static-content.springer.com10.3758/s134… · Web viewThey're working in an environment ... A...
Embed Size (px)
Transcript of static-content.springer.com10.3758/s134… · Web viewThey're working in an environment ... A...
Appendix A.Explanations used in Experiment 1. These Explanations were taken from Reddit’s Explain Like I’m Five (www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive), with minimal changes.
How can Malt-O-Meal blatantly rip off every brand-name cereal while Apple and Samsung have been in legal issues since the beginning of time?
You can't copyright a recipe for food and usually can't patent a food product. The specific form in which a recipe is presented can be copyrighted (the words and formatting), but as long as someone changes up the words they can use the same ingredients, measurements, and steps. Similarly, you can protect branding and food packaging, but not a food product. If someone figures out how to make a Twinkie and sells it with different packaging and branding, they're allowed to.
Malt-O-Meal can get away with it because their packaging and branding is different. For example, they don't use Lucky the Leprechaun with their Marshmallow Mateys cereal (similar to Lucky Charms); they use a kangaroo instead. Also, I don't even think the recipe is exactly the same because their cereals definitely taste a little different.
You can patent some food products, but they have to be non-obvious and novel. Most food products are obvious variations on old recipes (like with cereal). Examples of food products that have been patented include egg yolk substitutes and sealed crustless sandwiches.The process for making "marbits" (the marshmallows in Lucky Charms) is patented: (http://www.google.com/patents/US8105642). I don't know what process Malt-O-Meal uses, but as long as it's different they should be fine. The main point that you can't patent a recipe is still true for cereals in general.
In short are basically three things in the world which can protect your product.
A patentA trademarkCopyright
Copyrights get a lot of press these days (due to piracy), you could literally boil it down to the right to copy a thing. applies to media like books and movies and allows the producers of that product to restrict others from using their material. Copyright also provides some protection from people making blatant rip offs of your work. Ie re-publishing Harry potter but just changing the names. Copyrights are long lived but do eventually expire, example many Popeye
cartoons are now in the public domain and can be copied and shared freely as well as used in other sources.
Trademarks are things like a logo or possibly an iconic character. the mcdonalds sign is trademarked. it means you can't use it for your own stuff (if it would be confused with the original product) these can be words and phrases too. Trademarks last forever, for good reason. brand recognition is valuable and as long as you are still using your name it makes sense that you should have protection. Trademark law also requires you to actively protect your trademark or you may loose it.
Patent, these cover inventions and processes (and sadly software). basically for the most part you patent, things. then you can control who can manufacture that thing and sell a license to use that thing in other things. In your specific case Apple and Samsung have portfolios of patents covering all kinds of things. unfortunately they also get patents for trivial "inventions" like maybe swiping to unlock or something that is basic and easily copied but falls under a patent.
You can't patent a recipe however, you could patent a process for making a thing. for example the machine or process to make dried marshmallow bits. however you couldn't patent all marshmallow bits. However the cereal could have Trademarks and copyrights on it that's why the rip of brands will have weird but legally distinct names and their font and design will vary just enough to not infringe on the original brand's IP.
Recipes cannot be copyrighted, and patents are difficult to obtain for recipes, since they must be useful. non-obvious, and novel. The difficulty in proving that in a food recipe is documented pretty well here (http://store.inventorprise.com/content_articles.php?id=1049). Further, patents are usually only good for 20 years (cocoa puffs, have been around since 1958 for example).
There is some protection under trademark, but as long as the customer is not going to be confused by the brand, that's indefensible. Pretty much as long as you keep Tony the Tiger off your big-ass bag of frosted flakes, you'll be fine.
Fashion designers have the same issue - you can't patent or copyright a fashion design. Some manufacturers will plaster branding on their clothing so they get some protection under trademark law.
I find both of these instances to be a great case for loosening and/or reducing the duration of copyright and patent protection. It can hardly be argued that the lack of protection hurts the fashion, cooking, and food industries. Cookbooks in particular are an indictment against lengthy copyright law, as it's a thriving part
of the book industry, despite the fact that little of the meaningful content can be copyrighted.
If Ebola is so difficult to transmit (direct contact with bodily fluids), how do trained medical professionals with modern safety equipment contract the disease?
