drochaid

if gay bashing is disallowed, then so should bashing of YECs, Animal rights protesters, certain Political views etc... (oh hang on a sec, the Latter Are!).

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree very strongly with the above. You do not choose to be homosexual, or hetero, or bi .. you just are. Discrimination on the basis of facts you have no control over must be condemned outright.

To ridicule a person for their CHOICE of political, animal welfare, religious views is absolutely separate and choice must always be open to debate. You certainly have the right to request that debate not to be openly offensive, but this is absolutely not the same in any way, shape or form as open hostility to a group of people who do not have the choice to be anything else.

I have a degree in Computer Studies (*not* computer science.. covered software engineering rather than programming, SAD, CT and an emphasis on business/maths/psychology) and am currently working toward a degree in psychology.

Psychology (very heavy emphasis in research), and Education.

What areas of research did you study and have been involved in lately?

Sorry I didn't mean to imply anything bad by that, my wording of sentences is a bit shot to pieces atm...

 

Writing in the third person is annoying. I've got about 750 words in fig titles! *sigh*

..that would appear to be somewhat more relevant for you then

Fig titles and stuff don't count, and I know of no situation where they would.

You'll note I said "almost everything" and not "everything"... My papers don't have enough figures to care about the wordcounts, so I didn't bother to mention it.

They do for every paper I've ever written ... the title doesn't, the references don't, the appendices don't, almost everything else generally does.

But perhaps you should check with your prof. so you're not guessing?

AFAIK there's no way for them to add anything to your phone bill. Don't panic.

Unless they're collecting it in the now standard UK form of charging to send you an sms once a week which costs you £4.50 to receive.. this is how most cell based subscription services work over here, and while I'm mentioning it only as a possibility, the fact shadowfierce received instruction to sms "STOP" to a short code number suggests this is the way they're charging.

I don't think we're at the level of delving into legal definitions here. I think the idea here is one of ethics, as in the ethical equivalent of blackmail. It's fairly obvious boycotts are legal.

I think the thread would need to be clearly stated as an ethics discussion for that to be the case. The question was "Is boycotting blackmail?" rather than "Should boycotting be blackmail?". I'm responding on the basis of the question being "Is" and in that regard the legal definition is entirely relevant as it has been discussed and decided upon by a considerable number of people and those people, in different countries, have largely come to the same conclusion. In response to gcol pointing out that legality is "man-made and subject to political whim" well, yes, clearly, as is this discussion man-made and subject to personal whim.. that's rather the point, isn't it?

I just clicked on the link to the definition in the Oxford dictionary in my post and that definition is certainly there. All I did was add a line break to my copy and paste. Are you saying the Oxford Dictionary is wrong?

It would seem I wasn't clear enough in my last post. The three definitions I provided are from the Oxford English Dictionary whereas I suspect your quotes were from one of the lesser variants, such as the Concise Oxford English Dictionary.

As ParanoiA pointed out, the second definition you provided is incredibly woolly and entirely unhelpful.. no doubt why it does not exist in the real OED. Boycotting is not blackmail .. it just isn't .. if it were, every company every boycotted would very quickly resort to legal action against the boycotters as blackmail is a criminal offence in most western countries.

The act of threatening someone with an action to coerce an action from them is blackmail by definition. I suppose simply boycotting someone without first threatening to do so would not technically be blackmail.

I've just logged into the Oxford English Dictionary, and that second definition is not present. But regardless, it's not blackmail by any reasonable definition of the word and certainly not by the legal definition.

1. Hist. A tribute formerly exacted from farmers and small owners in the border counties of England and Scotland, and along the Highland border, by freebooting chiefs, in return for protection or immunity from plunder.

2. By extension: Any payment extorted by intimidation or pressure, or levied by unprincipled officials, critics, journalists, etc. upon those whom they have it in their power to help or injure. Now usu. a payment extorted by threats or pressure, esp. by threatening to reveal a discreditable secret; the action of extorting such a payment. Also fig.

