Другая жизнь...

без названия

Wed, 29 Aug 2007 11:45:21 GMT

я редко читаю письма счастья, но ето видимо отражает мои мысли на настоящий момент... А с другой стороны - спорный ведь вопрос! хотеть или не хотеть лучшего? стремиться или нет? чуствую где-то подвох, но где - понять не могу... буду думать..

Группа выпускников, успешных, сделавших замечательную карьеру, пришли
>> в гости к своему старому профессору. Конечно же, вскоре разговор
>> зашел о работе - выпускники жаловались на многочисленные трудности и
>> жизненные проблемы. Предложив своим гостям кофе, профессор пошел на
>> кухню и вернулся с кофейником и подносом, уставленным самыми разными
>> чашками - фарфоровыми, стеклянными, пластиковыми, хрустальными и
>> простыми, и
> дорогими,
>> и изысканными.
>> Когда выпускники разобрали чашки, профессор сказал: "Если вы
>> заметили, все дорогие чашки разобраны. Никто не выбрал чашки простые и
>> дешевые. Желание иметь для себя только лучшее и есть источник ваших
> проблем.
>> Поймите, что чашка сама по себе не делает кофе лучше. Иногда она
>> просто дороже, а иногда даже скрывает то, что мы пьем. То, что вы
>> действительно
> хотели,
>> было - кофе, а не чашка. Но вы сознательно выбрали лучшие чашки. А
>> затем разглядывали, кому какая чашка досталась. А теперь подумайте:
>> жизнь - это кофе, а работа, деньги, положение, общество - это чашки.
>> Это всего лишь инструменты для хранения Жизни. То, какую чашку мы
>> имеем, не определяет и
> не
>> меняет качества нашей Жизни.
>> Иногда, концентрируясь только на чашке, мы забываем насладиться
>> вкусом самого кофе.
>> Наслаждайтесь своим кофе!!!!!!!!!"
>> У самых счастливых людей нет всего лучшего. Но они извлекают все
>> лучшее из того, что есть. Счастье в том, чтобы хотеть то, что у тебя
>> есть.
>> А не в том, чтобы иметь то, что хочешь.
>> Жизнь коротка - нарушай правила - Прощай быстро - Целуй
>> медленно - Люби искренно - Смейся неудержимо . И никогда не сожалей о
>> том,
> что
>> заставило тебя улыбнуться.

Японский ресторан

Fri, 08 Jun 2007 15:53:42 GMT

с тепаньяки. Где? в северной районе бостонской области?

Благодарствую очень

ПС. Бисутеки не предлагать.

Bravissimo!!!!

Wed, 16 May 2007 01:10:49 GMT

come see!

Partying with Russians

Fri, 23 Feb 2007 01:59:41 GMT

Partying with Russians

Exactly my point...

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:58:27 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr1qee-bTZI

Неприятственно, но факт...

Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:53:42 GMT

Once upon a time there were scientists

Submitted by Margarita Bofill on Wed, 2007-01-03 07:04.

Once upon a time there were people with an inquisitive mind. Bewildered by the immensity of the universe, they sat under a tree, observed and tried to understand the laws of life and came with some answers. They were alone, but their contribution to science was invaluable.

Many years later these people could not believe their luck, as they were allowed to gather together in institutes and universities and share their information. In some countries even the government was interested in their discoveries and provided funding for their work. No questions were asked, total trust was given as was believe in their creative capacities. A boom in science, innovative ideas followed, together with huge numbers of meaningful scientific publications and technical developments.

Scared by their success, politicians decided to keep scientist under control. Their work was carefully scrutinised. Unhealthy competition and a lack of trust started then to creep into these institutions. Scientists were made to evaluate each other’s work and competition for money, ideas and publications poisoned scientific relationships.

But this was not enough. A further step had to be taken. Scientist were not only to be scrutinised for the value of their daily work and publications, but the government started dictating what the scientist had to do and who and which lines of research were to be funded. Detailed projects had to be written, and less and less projects were awarded. Creativity was punished, mediocrity was rewarded.

Suddenly inquisitive scientist felt trapped. To survive they had to develop a new skill: to write successful projects. Critical questions were posed: what was likely to be funded?, what would please the politicians?, would they be able to publish enough papers?, who would be most likely to evaluate the project?, would their ideas be stolen?. Competition was fierce, creativity was killed, fear of failure was growing.

The complexity of grant writing stimulated the emergency of a new class of professionals: “Professional project writers”, “ Professional project accountants”, ”Professional project coordinator managers” as well as a full army of civil servants to deal with the massive burocracy created by the body funding organisations, all paid with money allocated to “Research” of course.

But, as if these was not enough the grant giving bodies then decided to only fund “excellent scientists”, defined as those that were good or politically successful in the past, assuming that they would also be good in the future. Now these excellent scientist received all the money, and acquired total power over junior researchers. Younger scientists became a pair of obedient and underpaid hands, not allowed to think or to apply for their own original projects. Thus, no new blood no new ideas and no progress.

Eventually, the competition between excellent scientist for money and political scientific power also become fierce. War was declared. Fortunately the European community has stepped in with a fantastic plan. Money for research to be restricted to excellent scientist that collaborate between themselves. The “Road Map to Peace” of science is under the control of the EC inspectors. All research to be under the umbrella of a huge, inflexible, predictable and indestructible TITANIC project.

Inquisitive scientist where are you?
There are not even trees to sit under.

С НОВЫМ ГОДОМ!

Sun, 31 Dec 2006 16:23:04 GMT

Всех всех всех с Новым годом! Знакомых и не знакомых! Люди, Будьте Счастливы!

U tube полезен однако...

Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:53:15 GMT

Ofra Haza - давно искала...

а переводов много, одни болрее литературные, другие менее...

wiki

Hebrew Lyrics

Avir harim zalul kayayin Ve-rei'ah oranim Nissa be-ru'ah ha'arbayim Im kol pa'amonim

U-ve-tardemat ilan va-even Shvuyah ba-halomah Ha-ir asher badad yoshevet U-ve-libbah homah

Refrain:

Yerushalayim shel zahav Ve-shel nehoshet ve-shel or Ha-lo le-khol shirayich ani kinnor

Eicha yavshu borot ha-mayim Kikkar ha-shuk reikah Ve-ein poked et Har ha-Bayit Ba-ir ha-attikah

U-va-me'arot asher ba-selah Meyallelot ruhot Ve-ein yored el Yam ha-Melah Be-derech Yericho

Refrain

Ach be-vo'i ha-yom la-shir lach Ve-lach likshor ketarim Katonti mi-ze'ir bana'ich U-me-aharon ha-meshorerim

Ki shemech zorev et ha-sefatayim Ke-neshikat saraf Im eshkachech Yerushalayim Asher kullah zahav

Refrain

Hazarnu el borot ha-mayim La-shuk ve-la-kikkar Shofar kore be-Har ha-Bayit Ba-ir ha-attikah

U-va-me'arot asher ba-selah Alfey shemashot zorhot Nashuv nered el Yam ha-Melah Be-derech Yericho

Refrain

English Translation

Mountain air clears as wine, and the scent of pines,

is carried by the twilight's breeze with the sound of bells.

