>We are talking about someone who HAS acquired the good. If you HAVE acquired the good, you should have paid for it.
Earlier in thread, somebody was making the argument that because the person who acquired the good had expended time and CPU cycles they HAD paid for a good, though not paid the owner of the copyright or any authorized distributor.
I want to know why you feel that if somebody acquires the good there is some inherent SHOULD that dictates they need to have paid for it, regardless of whether or not they are actually obtaining a physical material good in the possession of another party. If I find out that you really like the sculpture of David and choose to sculpt for you a perfect replica of David, allowing you to now enjoy the presence of that artwork where you choose to place it, have I become a thief?
You no longer need to travel somewhere to view the sculpture in person and you no longer need to pay the museum who houses it for entrance to view it, but the original David is still where it was and in the possession of who possessed it at that time, what I have actually done is taken a concept originated by another, and duplicated the work they did. I have reduced the value of the original because it is now less exclusive, there is less demand as I have increased supply and you could begin allowing people to view your David instead. You might even charge for that pleasure as there is still only two of them until I finish sculpting my world set and you may not want to let just anybody come waltzing through your house to see it.
As to whether or not the original creative source would continue producing works knowing I would be able to duplicate them, if they are solely producing the work for the potential profit, no they probably won't. As long as they have some means of getting basic needs for survival met, if they actually derive personal enjoyment from the creative process then they probably would still have a desire to continue, especially if they still get full crediting for original creation and are respected for having brought a new work, but once they have produced a concept and that concept is circulated, they have no inherent right to control what other people do with knowledge of the concept.
Taken literally, I think that means that GP believes in the right of Jury Nullification and is advocating a specific instance where they feel it would be appropriate to exercise that right as a citizen juror.
I was shorthanding, and I admit I should have known better, because enough people are likely to read any given comment that you should always make them nitpick proof unless you want to be nitpicked. Lesson learned. I still stand by that description because it was meant to describe a worst case scenario, such as a long time heroine user who is already malnourished, trying to stop heroine without any supervision and no tapering off.
In such a case, the CNS which is used to being suppressed on a day to day basis goes into a state of stimulated hyperactivity, and much like somebody with poor heart condition this can strain the respiratory system, leading to respiratory arrest.
The point I was making was that unlike the two posters trying to paint the picture that you can't possibly die from stopping an opiate, you actually can in the right circumstances. Also that arrest is not a word reserved for cardiac conditions.
I end with the words of one John T. Cooper, M.D. "As for opiate withdrawal as a cause of death, the week before I sat down to write this report I autopsied a man who died of "intracerebral hemorrhage." It happened that the man was two or three days into a concerted effort to kick heroin at home. Still, "opiate withdrawal" did not go on the death certificate as a cause of death, but only as a contributing factor. We can't say for sure that he would still be alive this week if he had refrained from trying to withdraw from opiates yet it is a safe bet."
This quote and more information on the risks of opiate withdrawal at http://gigablast.com/get?d=159095325345.
>Maybe because I'm not always arguing with people when I post a response.
Okay, understood. The connotation associated with actually made me expect some sort of disagreement or correction.
>>hey Alchy McAlcherson knock off the firewater is really not a helpful sentiment. >Actually, Alcoholics Anonymous has an over all going rate of exactly the same as those >going cold turkey... it's somewhere around 5%. It's the same for smoking also.
I'm not sure why you chose to quote that portion of my post since what you say doesn't disagree with what I was saying. I am aware of the study showing that AA and other programs have the same success rate as people who just try and stop a pattern of addictive behavior on their own. Doesn't that support what you quoted from me?
Going to a behavioral therapist is exactly the kind of thing I was actually thinking of when I wrote those words. Professional therapy is the type of help I encourage, and I feel that the sentiment evident in some posts in this thread discourages those caught in an addictive cycle from seeking help instead instilling shame in them that perpetuates the cycle.
By arrest, I meant the stopping or impediment of normal operation thereof. Primarily, diarrhea and vomiting, spastic involuntary movements, muscle and bone pain, and feelings of agitation and dysphoria. Unlikely to be fatal, but quite likely to cause the sufferer to say "fuck all this noise" and get another dose of the opiate, leading to a negative reinforcement of the behavior, and the next time they try to stop being even worse.