I have a friend, he's a chef. He works with very sharp knives for 12+ hours, usually 7 days a week. He knows how to use the tools of his trade properly, and is quite good at his job. He also cuts himself (and burns himself) WAY more than I do. Then again... I'm only around a hot stove for about 30min a day...maybe an hour if I'm cooking real food for supper. I have one knife, I use it for almost everything, but even so I probably only hold it for a few minutes a day. His exposure to potential mistake or accident involving a knife or hot stove is simply much higher than mine, even though I have no idea what I'm doing in the kitchen. I think this is a pretty good analogy for health care workers dealing with Ebola...they're wading through the worst and most infectious area's. They're in the thick of it, intentionally getting involved with people who have the virus. They're careful, sure...but nothing ever goes 100% properly every single time. They're working in an environment where the margin of error is ZERO... as any mistake means potential infection.
Also, apparently the most dangerous part for the health professionals is when they're taking off their gear. I read an article (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/20/volunteered-fight-ebola-sierra-leone-msf) about a nurse who voulenteered...she described how they're not supposed to be in the protective clothing for something like longer than an hour, and by the time you're done You're exhausted, hot, sore...your goggles are fogged up, your boots are full of sweat...and RIGHT NOW is the MOST dangerous moment of the day, because the entire outside of your gear is infectious, and you are at the very bottom of your game in terms of attention, co-ordination, and stamina. They're trained for it all, and professionals to the extreme...but they're still human. Combine these risks with the above massively increased exposure... I can see how it happens.
Ebola is, as you likely already know, transmited from person to person through bodily fluids (blood, mucus, etc.). The viral load in these bodily fluids only becomes high enough to infect another person AFTER he or she begins to show simptoms of illness. The combination of these two traits means that out in everyday society, where we avoid sick people and cover our sneezes, the disease
doesn't spread very quickly.
When these sick people are admitted into a hospital, the medical professionals that work there are in almost constant contact with this sick person. Though the medical professionals may have safety equipment in the form of barriers to avoid contact with the bodily fluids that transmit infection, the huge frequency of exposure to the sick person means that the risk of an accidental infection (such as accidentally contaminating yourself while disrobing from the protective gear) is significantly higher. This is true of every illness that you would be hospitalized for, not just Ebola.
I am a biomedical scientist and part of the Ebola response team at a large and prestigious hospital on the east coast.
1) The most recent persons to get it is a doctors without borders doc. What people don't realize is that these doctors go into "battle" vastly under supplied in these foreign countries. They do not have Tyvek coveralls, respirators, gloves, and proper sterilization equipment. A lot of them because of supplies are forced to use the same pair of gloves on multiple patients for the day. Some don't use gloves at all.
2) Taking care of someone with Ebola is hell. There are literally body fluids everywhere. Imagine bloody decomposed fluid oozing out of every pore in your body, plus gallons of diarrhea and vomit. The protective equipment people are wearing here is good, but only if it stays intact and it doffed correctly. 90% of the infections occur because the person contaminates themselves when removing the soiled equipment.
In other words, taking the protective gear off improperly contaminates you, and 3rd world country doctors don't have the proper supplies.
Why has the price of higher education skyrocketed in the US, and who is profiting from it?
From working at the inside of a large public University.
Lots of money is going towards the administrative costs. I saw a massive increase in admin positions vs. teaching/support staff positions.
042814.htm) had a good article on this exact topic at the very end of 2012.
Some more interesting excerpts.
> Many of the newly hired, it turns out, were doing little teaching. A Wall Street Journal analysis of University of Minnesota salary and employment records from 2001 through last spring shows that the system added more than 1,000 administrators over that period. Their ranks grew 37%, more than twice as fast as the teaching corps and nearly twice as fast as the student body.
> Across U.S. higher education, nonclassroom costs have ballooned, administrative payrolls being a prime example. The number of employees hired by colleges and universities to manage or administer people, programs and regulations increased 50% faster than the number of instructors between 2001 and 2011, the U.S. Department of Education says.
> Administrative employees make up an increasing share of the university's higher-paid people. The school employs 353 people earning more than $200,000 a year. That is up 57% from the inflation-adjusted pay equivalent in 2001. Among this $200,000-plus group, 81 today have administrative titles, versus 39 in 2001.
> Administrators making over $300,000 in inflation-adjusted terms rose to 17 from seven.