And in the slumber of tree and stone captured in her dream

is the city that sits solitary, and in its midst is a wall.

Refrain:

Jerusalem of gold

And of copper and of light

Behold for all your songs

I am a violin.

How the water cisterns have dried; the market-place is empty

and no one frequents the Temple Mount in the Old City

And in the caves in the rocks the winds howl

And no one descends to the Dead Sea by way of Jericho.

Refrain

Yet As I come today to sing to you, and to adorn you with crowns

I am not as worthy as your youngest child, or as the last one of the poets

for your name scorches the lips like the kiss of a seraph

if I forget thee, Jerusalem, which is all gold...

Refrain

Additional lyrics

Added to the song after Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in the Six Day War in 1967:

We returned to the water cisterns, to the markplace, and to the square

A shofar calls out on the Temple Mount in the Old City

And in the caves in the rocks thousands of suns rise

We will again descend to the Dead Sea by way of Jericho

not wiki

YERUSHALAYIM SHEL ZAHAV	JERUSALEM OF GOLD

Verse 1 Avir harim tsalul k'yayin Vereiyach oranim Nissah beru'ach ha'arbayim Im kol pa'amonim. U'vtardemat ilan va'even Shvuyah bachalomah Ha'ir asher badad yoshevet Uvelibah - chomah.	Verse 1 The mountain air is clear as water The scent of pines around Is carried on the breeze of twilight, And tinkling bells resound. The trees and stones there softly slumber, A dream enfolds them all. So solitary lies the city, And at its heart -- a wall.

Chorus: Yerushalayim shel zahav Veshel nechoshet veshel or Halo lechol shirayich Ani kinor. x2	Chorus: Oh, Jerusalem of gold, and of light and of bronze, I am the lute for all your songs. x2

Verse 2 Chazarnu el borot hamayim Lashuk velakikar Shofar koreh behar habayit ba'ir ha'atikah. Uvme'arot asher baselah Alfei shmashot zorchot Nashuv nered el Yam Hemalach B'derech Yericho	Verse 2 The wells are filled again with water, The square with joyous crowd, On the Temple Mount within the City, The shofar rings out loud. Within the caverns in the mountains A thousand suns will glow, We'll take the Dead Sea road together, That runs through Jericho.

Chorus: Yerushalayim shel zahav Veshel nechoshet veshel or Halo lechol shirayich Ani kinor. x2	Chorus: Oh, Jerusalem of gold, and of light and of bronze, I am the lute for all your songs. x2

Verse 3 Ach bevo'i hayom lashir lach Velach likshor k'tarim Katonti mitse'ir bana'ich Ume achron ham'shorerim. Ki shmech tsorev et hasfatayim Keneshikat saraf Im eshkachech Yerushalayim Asher kulah zahav.	Verse 3 But as I sing to you, my city, And you with crowns adorn, I am the least of all your children, Of all the poets born. Your name will scorch my lips for ever, Like a seraph's kiss, I'm told, If I forget thee, golden city, Jerusalem of gold.

Chorus: Yerushalayim shel zahav Veshel nechoshet veshel or Halo lechol shirayich Ani kinor. x2	Chorus: Oh, Jerusalem of gold, and of light and of bronze, I am the lute for all your songs. x2

а вот еще это сохраню - чтоб было..

moskow male jewish capella

интересненькие записки под новюй год..., да что мне - болею.. уже опупела читать

и я купилась :)

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 15:57:04 GMT

На тестирование своей личности...... Гы. Не могу сказать что они соврамши. Я как бы была в курсе своих тараканов :) Спасибо тестировшикам за демострирование положительных моментов моего мерзкого характера :)

Взято тут. и вообще, надо бы почитать все!

КТО ТЫ БУДЕШЬ ТАКОЙ?

Результаты теста

Тип личности: СОМНЕВАЮЩИЙСЯ

Что я думаю о себе?

Мое кредо: "Всегда необходима осторожность". Жизнь полна непредсказуемых событий, однако каждое событие предопределено. Предчувствия часто сбываются. В жизни и в природе все взаимосвязано, но обычно эти взаимосвязи не очевидны. Если их знать, можно предвидеть ВСЕ. Обычно же этих знаний не хватает, и тогда жизнь преподносит неприятные сюрпризы. Это обстоятельство и заставляет меня во всем сомневаться, и поэтому я никогда не могу быть ни в чем уверенным. Меня очень интересуют вопросы безопасности личности и имущества, потому что забота о безопасности - лучшее средство против посягательств. Лучший способ избежать неприятностей - не создавать своим поведением ситуаций, благоприятных для криминальных личностей. Мне очень не нравится принимать решения в дефиците времени и информации. Для меня это серьезный стресс. Поэтому в жизни я часто не успеваю воспользоваться какой-то счастливой случайностью и упускаю множество выгодных предложений. Очень сложно для меня сделать выбор. Когда мне необходимо что-нибудь купить в магазине, я должен заранее знать, что именно я хочу. Разнообразие не радует, а напрягает меня: при множестве вариантов я не уверен, что смогу сделать оптимальный выбор. Я стараюсь всегда все делать как можно лучше. И поэтому стараюсь ограничить свою деятельность теми делами, которые вероятнее всего успею качественно довести до конца. Любимые цвета - смешанные, мягкие: бежевый, палевый, салатовый, бледно-голубой. Люблю все пастельные цвета, неяркие оттенки. Любимая одежда - та, к которой давно привык.

На самом деле: МАСТЕР КОМПРОМИССОВ.

Видит мир многогранным, многоплановым. Можно сказать, что сам себе усложняет окружающую действительность. Но в общении с ним легко, так как он всегда старается сгладить острые углы. Часто он заботится не о себе, а о других, но столь же часто его обвиняют в неорганизованности и эгоизме - потому, что свою заботу он порой проявляет тогда, когда его об этом не просят. Старается никогда ничего не обещать, потому что знает - может не выполнить. Однако не умеет отказывать, и поэтому все же порой приобретает славу человека неорганизованного, неверного своему слову.

Главная проблема - дефицит времени. Не способен браться за работу с фиксированными сроками - Если же берется, то чувствует себя дискомфортно. Больше всего в жизни боится неуспеха: лучше ничего не делать, чем делать плохо. Будучи руководителем, стремится избавить свой коллектив от взаимных трений подчиненных, под его началом легко работать, однако часто у подчиненных создается иллюзия, будто этот начальник - тюфяк и рохля. На самом же деле при необходимости такой начальник вполне способен настоять на своем. Он постоянно над чем-то размышляет, постоянно ищет лучший путь решения каких-то вопросов. Но многое в жизни не успевает из-за неспособности быстро принимать решения. Порой ему приходится принижать собственные амбиции: по его мнению, он мог бы добиться в жизни большего, если бы не роковые обстоятельства...