3. Law. Rent reserved in labour, produce, etc., as distinguished from ‘white rents,’ which were reserved in ‘white money’ or silver. Obs. (Coke's and Blackstone's explanation of redditus nigri, which Camden appears to have taken for rents in ‘black money’ or copper.)

The free market allows us to decide where we shop. Whether that is based on price, quality or any other considerations including ethical is entirely up to the individual consumer. Boycotts are calls for people not to shop with company X in order to send a message that their actions are considered unacceptable.

The individual consumer chooses whether or not to join the boycott.

The company chooses whether or not to alter its actions as a result of the boycott.

I therefore can see no possible way that it could be considered blackmail. Companies survive by changing in order to meet the needs of their customers .. a boycott is simply one very strong way of telling them what needs to change.

That's ridiculously expensive for sms.

Was this a double blind test?

It would have been more gracious of you to post in a relevant area of the forum, provide reasonable information and a sensible question in the first place. You did not and you continue along the same path regardless of the number of people who have all basically said the same as me albeit in shorter form.

I have provided you with considerable information which may benefit you greatly were you to ignore my irritation with your posts and pay attention to the content instead. You have shown no aspect of doing so.

Had any people offering to help yet?

I had many points, capn... he missed every single one of them.

I have told you, I already have a business plan

Uh no, you said you had a business model. This is absolutely nothing to do with a business plan. You really are not helping yourself here.

 

All the info my man (or woman) needs is that if they are able to right software programmes contact me as I will only discuss in person, if you need more info - you are not in the position of the person I require, whom right now sees only a worthwhile opportunity, due to the position they find themselves.

 

No, that is not all "your" man (used in the sense of human and therefore not gender specific) needs before they know if they are interested. You are asking people to go out of their way and use their own time without even the most basic background info on the vertical market you intend to target, the operating environment the project will require to run in, the development environment you prefer them to use or the level of experience you require them to have.

I have designed systems from small single user, through web applications to large multi-tier client server distributed applications serving tens of thousands of users. I am skilled in various methodologies from basic waterfall to SSADM to Agile with good knowledge of project management methodologies. I am a professional member of the British Computer Society and at the point of typing this, am the vice chairman of the Glasgow and West Coast of Scotland BCS branch. So when I say more info is needed, I do have a fairly good background to be able to mean that more info is needed.

From all those projects one thing is very clear.. you would be an absolute nightmare to work with. If you have so little knowledge of computing project life cycles that you believe what you've typed, I see change after change after change during the dev cycle. Each and every one adding time, cost and frustration to your developers.. yes, plural, you almost certainly need more than one unless your idea is so simple it's surprising no one has thought of it before.. at which point, they probably will have.

If you are serious, then get a clue. Research the market, build a business plan around your idea and source funding to develop it properly. Sadly your question was based on such a simple premise of law, I can't believe you didn't know the answer... so I have little confidence in your ability to succeed.

And please please please learn how to spell. Trying to convince people to give you large quantities of their time when you are incapable of spelling even basic words correctly is not going to gain the confidence of the sort of skilled software engineers you will unquestionably need.

In response to your first post, you have pasted in a computer science forum but the question is about patent law. I will be reporting it to a mod to ask that it is moved to a relevant location.

For patent law, talk to John Gray of Murgitroyd & Company, details here: http://www.murgitroyd.com/john_gray.asp

Be prepared to spend the best part of six figures and the next two or three years of your life on it.

On to your second post... I would imagine people are waiting for, you know, info. It's easy to claim you have a great idea, now back it up with fact.

You appear to have missed the entire point of Zimbardo's experiment.

I had this thought about Autism. I know that it is a disability to most that have it in whatever form it takes, but I have to wonder if it is really a disease or disorder.

It's not a disease (to the best research we have available) but it is a disorder.

You need to remember that the term disorder is in relation to the norm .. whether it represents a genetic trait which would prove beneficial and a direction for the human race is irrelevant as it's apart from the norm right now.

You may like to read Foucault's Madness and Civilisation, a mid-20th Century social philosopher/historian who charts the history of madness in (mostly) France but with references to elsewhere as relevant. Opinion on disorders such as autism have changed drastically a number of times over the centuries.. and I'm not convinced the current widely held stance is the best of them.