(1) Demand is nearly unlimited in large market.
For every hopeful/optimistic adult (in much of the entire world also) who wants to make good wages, education has become the one standard investment-target that purports to get you a middle-class lifestyle. This has seemed true for decades, even though the payoff seems to be drastically outsized by costs now.
(2) No Substitutes in the current Market. Take it or buy nothing similar.
Available choices for any other type of investment-in-future-wages is slim to none for most people. You either get more schooling or you do nothing and wait for a good chance to improve your standing in interviews.
(3) A labor-Intensive product with long lag-time to determine satisfaction.
Education is labor-intensive far more than nearly any other part of the economy and has few feedbacks that determine when "enough has been bought" or when
"do it yourself" or "buy it elsewhere" would do better. In most of history an education was a genuinely big leap over many others and an entrance into a bigger world. Now... much may or may not have even changed at all from the experience.
All of these mean that the mythos of "college will improve your chances" is suffering from the hugest price-inflation our entire post-Industrial society has seen in many sectors. Similar problems exist with medical care.
The correct answer is that the education industry falls prey to something called cost disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease).
The increasing cost of education have more to do with the other industries than education itself. Over the past 50 years or so, almost every industry has been able to reduce their costs by automating their production lines. Education has no such gains in efficiencies; there is no way to really expedite the education process. It pretty much takes four years no matter what. So the end result is that its costs increase relative to neighboring industries.
At the same time, professor's and faculty's salaries have increased to cover the cost of living. The end result is that tuition rates have to increase every year in order to cover the rising costs.
That's it. No special conspiracy or anything crazy like that. It's just the nature of the beast.
Who profits from it? Well nobody I guess. You might argue that engineering and accounting (and other high paying majors) enjoy a greater return on their education investment then say social work and english majors but then again, that has always been the case.
Why are so many people up in arms over "you have to have health insurance" initiatives, but are okay with mandated car insurance?
To play devil's advocate (and to directly answer your question):
Auto insurance is not a federal mandate. It is determined by state- NH for example does not require any auto insurance.
You only need auto insurance to drive on government property (i.e., public roads). You can drive around in your back yard all you want without insurance
(at least in most states).
People see the health insurance buy-in as paying for others, where auto insurance only applies to the insured and the people directly affected by the insured.
These are the main objective differences between the two, but when you talk to many people who are opposed, you'll begin to realize these aren't their main motivations for opposition.
Mandated car insurance covers drivers you hit, it doesn't cover you. Comprehensive insurance, which does, is not normally mandated.
You don't have to own a car, but you do have to own a body.
Why don't opponents of illegal immigration go after the employers who hire illegal immigrants?
They do, here in Arizona a local car wash chain (a very big one at that) was temporarily shut down for hiring mostly illegal immigrants (and paying them very low wages). Businesses that hire illegals in this state (I can't vouch for the country) receive warnings and fines for the hiring of illegals and if they continually do so, they can risk losing their business licences.
The party that is more anti-immigration is also more pro-business. Small business owners trend Republican. So essentially, they would be going after their own voters and campaign contributors.
Also, keep in mind that labor law is definitely not in worker's favor these days. So if you know your company hires illegal labor and you report them, it's hard to protect yourself from being fired and given poor references. In some industries, it's not like you can find other local companies that aren't doing the same thing.
While you technically do have protection, you have to eat while suing your former employer. This makes reporting less likely. Then contending with lawyers and the like makes it expensive and time-consuming.
Much easier to deport the immigrant (who probably has no lawyer).
They don't want to admit our country's dependence on illegal immigration. Entire areas have been devastated when borders were closed (e.g., http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176911169&m=176954620 ). Plenty of research has found that most undocumented immigrants pay into the system as much or more as they get out (especially given that undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most services and there is a five-year waiting period for legal immigrants.
In other words, they don't want to "restrict" "innocent" employers, don't want to pay $10+ for a pint of blueberries, and they want someone to blame for the less than ideal economy. Irish and Italian Catholics used to be blamed, and today it's Mexicans.
Why do the FBI and CIA use polygraph ("lie detector") tests on their employees, if polygraph tests are considered pseudoscience and so unreliable that US courts don't allow them as evidence?
In its most basic sense it is used mostly as an intimidation factor during interviews in order to judge the interviewees confidence and competence.
