You may be speaking generally, but I hardly see how this is an example of "abusing scientific research" and "proving a pet theory." I have significant experience with regression and econometrics at an undergraduate level, and this seems to be a perfectly valid study. I'll assume you've never done this research before, and I'll let you know that it's a lot harder than it appears.
In her paper, the author first provides a lot of background information and theory before she starts her analysis. Studies of this kind hardly just say "Here are some numbers I collected, see the correlation!" If you actually read the study, you'll note that the first 20 pages goes over previous theory that links lead exposure to crime.
In addition, the author did not just do a two-variable regression. I would agree that that would not be a good method of analysis. However, the author did a multivariable regression that included: Abortion, State unemployment rate, Log income per capita, Poverty rate, AFDC generosity, Teen pregnancy rate (effective), Log prisoners per capita (1 yr lag), Log police per capita (1 yr lag), Shall-issue concealed weapons law, Beer consumption per capita, and Share of population age 15 to 29.
Finally, any variables NOT included will show up in the "unexplained" variation. Even though there is a lot of unexplained variation, that hardly changes the fact that the other variables were statistically significant.
Maybe it's my monitor, but those screenshots are so dark I can't even see the ads if I squint and look real hard. I even closed the blinds and I still can't see them.
Michael Geist, the lawyer, weighs in on the issue
In this particular case, UE demanded that the site use IP addresses to filter out non-Canadian users, arguing that failing to do so infringes both European and Canadian copyright law. It is hard to see how this is true given that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that sites such as IMSLP are entitled to presume that they are being used in a lawful manner and therefore would not rise to the level of authorizing infringement. The site was operating lawfully in Canada and there is no positive obligation in the law to block out non-Canadians.
As for a European infringement, if UE is correct, then the public domain becomes an offline concept, since posting works online would immediately result in the longest single copyright term applying on a global basis. That can't possibly be right. Canada has chosen a copyright term that complies with its international obligations and attempts to import longer terms - as is the case here - should not only be rejected but treated as copyright misuse.
Excellent precis except for the following line, which is needlessly provocative:
If those same people were smart then they would be compelled to believe in evolution He didn't attack the intelligence of "religious types." He's arguing that they haven't been exposed to the idea of an evolutionary process and that this is the fault of either their surroundings or their teachers.
I think perhaps that your argument needs work. The example presented in your response is exactly evidence of the opposite conclusion: that wikipedia is an evolutionary process. Specifically, your response mentions how there are hundreds or thousands of small groups of users, each of which makes small selections and edits. Even though each person does not make a huge contribution, and there are many rejected contributions, over time the system reachs an equilibrium. This is exactly the argument that TFA uses to illustrate his explanation of an evolutionary process.
Speaking of Maher Arar, apparently the US. Gov. just officially apologized to him regarding the mistake. Check out this quote.
Republican Dana Rohrabacher also apologized, but said he would fight any efforts by Democrats to end the practice of extraordinary rendition, whereby terror suspects are grabbed by government agents and taken to another country where local authorities may torture confessions out of them.
"Yes, we should be ashamed" of what happened in the case, Rohrabacher said.
"That is no excuse to end a program which has protected the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of American lives." Hardly sincere sounding, since it comes across as "We did it, it's a bad policy, but we're still going to do it." I don't know how anyone can believe that rendition and torture is acceptable behaviour.
Considering that you're hardly safer than you were before, giving up civil liberties hardly seems a worthwhile trade.
Perhaps the correct solution should have been preventation, rather than enforcement and reactionary? If the USA had a perfect international image and everyone loved them, where would the terrorists come from?
Also, the War on Terror is not a war, it's a slogan. A war is between two countries with a definate purpose. The War on Terror is a description of using harsh techniques to try and find anyone who dislikes the country.
Hell, in Canada we apply the Charter of Rights and freedoms to everyone, even foreign nationals. I'm perfectly happy with that even though I'm fronting the bill with my tax dollars,
That's why we give refugee claimants multiple court hearings, access to lawyers, and all that other good stuff. I'd rather have a few people abuse the system than screw those who are really in need. When fuck-ups do occur, like Maher Arar being handed over to the Americans to be extradited, a huge stink is made about it.