Его часто недооценивают - как на работе, так и в семье. Его неспособность к быстрым реакциям многие принимают за нерешительность или за ограниченность ума. Он нередко опаздывает, потому что перед всякой встречей ему нужно выработать определенную стратегию общения. У него ослаблено чувство времени. Он с трудом меняет стиль и имидж, вообще тяжело привыкает к любой новой одежде. Не замечает мелочей и во всем сомневается. Например, уйдя из дома, весь день переживает: выключил ли плиту, закрыл ли кран в ванной и тому подобное. Эти сомнения особенно сильны, если он отбывает надолго: все время отсутствия он будет тревожиться - все ли дома в порядке? Он мягок, добр, но в ситуации экстремального выбора может впасть в агрессию. И вследствие этой агрессии часто совершает нелогичные действия, принимает неадекватные решения; а наломав таким образом дров, потом будет жалеть и мучиться. Еще одна его проблема - дефицит информации. Поэтому он постоянно стремится как можно больше узнать и изучить.

СИЛЬНЫЕ СТОРОНЫ: чувство ответственности, самоконтроль, готовность помочь, стремление к бесконфликтному общению.

СЛАБЫЕ СТОРОНЫ: неспособность к быстрому принятию решений, невнимательность к мелочам, трудности адаптации в нестабильной обстановке.

ЕЩЕ:
СОМНЕВАЮЩИЙСЯ

("научное название" акцентуации - ПСИХАСТЕНИЧНОСТЬ)

-У меня очень беспокойная работа…
-Кем же вы работаете?
-Сортировщиком на овощной базе. Весь день передо мной по желобу сыплется картошка, а я ее сортирую: крупную в один мешок, среднюю - в другой, а мелкую - в третий.
-Чего же тут нервничать - целый день сидите на одном месте?!
-Не скажите! Ведь мне на протяжении всего дня ежесекундно приходится принимать решения!

Чаще всего – астенического телосложения (худощавый, с непропорциональными конечностями). Вообще определенная нескладность – один из главных его признаков: даже если представитель этого типа будет полноватым – все равно это будет довольно несоразмерная фигура…

Неспортивен – не потому что слабак или лентяй, а потому что к спорту в принципе относится с прохладцей, да и вообще считает себя неспособным ни к какому соревнованию – и к спортивному в особенности. Ему в условиях соревновательного прессинга легче уступить.

Такие люди наиболее успешно реализуют себя в профессиях, связанные с исследованием, изучением, самоконтролем и анализом ситуации: врачи, адвокаты, психологи, ученые-экспериментаторы...

Движения такого человека нерезкие, медлительные, жесты «фиксированы», эмоции выражены не сильно – вообще сила испытываемых им чувств слабо отражается в его внешних реакциях. Вы можете рассказать ему жутко смешной анекдот и ожидать взрыва хохота (особенно если вы сами принадлежите к демонстративному типу), а он в ответ на вашу шутку только лишь молча улыбнется. Но не стоит обижаться, что он тугодум и не воспринял вашей шутки – поверьте, ему на самом деле буквально до колик смешно. Просто он ТАК выражает свои эмоции.

Речь такого человека медленная и часто сбивчивая – не потому, что он не знает сути предмета, а потому, что постоянно размышляет – как бы это лучше сказать? И чтобы выиграть время для такого размышления, засоряет свою речь всякими «словами-паразитами» вроде «э-э-э…». «понимаете ли», «так сказать» и тому подобное.

Если его грубо перебить или вообще начать психологически подавлять – спорить он не будет, и даже сделает вид, что согласен. Однако это не значит, что он на самом деле согласился! Часто собеседник бывает совершенно разочарован, когда в результате слышит от Сомневающегося отказ. А на самом деле эти люди при внешней своей интеллигентности и мягкости имеют в характере очень твердый стержень, и в конце концов под сильным давлением их можно сломать, но не согнуть.

Любимые цвета – пастельные, неяркие, мягкие: бежевый, палевый, салатовый, бледно-голубой. Основной признак одежды у людей этого типа – некая поношенность. Потому что они очень не любят менять старую привычную одежду на новую – как, в общем, не являются любителями всяких изменений, революций и т.п. В привычной обстановке и в привычной одежде им комфортнее всего. К тому же им зачастую очень трудно самим выбрать обновку… Правда, для иных представителей этого типа надевать на важную беседу что-нибудь новое становится своего рода ритуалом, повышающим уверенность в себе, но это редко. Гораздо чаще такие люди носят везде и всюду свой, к примеру, любимый потертый пиджак с аккуратными заплатками на локтях…

Вообще, если сомневающегося оценивать по одежке, можно ой как прогадать! Потому что его главная ценность - ум и аналитический подход к делу. И важно правильно его оценить и не требовать невозможного (например, пунктуальности и выполнения монотонной работы).

Нередко сомневающиеся выглядят со стороны неуверенными, инфантильными и нуждающимися в опеке. И практически тут же попадают под влияние других типов (чаще всего Демонстративных или Непосредственных). И определить Сомневающегося «под влиянием» внешне тоже, как правило, легко: одежда на нем словно с чужого плеча. Только потому, что не он ее себе выбирал, не он покупал и вполне возможно, даже не он мерил. Просто у него имеется откровенно «подавляющий имиджмейкер»!

ХА!

Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:19:46 GMT

Астрологическая толерантность 

(АВТОР МНЕ НЕ ИЗВЕСТЕН)

Когда раздавали толерантность, первым пришел Скорпион. Спросил, что
такое толерантность и можно ли ею пытать. Услышав ответ, помрачнел,
записал что- то в черный блокнот и ушел, помахивая хлыстиком. Козерогу
было как-то несолидно толкаться в общей очереди, и он прислал курьера -
Стрельца. Стрелец взял полный рюкзак толерантности, но на обратном пути
увлекся, уехал в другую страну, там про###л рюкзак, написал Козерогу,
что такие задания дают только козлы рогатые, и поехал дальше налегке.
Про###ную Стрельцом толерантность подобрал запасливый Рак. И где-то
спрятал . Иногда он ее находит, всю сразу, потом боится, что украдут,
перепрятывает и опять забывает где. И когда Рак начинает говорить, что
все вокруг - не друзья сердечные, а волки позорные, - это значит, он
просто опять нычку потерял. Весы пришли вовремя, вежливо попросили
парочку толерантностей поизящнее и с тех пор ею почти не пользуются,
так как не могут решить, какая из двух лучше. Водолей пришел одним из
первых, но его выкинули из очереди, когда он стал говорить, что Тот,
Кто создал толерантность, на самом деле склеил фигню по чертежам из
"Юного техника", и Водолей, когда будет время, сделает гораздо лучше.
Дева очень долго считала, сколько толерантности высшего сорта ГОСТ
5508-84 ей надо, и пропустила свою очередь. Поэтому ей достался только
крошечный образец толерантности высшего сорта и, чтобы она так не
расстраивалась, безмен, которым толерантность взвешивали. С тех пор
Дева ходит и взвешивает чужую толерантность, а свою, крошечную высшего
сорта, почти никому не показывает. Овен хотел прийти первым, но по
дороге встретил Рыб, которые толерантностью уже затарились. Рыбам
удалось убежать, но их толерантность пострадала. Там, куда дотянулся
Овен, она стала кривоватая и надтреснутая, а дотянулся он почти всюду.
Овен же пошел домой, потому что он не лох галимый, чтобы быть не
первым, а уж тем более после Рыб. Хотя само слово "толерантность" ему
так понравилось, что он даже вырезал его на любимой бейсбольной бите.
Лев не пришел вообще, потому что не знал, что такое толерантность, а
раз так, понятно, что это фигня беспонтовая, никому не нужная. Телец
пришел и убедительно объяснил, что толерантность у него уже есть своя ,
the best, лучше не бывает, а кто не согласен - на ### строевым шагом. А
пришел он, собственно, для того, чтобы объяснить, что толерантность у
него уже есть своя, the best, лучше не бывает, а кто не согласен - на
### строевым шагом! А поздно ночью, когда все давно разошлись и
осталась только маленькая свалка из остатков, обрезков и неликвидов,
пришел чуть-чуть задержавшийся Близнец. Осмотрелся и забрал все
остатки. И поэтому толерантности у Близнеца - до хрена, только иногда
кажется, что он ее будто на помойке нашел.

