It's because the government and corporations are responsible for a vast majority of extralegal violence cases. They use them to exterminate their opponents, and at the same time, securing a platform to get votes. The sheep go gaga over these "tragedies", and will pretty much vote however the pollies tell them.
BTW, if it's not clear by now that I'm joking, then there is either something very, very wrong with people in general, or just something very, very wrong with you.
Having free speech doesn't mean you have freedom from responsiblity.
Having truly free speech means you have freedom from responsibility handed down from the law. So, if we truly had free speech, then the arrest would not happen (or at least would be unjust). What we have here is an exception to free speech, not the consequences of free speech.
Both the twitter posts cited in the article are jokes in poor taste by frustrated people, but are they evidence of intent to kill someone or blow up a plane?
Small point: intent to kill and inciting violence are two very different offences. I'm sure no one thought there was an intent to kill, but there is an argument to be made for it inciting violence.
Except, they're not trying to censor the phrase "It's on like Donkey Kong". In fact, I'm pretty sure they'll be propagating as far and wide as possible when they release Donkey Kong Country later this month.
I'm sorry, but where was the GP claiming that the TSA was effective?
How come one post pointing out an unfounded assertion is modded 0 Troll, and another making up an unfounded assertion to burn as a strawman is modded 5 Insightful? Seriously, have we really sunk this low?
I have an exam for the course in critical thinking at uni, so this is perfect for me to try some analysis of your arguments.
Perhaps there was a time, before technology and corruption overtook the concept of music as IP.
Emotional appeal and begging the question (you can't convince me it's bad by working from the assumption that it's bad).
It as well as a stream of other examples of "IP as a complete failure" that pass before us on/. are the sign of credibility.
There's a suppressed hypothesis to your argument here: "If such arguments appear on slashdot, then IP is a complete failure". I contest this assumption, on the basis that slashdot self-propagates and supports anti-copyright sentiments, and as a result, anti-copyright articles are actively sought after, and given preference by the editors. Slashdot is, in short, a terrible place to inform yourself on the issue.
Business models,like dinosaurs, have need to evolve to meet the changing environment or die.
Again, begging the question. If it were indeed true that business models needed to evolve, and they didn't, then that would validate a comparison with the dinosaurs. By comparing them with dinosaurs, and deriving from that that they must evolve, you are begging the question. Also, I question the truth of the hypothesis that the business models are not evolving. Several companies are trying, as much as they can, to embrace the internet, and the free flow of data that it entails.
Current business models have not kept pace with technology and will not be able to develop sufficient protections to ensure their survival. This is evident whether I play cheerleader to the fall of a major hitter on the IP field.
As detailed above, this requires further proof, and is certainly not evident.
Music isn't going to disappear. No one quits playing because the parasite disappears.
I accept your hypothesis that music is not going to disappear. However, we want more from music than it simply existing in people's bedrooms. We want it to be recorded, distributed, and appear in sufficient volume so that we have the ability to choose from more than a couple of new albums per year. So, the fact that music will still exist in some form is entirely insufficient. We expect much, much more than that.
With the advent of the information age, it turns out musicians can perform the functions previously handled by untalented corporations before.
Requires proof. I'll accept that musicians who are sufficiently rich and/or well-known might be capable, but I would think it would be fairly difficult for the poor unknowns to distinguish themselves from the flood of other poor unknowns. Perhaps, as a suggestion, you can point to some indie artists who gained international success without using the music industry?
Music has been evolving to the home studios so it isn't such a big financial loss to give away your music as promotion for your live performance which oddly seems to be where the money is anyway.
I don't see the connection between home studios and reducing the financial loss related to piracy. Perhaps you could elaborate more? Also, if I may, I'd like to present a counter-argument:
Copyright is optional (i.e. artists may choose to release music that is not under copyright). A business model is superior* to the traditional copyright business model if and only if more artists choose to use it. Very few artists are using that business model (certainly less than those using the traditional copyright business model). Therefore, your business model is not superior to the traditional copyright business model.
* By "superior", I mean that artists prefer to use it, including factoring in any increased interest by customers. For ex
Ah, the "time" argument. Of course. You absolutely cannot compare physical objects or physical work to copying data. Why? Pirates don't use up any of the original authors time. They use their own time and resources to copy data.
And money. Don't forget money (did you even read my post?).