I beg to differ.

The Zimbardo Prison Experiment was also based on authority, although this time it was what happens when people are put in authoritative positions, and when people are put in captive positions.

Psyber did the short version, but here's the longer one.

What aspect of being a school kid do you believe is not a role of authority vs submission? In the specific event ParanoiA mentioned, his kid was being subjected to peer pressure... otherwise known as peer imposed authority where not following may result in peer related consequences for him. ParanoiA also mentioned groupthink... and aspect of Zimbardo's experiment which was not only a considerable outcome of the experiment, but actually part of the core reason it was undertaken in the first place.

Unless you can give specific and referenced reasons why you disagree, I beg to differ with your opinion.

I would suggest looking at Zimbardo's prison based experiment at Stanford in 1971. The entire premise was of "peer pressure" and there are numerous points that sound like they could be matched with what you've said above.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

or if that fails, connect a serial console...

Where does it say a theory has to be scientifically researched? Where the does it say it has to be proven by this research in order for it to be a theory?

 

Its an idea I had while extensively studying metaphysics and modern psychology. It is a theory. This is a non-issue. You are hung up on something that is irelevant.

 

Ive been promoting this thing all over. Ive been to many different messageboards that have anything to do with this and yes you are the second person to bring up research. Nobody defines theory in the way you do.

That is the definition of theory for the scientific field and you have posted on *science*forums.net. But, being scientific and not some no-hoper twat, allow me to provide references...

From wikipedia: now I'm not the site's greatest fan, but sometimes it can be useful.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech.

But then of course there is the great bastion of etymology, the Oxford English Dictionary:

4. a. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.

6. In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion. Cf. 4.

You will note two clear forms of the word theory there. One which is in common use, equating to opinion, conjecture.. just as I have pointed out your post is. The other being the scientifically defined definition of theory and the only one relevant in this instance.

You most certainly have not extensively studied modern psychology. You would not have got past the absolute basics without learning what a theory is. It is absolutely key to modern psychology to work within the scientific community. replicating their standards and methods, with adaption, where necessary.

As for your claim that nobody defines theory in the way I do... laughable. The more you respond, the clearer it becomes that you have absolutely no clue about the field you are pretending to be a member of. If you do not have even the most utterly basics knowledge behind you, nor the will to go off and do just a little research when challenged in order to make sure you're right .. because there is absolutely no way in hell you could miss such fundamental definitions through any other reason that laziness or bloody mindedness .. how can any of us take your suggestions seriously? Whether they have merit or no is suddenly irrelevant (that's how you spell the word, btw) as you have lost any possible chance of credibility with the people who reads this thread.

How's the weather for you? Bit windy here.

and droch strop stroking your lenses!

Yeah, right. Have you SEEN my babies?

It's not an SLR, just an SLR styled compact with a large zoom.. which is common these days.

The video is 60fps in HD and only reaches 1200fps when you drop the resolution down to 336 x 96 ... still impressive, but not even close to the claims they're wanting to sell it on.

HD video is only approx 2MP .. so yes, it's way more than enough.

iNow .. I HOPE you meant Canon!

No its still a theory. Im just using evidence and philosophies that are already in place. Most people dont even ask me about research. You are like the second person who has done so. Most people Ive shown this to just accept it as a theory regardless of whether they support it or not.

No it is not a theory. A theory is a scientifically research proven hypothesis which can be duplicated by others using the same types of experiment to reach the same approximate conclusions. (along with what iNow said about testable predictions)

You have provided an opinion. At best, a hypothesis.. but as you not only have no plans on doing research and also fail to see the need for it, I refute that option.

If I am really the second person to ask for your evidence, I question the nature of the people you have shown it to! But then again, if they accept this as a theory, they're not worth questioning. You require fresh evidence to support YOUR thoughts.. not recycling someone else's evidence to make it fit, which it clearly doesn't, or they would have come to your conclusions and not their own.