No, that might help the 0.000001% or so of groups that get a hit right away, and even then the artists would get very little. What's more, it means that if you don't spend a crap load on ads right away, you might not get any money at all for the work. It's hardly unheard of for a band to take more than 5 years to hit it big, so the early stuff wouldn't be something they would make any money off of.
As for riding it out, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. We don't require construction workers to tear down their house every 5 years if they built it themselves, or for landlords to do the same, just because they're "coasting" on something that they did once.
What's more, the risk involved with releasing a new movie or album is sufficient that you'd never pay back the risk for such a short copyright term. And, why should I buy the album now when I'd be able to wait 5 years and download it in full quality for free? 25 years at least ensures that anybody that really wanted it has probably already bought a copy.
Sort of, the tune itself is public domain, but the words aren't. The public domain words, IIRC, are the ones for "What day is today?" Pretty much as sung by Elzar on Futurama.
Sort of, there's already doctors using this sort of information to help people. It's just that we haven't hit the point where implants are safe or effective for many of these conditions.
But, some doctors do use the imaging to inform their decisions about what medications to use and to double check that the brain is responding as intended. It's not a common practice, and probably overkill for most folks, but it does seem to work.
Sort of, there is a ton of variability, but MRIs are pretty much worthless for this type of work. They'll show you where the neurons are, but they give very little information about how they're actually connected together.
There's stuff like SPECT and fMRIs that will do that. And ultimately, even the highest resolution imaging is still going to be insufficient with regards to implanting things where they belong, due to the density of the brain.
I've been reading up a lot on it lately, and I believe that in the near future there's going to be a lot more of these imaging tests done when people come in for treatment with any sort of complex neurological or psychiatric problems.
Precisely. The research is coming along, but unless a person is under medical supervision and has to have this done, I'd strongly recommend against it. And even then, I'd strongly recommend doing a real analysis of where one is and where one needs to be and think about it hard.
Mainstream neurologists still don't consider sudden uncontrollable rage to be a neurological symptom, even though it often times is a sign that there's something going wrong in the brain. Especially if it starts well after one is born. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong about that detail, as that should have been cause for a few brain scans.
Because you get to choose whether or not you're a member of the party.
I'm not responsible for the actions of other white men, unless I permit their behavior, but I am partially responsible for the behavior of any group I join.
As for discriminating against the GOP, they're main reason for existing is to discriminate against anybody that isn't in their shrinking clique. Sexual minorities, Muslims, the poor, children et al., are groups that they regularly act to marginalize.
The GOP is an opt in grouping of individuals based upon having similar views. These views include disbelief in climate change and skepticism science in general, so comparing it with the Chinese, Japanese or Blacks doesn't make any meaningful sense. These are not groups that you get to join later on because you like the cultural values.
No, and this post is probably one of the best examples of why there aren't very many conservatives in education.
You're assuming that becomes most professors are self identified liberals that it is getting into the curriculum. That's rather unlikely, especially in the sciences. There's nothing that academics like more than being known as the guy that had a big new idea, the only thing that comes close is being known as the guy who disproved somebody elses big idea.
If an idea does not have a strong basis in reality, it tends to get discarded fairly quickly as the folks out there are gunning to disprove it.
The "evidence" you're pointing at is pretty much a non-issue. Of course there are going to be more liberals in academia, the conservatives tend not to remain conservatives very long when evidence and reality come into it. Either they reform their ways, or they can't get funding because none of their research pans out. Either way, they're out of the system in favor of people that are actually knowledgeable about the field.
It might sound ridiculous, but it's the truth. It's a side effect of the right being so anti-science that there is no level of evidence sufficient to overcome the delusion. And the left generally being willing to at least consider it.
The result is that things will be biased in favor of the left.
So, it might sound ridiculous, but only to people that are lacking in intelligence.
It was your "leftwing indoctrination institutes" assertion that started this whole thread. Practice what you preach, then people might take you seriously.
Otherwise, you're in no position to tell anybody else about the virtues of non-partisanship as you're not managing it yourself.
That's always a problem when anybody does it. But, do you have any actual evidence to support the notion that it's more common on the left than the right?
And there's plenty of people on the left that question those things, it's just that you're too busy paying attention to the people that are on the far left.
Right, in a case like that they would be paying to create the materials, but that's not normal. My mother teaches at a college, and most of the time the instructors have to create their own materials, that they own. Sometimes they will get release time to create a new course, and that material is owned by the college.