I should also point out that the hypothetical assholes in this scenario are not using any of the builder's time or money; the builder is, in the anticipation that he will be compensated for it. So clearly, simply stating that the pirate is using his own time is not nearly enough, and your supposing that it is just goes to show how much you missed the point.
Oh, and I find it amusing that you think it's convincing to invent a name for an argument, as though it has been thoroughly countered, even when it clearly has not. I call that the "naming" argument, and it has been thoroughly countered.
Now, whether or not you think they should be paid for the work that they put into the original product is irrelevant.
Why? Aside from the fact that you wish to trivialise my opinion so that you have any hope of rebutting it?
If you think they should, then perhaps you should go scold every single person who decided not to buy the product (thereby 'hurting' the artist by 'stealing' his/her potential profit).
I refer you to my analogy (which you really must read). Just because we expect the people to pay the builder at the end of the job, does not mean we expect everyone to pay the builder.
You're also demonstrating an embarrassing lack of understanding of copyright law (and economics, and basic literacy). Copyright law is not supposed to force you to buy things, it's supposed to give you a choice of buying something and having it, or not buying something and having it, because without that choice, then people are inevitably going to start having without buying. You broke the law, you are liable to pay damages. As for why the law is like this, it has been observed, and is obvious to anyone with half a brain, that given the opportunity to obtain something legally for free, and paying for it, people will tend to go for the free version, which makes artists unable to survive as artists. So, no potential profit, no nothing, just that one option is better than another. We made the better option law, and we apportion blame to anyone who starts dragging us back to the worse option. Notice that, in no reasonable option does everyone purchase a copy of the work, and even if there was, it's not codified into law. Nobody, except those who push your particular strawman, is claiming that everyone owes artists. It's only those who spoil the situation by breaking copyright law.
They also didn't pay the author for their time, just like a pirate didn't.
The next door neighbours didn't pay the builder either! I'm sure those asshole customers didn't hesitate to try to shift the blame to the neighbours for their own selfishness.
If there truly are artists who are 'suffering', then you can turn to our illogical capitalistic society which practically demands that goods that are in an infinite supply be paid for, and those who don't pay for them are labeled 'thieves' (even though they don't take anything or use up any of the original artists time).
I love this "illogical capitalistic society". Perhaps you could explain the exact fallacy committed in capitalism? Otherwise, I'll be forced to remain at the obvious conclusion: you don't understand capitalism, and you hate what you don't understand. It's obvious, given your already established propensity to argue on issues you don't actually grasp.
I would choose a third option: not pirating. This is not the same as anti-piracy. It fights both the piracy and anti-piracy extremes. It illegitimises piracy, and as such, robs anti-pirate forces of their political powers. If people accept piracy is immoral, then we get more effectiveness from less enforcement; a win-win situation for all of us.
The only argument that I've ever seen (and it's a terrible one) is the "potential profit" argument. But, really, it's impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money.
Spoken like someone who truly does not understand it, or modal logic in general. However, consider this:
Let's say that you're a builder, and you've just finished building a house. You expect payment at the end, but your customers decline. You are understandably furious; you've put many hours into construction and much money into materials and other labour. You tell this to your customers, but they tell you that it's not their problem, and tell you it's your fault for not finding a better business model, one that doesn't rely on this artificial "contract law" stuff. They tell you that true builders will build for the pleasure of it, and that building materials are becoming cheaper every day, and ramble on, spouting self-serving crap, all the while sounding like complete assholes.
Did these customers steal from you? Maybe yes, maybe no. Stealing is just a word, and it means whatever we all say it means. Did it hurt you financially? Undoubtedly yes. Why did it hurt you? Well, if you think about it, what really hurt you was not their decision not to pay you, but your payment for materials and labour. Had you not paid for those things, financially, you would be exactly where you would have been had you not agreed to build the house (ignoring possibilities of working on a house that you would earn some pay for).
So why do we accuse those people for financially screwing you? You very reasonably expected them to pay for those expenses. There was nothing forcing them to do so, except some piece of paper with both your signatures on it, and even then it would be useless without some kind of law and law enforcement backing it up. Because of this expectation, you paid for the expenses, which hurt you financially. They could argue that they were only damaging potential money, that couldn't be damaged because it's in an alternate dimension where they paid you, and they would never have paid you anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that they are wrong, and both legally and morally responsible for following through on their contract.