copyright jungle

Sun, 01 Oct 2006 15:25:43 GMT

By Siva Vaidhyanathan

Last May, Kevin Kelly, Wired magazine’s “senior maverick,” published in The New York Times Magazine his predictive account of flux within the book-publishing world. Kelly outlined what he claimed will happen (not might or could — will) to the practices of writing and reading under a new regime fostered by Google’s plan to scan millions of books and offer searchable texts to Internet users.

“So what happens when all the books in the world become a single liquid fabric of interconnected words and ideas?” Kelly wrote. “First, works on the margins of popularity will find a small audience larger than the near-zero audience they usually have now. . . . Second, the universal library will deepen our grasp of history, as every original document in the course of civilization is scanned and cross-linked. Third, the universal library of all books will cultivate a new sense of authority . . . .”

Kelly saw the linkage of text to text, book to book, as the answer to the information gaps that have made the progress of knowledge such a hard climb. “If you can truly incorporate all texts — past and present, multilingual — on a particular subject,” Kelly wrote, “then you can have a clearer sense of what we as a civilization, a species, do know and don’t know. The white spaces of our collective ignorance are highlighted, while the golden peaks of our knowledge are drawn with completeness. This degree of authority is only rarely achieved in scholarship today, but it will become routine.”

Such heady predictions of technological revolution have become so common, so accepted in our techno-fundamentalist culture, that even when John Updike criticized Kelly’s vision in an essay published a month later in The New York Times Book Review, he did not so much doubt Kelly’s vision of a universal digital library as lament it.

As it turns out, the move toward universal knowledge is not so easy. Google’s project, if it survives court challenges, would probably have modest effects on writing, reading, and publishing. For one thing, Kelly’s predictions depend on a part of the system he slights in his article: the copyright system. Copyright is not Kelly’s friend. He mentions it as a nuisance on the edge of his dream. To acknowledge that a lawyer-built system might trump an engineer-built system would have run counter to Kelly’s sermon.

Much of the press coverage of the Google project has missed some key facts: most libraries that are allowing Google to scan books are, so far, providing only books published before 1923 and thus already in the public domain, essentially missing most of the relevant and important books that scholars and researchers — not to mention casual readers — might want. Meanwhile, the current American copyright system will probably kill Google’s plan to scan the collections of the University of Michigan and the University of California system — the only libraries willing to offer Google works currently covered by copyright. In his article, Kelly breezed past the fact that the copyrighted works will be presented in a useless format — “snippets” that allow readers only glimpses into how a term is used in the text. Google users will not be able to read, copy, or print copyrighted works via Google. Google accepted that arrangement to limit its copyright liability. But the more “copyright friendly” the Google system is, the less user-friendly, and useful, it is. And even so it still may not fly in court.

Google is exploiting the instability of the copyright system in a digital age. The company’s struggle with publishers over its legal ability to pursue its project is the most interesting and perhaps most transformative conflict in the copyright wars. But there are many other battles — and many other significant stories — out in the copyright jungle. Yet reporters seem lost.

Copyright in recent years has certainly become too strong for its own good. It protects more content and outlaws more acts than ever before. It stifles individual creativity and hampers the discovery and sharing of culture and knowledge. To convey all this to readers, journalists need to understand the principles, paradoxes, licenses, and limits of the increasingly troubled copyright system. Copyright is not just an interesting story. As the most pervasive regulation of speech and culture, the copyright system will help determine the richness and strength of democracy in the twenty-first century.

THE COPYRIGHT WARS

It’s not that the press has ignored copyright. Recent fights have generated a remarkable amount of press. Since Napster broke into the news in 2000, journalists have been scrambling to keep up with the fast-moving and complicated stories of content protection, distribution, and revision that make up the wide array of copyright conflicts.

During this time of rapid change it’s been all too easy for reporters to fall into the trap of false dichotomies: hackers versus movie studios; kids versus music companies; librarians versus publishers. The peer-to-peer and music-file-sharing story, for instance, has consistently been covered as a business story with the tone of the sports page: winners and losers, scores and stats. In fact, peer-to-peer file sharing was more about technological innovation and the ways we use music in our lives than any sort of threat to the commercial music industry. As it stands today, after dozens of court cases and congressional hearings, peer-to-peer file-sharing remains strong. So does the music industry. The sky did not fall, our expectations did.

The most recent headline-grabbing copyright battle involved The Da Vinci Code. Did Dan Brown recycle elements of a 1982 nonfiction book for his bestselling novel? The authors of the earlier book sued Brown’s publisher, Random House U.K., in a London court in the spring of 2006 in an effort to prove that Brown lifted protected elements of their book, what they called “the architecture” of a speculative conspiracy theory about the life of Jesus. In the coverage of the trial, some reporters — even in publications like The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The San Diego Union-Tribune — used the word “plagiarism” as if it were a legal concept or cause of action. It isn’t. Copyright infringement and plagiarism are different acts with some potential overlap. One may infringe upon a copyright without plagiarizing and one may plagiarize — use ideas without attribution — without breaking the law. Plagiarism is an ethical concept. Copyright is a legal one.

Perhaps most troubling, though, was the way in which the Da Vinci Code story was so often covered without a clear statement of the operative principle of copyright: one cannot protect facts and ideas, only specific expressions of ideas. Dan Brown and Random House U.K. prevailed in the London court because the judge clearly saw that the earlier authors were trying to protect ideas. Most people don’t understand that important distinction. So it’s no surprise that most reporters don’t either.

Reporters often fail to see the big picture in copyright stories: that what is at stake is the long-term health of our culture. If the copyright system fails, huge industries could crumble. If it gets too strong, it could strangle future creativity and research. It is complex, and complexity can be a hard thing to render in journalistic prose.

The work situation of most reporters may also impede a thorough understanding of how copyright affects us all. Reporters labor for content companies, after all, and tend to view their role in the copyright system as one-dimensional. They are creators who get paid by copyright holders. So it’s understandable for journalists to express a certain amount of anxiety about the ways digital technologies have allowed expensive content to flow around the world cheaply.

Yet reporters can’t gather the raw material for their craft without a rich library of information in accessible form. When I was a reporter in the 1980s and 1990s, I could not write a good story without scouring the library and newspaper archives for other stories that added context. And like every reporter, I was constantly aware that my work was just one element in a cacophony of texts seeking readers and contributing to the aggregate understanding of our world. I was as much a copyright user as I was a copyright producer. Now that I write books, I am even more aware of my role as a taker and a giver. It takes a library, after all, to write a book.

