" Ideas, by themselves, are neither unique nor protectable. It's the execution or (within the copyright realm) the expression that is unique. Yet, too many people overvalue the idea and assume that only they could possibly have had it. The idea behind the story of Avatar is pretty simplistic and common, really. It's been done plenty of times before. The reason the movie is getting so much attention is because of the execution." - http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100520/0217349506.shtml
Re: Most important post of week was out_of_the_blue's distinction:
Then there's THE ODDITY OF THIS VERY GUEST POST by name that Google says appears only FOUR times on site, starting today! An ardent supporter yet no prior history? JUST ODD.
Odd how, exactly? We have many avid readers who are not highly-active commenters. Also, in general, most people have filters that prevent them from posting comments full of recycled nonsense when they have nothing new to say. Cough cough.
its an interesting experiment, but in the long term I think it will be a failure. Also trying to tie it to the worth of 'real money' is somewhat odd, for example, does TD tie the price charged in bitcoins to the current "market value" of bitcoins or some lesser amount ?
On the Insider Shop, bitcoin purchases are processed by Bitpay, which offers a Best Bid conversion rate based on a simulated sell order across multiple bitcoin exchanges, updated every minute:
Adding the option to pay with bitcoin was easy and made sense -- as for those bigger technological and economic questions of bitcoin's future, well, people with far more knowledge than me still seem to be fervently debating it from all angles. I too am interested to see how it pans out.
Oh, I looked at your facts. But it's not possible to engage in a discussion of scientific facts with someone who can't even be bothered to learn the basic vocabulary, so I'm not going to try to explain to you why you are drawing false conclusions. Based on your three links, though, I can suggest a new source of research for you: Sesame Street has these great segments called "one of these things is not like the others". Check it out.
As with all groups, their interests precede all others. Don't want to offend the status quo and be denied lucrative funding...
You clearly have never met a real scientist in your life. The single greatest thing a research scientist could do for their career is disprove a commonly held theory or craft a novel one that surpasses it.
I find it interesting that you can dismiss the contents of a book you never read simply because you consider the publisher's other literature to be conspiracy nonsense.
I think the fact that all publications with a strong track record of publishing high-quality scientific literature -- most of which are independently funded and do not rely on money from the medical community you fear so much -- will not touch anti-vaxx material is very telling. I find the fact that the ONLY publishers that will touch it are those that specialize in conspiracy theories, ghosts and new-age topics even more telling.
The fact that you don't is just further proof that you don't have a scientific bone in your body.
If it's such nonsense then how come the overwhelming majority of readers liked it?
Because only people like you would read it, or even give it a second thought.
And I have yet to see any research to validate the health benefits to shoving aluminum, mercury and other toxins into the human system.
Neither of those things are "toxins". Well, I guess they are if you are using it in the completely meaningless way that trendy health-nuts use it to try to sound cool -- but since you're here claiming to have serious insight into a complicated medical subject, you should probably pick up a dictionary.
Any research done within the close-knit medical community is going to pat itself on the back
So... anyone with the knowledge and education that qualifies them to research these questions cannot be trusted? And, as such, we should trust people with no knowledge or education?
Hmm, this looks interesting.
No, it looks like a book full of nonsense from the publishers who brought us a book described as "a remarkable analysis linking the assassination of JFK and 9/11," a street-conning guide called Scam School, a compendium of paranormal crime stories entited Ghouls, Ghosts, and Ninja Rats, and the Jesse Ventura American Conspiracy Card Set.
I'd give a lot more credence to these insane theories if they didn't always all come from the same place at once. Funny how you never meet anyone who believes in Bigfoot but NOT alien abductions, isn't it?
Re: What are the odds an outbreak would strike there?
Now. Google just "vaccine death": About 57,500,000 results
Dear god! You've really opened my eyes. Plus, your ingenious new approach to epidemiology has exposed all kinds of hiterhto unknown risks -- just check out these results!
iphone death - 556,000,000 hits chess seizure - 65,000,000 hits youtube cancer - 420,000,000 hits lawn darts priapism - 2,020,000 hits gored by unicorn - 2,540,000 hits spontaneously turned into a bowl of daisies - 11,800,000 hits eaten by sentient tree - 16,400,000 hits out of the blue induced brain failure - 7,810,000 hits
Clearly Darryl, having finally accepted that we do not interfere with free speech nor do we do anything that qualifies as censorship, has invented his own slightly modified terms to use in his accusations. Think of it as ideological typosquatting.
Techdirt used to advocate a CWF+RTB approach. You know, create something useful, engage with your community and make them feel like they are part of what you do - the goal being that some people would, hopefully, like you enough to send a buck your way.
You seem a little unclear on what CWF+RTB means. You've only described the CWF part. We have never advocated "give it away and pray" -- the RTB half is where you offer people a reason to buy, i.e. an interesting thing that they actually want to pay for, rather than just hoping they "send a buck your way" because they "like you enough"
It's not "our list" -- it's the community's votes... In fact, personally, though I'm not sure if it would change the ultimate conclusion about the situation, I completely agree with AzureSky's observation that most people were surprisingly willing to let emotion prevent them from gathering all the facts. But silverscarcat's comment is the one that got more "insightful" votes from readers than any other comment this week.
I'd just like to point out (and I should have made this clear earlier) that this is about a lot more than profanity. FCC regulations cover all sorts of supposedly "adult" content, and not just that which is directly profane or sexual -- even certain implications and double entendres can be considered out of bounds. This also isn't just about comedy or trashy shows -- in fact, there is a huge issue of context that is a big part of the problem. Sometimes context is considered -- networks have aired Schindler's List uncut, for example, and not been fined, though the same nudity and profanity would draw huge fines in most shows. It's easy to say "well, it's Schindler's List" -- but there is nothing in the FCC rules that actually draws a line or explains the distinction (nor would we want the FCC playing that kind of art critic role anyway).
Making this a simple debate about whether it's okay to say "fuck" on TV is reductive (and I accept some of the blame for not offering more examples off the bat)