Tell me, to my face, that my argument was illogical, assumed the existence of alternate dimensions, and that you as the builder did not deserve to be reimbursed. Just because you don't get the logic behind it doesn't mean it's illogical.
That's because stealing cars is a high risk crime. If you stole a car, you have a fair chance of being caught, either while stealing, transporting, or selling (in this case, giving away). The idea is to make the opportunity cost higher than the payout. Even if you get away with it once or twice, when you get caught, you pay enough to negate any proceeds and more.
With tunes, what we really want is 0.99 times by chance of you eventually buying the song, divided by the chance of you getting caught in the act, times 10% or whatever. That way it is, in theory, a disincentive to engage in the act, plus the victims are fairly compensated, even for the people who were not caught.
Yes, but what if the person can't pay back the proceeds? What if they can't give them copies of their own new and valuable copyrighted works, for the victim to share at his leisure? Even then, the value of those copies would be debatable, in which case a monetary fine might be more convenient for all parties.
Oh, and you can't just have exactly the proceeds, otherwise there is no disincentive. If someone robbed your house, and the punishment was simply returning the stolen goods, would you feel that justice had been served, and would you feel confident that they would not try it again? Perhaps a fine proportional to the expected financial damage, and inversely proportional to the chance of getting caught? That sounds fair to me.
Have you heard of the "Naturalistic Fallacy"? You've just given us a corker example. You presume that something that is artificial is bad (well, you do selectively, given that you typed that on an artificial computer). With just a little critical thought, I'm sure you think of several examples where not only have artificial things not been a burden, but have active helped us, improved our lives, and even helped achieve natural ends more efficiently and effectively. In short, you need to, in fact, come up with a far stronger argument why we need to do away with the music industry, or just generally paying for music. That, or start euthanising people born by C-sections.
We have copyright because creating music (and movies, and games, and other art/entertainment) is unnatural, and we want to encourage it. Entertainment has minimal effect at best on our survival and biological development as a species. Naturally, we should be hunting and gathering, rather than wasting out time with such things. However, as it turns out, we actually do want entertainment, even if it's totally artificial. To support it, it turns out we need some artificial measures to support it, otherwise the instinct to hunt and gather tends to trump the instinct to create, play, record, and distribute music, especially when the hunger sets in.
So, like I said, you can rampage against artificial things until you're rightfully arrested, or you can actually be productive to your cause, and help organise an artificial boycott against music labels.
How many times does it have to be pointed out: Slashdot is not a single person.
Technically, you are correct, but you show strong evidence of missing the point (possibly even deliberately). It doesn't matter that Slashdot is not a single person, or that all Slashdotters don't all necessarily agree on some issue. The point is that there is a sufficient presence of people with a certain opinion, such that they are capable of making (and often willing to make) visible only the comments that agree with said opinion. At its worst, this has chilling effects on intellectual diversity, specifically discouraging reasonable debate.
This has happened with the piracy issue; I have experienced it first hand. I have posted a number of extremely polite, well reasoned arguments, only to have them discreetly smothered by overrated mods (of course, because I was perfectly on topic, reasonable, clearly not a troll, and original, and overrated mods do not have repercussions via metamoderation). When I responded to one of the responders to my argument, in the same sentence as insulting my intelligence, he agreed with my assessment that I was being censored for the content of my opinions, not the way they were presented. Certainly, there has been since a swing on the issue, and now people speaking up about piracy are simply at a disadvantage, rather than completely without hope. I should also point out that this is no isolated incident. I have posted probably in excess of 100 anti-piracy posts (some more polite than others), and roughly 30-40% have been unjustly modded down. I also browse with bonuses on troll and flamebait mods, and I see other such injustices (a common example: in religion vs atheism debates).
Please, the groupthink here is a very serious issue here. There is no fallacious assumption of a hive mind occurring here. Nobody doubts that slashdot is made up of individuals. The posts were ignored because they simply weren't relevant.
I would think enjoyment is beside the point. They want to see which ad jumps into your mind first. The ad is not supposed to entertain, it's supposed to steer your mind in the direction of the advertised brand. The best way to give a negative answer would be to say, "I don't remember any good ones".
Some people have some real issues trusting others. Sure, this app doesn't help (at least, in the long term), but it explains why they enter and stay in relationships with people they don't trust; specifically because the alternative is no relationship at all.
