This is one of the reasons copyright law needs to be reconsidered in an era of digital content
That is probably the most terrifying aspect of all this to me. Suppose we do the job and convince the Congresscritters to reconsider copyright. Does anyone here actually think it'll turn out the way we want? Raise your hand if you do.
They fucked things up with the DMCA, and they're gonna fuck things up with this. If you need any further convincing, spend some time browsing here.
Bah. I fixed this for you just because I wanted to read it & your wall of text was indecipherable. The Preview button exists for a reason! Here goes:
I can't understand why anyone would vote for him.
Let me supply an answer just so you understand the opposition. I will probably be modded down for this, but here goes...
Being a disabled vet, I would rather vote for someone who served their country and NEVER backed down even after years of torture for their service. This as opposed to someone who refused to wear a lapel pin of a flag for a while. (Whatever his reasons were - things like that don't sit well with us veterans)
Associations with terrorists, and anti-american groups. See - this is the sticky part. I DO question the patriotism of people who "damn America", who are not proud of their country, and have business dealings with people or groups who have publicly acknowledged they wished they had blown up more US buildings. (William Ayers...)
Someone who is PROMISING to tax me more - doesn't really encourage me. I work hard for what I have. Instead of watching MTV or sitting around drinking and playing football - I studied as a youngster. Don't blame me if my hard work gets me a higher paycheck. I will give to charities or other groups as I see fit - but don't take my money from me by force and give it to groups who did nothing to earn it.
Ok - that's my main list. I am sure there will be plenty of people to tear me down, or down-mod me. I just wanted to make a point that there ARE people who disagree with you, and some of the reasons for it. I personally don't like McCain as a candidate as much as I would have liked Ron Paul (oops - I've said too much!), but I really don't like Obama as a candidate. There's my $0.02... now get off my lawn!
This is OT, but I've got karma to burn, so what the hell?
Hey dude. If you're going to talk smack about a politician's lack of knowledge, you might try to spell "than" properly. You come off as an angry 14-year-old who hasn't the faintest clue what's going on.
Oh, I don't know, he could be talking about the fact that White House staffers used RNC emails instead of their official accounts and, among other causes for investigation, probably destroyed thousands of emails that should be publicly available.
The fact that this hasn't caused more of an uproar is a sad statement about what we're willing to accept from our government and, in particular, this Administration.
Nonsense. Thomas Jefferson explicitly worries about the ability of our system to have legitimate control over future generations, given the constant revolutions we go through.
At one point, he even suggests that we should wipe out all laws every 19 years (a number he derived from population density and life expectancy at the time).
If this thread picks up I'll go find the citations for this. It's in TJ's letters (to Madison, I believe).
Revolution, armed or not, is at the core of our system of government.
First, mods: this is OT and I'm feeding a semi-troll and I know it.
Second, to the parent: I see what you're saying, but Quad G5s don't exactly comprise the bulk of the PPC Mac's installed base. I don't have numbers on-hand, but I'd bet the vast majority of PPC Macs out there are iBooks, iMacs, and single-CPU G4s and G5s. Those are far slower than, say, even my October 2007 MacBook. And this isn't coming from a guy who dislikes those boxes - I finally sold my last PPC Mac in February of this year.
Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about. You know those cute little webpages where you click on "screenshot" and the page dims and a popup comes up with the shot? (If not, check out some of the screen shots on iusethis.com.) That effect was almost totally unusable on my 2001 G4 tower and only moderately bearable on my latest edition iBook. I didn't see screenshots for months because of that nonsense. Now, can you imagine Photosynth using that hardware?
Point being: don't dis MS until you have some confirmation that they're going to screw Mac users. I'm not saying to welcome them into your home and make them dinner, but there's no need - right now - to get all bent out of shape about the (current) lack of a Mac version.
You may well be right, but a lot of kids in "these third world countries" don't have much choice. They're threatened, beaten, or otherwise forced.
This is like saying, "If the kids in Liberia had just stopped killing each other..." It's true, but it's not capturing the reality of the situation, which is that more powerful and more pernicious individuals are running their lives, in a very real sense.
Not only is it not recommended that casual fitness enthusiasts exercise for 2 hours per day, but the parent is ignoring the psychological benefits of regular exercise. That's not a jock's advice - it's just a simple fact that you'll feel better with regular exercise than you would by merely avoiding atrophy.