THE RIGHT TO SAY NO

We are constantly reminded that copyright law, as the Supreme Court once declared, is an “engine of free expression.” But more often these days, it’s instead an engine of corporate censorship.

Copyright is the right to say no. Copyright holders get to tell the rest of us that we can’t build on, revise, copy, or distribute their work. That’s a fair bargain most of the time. Copyright provides the incentive to bring work to market. It’s impossible to imagine anyone anteing up $300 million for Spider-Man 3 if we did not have a reasonable belief that copyright laws would limit its distribution to mostly legitimate and moneymaking channels.

Yet copyright has the potential of locking up knowledge, insight, information, and wisdom from the rest of the world. So it is also fundamentally a conditional restriction on speech and print. Copyright and the First Amendment are in constant and necessary tension. The law has for most of American history limited copyright — allowing it to fill its role as an incentive-maker for new creators yet curbing its censorious powers. For most of its 300-year history, the system has served us well, protecting the integrity of creative work while allowing the next generation of creators to build on the cultural foundations around them. These rights have helped fill our libraries with books, our walls with art, and our lives with song.

But something has gone terribly wrong. In recent years, large multinational media companies have captured the global copyright system and twisted it toward their own short-term interests. The people who are supposed to benefit most from a system that makes ideas available — readers, students, and citizens — have been excluded. No one in Congress wants to hear from college students or librarians.

More than ever, the law restricts what individuals can do with elements of their own culture. Generally the exercise of copyright protection is so extreme these days that even the most innocent use of images or song lyrics in scholarly work can generate a legal threat. Last year one of the brightest students in my department got an article accepted in the leading journal in the field. It was about advertising in the 1930s. The journal’s lawyers and editors refused to let her use images from the ads in question without permission, even though it is impossible to find out who owns the ads or if they were ever covered by copyright in the first place. The chilling effect trumped any claim of scholarly “fair use” or even common sense.

WHAT HAS CHANGED

For most of the history of copyright in Europe and the United States, copying was hard and expensive, and the law punished those who made whole copies of others’ material for profit. The principle was simple: legitimate publishers would make no money after investing so much in authors, editors, and printing presses if the same products were available on the street. The price in such a hyper-competitive market would drop to close to zero. So copyright created artificial scarcity.

But we live in an age of abundance. Millions of people have in their homes and offices powerful copying machines and communication devices: their personal computers. It’s almost impossible to keep digital materials scarce once they are released to the public.

The industries that live by copyright — music, film, publishing, and software companies — continue to try. They encrypt video discs and compact discs so that consumers can’t play them on computers or make personal copies. They monitor and sue consumers who allow others to share digital materials over the Internet. But none of these tactics seem to be working. In fact, they have been counterproductive. The bullying attitude has alienated consumers. That does not mean that copyright has failed or that it has no future. It just has a more complicated and nuanced existence.

Here is the fundamental paradox: media companies keep expanding across the globe. They produce more software, books, music, video games, and films every year. They charge more for those products every year. And those industries repeatedly tell us that they are in crisis. If we do not radically alter our laws, technologies, and habits, the media companies argue, the industries that copyright protects will wither and die.

Yet they are not dying. Strangely, the global copyright industries are still rich and powerful. Many of them are adapting, changing their containers and their content, but they keep growing, expanding across the globe. Revenues in the music business did drop steadily from 2000 to 2003 — some years by up to 6.8 percent. Millions of people in Europe and North America use their high-speed Internet connections to download music files free. From Moscow to Mexico City to Manila, film and video piracy is rampant. For much of the world, teeming pirate bazaars serve as the chief (often only) source of those products. Yet the music industry has recovered from its early-decade lull rather well. Revenues for the major commercial labels in 2004 were 3.3 percent above 2003. Unit sales were up 4.4 percent. Revenues in 2004 were higher than in 1997 and comparable to those of 1998 — then considered very healthy years for the recording industry. This while illegal downloading continued all over the world.

Yet despite their ability to thrive in a new global/digital environment, the companies push for ever more restrictive laws — laws that fail to recognize the realities of the global flows of people, culture, and technology.

Recent changes to copyright in North America, Europe, and Australia threaten to chill creativity at the ground level — among noncorporate, individual, and communal artists. As a result, the risk and price of reusing elements of copyrighted culture are higher than ever before. If you wanted to make a scholarly documentary film about the history of country music, for example, you might end up with one that slights the contribution of Hank Williams and Elvis Presley because their estates would deny you permission to use the archival material. Other archives and estates would charge you prohibitive fees. We are losing much of the history of the twentieth century because the copyright industries are more litigious than ever.

Yet copyright, like culture itself, is not zero-sum. In its first weekend of theatrical release, Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith made a record $158.5 million at the box office. At the same time, thousands of people downloaded high-quality pirated digital copies from the Internet. Just days after the blockbuster release of the movie, attorneys for 20th Century Fox sent thousands of “cease-and-desist” letters to those sharing copies of the film over the Internet. The practice continued unabated.
How could a film make so much money when it was competing against its free version? The key to understanding that seeming paradox — less control, more revenue — is to realize that every download does not equal a lost sale. As the Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig has argued, during the time when music downloads were 2.6 times those of legitimate music sales, revenues dropped less than 7 percent. If every download replaced a sale, there would be no commercial music industry left. The relationship between the free version and the legitimate version is rather complex, like the relationship between a public library and a book publisher. Sometimes free stuff sells stuff.

CHECKS AND UNBALANCES

Here’s a primer for reporters who find themselves lost in the copyright jungle: American copyright law offers four basic democratic safeguards to the censorious power of copyright, a sort of bargain with the people. Each of these safeguards is currently at risk:

First and foremost, copyrights eventually expire, thus placing works into the public domain for all to buy cheaply and use freely. That is the most important part of the copyright bargain: We the people grant copyright as a temporary monopoly over the reproduction and distribution of specific works, and eventually we get the material back for the sake of our common heritage and collective knowledge. The works of Melville and Twain once benefited their authors exclusively. Now they belong to all of us. But as Congress continues to extend the term of copyright protection for works created decades ago (as it did in 1998 by adding twenty years to all active copyrights) it robs the people of their legacy.
Second, copyright restricts what consumers can do with the text of a book, but not the book itself; it governs the content, not the container. Thus people may sell and buy used books, and libraries may lend books freely, without permission from publishers. In the digital realm, however, copyright holders may install digital-rights-management schemes that limit the transportation of both the container and the content. So libraries may not lend out major portions of their materials if they are in digital form. As more works are digitized, libraries are shifting to the lighter, space-saving formats. As a result, libraries of the future could be less useful to citizens.
Third, as we have seen, copyright governs specific expressions, but not the facts or ideas upon which the expressions are based. Copyright does not protect ideas. But that is one of the most widely misunderstood aspects of copyright. And even that basic principle is under attack in the new digital environment. In 1997, the National Basketball Association tried to get pager and Internet companies to refrain from distributing game scores without permission. And more recently, Major League Baseball has tried, but so far has failed, to license the use of player statistics to limit “free riding” firms that make money facilitating fantasy baseball leagues. Every Congressional session, database companies try to create a new form of intellectual property that protects facts and data, thus evading the basic democratic right that lets facts flow freely.
Fourth, and not least, the copyright system has built into it an exception to the power of copyright: fair use. This significant loophole, too, is widely misunderstood, and deserves further discussion.

