But, so far as I understand it, the vast majority of molestations come from close friends and family members.
And the vast majority of traffic accidents happen five minutes from home. But that's because most driving happens five minutes from home. Likewise, the vast majority of molestations come from close friends and family members because those are the people who have the most opportunities for unsupervised access to the child. In short, duh.
This does not mean that internet predators are not a problem. The difference lies in what can be done about it. In the offline world, you can't just flip a switch and instantly eliminate a bunch of opportunities for sexual predators to have unsupervised access to children. But you can do this online, to some extent.
Yes, they try to prove/disporve thing, but by experiment, not through rigerous theory.
The experiments are just as bad. The biggest problem I have is that they seem to have no awareness of significance testing. Without an evaluation of the statistical significance of their results, they can't claim to have proved or disproved anything... A negative result ("busted") could simply mean that their sample size was too small.
I love the show, but it would never pass peer review:-)
You control everything that is recorded and how long it stays on the box. You can keep anything you record forever if you so desire.
Sadly, that is not true. I have seen more than one red flag over the last few weeks saying that the program couldn't be kept longer than 7 days or saved to VCR.
And this is where this argument always fails for a variety of reasons. Income is only deprived if the person receiving the "free" copy would have paid for it in the first place had they not been able to get the free copy.
You cannot seriously be suggesting that this never happens. The argument does not require that it must happen in every single case. In the end, income is lost, yet mysteriously no one seems to be responsible.
It also bears mentioning that even the hypothetical person who would never have purchased a single item could still contribute to the loss of income by making it available to others.
I've always thought that it was the height of human arrogance to presume that life on other worlds would be recognizable to us as "life" at all.
It isn't a presumption; it's pragmatism. When you want to find something, you look for it first in the place where you think you are most likely to find it. That is not the same thing as presuming that it can't possibly be anywhere else.
We look for Earth-like life because 1) we know beyond all doubt that it can exist in our universe, and as far as we know, it is unique in that respect; and 2) we know something about what is required for it to exist, which allows us to narrow the scope of our search. Since we don't have the time or the resources to look for every conceivable form of life everywhere at once, we have to make choices, and this is the choice which, to the best of our knowledge, has the highest chance of success.
I guess the RIAA never saw the study that says that file sharers spent more money buying music online than those who don't share music at all."
And another slashdotter tries to conflate correlation with causation. This "study" fails to answer the only relevant question: how much money would they have spent on music otherwise?
I buy more commercial beer than the average person, even though I'm also a homebrewer. This doesn't mean that I buy more commercial beer because I'm a homebrewer; it simply means that I really like the stuff, and I will tap into a variety of sources to satisfy my appetite for it. Thus, if I didn't homebrew my own, I would buy more commercial beer, not less.
Here's a news flash: Contrary to your apparent experience, not all sound recordings are of sweaty guys with electric guitars. Not all people who create sound recordings have the option of "doing gigs" to make money. Not all sound recordings are even of music.
You haven't put in the time and effort that I have, and until you do, you're going to have a difficult time of convincing me that you're entitled to that little opinion of yours.
Oh, PLEASE. Are you actually trying to pull rank? How about this: I have a degree in music. So do I qualify for the right to state my opinion that the grandparent poster is 100% correct?
You're a hobbyist, by your own admission. If you don't make your living as a musician, I wonder why you feel compelled to weigh in on this issue in the first place. After all, no one is ever going to FORCE you to make money on your music. No one will ever prevent you from giving your own music away for free. Therefore, you have no cause for complaint.
Unless, of course, the real issue is that you want to get other people's music for free. Which I suspect is the true basis of your opinion.
Intellectual property is not just about making money. Suppose that you were popular enough that someone wanted to use one of your songs in an advertisement for something you consider morally repugnant. Without the concept of intellectual property, you would be unable to prevent this from happening, and you could find yourself living out the rest of your life as "the guy who wrote the NAMBLA jingle," or whatever. If you really "love the art" as much as you say you do, doesn't this concern you?
Cougars may be considered a "large cat" for etymological purposes
In fact, taxonomically, the puma is considered one of the "small cats" (felinae). But taxonomy is not about size; it's about natural relationships. The puma is roughly the same size as the jaguar, even though the latter, being more closely related to lions and tigers, is considered one of the "big cats" (pantherinae).
but when large cat experts talk about large cats, they ain't talking about cougars, son.
Yes, thank you Captain Obvious, I realize that the puma (or cougar) is not the largest cat in the world. It is, however, the fourth largest. It's a LARGE CAT, already.
Yes, but as the Wikipedia article states, there have only been about 100 reported attacks on humans in the past century, of which only 16 were fatal. Pumas have much more to fear from us (and for that matter, so do we -- 14,408 murders in the year 2003 alone).
This sounds great in theory, but where in the US are we going to put free roaming lions so they will be no danger to persistantly encroaching civilization?
North America is no stranger to large, free roaming, wild cats. Most of the time, we get along just fine (read: leave each other alone).
I'm tired of people in online discussion forums preceding every vicious insult with the words "you, sir." For example, "You, sir, are an ass," "You, sir, are a coward," etc.
