the subject of the article.
Just thought I'd point out the possibility that another dirty trick may be in use here.
No, it's not. Where is the source of your "legal" definition? If you're going to lead off your post with a falsehood, it's probably not worth reading the rest of your post.
Here's a better definition, with clarification.Key section for this situation:
Sorry, but most of us don't give two turds about what you choose to accept.
If his claim bothers you, go ahead and do some reading on the subject... if you still think his statement is incorrect, please go ahead and post a refutation.
Or instead, just go ahead with your normal schtick of dismissing out of hand any comments which challenge your assumptions.
Reminds me of Asimov's description of Trantor in the first story of the Foundation series, where most people went years without venturing out to a roof of the composite building that covered the entire surface of the planet. Asimov wrote some commentary on this subject into story, but I think even he did not foresee the degree to which people would become attached to their devices.
I wonder what accounting class you are taking. 100- and 200- level classes will likely not change much year-over-year. But specific tax regulations change annually (sometimes more often!), and a school cannot afford to have its students graduate without the latest knowledge.
Also, wholesale accounting standards are changing worldwide (at differing paces, of course) to IFRS from the hodgepodge of USGAAP or GAAP-like setups for individual nations. This requires retooling of almost all accounting textbooks, though most editions would likely have already made this change.
In my jaded opinion, those day-1 speeches are to mitigate the sticker shock many students go through. My experience tells me that professors have limited choices in the textbooks they offer, and this oligopoly the textbook publishers have sets prices artificially high. Oligarchy + captive market == high profits. Add in the habit of professors using books where people they know are getting royalties, and this complicates the problem. Good luck to a professor that wants to use a cheap alternative text when his department head is an editor of or significant contributor to the more expensive text.
Now, those asides dealt with... I believe higher education in the US is going to undergo dramatic, market-driven change in the next generation or two. Digital texts will become the norm -- hell, digital classrooms will likely become the norm. The cost of maintaining and operating the infrastructure of a university is climbing too fast, and will likely be countered by virtualization.
I know this is rather long-winded, so I hope you're still reading... but it's not just the textbook industry that Apple is going after. In the long run, it's the entire higher education industry. The concept of a lecture, even of office hours, is silly and outdated with the technology we have today. And I'm sure Apple would like to ensure that their devices are the ones used for the pursuit of higher education.
Broken window fallacy.
The copyright on that video has not generated any wealth. It has shifted wealth from some people to some other people. To boot, Dr Rev MLK Jr would have made the speech without pecuniary incentive... thus even the spirit of the intention of copyright has no bearing.
The short and simple of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.
The long and complex of it is that there is a cash grab by MLK's heirs based in copyright law.
Linezolid is a oxazolidinone antibiotic, they've been in use since the 1950s.
Daptomycin is over 30 years old, but didn't get FDA approval until 2003 due to high incidence of bad side effects (which is why Lilly stopped development during Phase II trials, then sold the rights to Cubist).
I think the point of the OP was that novel methods of attack against bacterial infectious agents aren't being developed... and it's novel methods we need, as resistance generally develops against entire classes of antibiotics.
And, to make things even worse, the standard from what I've seen among the Indians I have worked with is to take the antibiotics until starting to feel better, then stop taking them. This results in recurrent infections of resistant bacteria. I've also observed this a lot with people from the Caribbean.
Take some finance and accounting classes. This is false.
The best thing about guard potatoes is that they get better at their job as they age.
But for more complete security, you should really upgrade to corn-n-potatoes. It helps to have some ears to go with those eyes.
No. Micro is about the decisions of individual actors in a market; macro is an outgrowth of the intersection of monetary theory and business cycles.
There is intersection of micro and macro here, but what you're referring to is the decision of an individual actor based on the costs they face. We're talking about whether externialities are captured in the prices and taxes that consumers pay.
It's a micro effect.
If anyone needs remedial classes here, it's you.