I watched Penn & Teller's Bullshit S07E05 - Lie Detectors a few years back and this explained the issue very VERY well. I recommend you watch this.
If you don't have 28 minutes to kill, allow me to summarize as best I can.
Lie detectors are more or less bullshit. Most people do not know how they work - they just believe that they work because they don't know any better. So this is an intimidation tactic that generally is used to incite a confession. If law enforcement says "When I asked you if you stole your neighbors car and you replied 'NO', I noticed a high level of activity that could indicate that you were lying. Is there anything you would like to add to this?"
This is a trick, it's just like if the cops were interogatting you and your friend. They would separate the two of you and say "We've got your friend in the next room and he just told us EVERYTHING! If you confess, then we'll go easy on
The cops, or the person giving you the polygraph, really just hopes you will confess. This way, they don't need to cite the test at all during a trial. You confessed to a crime, you are guilty.
From what I understand, polygraph tests alone usually do not hold up in court. I don't have anything to back this up, so I could be mistaken.
Polygraph tests are scientifically unsound. Here's something I wrote a while back:
The meta-analysis (as well as some of the bigger single studies) show that a trained polygrapher only stands about a 60% chance of detecting a lie. Now, let's remember, that's only 10% better than tossing a coin and being able to correctly guess heads or tails. What is being tested is simply stress. Let's say you are asked questions for a baseline about your name, address, etc. These questions are usually highly unlikely to provide an emotional or physiological response. Then, you are asked whether or not you recognize the dead woman in this crime scene photo, or asked if you've ever raped someone, etc. These types of questions are very likely to provide a fair amount of physiological response because of the nature of the questions. You can be called a liar because that picture disturbed you deeply or maybe because you were actually raped as a child and were recalling the troubling memories while answering that question.
In addition, there is a consistent running theme in polygraphy, that your body shows a response, even if you didn't lie, but actually didn't mention something because you had totally forgotten it happened! For instance, you're asked if you've ever taken illegal drugs. You say so, but the test shows an indication of lying. You struggle and think about it for days or weeks on end, and then finally come to the conclusion that, oh yeah, you did try marijuana in high school 35 years ago.
Also troubling is that, based on word games or technicalities, polygraphers feel that they can phrase a question to weed out these word games or technicalities. For instance, let's say you are on probation and are not allowed to drink alcohol. You've been on probation almost three weeks and the polygrapher tells you he's going to ask if you've imbibed alcohol since you started probation. You remember that you got drunk the day before you started probation and you tell him so. He then asks something to the effect of, "other than what you've told me, have you had alcohol in the last three weeks?" or, "have you imbibed alcohol in the last 20 days?" They feel that, because they added that tiny disclaimer or clarifying word(s), that now prevents them from getting any type of false
The polygraph test is also highly likely to give false-positives. This, for the innocent and truthful, is not so great. Its use as a tool for interrogations can be great, but it's admissibility in a court setting isn't...depending on the jurisdiction. Some states/countries outright forbid it's use/admission as evidence. The Supreme Court of the United States has disallowed its use as evidence in their court, but allows the states to determine the usage at that level on their own.
In the most recent update to Leonard v. Texas (Nov. 21, 2012), the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas ruled that polygraphs are absolutely not allowed in all forms of criminal trials (including motions to adjudicate guilt in probationers and the like for parolees). In fact, Texas law that went into effect on September 1st of this year states that polygraphs alone cannot be used for that basis as well.
Why is Ronald Reagan held to be one of the best US presidents, even among scandals like Iran-Contra that would have destroyed the reputation of other presidents?
Reagan is a venerated figure among Republicans because he represents a return to relevance for conservatives in America. They had largely been out of the White House ever since the fall and failure of Herbert Hoover's presidency.
The only two elected Republican presidents were Eisenhower (who had the whole "War Hero" thing going for him) and Nixon (who benefited from a split Democratic vote in '68 and a terrible democratic campaign in '72).
Reagan is also credited as the president who brought down Communism. The fall of the USSR and the related collapses of Soviet supported states is the largest US "victory" that we've had since WWII. Whether or not Reagan's policies actually brought about this change more quickly than anyone else's is a debatable matter, but serving presidents get more credit than they deserve when things go well, and more blame than they deserve when things go wrong.