So, without mental arithmetic, we may have some bad purchases at supermarkets, perhaps some tardiness, or perhaps just some people who walk around with little pocket calculators. Without vocabulary, we simply lose the ability to communicate. No biggie;-)
If only a few people know the language of science, then only a few people will control it. This is not a good state of affairs for freedom.
Do you really think that someone with a high-school education (including maths) would be equipped with the necessary tools to properly critically evaluate a scientific study? You would also need some knowledge of the subject of the study, unless you were just going to look at p-values.
I'm afraid that advanced knowledge may well be doomed to be held by the few.
Slashdot Mirror
It's because the government and corporations are responsible for a vast majority of extralegal violence cases. They use them to exterminate their opponents, and at the same time, securing a platform to get votes. The sheep go gaga over these "tragedies", and will pretty much vote however the pollies tell them.
BTW, if it's not clear by now that I'm joking, then there is either something very, very wrong with people in general, or just something very, very wrong with you.
Having truly free speech means you have freedom from responsibility handed down from the law. So, if we truly had free speech, then the arrest would not happen (or at least would be unjust). What we have here is an exception to free speech, not the consequences of free speech.
More than that, a serious threat to kill someone can have the same effect as a not-so-serious threat. They do the same damage, so to speak.
Mind you, my brother and I threaten to kill each other all the time, but we never press charges. ;-)
Small point: intent to kill and inciting violence are two very different offences. I'm sure no one thought there was an intent to kill, but there is an argument to be made for it inciting violence.
Except, they're not trying to censor the phrase "It's on like Donkey Kong". In fact, I'm pretty sure they'll be propagating as far and wide as possible when they release Donkey Kong Country later this month.
I'm sorry, but where was the GP claiming that the TSA was effective?
How come one post pointing out an unfounded assertion is modded 0 Troll, and another making up an unfounded assertion to burn as a strawman is modded 5 Insightful? Seriously, have we really sunk this low?
I have an exam for the course in critical thinking at uni, so this is perfect for me to try some analysis of your arguments.
Emotional appeal and begging the question (you can't convince me it's bad by working from the assumption that it's bad).
There's a suppressed hypothesis to your argument here: "If such arguments appear on slashdot, then IP is a complete failure". I contest this assumption, on the basis that slashdot self-propagates and supports anti-copyright sentiments, and as a result, anti-copyright articles are actively sought after, and given preference by the editors. Slashdot is, in short, a terrible place to inform yourself on the issue.
Again, begging the question. If it were indeed true that business models needed to evolve, and they didn't, then that would validate a comparison with the dinosaurs. By comparing them with dinosaurs, and deriving from that that they must evolve, you are begging the question. Also, I question the truth of the hypothesis that the business models are not evolving. Several companies are trying, as much as they can, to embrace the internet, and the free flow of data that it entails.
As detailed above, this requires further proof, and is certainly not evident.
I accept your hypothesis that music is not going to disappear. However, we want more from music than it simply existing in people's bedrooms. We want it to be recorded, distributed, and appear in sufficient volume so that we have the ability to choose from more than a couple of new albums per year. So, the fact that music will still exist in some form is entirely insufficient. We expect much, much more than that.
Requires proof. I'll accept that musicians who are sufficiently rich and/or well-known might be capable, but I would think it would be fairly difficult for the poor unknowns to distinguish themselves from the flood of other poor unknowns. Perhaps, as a suggestion, you can point to some indie artists who gained international success without using the music industry?
I don't see the connection between home studios and reducing the financial loss related to piracy. Perhaps you could elaborate more? Also, if I may, I'd like to present a counter-argument:
Copyright is optional (i.e. artists may choose to release music that is not under copyright).
A business model is superior* to the traditional copyright business model if and only if more artists choose to use it.
Very few artists are using that business model (certainly less than those using the traditional copyright business model).
Therefore, your business model is not superior to the traditional copyright business model.
* By "superior", I mean that artists prefer to use it, including factoring in any increased interest by customers. For ex
And money. Don't forget money (did you even read my post?).
I should also point out that the hypothetical assholes in this scenario are not using any of the builder's time or money; the builder is, in the anticipation that he will be compensated for it. So clearly, simply stating that the pirate is using his own time is not nearly enough, and your supposing that it is just goes to show how much you missed the point.