And while you're at it, some lessons in civility would be a good idea.
First of all, that's not macroeconomics, it's microeconomics.
Second of all, there's no way you can claim from an honest, educated point of view that fuel consumers pay the full cost of gasoline consumption.
For someone who so cavalierly tells someone else to take economics classes, you sure seem to have a limited understanding of the subject.
Glass houses and throwing stones, and all that.
Unless, of course, you are the type of person who would feign having military experience because Iran is the type of country to assume if you did that that you weren't a spy.
What it boils down to, is are you the type of guy who would put the military experience in your own dossier? Or would you instead put the military experience in my dossier?
Truly, I have a dizzying intellect.
* Besides which, we know that we shouldn't make the second greatest mistake, which would be to get involved in a land war in Asia.
Probably because you're still working out point assignments to create your characters.
I keed, I keed.
Without food security, they'll be unable to get businesses going. Without food security, they'll be unable to learn how to feed themselves.
Food security is the #1 requirement for them to do anything else than just concentrate on day-to-day survival.
I agree with all of your post, but the problem with whiteboarding in interviews is that it is biased against lefties.
Seriously. It's really hard to connect with your interviewer(s) when you have to face the whiteboard and look over your shoulder at them while writing. I've been working on ways to overcome this, as I have the problem also at meetings, presentations, etc. I haven't come up with a good solution other than using a projector.
That ship has sailed, we'll not get rid of Euclidean zoning. But not just because of now-historical land use... but because the scale of commercial and industrial operations has changed. It's not efficient to have retail scattered throughout residential areas, unless the population density is very high.
Euclidean zoning combined with mass transit is probably the best answer... the problem is what to do about the residential sprawl that exists. IMO, zoning needs to be tweaked for more high-density residential, making mass transit more efficient.
The housing crisis as not given us affordable housing. Any market where there are jobs, housing prices have still appreciated more than inflation since 2001. It's not affordable housing if it's not cheaply commutable to employment. Where I live, it's still over $250k for a crap two-bedroom condo less than 1000 sq ft, with a wage factor of 1.37 (Wages are 37% higher than natl average here). Renting is actually more expensive than owning.
That's not the biggest argument for ownership. The biggest argument for ownership is to be investing your housing cash, rather than just throwing it away as rent. A -10% return (appreciation less maintenance cost and interest expense) is far better than a -100% return (rent).
Then how would you advocate solving the tragedy of the commons, which is a part of the gas consumption problem?
And who bears the cost of environmental mitigation caused by fuel consumption? Do heavy polluters get a free ride?
I'm not sure that makes any sense. Those people who might buy the "fire sale" tickets are already at the theater, and are already committed to seeing a movie at full price, since that's the only price the theater offers.
Also, if a theater did that, many many moviegoers would just wait until just before start time to buy their tickets. The ploy would fail soon after theatergoers knew the game.
This quote highlights that either you don't know what Keynesian economics are, or you are conflating Keynesian economic policy with a host of other things.
Keynesian doesn't mean "government involvement in markets". It is not the antithesis to free market theory, though those who espouse free market economics have bones to pick with Keynesian economics.
"The Maestro" wasn't Keynesian.
It appears you are very confused. Please do try to educate yourself, your rants are getting sillier and sillier as it becomes apparent that you are profoundly lacking in the education necessary to rationally discuss Keynesian economics.
That's one purpose, and it depends on how you define "promote". They also have other purposes, such as local-level lobbying to influence zoning boards, municipal regulations, etc.
Where I grew up, they were also active in promoting unregulated capitalism (they called it free-market, though it isn't in the economic sense of the term free-market) in the schools. It's "funny" that they (local Chambers) sponsored programming in the high schools to educate students about political topics that the state-level Chamber was pushing for. My recollection of those assemblies, in-class speakers, etc was that they were unabashedly pushing the Chamber's viewpoint... though it's only in hindsight that I became aware of what they were doing.