Re:Peter Griffin on Wisconsin
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Absolutely, I actually specifically advocate that people make up their own diet that works for them and at most use one of the marketed ones to give them ideas and find tasty recipes that fit the diet they make for themselves. I was just trying to point out that if somebody is not doing anything to control consumption, exercise alone isn't gauranteed to clear the health risk hurdles, and people take the path of least resistance as percieved by them, which often means let somebody else tell me what to do.
Well first of all, if you are talking about long term opiate use, cold turkey is not very effective, because the body has become physiologically dependant on the opiates and so if you go from getting a gram a day to none at all, you are quite likely to end up with your central nervous system going into arrest. Even if you aren't talking about somebody who has worked up to quite so high a dose, you are still talking about a prety unpleasant experience when you stop.
I've had chronic pain since I was ten and at times I have been given various opiates. One of my more recent experiences was with oxycontin, after taking one pill twice daily for four days and then stopping, it was like having the flu for a week and a half. If I for one minute allowed myself to believe that the stuffed up feeling and the dizziness and nausea wasn't temporary or that going back to the oxycontin when I didn't currently need it to bear the pain would lead to an even worse withdrawal feeling, I would have been back on the opiates instantly.
So saying hey fatty lay off the twinky or hey junkie drop the needle or hey Alchy McAlcherson knock off the firewater is really not a helpful sentiment. It just leads to the targeted person feeling victimised and retreating into their habit in most cases. Advocating a cold turkey approach comes off as exactly that to them.
Re:Peter Griffin on Wisconsin
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The exercise is certainly contributing for them, but monitoring your diet continues to be important despite exercise. For many people, it's easier to have somebody just lay out a set of guidelines that they follow and when they get tired of that particular set of guidelines they move to another one, rather than spending additional time checking labels and portions and working out the equation themselves.
Re:Conservation of energy revoked?
on
Obesity Contagious?
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
The issue you are missing here is that for some obese people, it's not excess storage, it's missallocated storage. They contract a virus that lives in and feeds on fat cells, so it encourages the person who has a healthy diet and who gets exercise to continue storing nutritional intake as more fat cells instead of as the muscle cells that they would have stored that nutrition as if they did not have the virus. That is what is being suggested by these studies.
This is also what is leading nutrition experts to question the portayal of obesity in and of itself as a health risk. It's just not the case that being over a certain weight means you are at risk for disease, it's an indicator that you will want to monitor certain things perhaps, but at the end of the day, skinny or fat, if you binge on sugar, you are at risk for diabetes.
If you are not currently at the rank of an item however, you cannot wear it. You still keep it, but it is unusable until you displace the other person again. That was how promotional materials explained it before the honor system was live at least, I had already hit 60 got bored and stopped subscription however, so maybe it changed and you didn't end up having to maintain rank to wear eq you could purchase for that rank.
>What good is a theory that has this little predictive power?
Mainly it stimulates creative thinking and discussion. Sometimes in science it's not about starting from the point of having a valid theory that you validate, you just need some sort of hypothesis to start from and the pursuit of and accomplishment of proving that hypothesis to be untrue is a means to figure out what actually is true.
"In other news today Corporation A agreed, without admitting any wrong doing, to pay Cash Amount B to Plaintiff C. Plaintiff C filed suit against Corporation A earlier this year for Product D failing to spin down in the CD-ROM drive on Plaintiff C's computer when the Eject Command was sent to the CD-ROM drive vie software rather than pressing the eject button on the drive itself, resulting in the Projectile Product D decapitating Plaintiff C's Terrier. Now here's Heidi with the weather."
Except that's not the case, it does make predictions, but not predictions anybody has ever tested. Christianity is to God Exists as String theory is to Strings Exist. This is an equivalent statement of the two theoretical models, but is not predictive in nature and not really testable.
"God Exists and therefor hears my prayers and therefor if I Pray He shall answereth me" is to a specific version of the theory of Christianity as "Strings Exist therefor we will detect certain neutrinos" is to a specific version of the theory of Strings. These are actual falsifiable predictive statements. Clinical studies have demonstrated that in a controlled test, God does not answer the prayer in the sense of making the individual prayed for healthier, so that specific Theory of Christianity has been falsified. If they fail to detect these neutrinos, that specific String Theory will have been falsified.
In both cases the proponents/believers of the overall general theories containing these specific predictive models will go back and try and work out a new form that is not proved false by tests, but actually makes accurate predictions.
On a more personal note, I've never heard any evidence that encourages a skeptic such as myself to actually believe either of the general over theories contained in this post and so making a positive assertion that either one is already known to be true or that it eventually will be proven true falls under the heading of faith.