Don't straw man me - I never said bridges to nowhere weren't pork. You and I are 100% on the same page there. But my questions remain unanswered - what do we do about national parks, interstate trails & parks, the D.C.?
And our own disagreement brings another question to mind: how do we see determine which projects are legitimate expenses for government and which are "simply a luxury?" Maybe we should choose some group of people to represent us and vote on it...
I wouldn't say "inherently," but your point is well-taken.
Still, some questions might remain. For instance, what about such attractions in D.C.? Or at our national parks? Or what should the federal government do if the states refuse to act on what is arguably a set of legitimate needs?
I'm sorry, but do you really think bike trails and fountains are pork?
No, they're not investments in science in engineering - which we surely need more of - but these two contribute to the public's physical and mental health, respectively. No small matter, that.
The distinction's not as clear as you seem to think. With the iTunes/FP setup, I install media, know my options with regard to said media, and I choose to continue using the software regulating those rights.
There's a clear contrast, and an important one, as far as I'm concerned. With one, I'm fully aware of what's happening - even if I disagree with it - while with the other I'm duped for just attempting to play a CD.
Now, I don't know if you really wanted to compare FairPlay to this defunct service, but it's a no-brainer to me. As long as I keep a local copy of my AAC files & iTunes (or de-FairPlayed AAC files and any of a number of options) I get to keep listening to my music. Connect managed to come through with instructions on how to avoid the fate that customers of other fee-based services have endured, but why go with such a service in the first place? Gimme a local copy any time.
Yeah? On my box, I chose to install iTunes. I don't recall getting to do that with Sony's rootkits.
You're absolutely right that opt-out is a bad way for Apple to push software. But, again, that's a non-unique complaint. And when we're already selecting the lesser of two evils, I have to say I prefer the software that provides a decent service and at least lets you break its defaults.
I sometimes use them when I'm... oh... going to the theater
Well, I didn't say anything about getting movies online legally. The fact is that this website should provide the sort of one-stop shop a lot of consumers look for. A similar response can be given to your "critiques" of each of these services.
None of them are perfect, and I never claimed they were. But I think it's silly that those of us who have spent so much time lambasting the MPAA for its heavy-handed methods are now assailing them for providing a non-profit index of legal services. "Ooooooh! How eeeeeevil of the MPAA! Please don't inform me of where you'd like me to shop!"
The iPod isn't the only device iTMS movies play on. Get your facts straight.
If I thought for a minute it would help increase competition, maybe that would be a point. I don't.
Ok. Here's some substantive disagreement. I think the fact that these sites are all linked on the same site will put them in direct competition with each other. If I want tickets, then I'll pick the site that charges less for reserving tickets. If I want a rental, I'll consider the price/benefit ratio of getting a movie tonight at X price vs. Wednesday at Y price, etc. I think that's pretty straightforward.
The complaint that FairPlay requires specific software is a) hardly unique, since just about every DRM system does, and b) effectively false.
I don't claim that iTunes is perfect - the downloading of extra software is particularly troublesome - but it's a pretty decent piece of jukebox software.
Besides, Apple at least has shown a history of at least appearing to listen to customers' requests. Witness, for example, the advent of "iTunes Plus" songs on the iTMS.
FTFA:the site "could include links to Fandango, Movietickets.com, Amazon, Netflix, iTunes, Xbox Live Video, Hulu, and more."
What part of that sounds like a "piss-poor selection" of "crippled" flicks? Fandango and Movietickets, at least, aren't exactly DRM purveyors. And Apple's DRM is one of the least onerous options out there, for "legit" viewing.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I actually think this is a good move on the MPAA's part. I do want to know where I can get movies legally, and this could help increase competition - better for my bottom line. I'm not going to complain about what appears to be a sincere attempt to address consumers' needs.
Not that the linked graph isn't a brilliant piece of research, but let's be honest about the climate we're in. If I told you that the Center for American Progress disagrees, would you care? Would you even take it seriously?
To be fair, your graph is based on data from the CBO, which was already Democrat-controlled when the report was released. On the other hand, it's without context. That is, how have domestic income tax receipts decreased in the same period?
