LOL I love how bias RT is.

there anti captlist messages and the way they structure things is halrouse its like a inversion of fox news.

Still allot of what RT covers is true and its nice to have a different bias view piont on things, one other thing they do which is nice is long interviews without interruptions.

Evan though allot of the pieces they do are totally mental with an obvious agenda it can be quite refreshing , "the real news network" however offers the same thing without the bullshit though and unlike 99% of RT content I dont have to take the information from RNN with a table spoon of salt.

Yea, my understanding is that it was usually used because of its ability to withstand extreme heat without cracking. It's basically "tempered stone" if you will. >> ^spoco2:

Also... I take issue with his comment that Soapstone 'is unique in that it holds and radiates heat'. (and the inverse cold)
All stones do that, anything dense does that really. Using stone as a heatsink in buildings is nothing new.

Of course all stones do that, but I'm guessing he's saying soapstone has a relatively high specific heat capacity, so it can absorb more heat than most other stones, making it a good choice for whiskey stones.>> ^spoco2:

Also... I take issue with his comment that Soapstone 'is unique in that it holds and radiates heat'. (and the inverse cold)
All stones do that, anything dense does that really. Using stone as a heatsink in buildings is nothing new.

Also... I take issue with his comment that Soapstone 'is unique in that it holds and radiates heat'. (and the inverse cold)

All stones do that, anything dense does that really. Using stone as a heatsink in buildings is nothing new.

>> ^Payback:

Uh... if these magnets are so damn much more than the earth's field, why do compasses not point at them from several miles away?
the strength of the field falls off inversely with the cube of the distance from the magnet's center.

>> ^lampishthing:

I think that's the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.
Atheism: belief that there is (are) no God(s).
Agnostic: lack of belief either way.
"Gnostic" is derived from a Greek word meaning knowing (roughly speaking). Theism and Atheism are Gnostic philosophies as they claim to know that there is a God or not. Agnostic is the inverse: not knowing.

Actually you have that wrong. Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods, it's the lack of belief in a god. It's a small but important point. Agnosticism (as you pointed out) is related to knowledge.

Most "atheists" are agnostics atheists, they don't know if there's a good, but they have seen no evidence for one therefore have no reason to believe in one. Very few atheists (even the "hardcore" like Dawkins) will say they know there's no god, simply that it is extremely improbable.

Theists can fall into either camp. There are many agnostic theists, who can't say for sure that there is a good but choose to believe anyway. People like @shinyblurry would claim to be gnostic theists, in that they claim to know there is a god, and consequently believe.

To me, gnosticism (either theistic or atheistic) is an intellectually dishonest position. There is no real evidence (and personal experience doesn't count, I'm afraid) for this existence of god, but by it's very definition an omnipotent being outside the laws of physics could hide his existence from the universe so it's impossible to disprove using science.

Finally, there is one more position that hasn't been mentioned. It's the third axis on the graph. So far, we have belief (considered opinion based on evidence) and knowledge (evidence available), but there is also desire; whether you want god to exist or not. I don't know the positive term for this, but the negative is usually called an "anti-theist", and can be applied to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. This is the idea that not only does god probably not exist, it is a good thing that it doesn't. Atheists do not necessarily fall into this camp. Many feel that a benevolent deity would be a nice thing, much like it'd be nice if Santa or the easter bunny existed, but there's simply insufficient evidence for it. Note that anti-theists don't hate theists (other than the ones that any moral person would hate: bigots, child-molesters and so on), they hate the concept of god.

It's even possible to be a theist antitheist ("god's a prick, but he's a powerful prick so I should really obey him") although I'll haven't met any of them. Fictional example would be Riddick

For the record, I am an agnostic atheist anti-theist. I don't know if there's a god, I find it improbable and if he's anything like he's depicted in any of the major religions, I want no part of him.

I think that's the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.

Atheism: belief that there is (are) no God(s).
Agnostic: lack of belief either way.

"Gnostic" is derived from a Greek word meaning knowing (roughly speaking). Theism and Atheism are Gnostic philosophies as they claim to *know* that there is a God or not. Agnostic is the inverse: not knowing.>> ^sickio:

The faith you speak of isn't mutually inclusive with Atheism.
Not all Atheists believe there are no deities, however all lack any belief that there are any deities.
>> ^shinyblurry:
of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God.
francis collins human genome project

@dgandhi

Okay, nowhere in there did I see the sort of correlation you are suggesting. In fact, if anything, I saw a decrease in CD sales coupled with an increase in piracy. Sure, he added a bunch of hand-wavey explanations for this that fit your model, but none of them were what I'd call properly "evidence-based."

With regards to your first assertion, it's been conceded. As I pointed out, nobody, including the industry, expects such a correlation to exist. Both piracy and profitability are correlated with quality, and thus you would clearly expect a positive correlation between the two. However, were you able to independently control for the quality of the content in question (i.e. not basing your quality metric on level of piracy, or sales), you might be able to see an inverse "partial correlation." Who knows, it might go the other way too. All I meant by my post is that the inverse correlation you are looking for is unlikely to exist without first controlling for quality (which is likely intractable). Further, the existence of a positive correlation between the two variables is not evidence that "piracy increases profits" for the reasons I've pointed out. The prior is that such a positive correlation should exist, even in a world in which piracy decreases profits.