I probably have a warped view of the situation, but I'm really starting to dislike the US. I realize that I shouldn't stereotype against all Americans, but even so I'm still hesitant about even travelling there. It's a bad sign when soon-to-be highly trained professionals are scared to come work in your country.
What is the threshold where people should start to take-up arms? It seems we are really close to the threshold here: Good luck with that. Threatening to take up arms against the United States government sounds like a great way to get yourself put on a terrorist watchlist, extradited, and tortured. Hmmm, maybe eliminating most checks and balances wasn't such a great idea after all...
Check out Long way Round and Race to Dakar [flash]. Awesome documentaries involving travel with motorcycles. You can also buy and download the episodes from their website, sans DRM.
You may want to prove your assertion that "the majority of speed limits are imposed arbitrarily". It is my understanding that most speed limits are established using the rule that 85% of people will believe that the limit is acceptable in that area. There may be some money grabs and arbitrary limits, but I wouldn't generalize to all limits. Civil engineers don't usually resort to making arbitrary estimates.
I hope that the douchebags who pushed for $150k/song get hit by the RIAA because their kids installed some software without their knowledge, Hire a private detective to check them out and report suspicious behaviour to the police? Considering the ubiquity of filesharing, there's probably a pretty high probability you'll find something.
Disclaimer: I'm as anti-riaa as the next man, who is the crazed tinfoil slashdot poster.
They were legally required to assign a penalty appropriate to the crime, but they did not do so It can be argued that what they assigned was completely "appropriate", according to the way the law is written. Statutory damages are the amount that is set out in the statute that would be considered "fair" against someone who committed that offence. After their finding of guilt, the jury HAD to pick an amount of damages ranging from $750 to $150,000 per song. Since its laid out in the statute, you can't blame them for picking that amount. Who you SHOULD be blaming are the silly politicians that included these "statutory damages" when they wrote the law. Instead, they should have left out the damages entirely and left it up to the discretion of the judge.
Thankfully I live in Canada where the amount of statutory damages are far more sensible for a crime of this nature. To quote Michael Geist from his blog:
Second, the statutory damages provision in Canada is marginally better, with the prospect that a court would never arrive at this kind of award. Indeed, the Act allows a court to go below $200 per infringement. Statutory damages still have no place in these kinds of cases, but at least Canadian law is a bit more reasonable.
There really is no way to tell the truth in the story without getting someone from demonoid to talk about it... ...or you could tell me where the server is located. I live in central Canada, so I could just waltz over there and check it for you. It's not like Canada is very big and I can use my dogsled. Problem solved.
Coincidentally, the CRIA is now opposing the private copying levy.
The Canadian Recording Industry Association this week quietly filed documents in the Federal Court of Appeal that will likely shock many in the industry. CRIA, which spent more than 15 years lobbying for the creation of the private copying levy, is now fighting to eliminate the application of the levy on the Apple iPod since it believes that the Copyright Board of Canada's recent decision to allow a proposed tariff on iPods to proceed "broadens the scope of the private copying exception to avoid making illegal file sharers liable for infringement."- Michael Geist
Sweden, like most of continental Europe, uses the Civil Law system, as opposed to the Common Law system. America and most other areas formerly controlled by the British use the Common Law system. While similar, they are not identical and definately do not have the same procedures.
While it might not be considered valid evidence under the Common Law system, it can probably be admitted as evidence under the Civil Law system. See the poster above me for references.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be speaking generally, but I hardly see how this is an example of "abusing scientific research" and "proving a pet theory." I have significant experience with regression and econometrics at an undergraduate level, and this seems to be a perfectly valid study. I'll assume you've never done this research before, and I'll let you know that it's a lot harder than it appears.
In her paper, the author first provides a lot of background information and theory before she starts her analysis. Studies of this kind hardly just say "Here are some numbers I collected, see the correlation!" If you actually read the study, you'll note that the first 20 pages goes over previous theory that links lead exposure to crime.
In addition, the author did not just do a two-variable regression. I would agree that that would not be a good method of analysis. However, the author did a multivariable regression that included: Abortion, State unemployment rate, Log income per capita, Poverty rate, AFDC generosity, Teen pregnancy rate (effective), Log prisoners per capita (1 yr lag), Log police per capita (1 yr lag), Shall-issue concealed weapons law, Beer consumption per capita, and Share of population age 15 to 29.