Moreover, if you'll recall, we've experienced a general economic recovery since that time -- until relatively recently -- which may or may not be due to the tax cuts. (I think we can guess where each other's intuitions lie here.) There's no obvious reason to take the correlation between tax cuts and corporate income tax receipts as a causal indicator. Plenty of other options abound.
Well, sure. Advice can be bad. No doubt. But then again, a lot of doctors recommend these drugs, too. Should we stop giving them our private information?
According to your wp link, Seldane was pulled in 1997. So your complaint is about ads that had to have happened 11 years ago? Sorry, but even if you're right about the pitfalls of advertising, you should give the industry another shot. Things have changed in the last decade.
Apparently, YMMV with these things. It's fairly often now that I get very well-targeted ads. No, the system's not perfect. But my point all along is that these services/portals need data to provide these services. If we insist on griping - even when, as in this case, they fight to protect it from others - then... meh. Either online ads will always stay bad and annoying, or we'll stop putting up with them and start having to pay for the services we use online.
The point is that they have an investment in NOT targeting Rogaine ads at you, if you have a full head of hair. It doesn't bother me one whit that that investment is real and monetary.
If my boss tells me how I can solve a problem, then regardless of her personal motivation for giving me that assistance, it's advice. I don't care that her sole motivation is that she stands to gain from it - if she helps me solve a problem, it's an aid to me.
Now let's think about Google. I really don't care whether they only point me toward widgets because they think they'll get compensation for my clicks. If I actually want widgets, and they've done the work to figure out that widgets would fit well into my lifestyle, then super. Thanks, Google. You've helped me out.
If you insist on not letting Google have your data, then you're insisting on their being unable to target ads to things you want/like/need. That's fine, if that's how you feel like interacting with the company. But you can't consistently complain both that their ads aren't advice and that they want your data. They're not mind-readers.
Look. When I go to YouTube, I know that they're going to retain my data. When I log in to my Google homepage, I know that they're going to be monitoring my searches and slipping ads into my results. I'm not so stupid as to think that, when I'm reading an email about an upcoming trip, Gmail has just randomly decided to insert ads for Priceline. I get it. They're using my history and habits to target advertising to me.
I'm ok with that. It's the price I pay for the services they provide. Besides, at some point ads stop being ads and start being advice. After years of using Google, I actually click on the ads they insert occasionally. Why? Because they're well-targeted.
Moreover, it's trivial to protect your information & still use some of Google's less personalized services (search, YouTube). Your complaining about Google's well-known business practices makes me think that you either are unaware of these options or are under the impression that tinfoil hats are fashionable.
Let me go ahead and say this in case GP doesn't: what the fuck are you talking about? I'm not sure where the GP is supposed to be "ascribing a value to an idea, per se," but I suppose you're assuming he's doing that when he claims that ID is bad philosophy. But that's about the stupidest thing I've heard today: we can talk about things being bad cooking, bad building, bad science, etc. Philosophy is, in a real sense, a method of approach. Thus, one can do it well or one can do it badly.
Your dig on Tulsa and the philosophy of religion shows that you're TOTALLY fucking ignorant of philosophy. If you had the FAINTEST fucking clue you'd recognize that this field is one of the longest-standing pillars of the philosophical enterprise - read the Euthyphro, for God's sake. (For the record, I studied philosophy, too, and I hated philosophy of religion - just wasn't my bag - but I'm not so stupid or ignorant as to act like it's not a big deal in the world.)
The rest of your post - sociology? shared inner beliefs? (what does an outer belief look like?) Jungian psychology? WTF? - is nearly incomprehensible.
Go smoke some more pot and think you're deep.
(Mods: I know this is flamebait, don't give a shit. Sorry.)
I didn't read "The Pernese" on first load. I read "I" or something. So, rather than being informative and witty all at the same time, I'm just a jackass. My mistake.
True story. Where I live, WiFi is ubiquitous. It's more shocking to me when a shop doesn't have it. And in the downtown area, there's pretty wide-area coverage. Apparently the city's doing some kind of experiment in conjunction with Cisco.
All this means that I'm spoiled. I suspect a lot of other/.'ers are spoiled, too. And if I've come to expect free WiFi, I most certainly won't go to a shop where they don't have it. On the other hand - and probably more importantly - if I haven't come to expect such a thing, and your shop provides it, then congratulations, you've just won another customer.
