Because the core of a star is where matter is broken down into bits (unless it happens to be low enough on the periodic table, in which case it is being destructively combined into bigger bits), which makes it a rather odd place to go looking for some kind of "life". You show me a bacteria that has evolved a resistance to nuclear fusion, and then we'll talk.
if there is ONE case where it is true and your sample size is (nearly) infinitely large, the chance to find another case is 1.
Perhaps "nearly 1", but not 1. Case in point: There are infinite counting numbers, but only 1 even prime number (2). Surely with an infinite sample size, by your logic, you would expect multiple examples even primes?
Oh, you forgot, He loves us SO MUCH that he will torture us forever for behaving as we were designed... When I make something that doesn't work right I take it apart and fix it, or scrap it and make something else... In no case do I put it on my barbeque grill forever.
Oh dear, is someone ridiculing religion with a strawman? Whatever shall we do.
THis is a tired, old argument that keeps getting exhumed and really needs to be left to rest. There are some ideologies-- some secular, some religious-- that tend to be more militant. There are others that are less so. Basically every "thing" that can be "believed in" has resulted in fanaticism, hatred, and oppression at some point in time.
So you can point at the Inquisition, Indulgences, Roman Catholic abuses (both historical and present), and islamic militantism, and I will point to Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, and Japanese nationalism. Trying to make this some simplistic "religion is the root of all evil" just displays your ignorance; and it makes you look even more ridiculous when you try to take "artistic license" with history and declare Hitler and Stalin to be motivated by some spiritual belief.
At the end of the day, you would be hard pressed to show me a belief in the Torah or Bible that actually encourages bad behavior, especially the Christian understanding of the bible. You can show me men professing faith who commit bad deeds, but that is nothing unusual for ANY belief system.
Who is an author? Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher.
The person running the camera is not the creator of the "original expression". If you really want to be obnoxious about this, you could refuse to read the two links I provided and just claim "nuh uh", but then I wouldnt respond to you, so I really recommend you read those links before responding.
Now when I check a few YouTube links [youtube.com] the message have changed to a terms of use violation instead, convenient for UMG's spin control, eh?
I really dont think UMG has the ability to force the message to change. Someone at youtube makes that decision.
Nice try, but the artists in the video don't get any copyright in the video, the guy holding the camera does.
Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
So it appears the authors-- the artists-- are the initial owners.
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP: The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law,
ie, by a contract, which was almost CERTAINLY in place, and would have transferred ownership to UMG.
In other words, no, UMG really does own the copyright. The works for hire section might make that a little fuzzier, but presumably the artists are paid to be under a contract, so even that might reinforce UMG's ownership.
If they signed over the copyright, then the labels have the copyright and they absolutely CAN sue anyone who violates it. It doesnt matter how the artists feel about it (though theyre welcome to file a futile lawsuit), the labels currently, now, this instant, hold the copyrights and can take legal action against third parties to defend them.
Moreover, the "automatic" copyright on that video is legally assigned to whoever was holding the camera,
Thats really not accurate, multiple parties have a stake in the video depending on what contracts were signed, and one of those parties is UMG.
Ignorant troll is ignorant. You have any examples of a BSOD not caused by buggy drivers or a crappy antivirus package? Cause I havent seen one in 5 years.
Youre not understanding. Parent is saying that the copyright to any song produced by them is almost certainly held by their label, which makes this entire article a load of speculative nonsense.
If the takedown was indeed nonsense, and one of the artists or Kim wants to put their own necks on the line, they can always use the DMCA to file a counter-claim. Of course, then they really are on the hook if theyre lying, so I doubt youd see that; this makes MUCH better publicity for folks ignorant of how the DMCA actually works.
The big story here is the absolutely monumental brazenness of Universal, using a bogus DMCA copyright claim to censor someone they don't like on a high visibility site as YouTube.
This isnt difficult; if the request is bogus as Kim claims so vehemently, all he has to do is counter-file a claim under the DMCA. At that point, if the video truly is infringing, it is on Kim to defend and take the heat, not Youtube.
More likely, hes full of crap, and the artists signed agreements with UMG that means they really do hold the copyright(s). If I sign a contract with you that says "Greger47 is hereby the owner of copyright to any works I produce in the next year", and I subsequently try to get out of that by signing one with Kylegordon saying "Kylegordon gets the copyright to THIS song, regardless of that other contract I signed", unfortunately that doesnt nullify the first contract. I have a feeling thats what happened here, the artists are ignorant, and Kim is spouting off about nothing.