I was not claiming to have access to the data, nor direct evidence. Simply adding commentary on what proper evidence would look like. Sorry to hear about your legal troubles.

>> ^bmacs27:
Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion).

My basic assertions are two

1. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between "piracy" and profit for the industry.
   
2. Nobody has provided any evidence that shows an inverse correlation between number of "piracy" lawsuits and number of "pirates".
   

Furthermore, the opposite correlations have been shown to exist for at least the first case, and the second seems almost completely decoupled.

I am not asserting that the RI/MPAA does not waste their money alienating their customers. Only that when they do that they don't have an evidence based economic reason for doing so.

I object to the industries "common sense" observation that they "must" be losing money ( when they are making the same or better money than prevailing trends would project at less expense ) being taken as a given without the slightest concern for facts.

If you search for "Could the industry as a whole be gaining" that's near the beginning of the details I'm referring to. Lessig cuts them a lot of slack, but the basic facts he lays out don't conform to the industry narrative I am disputing.

Full disclosure: my annual purchasing of music and movies went from ~$100 to ~$500 the year I started file sharing, and then from ~$500 to $0 the year the MPAA served me with papers, and I stopped file sharing. I'm biased, but I have been following this whole thing very closely, and I know they made money off me sharing, and they lost money by stopping me.

Okay, I downloaded it. Can you point to the specific passage you are referring to that suggests that there is an inverse correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profitability? (I assume that to be your assertion). Or even the passage you are citing as quantitative evidence that there is in fact a financial benefit to copyright holders from piracy?

Everything I've read so far agrees with most everything I've said.

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^bmacs27:
@dgandhi
I can almost guarantee you that the copyrights that have had more spent on enforcement have been more profitable. Just as I can guarantee you that the ones that have been more profitable have probably also been more pirated. You only asked for a correlation man.
The fact is, no convincing evidence has been presented either way.

While nobody here has presented such evidence in this thread, I have claimed that I have seen it, and nobody has made a counter claim of facts , if you want the details of these facts, you can read/listen_to/search ( legally & for free ) Prof Lessig's creative commons licensed book on the issue : http://www.manybooks.net/titles/lessiglother04free_culture.html
I would like to see you debunk his work, or even back up your "almost guarantee" of correlation with facts instead of conjecture.

>> ^bmacs27:

What they're probably acting on is the positive correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profit per publication. Does that suffice for you?

I don't buy that either, the data on litigation shows that it cost more than it brings in.

If you could show that litigation produces less pirating, again the data a few years ago showed the inverse correlation, then you might have something, but I want to see the data.

The entire MP/RIAA PR campaign against "piracy" is based on their claim that they are loosing money, which has not only not been demonstrated, but in fact appears to be the opposite of what is happening.

Copyright has become a broken social convention, because the copyright conglomerates have sought to extend it indefinitely, and to use strong arm tactics and dishonesty to enforce their power grab.

I'm in favor of a sane copyright system, but if we don't have one I can't really blame anybody for ignoring it.

What they're probably acting on is the positive correlation between dollars spent enforcing copyright, and profit per publication. Does that suffice for you?

Arguing for statistics representative of counterfactuals like that is tricky. Presumably the dominant causal structure is something like:

profitable <---- good ----> pirated.

You'd somehow need to condition on quality, independent of both profitability and piracy in order to argue that pirating impacts profitability one way or the other. Both are plausible in my mind, via stolen sales competing with free exposure. My guess is that the industry has already done a much more nuanced and contextualized calculations with their data. The result was probably that piracy supports independent artists and small labels, but hurts the blockbuster sales. Instead, they probably should have been focusing on quality music, and the money would come all by itself.

>> ^dgandhi:

Until somebody can at least show an inverse correlation in ( profit/publication ):( files pirated )

>> ^Psychologic:

>> ^heropsycho:

And of course people are going to be less likely to buy something when they can get it for free.

Okay, I keep hearing this " big problem, people don't buy ". Can either of you back this up?

The facts the last time I checked were exactly the opposite, file sharing correlates with more purchasing. nobody is loosing money, they are just loosing control.

Until somebody can at least show an inverse correlation in ( profit/publication ):( files pirated ) I'm calling bullshit, the only problem with intellectual property in "western society" is that the public domain has been raided by infinite copyright terms.

From Cosmic Variance
Predictions for 2012
by Sean Carroll

So you don’t enter the new year completely unprepared, here are my most secure predictions for 2012. Unlike other prognostication websites, these predictions are based on Science!

1. Freely-falling objects will accelerate toward the ground at an approximately constant rate, up to corrections due to air resistance.
2. Of all the Radium-226 nuclei on the Earth today, 0.04% will decay by the end of the year.
3. A line drawn between any planet (or even dwarf planet) and the Sun will sweep out equal areas in equal times.
4. Hurricanes in the Northern hemisphere will rotate counterclockwise as seen from above.
5. The pressure of a gas squeezed in a piston will rise inversely with the change in volume.
6. Electric charges in motion will give rise to magnetic fields.
7. The energy of an object at rest whose mass decreases will also decrease, by the change in mass times the speed of light squared.
8. The content of the world’s genomes will gradually evolve in ways determined by fitness in a given environment, sexual selection, and random chance.
9. The entropy of closed systems will increase.
10. People will do many stupid things, and some surprisingly smart ones.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Your video, This driver's balls are inversely proportional to his brain, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.