I could understand why SBUX went with T-Mobile back in 2000 or 2001, but it seems pretty inexplicable now.
That's all well and good, but it looks like you're confusing psychiatry and psychology - two very different fields.
Note that I don't think psychiatry is "complete pseudoscience," either. I'm just saying, if you want to make that case, you should get the terms right.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the reasons copyright law needs to be reconsidered in an era of digital content
That is probably the most terrifying aspect of all this to me. Suppose we do the job and convince the Congresscritters to reconsider copyright. Does anyone here actually think it'll turn out the way we want? Raise your hand if you do.
They fucked things up with the DMCA, and they're gonna fuck things up with this. If you need any further convincing, spend some time browsing here.
Bah. I fixed this for you just because I wanted to read it & your wall of text was indecipherable. The Preview button exists for a reason! Here goes:
I can't understand why anyone would vote for him.
Let me supply an answer just so you understand the opposition. I will probably be modded down for this, but here goes...
Ok - that's my main list. I am sure there will be plenty of people to tear me down, or down-mod me. I just wanted to make a point that there ARE people who disagree with you, and some of the reasons for it. I personally don't like McCain as a candidate as much as I would have liked Ron Paul (oops - I've said too much!), but I really don't like Obama as a candidate. There's my $0.02... now get off my lawn!
This is OT, but I've got karma to burn, so what the hell?
Hey dude. If you're going to talk smack about a politician's lack of knowledge, you might try to spell "than" properly. You come off as an angry 14-year-old who hasn't the faintest clue what's going on.
Oh, I don't know, he could be talking about the fact that White House staffers used RNC emails instead of their official accounts and, among other causes for investigation, probably destroyed thousands of emails that should be publicly available.
The fact that this hasn't caused more of an uproar is a sad statement about what we're willing to accept from our government and, in particular, this Administration.
Nonsense. Thomas Jefferson explicitly worries about the ability of our system to have legitimate control over future generations, given the constant revolutions we go through.
At one point, he even suggests that we should wipe out all laws every 19 years (a number he derived from population density and life expectancy at the time).
If this thread picks up I'll go find the citations for this. It's in TJ's letters (to Madison, I believe).
Revolution, armed or not, is at the core of our system of government.
First, mods: this is OT and I'm feeding a semi-troll and I know it.
Second, to the parent: I see what you're saying, but Quad G5s don't exactly comprise the bulk of the PPC Mac's installed base. I don't have numbers on-hand, but I'd bet the vast majority of PPC Macs out there are iBooks, iMacs, and single-CPU G4s and G5s. Those are far slower than, say, even my October 2007 MacBook. And this isn't coming from a guy who dislikes those boxes - I finally sold my last PPC Mac in February of this year.
Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about. You know those cute little webpages where you click on "screenshot" and the page dims and a popup comes up with the shot? (If not, check out some of the screen shots on iusethis.com.) That effect was almost totally unusable on my 2001 G4 tower and only moderately bearable on my latest edition iBook. I didn't see screenshots for months because of that nonsense. Now, can you imagine Photosynth using that hardware?
Point being: don't dis MS until you have some confirmation that they're going to screw Mac users. I'm not saying to welcome them into your home and make them dinner, but there's no need - right now - to get all bent out of shape about the (current) lack of a Mac version.
You may well be right, but a lot of kids in "these third world countries" don't have much choice. They're threatened, beaten, or otherwise forced.
This is like saying, "If the kids in Liberia had just stopped killing each other..." It's true, but it's not capturing the reality of the situation, which is that more powerful and more pernicious individuals are running their lives, in a very real sense.
Why the hell did this get modded +3 Insightful?
Not only is it not recommended that casual fitness enthusiasts exercise for 2 hours per day, but the parent is ignoring the psychological benefits of regular exercise. That's not a jock's advice - it's just a simple fact that you'll feel better with regular exercise than you would by merely avoiding atrophy.
Don't straw man me - I never said bridges to nowhere weren't pork. You and I are 100% on the same page there. But my questions remain unanswered - what do we do about national parks, interstate trails & parks, the D.C.?
And our own disagreement brings another question to mind: how do we see determine which projects are legitimate expenses for government and which are "simply a luxury?" Maybe we should choose some group of people to represent us and vote on it...
I wouldn't say "inherently," but your point is well-taken.