His successful presidency also redeemed the disgrace of the Nixon administration in the minds of many conservatives.
Here is the real reason: unless you are at least 50, you have no idea how much of a funk the U.S. was in back then. In the 70s:
We lost Vietnam
We got to watch ourselves lose Vietnam on T.V.We gave up going to the moon, and the space program stagnatedOur Vice President resigned in disgraceOur President resigned in disgraceOpec slowed down production and we waited in lines, sometimes for hours, to get gasJapan produced fuel-efficient cars and handed Detroit its assOur largest city nearly went broke, and President Ford refused (at first) to helpIran overran our embassy and took 52 of our people hostage for over a yearOur attempt to rescue those people failed miserablyInflation was >10% for much of the 70s, and almost reached 15%Unemployment was high (but not as high as now)The prime interest rate hit 21.5% (for comparison, currently it's 3.25%)
There's more, but you get the idea. We desperately needed someone to help us believe that the U.S. could be great again, and Carter, nice as he was, simply wasn't that guy.
Reagan was. I'm not arguing whether he was a good president, but there's no question he was the right president at the time. His sunny optimism and fierce belief in american exceptionalism were, at least perceptually, what fixed a broken country.
I don't agree with everything he did, but I don't think we'd be better off if Carter had won (or Mondale).
He was really, really, likable. He filled the stereotype of a friendly old grandpa very well, so many people are willing to overlook his scandals.
The modern conservative movement holds him up as an example of all that a US president should be. His actual actions aren't even that consistent with modern conservatism, but again, he's likable so people are willing to overlook that.
How has Switzerland managed to stay in a neutral position during times of conflict like WWII?
It had to do with what it would cost and what would be gained in return.
There would have been a lot of difficulties. If Hitler had started to conquer Switzerland the Swiss army had the plan of going into the Reduit. This was basically giving up a large part of the country and going to hiding in the mountains. Sounds maybe stupid (giving up all your cities) but the strategically most important part of Switzerland are all the passes over and the tunnels going through the mountains (e.g. the Gotthard tunnel) These are very important passages to travel north - south in Europe. By hiding in bunkers throughout the Alps we could have still guarded these passages.
And to add to that there were plans to destroy these tunnels which would have basically made any conquering more or less meaningless.
Also it is rather difficult to fight an enemy in the mountains especially when that is their home territory.
The next point is that the axis powers wouldn't have gained that much from conquering Switzerland as they didn't really depend on having those geographical points.
Also noting the Swiss military was at that time quite large (proportional to the number of citizens) which has to do with our military system (every man has to do military service and is in sort of reserve after that service so if we would mobilize we could effectively more than double our numbers in rather a short time.)
And the last point (which some Swiss people dislike to admit) is that we also held diplomatic relations with all sides of the war. We did hold a lot of the money of all contenders and we also didn't (at least openly) support either side of the war. So no party had a reason to attack us. Last thing was that we also really held ourselves out of the war and just secured our country. Even though some of our cities were bombed we didn't threaten anyone nor did we declare war.
Add to that that we have always been rather a bit isolationist non-interventionist (like not joining any big country groups or alliances and thus didn't have any reason nor obligation to join the war.
I have to say I cannot guarantee that this is all 100% correct. I'm Swiss and this is also a topic that interests me a lot. And I've also discussed this a lot of times before.
I also have some other reasons but for those I'm really not sure if they are just speculation or have valid proof so I'll leave them out.
The Swiss were well prepared to withstand an invasion by retreating into the mountains. They also had significant economic leverage as well due to thier banking system. So in other words they made letting them be neutral easier than fighting them for each side.
But remember Neutrality comes at a cost, and in this case the cost was actively doing business with the Nazi's and standing by while they overwhelmed most of Europe. That can't have tasted very good.
I'm from switzerland too, and in my military career i was a specialist for nuclear/chemical and biological weapons. So i had to teach others how to protect themselves from these hazards. in my training i learned about a special plan switzerland had back then.
Chemical weapons were a big deal during the WWII. And switzerland had a lot of toxic gases and substances. So if the germans attack from the north, switzerland would evacuate all citizens from the northern part of switzerland into the south region. Then bombing their own country (the northern part) with chemical gases to stop the germans from invading.
In other words, Switzerland had enough chemical weapons to cover half of the country, stopping the germans from invading.