Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
The word "reduces" in the title of the article clearly asserts causation.
Not to me it does not.
You need to work on your reading skills.
Aha. I'll get right on it. You know... so that I can impress all those who would rather pretend that a clearly stated assertion does not amount to an assertion because that would mean that they lost the argument. I am convinced that if I try just a little bit harder. If I (maybe?) take a remedial reading class?.. then and only then will they'll be impressed. Because if they ever got on a path of trying to defend the indefensible (go ahead... cut n paste this sentence... pretend there is irony because you are clever)... so if they got on a path of defending the indefensible, they'd agree that they erred as soon as a water-tight argument was presented to them. They are never wrong. Just misunderstood. So I'll go ahead and try to understand them better. Getting right on it.
Just one one thing before I do.
Why are so many medical studies reported as "we found a correlation so there must be a causation.
The slashdot article is not a medical study.
The bbc.com article is not a medical study
I've emphasized the verbs in that "argument" you were making. Reading comprehension. How bout them apples?
Oh, wait, I know what's comming... Let me guess, ok? It's fun. You claim that I make no sense. Then you claim that I am "still" not understanding your point. Then you realize that you can also throw in the (ever so ironic by now) accusation of ad hominem in my direction. Did I get close? Actually, I don't care what you think. Your arguments have proven my point well enough (yeah, yeah... you'll call me "delusional"... I know... it's always someone else... it's never you).
Please stop saying "Correlation do not imply causation".
The first victim of expediency is usually grammar. As a casual commentator, you should be quite familiar with the concept. Because this:
First of all, not every study says there is a causal relationship.
does not indicate that you took your time to parse precisely enough the sentence
Why is medical reporting so rife with them?
Had you done so, you would see that you were putting forward a counter-argument to a point which had not been made.
You do realize that copyright is a legal structure created and determined by the government, and its terms can be modified and defined as to public policy, right?
Not per se. Article one explicitly states that intellectual property regimes are to be established for the purposes of promoting useful sciences and arts. It's not a carte blanche prerogative of the legislature.. It has a designated purpose. Simple act of allowing someone to see you naked is not an act of an artistic performance. Doing so for the purposes of coitus is a biological imperative (akin to going to a doctor to get a check up). Agreeing to be observed carries with it agreeing to have someone remember the observation. And the observer should retain the copyright of the observation(if (s)he, for example, talks about it) or recording because observation and recording are the only parts of the act which have any artistic merit. Simply showing up to be there naked to have your biological imperative fulfilled is not an artistic or a scientific endeavor. So it merits no intellectual property protection.