Slashdot Mirror
>We are talking about someone who HAS acquired the good. If you HAVE acquired the good, you should have paid for it.
Earlier in thread, somebody was making the argument that because the person who acquired the good had expended time and CPU cycles they HAD paid for a good, though not paid the owner of the copyright or any authorized distributor.
I want to know why you feel that if somebody acquires the good there is some inherent SHOULD that dictates they need to have paid for it, regardless of whether or not they are actually obtaining a physical material good in the possession of another party. If I find out that you really like the sculpture of David and choose to sculpt for you a perfect replica of David, allowing you to now enjoy the presence of that artwork where you choose to place it, have I become a thief?
You no longer need to travel somewhere to view the sculpture in person and you no longer need to pay the museum who houses it for entrance to view it, but the original David is still where it was and in the possession of who possessed it at that time, what I have actually done is taken a concept originated by another, and duplicated the work they did. I have reduced the value of the original because it is now less exclusive, there is less demand as I have increased supply and you could begin allowing people to view your David instead. You might even charge for that pleasure as there is still only two of them until I finish sculpting my world set and you may not want to let just anybody come waltzing through your house to see it.
As to whether or not the original creative source would continue producing works knowing I would be able to duplicate them, if they are solely producing the work for the potential profit, no they probably won't. As long as they have some means of getting basic needs for survival met, if they actually derive personal enjoyment from the creative process then they probably would still have a desire to continue, especially if they still get full crediting for original creation and are respected for having brought a new work, but once they have produced a concept and that concept is circulated, they have no inherent right to control what other people do with knowledge of the concept.
Taken literally, I think that means that GP believes in the right of Jury Nullification and is advocating a specific instance where they feel it would be appropriate to exercise that right as a citizen juror.
I was shorthanding, and I admit I should have known better, because enough people are likely to read any given comment that you should always make them nitpick proof unless you want to be nitpicked. Lesson learned. I still stand by that description because it was meant to describe a worst case scenario, such as a long time heroine user who is already malnourished, trying to stop heroine without any supervision and no tapering off.
In such a case, the CNS which is used to being suppressed on a day to day basis goes into a state of stimulated hyperactivity, and much like somebody with poor heart condition this can strain the respiratory system, leading to respiratory arrest.
The point I was making was that unlike the two posters trying to paint the picture that you can't possibly die from stopping an opiate, you actually can in the right circumstances. Also that arrest is not a word reserved for cardiac conditions.
I end with the words of one John T. Cooper, M.D. "As for opiate withdrawal as a cause of death, the week before I sat down to write this report I autopsied a man who died of "intracerebral hemorrhage." It happened that the man was two or three days into a concerted effort to kick heroin at home. Still, "opiate withdrawal" did not go on the death certificate as a cause of death, but only as a contributing factor. We can't say for sure that he would still be alive this week if he had refrained from trying to withdraw from opiates yet it is a safe bet."
This quote and more information on the risks of opiate withdrawal at http://gigablast.com/get?d=159095325345.
>Maybe because I'm not always arguing with people when I post a response.
Okay, understood. The connotation associated with actually made me expect some sort of disagreement or correction.
My thoughts exactly. What next, "Which animal has the softest fur, Cats or Dogs!?"
>>hey Alchy McAlcherson knock off the firewater is really not a helpful sentiment.
>Actually, Alcoholics Anonymous has an over all going rate of exactly the same as those >going cold turkey... it's somewhere around 5%. It's the same for smoking also.
I'm not sure why you chose to quote that portion of my post since what you say doesn't disagree with what I was saying. I am aware of the study showing that AA and other programs have the same success rate as people who just try and stop a pattern of addictive behavior on their own. Doesn't that support what you quoted from me?
Going to a behavioral therapist is exactly the kind of thing I was actually thinking of when I wrote those words. Professional therapy is the type of help I encourage, and I feel that the sentiment evident in some posts in this thread discourages those caught in an addictive cycle from seeking help instead instilling shame in them that perpetuates the cycle.
By arrest, I meant the stopping or impediment of normal operation thereof. Primarily, diarrhea and vomiting, spastic involuntary movements, muscle and bone pain, and feelings of agitation and dysphoria. Unlikely to be fatal, but quite likely to cause the sufferer to say "fuck all this noise" and get another dose of the opiate, leading to a negative reinforcement of the behavior, and the next time they try to stop being even worse.