I really like that the primary source for this article-- an article designed to bash RIAA-- is a guy who obviously hates them, and hes deemed a credible source for all of this. The article contains choice quotes like "If UMG took down a video it has no rights to, then..." Did anyone even do any investigation to see whether there was any merit to the RIAA's claim, or whether Kim's claims hold any water whatsoever? I thought not, and of course that wont matter here, right? Law be damned, the RIAA must burn and all of that.
BSODs are almost always a result of a bad driver, a bad piece of hardware, bad firmware, or a bad 3rd party service.
Basically, pretty much similar to a crash on any other modern OS, it is very very rarely caused by a kernel bug. If youre getting BSODs, update your damn drivers or choose another, less crappy hardware vendor.
I add two and two together: I already know that the government in China DOES monitor every cell phone call, and require a national ID for a SIM card. HMMM, wonder why that could be?
And that they also monitor basically everything you do online, have been known to issue phony SSL certs, have been known to hack into google, requested identifying info on blogger identities, have cameras in every church, etc etc etc.
None of this is the case in the western world, and to get access to a surveilance camera basically requires a warrant or court order-- each of which is SUBSTANTIALLY harder to get in the US than in China. Not sure if you are aware, but warrants arent even required in China to imprison you-- they can hold you for 2 years with no charges.
The comparison fails on so many levels its absurd.
When you consider that it resulted in a price drop for 2TB HDDs from $250 or so in 2010 to $75 as of 3 months ago, yes, it is great.
The "spike in prices" is only a spike because of how cheap everything had gotten, and it only got so cheap because of heavy competition. Second guessing things and claiming it would have been better with heavier regulation and restricted ability to outsource is moronic.
Dont you understand, this is serious! Its TOTALLY worth comparing to the 1930s depression!
Nice summary tho, totally a good comparison. Might want to throw in a comparison to the loss of drives being similar to the loss of lives in the holocaust, for good measure.
Thats not what he said, he was pointing out the fact that most surveillance in democratic countries is at the behest of a worried population. That doesnt mean the surveillance is a good thing, or that parent was condoning it (in fact, he stopped short of that in his comment); its just that its not in the same ballpark as cameras in China or a truly repressive country.
Not to mention the proliferation of metal detectors in public buildings.
Thats neither "surveillance" (what are they seeing? What right is being violated?) nor is it government (theyre almost all privately owned buildings).
Surveillance in the US is nowhere near at the level that you are saying it is, unless DC is some anomaly and other cities are very different. I have never seen a surveilance camera in DC, and I actually look for that kind of thing.
Go to Shanghai, and THEN try to tell me "the US is just as bad". And there, the government really DOES listen to everything you say, and have access to all the cameras.
HADOPI doesnt involve government surveillance, as much as it may bug you to hear this. It also doesnt require "surveillance tech"'; an ISP can monitor any non-encrypted communication you make pretty trivially with a $30 router and a $150 switch, or 2 $20 USB ethernet devices bridged.
Assange is being accused of a rape crime, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with repression or surveillance; 2 witnesses are accusing him of a crime and the courts are trying to go through their process. Im not clear what surveillance tech you think is involved here.
that there are people who would like to live peacefully whilst still being diametrically opposed to everything that the US stands for.
Im not entirely sure you are familiar with what embassies are FOR. Hint, having a chinese embassy in the US doesnt mean we love everything about China.
Slashdot Mirror
That escape from the universe might be possible
THat kind of depends how you define universe, but the definitions Ive seen preclude any informational or physical leak in or out of it.
Because the core of a star is where matter is broken down into bits (unless it happens to be low enough on the periodic table, in which case it is being destructively combined into bigger bits), which makes it a rather odd place to go looking for some kind of "life". You show me a bacteria that has evolved a resistance to nuclear fusion, and then we'll talk.
It's a lot more likely that "DNA just evolved" than "the magic man in the sky just appeared and was smart enough to create DNA".
Statements like this-- referring to "likely" as if it dictates reality-- baffle me. How are you quantifying the chances for the two possibilities?
if there is ONE case where it is true and your sample size is (nearly) infinitely large, the chance to find another case is 1.