Still, some questions might remain. For instance, what about such attractions in D.C.? Or at our national parks? Or what should the federal government do if the states refuse to act on what is arguably a set of legitimate needs?
I'm sorry, but do you really think bike trails and fountains are pork?
No, they're not investments in science in engineering - which we surely need more of - but these two contribute to the public's physical and mental health, respectively. No small matter, that.
The distinction's not as clear as you seem to think. With the iTunes/FP setup, I install media, know my options with regard to said media, and I choose to continue using the software regulating those rights.
Sony's solution", however, meant I didn't get to know my options, didn't get to make any decisions regarding what went on my box, etc.
There's a clear contrast, and an important one, as far as I'm concerned. With one, I'm fully aware of what's happening - even if I disagree with it - while with the other I'm duped for just attempting to play a CD.
Now, I don't know if you really wanted to compare FairPlay to this defunct service, but it's a no-brainer to me. As long as I keep a local copy of my AAC files & iTunes (or de-FairPlayed AAC files and any of a number of options) I get to keep listening to my music. Connect managed to come through with instructions on how to avoid the fate that customers of other fee-based services have endured, but why go with such a service in the first place? Gimme a local copy any time.
which is worse than even what Sony managed
Yeah? On my box, I chose to install iTunes. I don't recall getting to do that with Sony's rootkits.
You're absolutely right that opt-out is a bad way for Apple to push software. But, again, that's a non-unique complaint. And when we're already selecting the lesser of two evils, I have to say I prefer the software that provides a decent service and at least lets you break its defaults.
I sometimes use them when I'm... oh... going to the theater
Well, I didn't say anything about getting movies online legally. The fact is that this website should provide the sort of one-stop shop a lot of consumers look for. A similar response can be given to your "critiques" of each of these services.
None of them are perfect, and I never claimed they were. But I think it's silly that those of us who have spent so much time lambasting the MPAA for its heavy-handed methods are now assailing them for providing a non-profit index of legal services. "Ooooooh! How eeeeeevil of the MPAA! Please don't inform me of where you'd like me to shop!"
The iPod isn't the only device iTMS movies play on. Get your facts straight.
If I thought for a minute it would help increase competition, maybe that would be a point. I don't.
Ok. Here's some substantive disagreement. I think the fact that these sites are all linked on the same site will put them in direct competition with each other. If I want tickets, then I'll pick the site that charges less for reserving tickets. If I want a rental, I'll consider the price/benefit ratio of getting a movie tonight at X price vs. Wednesday at Y price, etc. I think that's pretty straightforward.
The complaint that FairPlay requires specific software is a) hardly unique, since just about every DRM system does, and b) effectively false.
I don't claim that iTunes is perfect - the downloading of extra software is particularly troublesome - but it's a pretty decent piece of jukebox software.
Besides, Apple at least has shown a history of at least appearing to listen to customers' requests. Witness, for example, the advent of "iTunes Plus" songs on the iTMS.
FTFA:the site "could include links to Fandango, Movietickets.com, Amazon, Netflix, iTunes, Xbox Live Video, Hulu, and more."
What part of that sounds like a "piss-poor selection" of "crippled" flicks? Fandango and Movietickets, at least, aren't exactly DRM purveyors. And Apple's DRM is one of the least onerous options out there, for "legit" viewing.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I actually think this is a good move on the MPAA's part. I do want to know where I can get movies legally, and this could help increase competition - better for my bottom line. I'm not going to complain about what appears to be a sincere attempt to address consumers' needs.
The Heritage Foundation? You're joking, right?
Not that the linked graph isn't a brilliant piece of research, but let's be honest about the climate we're in. If I told you that the Center for American Progress disagrees, would you care? Would you even take it seriously?
To be fair, your graph is based on data from the CBO, which was already Democrat-controlled when the report was released. On the other hand, it's without context. That is, how have domestic income tax receipts decreased in the same period?
Moreover, if you'll recall, we've experienced a general economic recovery since that time -- until relatively recently -- which may or may not be due to the tax cuts. (I think we can guess where each other's intuitions lie here.) There's no obvious reason to take the correlation between tax cuts and corporate income tax receipts as a causal indicator. Plenty of other options abound.
Well, sure. Advice can be bad. No doubt. But then again, a lot of doctors recommend these drugs, too. Should we stop giving them our private information?