Finally, any variables NOT included will show up in the "unexplained" variation. Even though there is a lot of unexplained variation, that hardly changes the fact that the other variables were statistically significant.
Maybe it's my monitor, but those screenshots are so dark I can't even see the ads if I squint and look real hard. I even closed the blinds and I still can't see them.
As for a European infringement, if UE is correct, then the public domain becomes an offline concept, since posting works online would immediately result in the longest single copyright term applying on a global basis. That can't possibly be right. Canada has chosen a copyright term that complies with its international obligations and attempts to import longer terms - as is the case here - should not only be rejected but treated as copyright misuse.
I think perhaps that your argument needs work. The example presented in your response is exactly evidence of the opposite conclusion: that wikipedia is an evolutionary process. Specifically, your response mentions how there are hundreds or thousands of small groups of users, each of which makes small selections and edits. Even though each person does not make a huge contribution, and there are many rejected contributions, over time the system reachs an equilibrium. This is exactly the argument that TFA uses to illustrate his explanation of an evolutionary process.
"Yes, we should be ashamed" of what happened in the case, Rohrabacher said.
"That is no excuse to end a program which has protected the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of American lives." Hardly sincere sounding, since it comes across as "We did it, it's a bad policy, but we're still going to do it." I don't know how anyone can believe that rendition and torture is acceptable behaviour.
Considering that you're hardly safer than you were before, giving up civil liberties hardly seems a worthwhile trade.
Perhaps the correct solution should have been preventation, rather than enforcement and reactionary? If the USA had a perfect international image and everyone loved them, where would the terrorists come from?
Also, the War on Terror is not a war, it's a slogan. A war is between two countries with a definate purpose. The War on Terror is a description of using harsh techniques to try and find anyone who dislikes the country.
Hell, in Canada we apply the Charter of Rights and freedoms to everyone, even foreign nationals. I'm perfectly happy with that even though I'm fronting the bill with my tax dollars,
That's why we give refugee claimants multiple court hearings, access to lawyers, and all that other good stuff. I'd rather have a few people abuse the system than screw those who are really in need. When fuck-ups do occur, like Maher Arar being handed over to the Americans to be extradited, a huge stink is made about it.
I probably have a warped view of the situation, but I'm really starting to dislike the US. I realize that I shouldn't stereotype against all Americans, but even so I'm still hesitant about even travelling there. It's a bad sign when soon-to-be highly trained professionals are scared to come work in your country.
Race to Dakar is all about one of the guys from Long Way Round. So, if you didn't like long way round, you might not like Race to Dakar either.
Check out Long way Round and Race to Dakar [flash]. Awesome documentaries involving travel with motorcycles. You can also buy and download the episodes from their website, sans DRM.
You may want to prove your assertion that "the majority of speed limits are imposed arbitrarily". It is my understanding that most speed limits are established using the rule that 85% of people will believe that the limit is acceptable in that area. There may be some money grabs and arbitrary limits, but I wouldn't generalize to all limits. Civil engineers don't usually resort to making arbitrary estimates.
Thankfully I live in Canada where the amount of statutory damages are far more sensible for a crime of this nature. To quote Michael Geist from his blog: Second, the statutory damages provision in Canada is marginally better, with the prospect that a court would never arrive at this kind of award. Indeed, the Act allows a court to go below $200 per infringement. Statutory damages still have no place in these kinds of cases, but at least Canadian law is a bit more reasonable.
I'm getting this too, but I'm on Opera. At least the new moderation system works moderately well on it.
No no, it'd be more like a car that ... forget it.
The service is not available. Please try again later. We've slashdotted slashdot! Cue universe implosion.
How about choice overload for the restaurants? If there are thousands, some are going out of business? I'm sure this analogy is leading somewhere...
It's not sleeping. It's relaxen unt watchen das blinken lights.
Someone certainly knows a lot more than I do.
Sweden, like most of continental Europe, uses the Civil Law system, as opposed to the Common Law system. America and most other areas formerly controlled by the British use the Common Law system. While similar, they are not identical and definately do not have the same procedures.
While it might not be considered valid evidence under the Common Law system, it can probably be admitted as evidence under the Civil Law system. See the poster above me for references.
My link failed. Let me try again: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9833041