Oh, and I find it amusing that you think it's convincing to invent a name for an argument, as though it has been thoroughly countered, even when it clearly has not. I call that the "naming" argument, and it has been thoroughly countered.
Why? Aside from the fact that you wish to trivialise my opinion so that you have any hope of rebutting it?
I refer you to my analogy (which you really must read). Just because we expect the people to pay the builder at the end of the job, does not mean we expect everyone to pay the builder.
You're also demonstrating an embarrassing lack of understanding of copyright law (and economics, and basic literacy). Copyright law is not supposed to force you to buy things, it's supposed to give you a choice of buying something and having it, or not buying something and having it, because without that choice, then people are inevitably going to start having without buying. You broke the law, you are liable to pay damages. As for why the law is like this, it has been observed, and is obvious to anyone with half a brain, that given the opportunity to obtain something legally for free, and paying for it, people will tend to go for the free version, which makes artists unable to survive as artists. So, no potential profit, no nothing, just that one option is better than another. We made the better option law, and we apportion blame to anyone who starts dragging us back to the worse option. Notice that, in no reasonable option does everyone purchase a copy of the work, and even if there was, it's not codified into law. Nobody, except those who push your particular strawman, is claiming that everyone owes artists. It's only those who spoil the situation by breaking copyright law.
The next door neighbours didn't pay the builder either! I'm sure those asshole customers didn't hesitate to try to shift the blame to the neighbours for their own selfishness.
I love this "illogical capitalistic society". Perhaps you could explain the exact fallacy committed in capitalism? Otherwise, I'll be forced to remain at the obvious conclusion: you don't understand capitalism, and you hate what you don't understand. It's obvious, given your already established propensity to argue on issues you don't actually grasp.
I would choose a third option: not pirating. This is not the same as anti-piracy. It fights both the piracy and anti-piracy extremes. It illegitimises piracy, and as such, robs anti-pirate forces of their political powers. If people accept piracy is immoral, then we get more effectiveness from less enforcement; a win-win situation for all of us.
Spoken like someone who truly does not understand it, or modal logic in general. However, consider this:
Let's say that you're a builder, and you've just finished building a house. You expect payment at the end, but your customers decline. You are understandably furious; you've put many hours into construction and much money into materials and other labour. You tell this to your customers, but they tell you that it's not their problem, and tell you it's your fault for not finding a better business model, one that doesn't rely on this artificial "contract law" stuff. They tell you that true builders will build for the pleasure of it, and that building materials are becoming cheaper every day, and ramble on, spouting self-serving crap, all the while sounding like complete assholes.
Did these customers steal from you? Maybe yes, maybe no. Stealing is just a word, and it means whatever we all say it means. Did it hurt you financially? Undoubtedly yes. Why did it hurt you? Well, if you think about it, what really hurt you was not their decision not to pay you, but your payment for materials and labour. Had you not paid for those things, financially, you would be exactly where you would have been had you not agreed to build the house (ignoring possibilities of working on a house that you would earn some pay for).
So why do we accuse those people for financially screwing you? You very reasonably expected them to pay for those expenses. There was nothing forcing them to do so, except some piece of paper with both your signatures on it, and even then it would be useless without some kind of law and law enforcement backing it up. Because of this expectation, you paid for the expenses, which hurt you financially. They could argue that they were only damaging potential money, that couldn't be damaged because it's in an alternate dimension where they paid you, and they would never have paid you anyway, but that doesn't change the fact that they are wrong, and both legally and morally responsible for following through on their contract.
Tell me, to my face, that my argument was illogical, assumed the existence of alternate dimensions, and that you as the builder did not deserve to be reimbursed. Just because you don't get the logic behind it doesn't mean it's illogical.
That's because stealing cars is a high risk crime. If you stole a car, you have a fair chance of being caught, either while stealing, transporting, or selling (in this case, giving away). The idea is to make the opportunity cost higher than the payout. Even if you get away with it once or twice, when you get caught, you pay enough to negate any proceeds and more.
With tunes, what we really want is 0.99 times by chance of you eventually buying the song, divided by the chance of you getting caught in the act, times 10% or whatever. That way it is, in theory, a disincentive to engage in the act, plus the victims are fairly compensated, even for the people who were not caught.
Yes, but what if the person can't pay back the proceeds? What if they can't give them copies of their own new and valuable copyrighted works, for the victim to share at his leisure? Even then, the value of those copies would be debatable, in which case a monetary fine might be more convenient for all parties.