Perhaps "nearly 1", but not 1. Case in point: There are infinite counting numbers, but only 1 even prime number (2). Surely with an infinite sample size, by your logic, you would expect multiple examples even primes?
It's hard to resist using Einstein as an authority
Not really, not when you remember that Einstein was also just a man, and that appeals to authority are in no case a good argument.
Einstein's insights into physics dont somehow make him an authority on every subject conceivable, you know.
Oh, you forgot, He loves us SO MUCH that he will torture us forever for behaving as we were designed...
When I make something that doesn't work right I take it apart and fix it, or scrap it and make something else...
In no case do I put it on my barbeque grill forever.
Oh dear, is someone ridiculing religion with a strawman? Whatever shall we do.
If Zeus was omnipotent, one might wonder why his household was such a wreck...
THis is a tired, old argument that keeps getting exhumed and really needs to be left to rest. There are some ideologies-- some secular, some religious-- that tend to be more militant. There are others that are less so. Basically every "thing" that can be "believed in" has resulted in fanaticism, hatred, and oppression at some point in time.
So you can point at the Inquisition, Indulgences, Roman Catholic abuses (both historical and present), and islamic militantism, and I will point to Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, and Japanese nationalism. Trying to make this some simplistic "religion is the root of all evil" just displays your ignorance; and it makes you look even more ridiculous when you try to take "artistic license" with history and declare Hitler and Stalin to be motivated by some spiritual belief.
At the end of the day, you would be hard pressed to show me a belief in the Torah or Bible that actually encourages bad behavior, especially the Christian understanding of the bible. You can show me men professing faith who commit bad deeds, but that is nothing unusual for ANY belief system.
The author of a piece of music is the singer, just as the author of the book is the writer, not the publisher.
Do i need to break out dictionary.com definitions? Who wrote the songs? WHo performed it? Those are the authors, this is simple stuff.
If you dont want to take my word, we will once again ask the US government:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
Who is an author?
Under the copyright law, the creator of the original expression in a work is its author. The author is also the owner of copyright unless there is a written agreement by which the author assigns the copyright to another person or entity, such as a publisher.
The person running the camera is not the creator of the "original expression". If you really want to be obnoxious about this, you could refuse to read the two links I provided and just claim "nuh uh", but then I wouldnt respond to you, so I really recommend you read those links before responding.
Now when I check a few YouTube links [youtube.com] the message have changed to a terms of use violation instead, convenient for UMG's spin control, eh?
I really dont think UMG has the ability to force the message to change. Someone at youtube makes that decision.
Nice try, but the artists in the video don't get any copyright in the video, the guy holding the camera does.
Rather than bickering endlessly about this, lets just see what the US government says about this:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html
Relevant sections...
Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowners of copyright in the work.
So it appears the authors-- the artists-- are the initial owners.
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP:
The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance or by operation of law,
ie, by a contract, which was almost CERTAINLY in place, and would have transferred ownership to UMG.
In other words, no, UMG really does own the copyright. The works for hire section might make that a little fuzzier, but presumably the artists are paid to be under a contract, so even that might reinforce UMG's ownership.
If they signed over the copyright, then the labels have the copyright and they absolutely CAN sue anyone who violates it. It doesnt matter how the artists feel about it (though theyre welcome to file a futile lawsuit), the labels currently, now, this instant, hold the copyrights and can take legal action against third parties to defend them.
Moreover, the "automatic" copyright on that video is legally assigned to whoever was holding the camera,
Thats really not accurate, multiple parties have a stake in the video depending on what contracts were signed, and one of those parties is UMG.
Ignorant troll is ignorant. You have any examples of a BSOD not caused by buggy drivers or a crappy antivirus package? Cause I havent seen one in 5 years.
Youre not understanding. Parent is saying that the copyright to any song produced by them is almost certainly held by their label, which makes this entire article a load of speculative nonsense.
If the takedown was indeed nonsense, and one of the artists or Kim wants to put their own necks on the line, they can always use the DMCA to file a counter-claim. Of course, then they really are on the hook if theyre lying, so I doubt youd see that; this makes MUCH better publicity for folks ignorant of how the DMCA actually works.
The big story here is the absolutely monumental brazenness of Universal, using a bogus DMCA copyright claim to censor someone they don't like on a high visibility site as YouTube .