Stop it. It only makes you look haughty and pretentious. No one in the 21st century speaks that way in real life. (If you DO, then this advice applies doubly to you.)
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, you've made it all clear for me. Fire the police, repeal all legislation. Apparently they don't actually protect anyone.
Actually, they are appearing on regular network broadcast shows. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.
Who protects you from crime? Why should they protect you, and not children?
And the vast majority of traffic accidents happen five minutes from home. But that's because most driving happens five minutes from home. Likewise, the vast majority of molestations come from close friends and family members because those are the people who have the most opportunities for unsupervised access to the child. In short, duh.
This does not mean that internet predators are not a problem. The difference lies in what can be done about it. In the offline world, you can't just flip a switch and instantly eliminate a bunch of opportunities for sexual predators to have unsupervised access to children. But you can do this online, to some extent.
The experiments are just as bad. The biggest problem I have is that they seem to have no awareness of significance testing. Without an evaluation of the statistical significance of their results, they can't claim to have proved or disproved anything... A negative result ("busted") could simply mean that their sample size was too small.
I love the show, but it would never pass peer review :-)
*forehead L*
Sadly, that is not true. I have seen more than one red flag over the last few weeks saying that the program couldn't be kept longer than 7 days or saved to VCR.
I wonder why...
- clueless "Leadership"
- retards
- bastards
Couldn't possibly have anything to do with your attitude, could it?You cannot seriously be suggesting that this never happens. The argument does not require that it must happen in every single case. In the end, income is lost, yet mysteriously no one seems to be responsible.
It also bears mentioning that even the hypothetical person who would never have purchased a single item could still contribute to the loss of income by making it available to others.
It isn't a presumption; it's pragmatism. When you want to find something, you look for it first in the place where you think you are most likely to find it. That is not the same thing as presuming that it can't possibly be anywhere else.
We look for Earth-like life because 1) we know beyond all doubt that it can exist in our universe, and as far as we know, it is unique in that respect; and 2) we know something about what is required for it to exist, which allows us to narrow the scope of our search. Since we don't have the time or the resources to look for every conceivable form of life everywhere at once, we have to make choices, and this is the choice which, to the best of our knowledge, has the highest chance of success.
You're right. I just got back from a football game (by way of the ER), and it couldn't have been more pleasant.
All of you naysayers will be eating your words once the price of crystite goes through the roof.
And another slashdotter tries to conflate correlation with causation. This "study" fails to answer the only relevant question: how much money would they have spent on music otherwise?
I buy more commercial beer than the average person, even though I'm also a homebrewer. This doesn't mean that I buy more commercial beer because I'm a homebrewer; it simply means that I really like the stuff, and I will tap into a variety of sources to satisfy my appetite for it. Thus, if I didn't homebrew my own, I would buy more commercial beer, not less.
s/commercial beer/legal music/
s/homebrew/download/
Hmmm... Maybe the problem is that you're not as fluent as you think you are :-)
Ah, good to see that the lameness filter is doing its job!
Before any PETA types get all worked up, I just want to point out that the hats are made from skin-regenerating Australiam kittens.
So. What about them?
Oh, PLEASE. Are you actually trying to pull rank? How about this: I have a degree in music. So do I qualify for the right to state my opinion that the grandparent poster is 100% correct?
You're a hobbyist, by your own admission. If you don't make your living as a musician, I wonder why you feel compelled to weigh in on this issue in the first place. After all, no one is ever going to FORCE you to make money on your music. No one will ever prevent you from giving your own music away for free. Therefore, you have no cause for complaint.
Unless, of course, the real issue is that you want to get other people's music for free. Which I suspect is the true basis of your opinion.
Intellectual property is not just about making money. Suppose that you were popular enough that someone wanted to use one of your songs in an advertisement for something you consider morally repugnant. Without the concept of intellectual property, you would be unable to prevent this from happening, and you could find yourself living out the rest of your life as "the guy who wrote the NAMBLA jingle," or whatever. If you really "love the art" as much as you say you do, doesn't this concern you?
In fact, taxonomically, the puma is considered one of the "small cats" (felinae). But taxonomy is not about size; it's about natural relationships. The puma is roughly the same size as the jaguar, even though the latter, being more closely related to lions and tigers, is considered one of the "big cats" (pantherinae).
but when large cat experts talk about large cats, they ain't talking about cougars, son.
Yes, thank you Captain Obvious, I realize that the puma (or cougar) is not the largest cat in the world. It is, however, the fourth largest. It's a LARGE CAT, already.
Yes, but as the Wikipedia article states, there have only been about 100 reported attacks on humans in the past century, of which only 16 were fatal. Pumas have much more to fear from us (and for that matter, so do we -- 14,408 murders in the year 2003 alone).
North America is no stranger to large, free roaming, wild cats. Most of the time, we get along just fine (read: leave each other alone).
I'm tired of people in online discussion forums preceding every vicious insult with the words "you, sir." For example, "You, sir, are an ass," "You, sir, are a coward," etc.
Stop it. It only makes you look haughty and pretentious. No one in the 21st century speaks that way in real life. (If you DO, then this advice applies doubly to you.)
Stop saying "You, sir."