Oh, and you can't just have exactly the proceeds, otherwise there is no disincentive. If someone robbed your house, and the punishment was simply returning the stolen goods, would you feel that justice had been served, and would you feel confident that they would not try it again? Perhaps a fine proportional to the expected financial damage, and inversely proportional to the chance of getting caught? That sounds fair to me.
Have you heard of the "Naturalistic Fallacy"? You've just given us a corker example. You presume that something that is artificial is bad (well, you do selectively, given that you typed that on an artificial computer). With just a little critical thought, I'm sure you think of several examples where not only have artificial things not been a burden, but have active helped us, improved our lives, and even helped achieve natural ends more efficiently and effectively. In short, you need to, in fact, come up with a far stronger argument why we need to do away with the music industry, or just generally paying for music. That, or start euthanising people born by C-sections.
We have copyright because creating music (and movies, and games, and other art/entertainment) is unnatural, and we want to encourage it. Entertainment has minimal effect at best on our survival and biological development as a species. Naturally, we should be hunting and gathering, rather than wasting out time with such things. However, as it turns out, we actually do want entertainment, even if it's totally artificial. To support it, it turns out we need some artificial measures to support it, otherwise the instinct to hunt and gather tends to trump the instinct to create, play, record, and distribute music, especially when the hunger sets in.
So, like I said, you can rampage against artificial things until you're rightfully arrested, or you can actually be productive to your cause, and help organise an artificial boycott against music labels.
Technically, you are correct, but you show strong evidence of missing the point (possibly even deliberately). It doesn't matter that Slashdot is not a single person, or that all Slashdotters don't all necessarily agree on some issue. The point is that there is a sufficient presence of people with a certain opinion, such that they are capable of making (and often willing to make) visible only the comments that agree with said opinion. At its worst, this has chilling effects on intellectual diversity, specifically discouraging reasonable debate.
This has happened with the piracy issue; I have experienced it first hand. I have posted a number of extremely polite, well reasoned arguments, only to have them discreetly smothered by overrated mods (of course, because I was perfectly on topic, reasonable, clearly not a troll, and original, and overrated mods do not have repercussions via metamoderation). When I responded to one of the responders to my argument, in the same sentence as insulting my intelligence, he agreed with my assessment that I was being censored for the content of my opinions, not the way they were presented. Certainly, there has been since a swing on the issue, and now people speaking up about piracy are simply at a disadvantage, rather than completely without hope. I should also point out that this is no isolated incident. I have posted probably in excess of 100 anti-piracy posts (some more polite than others), and roughly 30-40% have been unjustly modded down. I also browse with bonuses on troll and flamebait mods, and I see other such injustices (a common example: in religion vs atheism debates).
Please, the groupthink here is a very serious issue here. There is no fallacious assumption of a hive mind occurring here. Nobody doubts that slashdot is made up of individuals. The posts were ignored because they simply weren't relevant.
No, many of them did something much worse: they gave away what they downloaded.
It was worth getting my ear pecked to a bloody stump!
I would think enjoyment is beside the point. They want to see which ad jumps into your mind first. The ad is not supposed to entertain, it's supposed to steer your mind in the direction of the advertised brand. The best way to give a negative answer would be to say, "I don't remember any good ones".
But this is all speculation. IANAMarketingDroid.
I would put people who sell bad products in front of people who I have petty gripes with, and behind people who actually deserve it.
Some people have some real issues trusting others. Sure, this app doesn't help (at least, in the long term), but it explains why they enter and stay in relationships with people they don't trust; specifically because the alternative is no relationship at all.
Teehee! You said "knob"!
Name one open source operating system, for any programmable platform, that is bug-free.
Creepy.
Yo.
So, without mental arithmetic, we may have some bad purchases at supermarkets, perhaps some tardiness, or perhaps just some people who walk around with little pocket calculators. Without vocabulary, we simply lose the ability to communicate. No biggie ;-)
Look, I get your point, but surely you get mine.
Psst, AC troll. You forgot the goatse link!
Do you really think that someone with a high-school education (including maths) would be equipped with the necessary tools to properly critically evaluate a scientific study? You would also need some knowledge of the subject of the study, unless you were just going to look at p-values.
I'm afraid that advanced knowledge may well be doomed to be held by the few.