Generally, one may copy portions of another’s copyrighted work (and sometimes the entire work) for private, noncommercial uses, for education, criticism, journalism, or parody. Fair use operates as a defense against an accusation of infringement and grants confidence to users that they most likely will not be sued for using works in a reasonable way.

On paper, fair use seems pretty healthy. In recent years, for example, courts have definitively stated that making a parody of a copyrighted work is considered “transformative” and thus fair. Another example: a major ruling in 2002 enabled image search engines such as Google to thrive and expand beyond simple Web text searching into images and video because “thumbnails” of digital photographs are considered to be fair uses. Thumbnails, the court ruled, do not replace the original in the marketplace.

But two factors have put fair use beyond the reach of many users, especially artists and authors. First and foremost, fair use does not help you if your publisher or distributor does not believe in it. Many publishers demand that every quote — no matter how short or for what purpose — be cleared with specific permission, which is extremely cumbersome and often costly.

And fair use is somewhat confusing. There is widespread misunderstanding about it. In public forums I have heard claims such as “you can take 20 percent” of a work before the use becomes unfair, or, “there is a forty-word rule” for long quotes of text. Neither rule exists. Fair use is intentionally vague. It is meant for judges to apply, case by case. Meanwhile, copyright holders are more aggressive than ever and publishers and distributors are more concerned about suits. So in the real world, fair use is less fair and less useful.

THE BIGGEST COPY MACHINE

Fair use is designed for small ball. It’s supposed to create some breathing room for individual critics or creators to do what they do. Under current law it’s not appropriate for large-scale endeavors — like the Google library project. Fair use may be too rickety a structure to support both free speech and the vast dreams of Google.

Reporters need to understand the company’s copyright ambitions. Google announced in December 2004 that it would begin scanning in millions of copyrighted books from the University of Michigan library, and in August 2006 the University of California system signed on. Predictably, some prominent publishers and authors have filed suit against the search-engine company.

The company’s plan was to include those works in its “Google Book Search” service. Books from the library would supplement both the copyrighted books that Google has contracted to offer via its “partner” program with publishers and the uncopyrighted works scanned from other libraries, including libraries of Harvard, Oxford, and New York City. While it would offer readers full-text access to older works out of copyright, it would provide only “snippets” of the copyrighted works that it scans without the authors’ permission from Michigan and California.

Google says that because users will only experience “snippets” of copyrighted text, their use of such material should be considered a fair use. That argument will be tested in court. But whether those snippets constitute fair use is just one part of the issue. To generate the “snippets,” Google is scanning the entire works and storing them on its servers. The plaintiffs argue that the initial scanning of the books itself — done to create the snippets from a vast database — constitutes copyright infringement, the very core of copyright. Courts will have to weigh whether the public is better served by a strict and clear conception of copyright law — that only the copyright holder has the right to give permission for any copy, regardless of the ultimate use or effect on the market — or a more flexible and pragmatic one in which the user experience matters more.

One of the least understood concepts of Google’s business is that it copies everything. When we post our words and images on the Web, we are implicitly licensing Google, Yahoo, and other search engines to make copies of our content to store in their huge farms of servers. Without such “cache” copies, search engines could not read and link to Web pages. In the Web world, massive copying is just business as usual.

But through the library project, Google is imposing the norms of the Web on authors and publishers who have not willingly digitized their works and thus have not licensed search engines to make cache copies. Publishers, at first, worried that the Google project would threaten book sales, but it soon became clear that project offers no risk to publishers’ core markets and projects. If anything, it could serve as a marketing boon. Now publishers are most offended by the prospect of a wealthy upstart corporation’s “free-riding” on their content to offer a commercial and potentially lucrative service without any regard for compensation or quality control. The publishers, in short, would like a piece of the revenue, and some say about the manner of display and search results.

Copyright has rarely been used as leverage to govern ancillary markets for goods that enhance the value or utility of the copyrighted works. Publishers have never, for instance, sued the makers of library catalogs, eyeglasses, or bookcases. But these are extreme times.

The mood of U.S. courts in recent years, especially the Supreme Court, has been to side with the copyright holder in this time of great technological flux. Google is an upstart facing off against some of the most powerful media companies in the world, including Viacom, News Corporation, and Disney — all of which have publishing wings. Courts will probably see this case as the existential showdown over the nature and future of copyright and rule to defend the status quo. Journalists should follow the case closely. The footnotes of any court decision could shape the future of journalism, publishing, libraries, and democracy.

OUT OF THE JUNGLE

Google aside, in recent years — thanks to the ferocious mania to protect everything and the astounding political power of media companies — the basic, democratic checks and balances that ensured that copyright would not operate as an instrument of private censorship have been seriously eroded. The most endangered principle is fair use: the right to use others’ copyrighted works in a reasonable way to promote important public functions such as criticism or education. And if fair use is in danger then good journalism is also threatened. Every journalist relies on fair use every day. So journalists have a self-interest in the copyright story.

And so does our society. Copyright was designed, as the Constitution declares, to “promote the progress” of knowledge and creativity. In the last thirty years we have seen this brilliant system corrupted and captured by the very industries that the old laws fostered. Yet the complexity and nuanced nature of copyright battles make it hard for nonexperts to grasp what’s at stake.
So it’s up to journalists to push deeper into stories in which copyright plays a part. Then the real challenge begins: explaining this messy system in clear language to a curious but confused audience. n

Siva Vaidhyanathan is an associate professor of culture and communication at New York University. He is the author of Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity and The Anarchist in the Library. He blogs at Sivacracy.net.

Enjoy this piece? Consider a CJR trial subscription.

УЖОСЪ!!!

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:51:20 GMT

КОШМАР! первый раз в жизни запала в мозг физиономия одного актера. как вспомню - сердцебиение начинаецца... Ето как-нить лечится? Мне бы сильнодействующего. И побольше...

intersting... wonder if it is true...

Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:27:17 GMT

"I increase my makeup when i feel insecure".

Any comments on that?

бибику надоть

Sat, 02 Sep 2006 02:26:43 GMT

Я на форуме уже спрошала, но мнениефф маловато...

что думают благородные доны?

Короче время пришло. надо. спорим с мужем уже который денж - договорились только о ценовом диапазоне... <20K...
Требования -
s0

afety
чтоб ехала.
чтоб ехала хорошо и легко, без ощущения издоха ...
чтоб было место для одного имеющегося и одного потенциально вероятного ребеныша
чтоб в багажник можно было поместить коляску ПБРебеныша
хороший газ-майледж
удобные сидения

пальцы типа кожи навигаторов 6диск чанджеров не интересуют...

Рассматриваются -
тойота кемри
тойота раф4 4ц АВД или 6ц АВД
субару форрестер 4ц или 6ц
Мазда?

я лично кемрю люблю-нимагу, короллу водила - не едет, а мучается. но другие варианты не водила, не знаю. смотерела на вес машин, на их horsepower and torque пыталась понять. поняла что они приерно одинаковыевсе. Субару при том же весе имеет на десяток лошадей больше (в случае 4ц) - ето ощущается как-то?