This isnt difficult; if the request is bogus as Kim claims so vehemently, all he has to do is counter-file a claim under the DMCA. At that point, if the video truly is infringing, it is on Kim to defend and take the heat, not Youtube.
More likely, hes full of crap, and the artists signed agreements with UMG that means they really do hold the copyright(s). If I sign a contract with you that says "Greger47 is hereby the owner of copyright to any works I produce in the next year", and I subsequently try to get out of that by signing one with Kylegordon saying "Kylegordon gets the copyright to THIS song, regardless of that other contract I signed", unfortunately that doesnt nullify the first contract. I have a feeling thats what happened here, the artists are ignorant, and Kim is spouting off about nothing.
I really like that the primary source for this article-- an article designed to bash RIAA-- is a guy who obviously hates them, and hes deemed a credible source for all of this. The article contains choice quotes like "If UMG took down a video it has no rights to, then..." Did anyone even do any investigation to see whether there was any merit to the RIAA's claim, or whether Kim's claims hold any water whatsoever? I thought not, and of course that wont matter here, right? Law be damned, the RIAA must burn and all of that.
BSODs are almost always a result of a bad driver, a bad piece of hardware, bad firmware, or a bad 3rd party service.
Basically, pretty much similar to a crash on any other modern OS, it is very very rarely caused by a kernel bug. If youre getting BSODs, update your damn drivers or choose another, less crappy hardware vendor.
I add two and two together: I already know that the government in China DOES monitor every cell phone call, and require a national ID for a SIM card. HMMM, wonder why that could be?
And that they also monitor basically everything you do online, have been known to issue phony SSL certs, have been known to hack into google, requested identifying info on blogger identities, have cameras in every church, etc etc etc.
None of this is the case in the western world, and to get access to a surveilance camera basically requires a warrant or court order-- each of which is SUBSTANTIALLY harder to get in the US than in China. Not sure if you are aware, but warrants arent even required in China to imprison you-- they can hold you for 2 years with no charges.
The comparison fails on so many levels its absurd.
isn't a totally free market GREAT??
When you consider that it resulted in a price drop for 2TB HDDs from $250 or so in 2010 to $75 as of 3 months ago, yes, it is great.
The "spike in prices" is only a spike because of how cheap everything had gotten, and it only got so cheap because of heavy competition. Second guessing things and claiming it would have been better with heavier regulation and restricted ability to outsource is moronic.
Dont you understand, this is serious! Its TOTALLY worth comparing to the 1930s depression!
Nice summary tho, totally a good comparison. Might want to throw in a comparison to the loss of drives being similar to the loss of lives in the holocaust, for good measure.
Maybe a lifetime of no personal income tax?
Thats a really bad road to start down.
EU President is basically a Bilderberger
Ok, I think we're done here.
Thats not what he said, he was pointing out the fact that most surveillance in democratic countries is at the behest of a worried population. That doesnt mean the surveillance is a good thing, or that parent was condoning it (in fact, he stopped short of that in his comment); its just that its not in the same ballpark as cameras in China or a truly repressive country.
Not to mention the proliferation of metal detectors in public buildings.
Thats neither "surveillance" (what are they seeing? What right is being violated?) nor is it government (theyre almost all privately owned buildings).
Surveillance in the US is nowhere near at the level that you are saying it is, unless DC is some anomaly and other cities are very different. I have never seen a surveilance camera in DC, and I actually look for that kind of thing.
Go to Shanghai, and THEN try to tell me "the US is just as bad". And there, the government really DOES listen to everything you say, and have access to all the cameras.
You have a problem with propaganda, but you want a government-implemented education system?
Brilliant.
SOPA hasnt passed.
HADOPI doesnt involve government surveillance, as much as it may bug you to hear this. It also doesnt require "surveillance tech"'; an ISP can monitor any non-encrypted communication you make pretty trivially with a $30 router and a $150 switch, or 2 $20 USB ethernet devices bridged.
Assange is being accused of a rape crime, which has absolutely NOTHING to do with repression or surveillance; 2 witnesses are accusing him of a crime and the courts are trying to go through their process. Im not clear what surveillance tech you think is involved here.
that there are people who would like to live peacefully whilst still being diametrically opposed to everything that the US stands for.
Im not entirely sure you are familiar with what embassies are FOR.
Hint, having a chinese embassy in the US doesnt mean we love everything about China.