But, typically when you have that sort of a situation, it's agreed to ahead of any content being created, the status quo is for the teacher to be paid to do a certain number of classes and for them to own whatever materials they create to teach the classes.
My big concern here is if they start requiring teachers to sign over all the rights to the materials so that they can use them online, and reduce the staffing requirements or farm more out to grad students and such. Never a good sign for the students, never a good sign for the teachers either.
That's primarily because reality has a left wing bias to it. Abortion, climate change, GLBT rights, economics, these are all things where the conservative agenda ignores research and fails to entertain the notion that there might be other possibilities going on there.
Which isn't surprising, seeing as conservatives in any system want things to remain as they were, and liberals want to progress into the future. So, of course, universities are going to appear to have a bias against conservatives, we don't yet know everything there is to know, which means that there's usually going to be a better way than what we previously knew.
Yes, but somehow I don't think giving all your income to the ex-wife in the form of alimony is the kind of screwing that the submitter is interested in.
I'd be more concerned with these classes displacing smaller classes. Apart from a relatively small minority of students, most students really do need much smaller class sizes. IIRC the drop out rate on CourseRA is something like 97% over the course of a class. Which means that for every 3 that successfully finish roughly 27 will fail to complete for one reason or another.
The largest classes you're likely to see in a normal environment are probably about 500, and those will usually have TAs and quiz sections. And even that's probably larger than normal.
Professors themselves aren't hired because they can create coursework, they're generally hired either for research or because they're good at interacting with the students. And usually the former. But, courses are not write once use for all eternity, you never get the same mix of students more than once, and the materials always require tweaking for best results.
Just because they work for a government funded school, does not give you the right to demand access to things that the teacher does to prepare for class. The school just pays for the contact hours and the assessment, not the creation of the materials. Typically if the school wants to own that, they have to pay for the materials to be developed.
The research OTOH, is a different matter, and it really depends where the funding comes from.
Interesting, but, you do realize that "left wing indoctrination" is what people in other countries call "education" right? Just because the facts don't back a conservative agenda does not make schools "left wing indoctrination institutes" it means that you're delusional.
Unless of course, serviscope, is right and the courses are titled like that.
And they were ultimately right. I don't screw with any of that bullshit when I'm in the car either. If I use GPS, I'll have it give me auditory directions periodically and not adjust it unless stopped. Any time your attention and or your eyes are not on the task of driving it will lead to impaired performance.
It's just things like changing CDs and directions on the GPS are difficult to prove as causation in a collision.
Not really. It's always been obvious that doing something that requires you to take your eyes off the road is a bad idea. Now, for somethings like checking the speedometer or other sensors you need to do so, texting isn't related to driving at all.
What's more, texting, talking and such use up some of your working memory. Depending upon the specifics it may or may not be a big deal, but it does negatively impact upon your performance.
Bottom line here is that things like this done while driving are unsafe until proven otherwise. Texting while driving is dangerous and barring scientific evidence to the contrary, I can't conceive of how anybody would think otherwise. Driving requires your eyes on the road.
Probably because you're an idiot. Read up on the economic situation in the US at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century if you want to see why Libertarianism is doomed to failure. Either by destroying the things that made America great or just fizzling out when there's no longer a supply of idiots to buy into it.
We used to have what the Libertarians want, and we no longer have it because it sucked.
Not really, those that believe in Libertarianism are generally not aware of what it's like to live under totalitarianism. Because then they would understand the difference between what we have in the US and totalitarianism.
Ultimately, getting the government out of our lives means that we also don't have the government there to protect us against corporate interests and the powerful coming in and just taking our stuff. Ironically it's mostly the Libertarian minded people in congress that are eroding our freedoms the most quickly.
No, definitely not, and that's why making voting compulsory is such a bad idea. The point of democracy is to widen the number of people making decisions to reduce the risk of things being missed. It's not to ensure that people, no matter how ignorant, can have a say in governance. That's just an unfortunate byproduct of not being able to decide who is and is not qualified to vote without the risk of screening out people that simply disagree.
If you're too lazy to inform yourself, you shouldn't be voting. People are going to cast votes that aren't for the best, the point of voting is to limit the influence that a small number of people making mistakes has on the governance of the region.