ПОСЕМУ - МОЖЕТ БЫТЬ ЗАДАВАЯ ПРАВИЛЬНЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ ВЫ МНЕ ПОМОЖЕТЕ ОПРЕДЕЛИТЬСЯ? СПАСИБО! Ну и я тоже поспрошаю...

38 Ways to Win an Argument

Wed, 23 Aug 2006 19:38:22 GMT

Dear Friend,

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) was one of the most important 19th-Century philosophers. His fame is based on his doctoral dissertation, which became the book "The World as Will and Representation." He was among the first to import Buddhist and Hindu ideas into the mainstream of Western philosophy.

But he was not a nice guy. The son of a prosperous merchant and a successful novelist, he was independently wealthy and a notorious curmudgeon. For example, he decided to teach at a university opposite Hegel and deliberately scheduled his classes to conflict with Hegel's. (The reported result is that everyone went to Hegel's classes.)

His curmudgeonly nature is perhaps further revealed in the essay we have found for you: "38 Ways to Win an Argument." The spirit animating this essay is quite unlike Professor Zarefsky's premise that argumentation is a cooperative, social enterprise for finding truth. Schopenhauer wrote a guide for stopping enemies who might use these devices against you, though some regard it as a guide to doing in an enemy. Enjoy it.

Tom Rollins

P.S. The version of the essay that follows was translated into English in 1896 by T. Bailey Saunders for The Art of Controversy, and Other Posthumous Papers (London: Sonnenschein/New York: Macmillan, 1896). We've done some minor editing to make it easier to read.

38 Ways to Win an Argument from Arthur Schopenhauer's The Art of Controversy

1. Carry your opponent's proposition beyond its natural limits; exaggerate it. The more general your opponent's statement becomes, the more objections you can find against it. The more restricted and narrow your own propositions remain, the easier they are to defend.

2....Use different meanings of your opponent's words to refute his argument.
Example: Person A says, "You do not understand the mysteries of Kant's philosophy." Person B replies, "Oh, if it's mysteries you're talking about, I'll have nothing to do with them."

3. Ignore your opponent's proposition, which was intended to refer to some particular thing. Rather, understand it in some quite different sense, and then refute it. Attack something different than what was asserted.

4. Hide your conclusion from your opponent until the end. Mingle your premises here and there in your talk. Get your opponent to agree to them in no definite order. By this circuitous route you conceal your goal until you have reached all the admissions necessary to reach your goal.

5. Use your opponent's beliefs against him. If your opponent refuses to accept your premises, use his own premises to your advantage.
Example: If the opponent is a member of an organization or a religious sect to which you do not belong, you may employ the declared opinions of this group against the opponent.

6. Confuse the issue by changing your opponent's words or what he or she seeks to prove.
Example: Call something by a different name: "good repute" instead of "honor," "virtue" instead of "virginity," "red-blooded" instead of "vertebrates."

7. State your proposition and show the truth of it by asking the opponent many questions. By asking many wide-reaching questions at once, you may hide what you want to get admitted. Then you quickly propound the argument resulting from the opponent's admissions.

8. Make your opponent angry. An angry person is less capable of using judgment or perceiving where his or her advantage lies.

9. Use your opponent's answers to your questions to reach different or even opposite conclusions.

10. If your opponent answers all your questions negatively and refuses to grant you any points, ask him or her to concede the opposite of your premises. This may confuse the opponent as to which point you actually seek him to concede.

11. If the opponent grants you the truth of some of your premises, refrain from asking him or her to agree to your conclusion. Later, introduce your conclusion as a settled and admitted fact. Your opponent and others in attendance may come to believe that your conclusion was admitted.

12. If the argument turns upon general ideas with no particular names, you must use language or a metaphor that is favorable to your proposition.
Example: What an impartial person would call "public worship" or a "system of religion" is described by an adherent as "piety" or "godliness" and by an opponent as "bigotry" or "superstition." In other words, inset what you intend to prove into the definition of the idea.

13. To make your opponent accept a proposition, you must give him an opposite, counter-proposition as well. If the contrast is glaring, the opponent will accept your proposition to avoid being paradoxical.
Example: If you want him to admit that a boy must do everything that his father tells him to do, ask him, "whether in all things we must obey or disobey our parents." Or, if a thing is said to occur "often," ask whether you are to understand "often" to mean few or many times, the opponent will say "many." It is as though you were to put gray next to black and call it white, or gray next to white and call it black.

14. Try to bluff your opponent. If he or she has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out in favor of your conclusion, advance your conclusion triumphantly, even if it does not follow. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the technique may succeed.

15. If you wish to advance a proposition that is difficult to prove, put it aside for the moment. Instead, submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true proposition, as though you wished to draw your proof from it. Should the opponent reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd the opponent is to reject an obviously true proposition. Should the opponent accept it, you now have reason on your side for the moment. You can either try to prove your original proposition, as in #14, or maintain that your original proposition is proved by what your opponent accepted. For this an extreme degree of impudence is required, but experience shows cases of it succeeding.

16. When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or lack of action.
Example: Should your opponent defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?" Should the opponent maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you may say, "Why don't you leave on the first plane?"

17. If your opponent presses you with a counter-proof, you will often be able to save yourself by advancing some subtle distinction. Try to find a second meaning or an ambiguous sense for your opponent's idea.

18. If your opponent has taken up a line of argument that will end in your defeat, you must not allow him to carry it to its conclusion. Interrupt the dispute, break it off altogether, or lead the opponent to a different subject.

19. Should your opponent expressly challenge you to produce any objection to some definite point in his argument, and you have nothing to say, try to make the argument less specific.
Example: If you are asked why a particular hypothesis cannot be accepted, you may speak of the fallibility of human knowledge, and give various illustrations of it.

20. If your opponent has admitted to all or most of your premises, do not ask him or her directly to accept your conclusion. Rather, draw the conclusion yourself as if it too had been admitted.

21. When your opponent uses an argument that is superficial and you see the falsehood, you can refute it by setting forth its superficial character. But it is better to meet the opponent with a counter-argument that is just as superficial, and so dispose of him. For it is with victory that you are concerned, not with truth.
Example: If the opponent appeals to prejudice or emotion, or attacks you personally, return the attack in the same manner.

22. If your opponent asks you to admit something from which the point in dispute will immediately follow, you must refuse to do so, declaring that it begs the question.

23. Contradiction and contention irritate a person into exaggerating his statements. By contradicting your opponent you may drive him into extending the statement beyond its natural limit. When you then contradict the exaggerated form of it, you look as though you had refuted the original statement. Contrarily, if your opponent tries to extend your own statement further than you intended, redefine your statement's limits and say, "That is what I said, no more."

24. State a false syllogism. Your opponent makes a proposition, and by false inference and distortion of his ideas you force from the proposition other propositions that are not intended and that appear absurd. It then appears that your opponent's proposition gave rise to these inconsistencies, and so it appears to be indirectly refuted.

25. If your opponent is making a generalization, find an instance to the contrary. Only one valid contradiction is needed to overthrow the opponent's proposition.
Example: "All ruminants are horned," is a generalization that may be upset by the single instance of the camel.