... meh. Either online ads will always stay bad and annoying, or we'll stop putting up with them and start having to pay for the services we use online.
According to your wp link, Seldane was pulled in 1997. So your complaint is about ads that had to have happened 11 years ago? Sorry, but even if you're right about the pitfalls of advertising, you should give the industry another shot. Things have changed in the last decade.
Apparently, YMMV with these things. It's fairly often now that I get very well-targeted ads. No, the system's not perfect. But my point all along is that these services/portals need data to provide these services. If we insist on griping - even when, as in this case, they fight to protect it from others - then
The point is that they have an investment in NOT targeting Rogaine ads at you, if you have a full head of hair. It doesn't bother me one whit that that investment is real and monetary.
If my boss tells me how I can solve a problem, then regardless of her personal motivation for giving me that assistance, it's advice. I don't care that her sole motivation is that she stands to gain from it - if she helps me solve a problem, it's an aid to me.
Now let's think about Google. I really don't care whether they only point me toward widgets because they think they'll get compensation for my clicks. If I actually want widgets, and they've done the work to figure out that widgets would fit well into my lifestyle, then super. Thanks, Google. You've helped me out.
If you insist on not letting Google have your data, then you're insisting on their being unable to target ads to things you want/like/need. That's fine, if that's how you feel like interacting with the company. But you can't consistently complain both that their ads aren't advice and that they want your data. They're not mind-readers.
Look. When I go to YouTube, I know that they're going to retain my data. When I log in to my Google homepage, I know that they're going to be monitoring my searches and slipping ads into my results. I'm not so stupid as to think that, when I'm reading an email about an upcoming trip, Gmail has just randomly decided to insert ads for Priceline. I get it. They're using my history and habits to target advertising to me.
I'm ok with that. It's the price I pay for the services they provide. Besides, at some point ads stop being ads and start being advice. After years of using Google, I actually click on the ads they insert occasionally. Why? Because they're well-targeted.
Moreover, it's trivial to protect your information & still use some of Google's less personalized services (search, YouTube). Your complaining about Google's well-known business practices makes me think that you either are unaware of these options or are under the impression that tinfoil hats are fashionable.
Let me go ahead and say this in case GP doesn't: what the fuck are you talking about? I'm not sure where the GP is supposed to be "ascribing a value to an idea, per se," but I suppose you're assuming he's doing that when he claims that ID is bad philosophy. But that's about the stupidest thing I've heard today: we can talk about things being bad cooking, bad building, bad science, etc. Philosophy is, in a real sense, a method of approach. Thus, one can do it well or one can do it badly.
Your dig on Tulsa and the philosophy of religion shows that you're TOTALLY fucking ignorant of philosophy. If you had the FAINTEST fucking clue you'd recognize that this field is one of the longest-standing pillars of the philosophical enterprise - read the Euthyphro, for God's sake. (For the record, I studied philosophy, too, and I hated philosophy of religion - just wasn't my bag - but I'm not so stupid or ignorant as to act like it's not a big deal in the world.)
The rest of your post - sociology? shared inner beliefs? (what does an outer belief look like?) Jungian psychology? WTF? - is nearly incomprehensible.
Go smoke some more pot and think you're deep.
(Mods: I know this is flamebait, don't give a shit. Sorry.)
I didn't read "The Pernese" on first load. I read "I" or something. So, rather than being informative and witty all at the same time, I'm just a jackass. My mistake.
Ahahaha, I get it! It's a Pern joke!
True story. Where I live, WiFi is ubiquitous. It's more shocking to me when a shop doesn't have it. And in the downtown area, there's pretty wide-area coverage. Apparently the city's doing some kind of experiment in conjunction with Cisco.
/.'ers are spoiled, too. And if I've come to expect free WiFi, I most certainly won't go to a shop where they don't have it. On the other hand - and probably more importantly - if I haven't come to expect such a thing, and your shop provides it, then congratulations, you've just won another customer.
All this means that I'm spoiled. I suspect a lot of other
I could understand why SBUX went with T-Mobile back in 2000 or 2001, but it seems pretty inexplicable now.
That's all well and good, but it looks like you're confusing psychiatry and psychology - two very different fields.
Note that I don't think psychiatry is "complete pseudoscience," either. I'm just saying, if you want to make that case, you should get the terms right.