Slashdot Mirror
No, that might help the 0.000001% or so of groups that get a hit right away, and even then the artists would get very little. What's more, it means that if you don't spend a crap load on ads right away, you might not get any money at all for the work. It's hardly unheard of for a band to take more than 5 years to hit it big, so the early stuff wouldn't be something they would make any money off of.
As for riding it out, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so. We don't require construction workers to tear down their house every 5 years if they built it themselves, or for landlords to do the same, just because they're "coasting" on something that they did once.
What's more, the risk involved with releasing a new movie or album is sufficient that you'd never pay back the risk for such a short copyright term. And, why should I buy the album now when I'd be able to wait 5 years and download it in full quality for free? 25 years at least ensures that anybody that really wanted it has probably already bought a copy.
Sort of, the tune itself is public domain, but the words aren't. The public domain words, IIRC, are the ones for "What day is today?" Pretty much as sung by Elzar on Futurama.
Sort of, there's already doctors using this sort of information to help people. It's just that we haven't hit the point where implants are safe or effective for many of these conditions.
But, some doctors do use the imaging to inform their decisions about what medications to use and to double check that the brain is responding as intended. It's not a common practice, and probably overkill for most folks, but it does seem to work.
Sort of, there is a ton of variability, but MRIs are pretty much worthless for this type of work. They'll show you where the neurons are, but they give very little information about how they're actually connected together.
There's stuff like SPECT and fMRIs that will do that. And ultimately, even the highest resolution imaging is still going to be insufficient with regards to implanting things where they belong, due to the density of the brain.
I've been reading up a lot on it lately, and I believe that in the near future there's going to be a lot more of these imaging tests done when people come in for treatment with any sort of complex neurological or psychiatric problems.
Yes, program yourself to live in rural Wisconsin, I can guarantee you won't see any non-white people for months on end.
Precisely. The research is coming along, but unless a person is under medical supervision and has to have this done, I'd strongly recommend against it. And even then, I'd strongly recommend doing a real analysis of where one is and where one needs to be and think about it hard.
Mainstream neurologists still don't consider sudden uncontrollable rage to be a neurological symptom, even though it often times is a sign that there's something going wrong in the brain. Especially if it starts well after one is born. I sincerely hope that I'm wrong about that detail, as that should have been cause for a few brain scans.
Because you get to choose whether or not you're a member of the party.
I'm not responsible for the actions of other white men, unless I permit their behavior, but I am partially responsible for the behavior of any group I join.
As for discriminating against the GOP, they're main reason for existing is to discriminate against anybody that isn't in their shrinking clique. Sexual minorities, Muslims, the poor, children et al., are groups that they regularly act to marginalize.
The GOP is an opt in grouping of individuals based upon having similar views. These views include disbelief in climate change and skepticism science in general, so comparing it with the Chinese, Japanese or Blacks doesn't make any meaningful sense. These are not groups that you get to join later on because you like the cultural values.
No, and this post is probably one of the best examples of why there aren't very many conservatives in education.
You're assuming that becomes most professors are self identified liberals that it is getting into the curriculum. That's rather unlikely, especially in the sciences. There's nothing that academics like more than being known as the guy that had a big new idea, the only thing that comes close is being known as the guy who disproved somebody elses big idea.
If an idea does not have a strong basis in reality, it tends to get discarded fairly quickly as the folks out there are gunning to disprove it.
The "evidence" you're pointing at is pretty much a non-issue. Of course there are going to be more liberals in academia, the conservatives tend not to remain conservatives very long when evidence and reality come into it. Either they reform their ways, or they can't get funding because none of their research pans out. Either way, they're out of the system in favor of people that are actually knowledgeable about the field.
It might sound ridiculous, but it's the truth. It's a side effect of the right being so anti-science that there is no level of evidence sufficient to overcome the delusion. And the left generally being willing to at least consider it.
The result is that things will be biased in favor of the left.
So, it might sound ridiculous, but only to people that are lacking in intelligence.
It was your "leftwing indoctrination institutes" assertion that started this whole thread. Practice what you preach, then people might take you seriously.
Otherwise, you're in no position to tell anybody else about the virtues of non-partisanship as you're not managing it yourself.
That's always a problem when anybody does it. But, do you have any actual evidence to support the notion that it's more common on the left than the right?
And there's plenty of people on the left that question those things, it's just that you're too busy paying attention to the people that are on the far left.
Right, in a case like that they would be paying to create the materials, but that's not normal. My mother teaches at a college, and most of the time the instructors have to create their own materials, that they own. Sometimes they will get release time to create a new course, and that material is owned by the college.