Absolutely, I actually specifically advocate that people make up their own diet that works for them and at most use one of the marketed ones to give them ideas and find tasty recipes that fit the diet they make for themselves. I was just trying to point out that if somebody is not doing anything to control consumption, exercise alone isn't gauranteed to clear the health risk hurdles, and people take the path of least resistance as percieved by them, which often means let somebody else tell me what to do.
In conclusion, Atkins is the devil.
Well first of all, if you are talking about long term opiate use, cold turkey is not very effective, because the body has become physiologically dependant on the opiates and so if you go from getting a gram a day to none at all, you are quite likely to end up with your central nervous system going into arrest. Even if you aren't talking about somebody who has worked up to quite so high a dose, you are still talking about a prety unpleasant experience when you stop.
I've had chronic pain since I was ten and at times I have been given various opiates. One of my more recent experiences was with oxycontin, after taking one pill twice daily for four days and then stopping, it was like having the flu for a week and a half. If I for one minute allowed myself to believe that the stuffed up feeling and the dizziness and nausea wasn't temporary or that going back to the oxycontin when I didn't currently need it to bear the pain would lead to an even worse withdrawal feeling, I would have been back on the opiates instantly.
So saying hey fatty lay off the twinky or hey junkie drop the needle or hey Alchy McAlcherson knock off the firewater is really not a helpful sentiment. It just leads to the targeted person feeling victimised and retreating into their habit in most cases. Advocating a cold turkey approach comes off as exactly that to them.
The exercise is certainly contributing for them, but monitoring your diet continues to be important despite exercise. For many people, it's easier to have somebody just lay out a set of guidelines that they follow and when they get tired of that particular set of guidelines they move to another one, rather than spending additional time checking labels and portions and working out the equation themselves.
The issue you are missing here is that for some obese people, it's not excess storage, it's missallocated storage. They contract a virus that lives in and feeds on fat cells, so it encourages the person who has a healthy diet and who gets exercise to continue storing nutritional intake as more fat cells instead of as the muscle cells that they would have stored that nutrition as if they did not have the virus. That is what is being suggested by these studies.
This is also what is leading nutrition experts to question the portayal of obesity in and of itself as a health risk. It's just not the case that being over a certain weight means you are at risk for disease, it's an indicator that you will want to monitor certain things perhaps, but at the end of the day, skinny or fat, if you binge on sugar, you are at risk for diabetes.
If you are not currently at the rank of an item however, you cannot wear it. You still keep it, but it is unusable until you displace the other person again. That was how promotional materials explained it before the honor system was live at least, I had already hit 60 got bored and stopped subscription however, so maybe it changed and you didn't end up having to maintain rank to wear eq you could purchase for that rank.
>What good is a theory that has this little predictive power?
Mainly it stimulates creative thinking and discussion. Sometimes in science it's not about starting from the point of having a valid theory that you validate, you just need some sort of hypothesis to start from and the pursuit of and accomplishment of proving that hypothesis to be untrue is a means to figure out what actually is true.
"In other news today Corporation A agreed, without admitting any wrong doing, to pay Cash Amount B to Plaintiff C. Plaintiff C filed suit against Corporation A earlier this year for Product D failing to spin down in the CD-ROM drive on Plaintiff C's computer when the Eject Command was sent to the CD-ROM drive vie software rather than pressing the eject button on the drive itself, resulting in the Projectile Product D decapitating Plaintiff C's Terrier. Now here's Heidi with the weather."
Except that's not the case, it does make predictions, but not predictions anybody has ever tested. Christianity is to God Exists as String theory is to Strings Exist. This is an equivalent statement of the two theoretical models, but is not predictive in nature and not really testable.
"God Exists and therefor hears my prayers and therefor if I Pray He shall answereth me" is to a specific version of the theory of Christianity as "Strings Exist therefor we will detect certain neutrinos" is to a specific version of the theory of Strings. These are actual falsifiable predictive statements. Clinical studies have demonstrated that in a controlled test, God does not answer the prayer in the sense of making the individual prayed for healthier, so that specific Theory of Christianity has been falsified. If they fail to detect these neutrinos, that specific String Theory will have been falsified.
In both cases the proponents/believers of the overall general theories containing these specific predictive models will go back and try and work out a new form that is not proved false by tests, but actually makes accurate predictions.
On a more personal note, I've never heard any evidence that encourages a skeptic such as myself to actually believe either of the general over theories contained in this post and so making a positive assertion that either one is already known to be true or that it eventually will be proven true falls under the heading of faith.