26. A brilliant move is to turn the tables and use your opponent's arguments against himself.
Example: Your opponent declares, "So and so is a child, you must make an allowance for him." You retort, "Just because he is a child, I must correct him; otherwise he will persist in his bad habits."

27. Should your opponent surprise you by becoming particularly angry at an argument, you must urge it with all the more zeal. No only will this make your opponent angry, but it will appear that you have put your finger on the weak side of his case, and your opponent is more open to attack on this point than you expected.

28. When the audience consists of individuals (or a person) who are not experts on a subject, you make an invalid objection to your opponent who seems to be defeated in the eyes of the audience. This strategy is particularly effective if your objection makes your opponent look ridiculous or if the audience laughs. If your opponent must make a long, winded and complicated explanation to correct you, the audience will not be disposed to listen to him.

29. If you find that you are being beaten, you can create a diversion-that is, you can suddenly begin to talk of something else, as though it had a bearing on the matter in dispute. This may be done without presumption that the diversion has some general bearing on the matter.

30. Make an appeal to authority rather than reason. If your opponent respects an authority or an expert, quote that authority to further your case. If needed, quote what the authority said in some other sense or circumstance. Authorities that your opponent fails to understand are those which he generally admires the most. You may also, should it be necessary, not only twist your authorities, but actually falsify them, or quote something that you have entirely invented yourself.

31. If you know that you have no reply to the arguments that your opponent advances, you by a fine stroke of irony declare yourself to be an incompetent judge.
Example: "What you say passes my poor powers of comprehension; it may well be all very true, but I can't understand it, and I refrain from any expression of opinion on it." In this way you insinuate to the audience, with whom you are in good repute, that what your opponent says is nonsense. This technique may be used only when you are quite sure that the audience thinks much better of you than your opponent.

32. A quick way of getting rid of an opponent's assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
Example: You can say, "That is fascism" or "atheism" or "superstition." In making an objection of this kind you take for granted:
1. That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited; and
2. The system referred to has been entirely refuted.

33. You admit your opponent's premises but deny the conclusion.
Example: "That's all very well in theory, but it won't work in practice."

34. When you state a question or an argument, and your opponent gives you no direct answer, or evades it with a counter-question, or tries to change the subject, it is sure sign you have touched a weak spot, sometimes without intending to do so. You have, as it were, reduced your opponent to silence. You must, therefore, urge the point all the more, and not let your opponent evade it, even when you do not know where the weakness that you have hit upon really lies.

35. Instead of working on an opponent's intellect or the rigor of his arguments, work on his motive. If you succeed in making your opponent's opinion-should it prove true-seem distinctly prejudicial to his own interest, he will drop it immediately.
Example: A clergyman is defending some philosophical dogma. You show him that his proposition contradicts a fundamental doctrine of his church. He will abandon the argument.

36. You may also puzzle and bewilder your opponent by mere bombast. If your opponent is weak or does not wish to appear as if he has no idea what you are talking about, you can easily impose upon him some argument that sounds very deep or learned, or that sounds indisputable.

37. Should your opponent be in the right but, luckily for you, choose a faulty proof, you can easily refute it and then claim that you have refuted the whole position. This is the way in which bad advocates lose good cases. If no accurate proof occurs to your opponent, you have won the day.

38. Become personal, insulting and rude as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand. In becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack on the person by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. This is a very popular technique, because it takes so little skill to put it into effect.

Lj-овый Ликбез-2

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:00:48 GMT

Кто-то как-то упомянул, что где-то что-то можно продаунлоадитьи проинсталлировать (гы) и оно потом будет ветки сразу разворачивать. все. для удобственного прочтения.
Есть такое?

И вообще какие-то удобные секретики - поделитесь? а? а? а?

spread the word

Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:27:28 GMT

New York Times Busted in Hezbollah Photo Fraud!

Мартышка к старости слаба глазами стала; но у людей она слыхала, ...

Thu, 10 Aug 2006 19:17:04 GMT

Короче сделала наконец новые очки. Последние новые были 4 или 5 лет назад (учитывая мои -7)... Короче я не знаю чем я руководствовалась в подборе старых очо, но в новых а таки ВИЖУ!!!!! Цвета красочнее и ярче, тени как тени, а не как черти-что... ну вот как если у вас был фитик на 1мп а потом вы купили Д70... Вот такая разница... Ну положа руку на срдце, линзы более сложные, и некоторые ранее не цорректировашиеся вещи сейчас скорректированы. Короче, вдруг - а у деревьев есть листья, а не зелень! А люди на мя оказываются поглядывают! и самое ужасное - господи, какой грязный карпет... вот последнее значительно осложнит мою жизнь...

мораль!!! ГЛАЗА ЕТО НАШЕ ВСЕ!!! не жалейте времени и денег на очки, ето мможет очень изменить взгляс на мир, и, как ни странно, настроение :)

Улыбнуло.

Thu, 10 Aug 2006 18:48:58 GMT

Киношка. 3 минутки. смешно. безопасное содержание.

курица или яйцо?

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:13:55 GMT

Many studies have shown a relationship between myopia and IQ. According to Arthur Jensen, myopes average 7-8 IQ points higher than non-myopes. The relationship also holds within families, and siblings with a higher degree of refraction error average higher IQs than siblings with less refraction error. Jensen believes that this indicates myopia and IQ are pleiotropically related (both myopia and IQ are caused by the same genes). The mechanism that has caused a relationship between myopia and IQ is not yet known with certainty (Jensen, 1998).

учиться, учиться и еще раз учиться...

Fri, 04 Aug 2006 20:12:29 GMT

the teaching company

сама не покупала ничего пока, моя знакомая вроде ппокупала на сейле... . Я только зарегистрировлась, слушаю то что забесплатно пока.(очень мало).. гы. прикольно...

УЖОС!!!!

Thu, 03 Aug 2006 15:10:42 GMT

http://starayavredina.livejournal.com/12756.html

так надо. так будет правильно.

Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:51:15 GMT

Пожалуйста, скопируйте себе в ЖЖ этот пост, для того что бы поисковая система Google blog, могла найти линк на Журналы Севера Израиля
http://israelnorthblog.livejournal.com/

Please copy to your LJ this post, therefore Google blog searcher will find the link to Israel North Blogs, describing the experiences of the residents of Northern Israel in the war between Israel and Lebanon.
http://israelnorthblog.livejournal.com/

сомнения и метания

Tue, 18 Jul 2006 00:48:05 GMT

сомнения и метания

бифстроганофф хочу... нет. не так. Делала бифстроганофф. по рецепту. а там сметану надо... ну положить-то я положила, муж ел и нахваливал, НО! мучаюсь я на предмет поедания сметаны с мясом... а существует вообще немолочная сметана?

не то чобы ето смертельно если я ее не найду, но хотелось бы...

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 21:50:15 GMT

Глас вопиющего в пустыне...

А каким обрзом можно обратиться к Lj-исту? лично? к тому, например, который во френдах? не всегда ведж можно некий вопрос просто комментарием оставить... или, например, не заводить же мне тут сообшение : "helloy, как дела", чтобы все видели?

короче, нужен свет в массы...