But, typically when you have that sort of a situation, it's agreed to ahead of any content being created, the status quo is for the teacher to be paid to do a certain number of classes and for them to own whatever materials they create to teach the classes.
My big concern here is if they start requiring teachers to sign over all the rights to the materials so that they can use them online, and reduce the staffing requirements or farm more out to grad students and such. Never a good sign for the students, never a good sign for the teachers either.
That's primarily because reality has a left wing bias to it. Abortion, climate change, GLBT rights, economics, these are all things where the conservative agenda ignores research and fails to entertain the notion that there might be other possibilities going on there.
Which isn't surprising, seeing as conservatives in any system want things to remain as they were, and liberals want to progress into the future. So, of course, universities are going to appear to have a bias against conservatives, we don't yet know everything there is to know, which means that there's usually going to be a better way than what we previously knew.
Yes, but somehow I don't think giving all your income to the ex-wife in the form of alimony is the kind of screwing that the submitter is interested in.
I'd be more concerned with these classes displacing smaller classes. Apart from a relatively small minority of students, most students really do need much smaller class sizes. IIRC the drop out rate on CourseRA is something like 97% over the course of a class. Which means that for every 3 that successfully finish roughly 27 will fail to complete for one reason or another.
The largest classes you're likely to see in a normal environment are probably about 500, and those will usually have TAs and quiz sections. And even that's probably larger than normal.
Professors themselves aren't hired because they can create coursework, they're generally hired either for research or because they're good at interacting with the students. And usually the former. But, courses are not write once use for all eternity, you never get the same mix of students more than once, and the materials always require tweaking for best results.
Just because they work for a government funded school, does not give you the right to demand access to things that the teacher does to prepare for class. The school just pays for the contact hours and the assessment, not the creation of the materials. Typically if the school wants to own that, they have to pay for the materials to be developed.
The research OTOH, is a different matter, and it really depends where the funding comes from.
Interesting, but, you do realize that "left wing indoctrination" is what people in other countries call "education" right? Just because the facts don't back a conservative agenda does not make schools "left wing indoctrination institutes" it means that you're delusional.
Unless of course, serviscope, is right and the courses are titled like that.
And they were ultimately right. I don't screw with any of that bullshit when I'm in the car either. If I use GPS, I'll have it give me auditory directions periodically and not adjust it unless stopped. Any time your attention and or your eyes are not on the task of driving it will lead to impaired performance.
It's just things like changing CDs and directions on the GPS are difficult to prove as causation in a collision.
Not really. It's always been obvious that doing something that requires you to take your eyes off the road is a bad idea. Now, for somethings like checking the speedometer or other sensors you need to do so, texting isn't related to driving at all.
What's more, texting, talking and such use up some of your working memory. Depending upon the specifics it may or may not be a big deal, but it does negatively impact upon your performance.
Bottom line here is that things like this done while driving are unsafe until proven otherwise. Texting while driving is dangerous and barring scientific evidence to the contrary, I can't conceive of how anybody would think otherwise. Driving requires your eyes on the road.
And in other news, water is wet, and jumping off a tall building is a "bad idea."
Probably because you're an idiot. Read up on the economic situation in the US at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century if you want to see why Libertarianism is doomed to failure. Either by destroying the things that made America great or just fizzling out when there's no longer a supply of idiots to buy into it.
We used to have what the Libertarians want, and we no longer have it because it sucked.
Not really, those that believe in Libertarianism are generally not aware of what it's like to live under totalitarianism. Because then they would understand the difference between what we have in the US and totalitarianism.
Ultimately, getting the government out of our lives means that we also don't have the government there to protect us against corporate interests and the powerful coming in and just taking our stuff. Ironically it's mostly the Libertarian minded people in congress that are eroding our freedoms the most quickly.
No, definitely not, and that's why making voting compulsory is such a bad idea. The point of democracy is to widen the number of people making decisions to reduce the risk of things being missed. It's not to ensure that people, no matter how ignorant, can have a say in governance. That's just an unfortunate byproduct of not being able to decide who is and is not qualified to vote without the risk of screening out people that simply disagree.
If you're too lazy to inform yourself, you shouldn't be voting. People are going to cast votes that aren't for the best, the point of voting is to limit the influence that a small number of people making mistakes has on the governance of the region.
Not consistently, there may have been some where they did that, but it was definitely not always the case.