in the space of the last 35 years we have extracted as much copper as there was extracted before in the entire history of human kind.
You mean something along the lines of "In the last 35 years we've mined as much copper as had been extracted in all of history up to that point." Or rather, half of all the copper that has been extracted in the entire history of mankind has been extracted in the last 35 years.
However, even so it's a flawed metric (though the correct figures are still impressive). We've been extracting copper for millenia, and we've been growing at a rate of 2% since 1900. Before that we grew much, much slower. In other words, the rate of extraction in 1900 may have been double what was extracted in the prior 100 years, or 300 years, or 10 years, who knows? Wikipedia doesn't, anyway. We've been extracting it for millenia, so if you follow that long tail back say, 4,000 years (a reasonable figure, I believe) and average it out at about.2 mega-tons per year (the recent years pick up the early years' slack), you get 800 mega-tons. In the last 100 years we've extracted roughly 700 mega-tons, and in the last 35 years roughly 420 megatons.
In other words we're definitely on track to do what you suggest, but it's going to take about 50-60 years before they can say "we've collected more in the last 35 years than was collected in the entire prior history of mankind".
Moreover, what of the skills required to safely and temporarily store radio active waste, which we still cannot deal with effectively in the so-called developed world?
You do realize the waste comes out in teeny tiny amounts, right? In the US, 50 year old reactors use 1% of the Uranium fuel (other more rational countries allow reactors to get ten times that) and almost all of the waste is store on-site. 50 years of waste, on-site, safely. Procedures needed to handle radio-active waste aren't very different than handling other types of hazerdous materials. Think about it. No other process can claim even holding 1 year of waste on site. Long-term storage of the material would be easy if it were not such a politically charged issue.
The infrastructure issue is a red herring, as nuclear plants are built where they are needed, meaning transport is extremely easy. Infrastructure costs for biogas are significantly higher, since you need pipelines to transport it long distances (given that where it can be produced may not be where it needs to be consumed).
The real problem with firing squads and other methods compared to injection is how hard it is on the executioners not the prisoners. A firing squad is a very humane way to kill a murderer, as you noted. However, each member of the firing squad knows he killed the man himself (or at least, he definitely contributed). They try to work around that by making one round a blank. The marksmen know one round is a blank, but they don't know which. This allows them to rationalize that it may not have been their bullet. This simply introduces uncertainty though, because they know they have 4:1 odds that their bullet is real.
With lethal injection, everyone has a complete rationalization that they did not kill the man. The nurse who inserts the needle didn't throw the switch or fill the poison vials, so obviously they didn't kill him. The man who filled the vials didn't throw the switch or insert the needle, so obviously they didn't kill him. The switch is on a timer, so nobody actually physically threw the switch, and the guy who set the timer was simply setting a timer, he was in no way involved in filling the vials or inserting the needle or giving the orders to kill the man.
Everyone knows they were involved, but they each only share a small fraction of the responsibility, and alone none of their actions killed anyone. This gives them deniability, and allows their consciences to remain clean.
That is why lethal injection is popular. There are other more humane ways to kill, but it's "humane enough" and allows deniability for all involved.
Set the drop to be too short, and they guy's neck doesn't break and you have to wait 15 minutes while he chokes to death - not pretty.
Set the drop too long and the head pops off. Better for the guy dieing, as he doesn't suffer nearly as long (a couple minutes until brain death, but as the spine is severed he likely feels nothing). However that's not exactly a dignified death.
If you don't mind popping heads off, why not go back to the guillotine? If well built it's flawless, and far, far cheaper than injection.
All capital punishment is hard on the executioner. You basically have to be some level of sociopath not to be affected by it, which, incidentally, is probably a good use for sociopaths.
If I were to die, I'd want it to be by firing squad - that's just awesome (though really hard on the executioners).
UK copyrights basically apply in the US as if they were works completed in the US by a US citizen.
This is the part that is unique to copyright and patent law (which the OP clearly does not understand).
For any other case, both companies must be operating in the same company, and the grievance must have occurred in that company. A UK company can't sue a US company for anti-competitive practices, for example, if that UK company is not competing in that exact same market.
That's not how copyright works due to the Berne Convention.
If Jim-Bob in the UK has a UK copyright on a song, and Fred Fredrickson in the US decides he's going to send it to 100,000 of his closest friends, Jim-Bob can sue Fred in US court under US copyright law for violation of his UK copyright. UK law does not apply, but the copyright transfers over and Jim-Bob gets the exact same legal copyrights as a US citizen.
Whether or not the UK has a DMCA-like provision (apparently it does, the OP is wrong on that as well), it doesn't matter. It wouldn't apply anyway. It's US law that applies, and under US law, an "information gathering service" must remove links to copyrighted content upon receiving a DMCA takedown notice.
Not really, other than some slashdotters may not have been aware that the DMCA applies to links as well as content.
The OP is clearly confused about how cross-country copyright law works. He seems to think a UK should not be allowed to issue a notice to Google via US law. He is obviously unaware that this has been the way international copyright has worked for the last 30 years for the US, and close to 100 years across Europe (though I think the UK was a later signer as well, maybe 40's or 50's, not sure though).
There's really nothing stopping cross-jurisdictional takedowns from being issued.
Just some slight clarifications, you're pretty much spot on.
When it's two countries that are involved, the Berne convention requires that Google comply with a legal US DMCA notice by a UK company, regardless of whether or not the UK company has a US presence. Both US and UK (and any other Berne signatory) law have been amended to provide for this. That same notice does not apply in the UK, however if the notice is compatible with UK law they can simply re-issue it (or issue it at the same time) in the UK, assuming they have a valid UK target. The US notice does not apply in the UK, and vice versa. There must be two separate (even if identical) notices.
Obviously within each country, national laws apply everywhere, while jurisdiction shopping only affects local laws that may apply.
One of the great wonders of the human mind is the ability to see simple mistakes and not get derailed by them. In most adequately functioning brains, this ability is so powerful that the individual is not always consciously aware anything is amiss at first glance.
However, the parent poster's brain seems to be malfunctioning. People with poorly working brains tend to appear to be pedantic assholes, concerned only about the tiniest meaningless details, but I caution people not to make that mistake. This may be caused by a serious brain deficiency, which makes certain individuals function more like simple computers instead of the complex human beings they aught to be.
I urge you to look upon TYH.DataAngel not with annoyance, or anger, but with pity.
Still, the possibility does remain that TYH.DataAngel is nothing more than a pedantic asshole. One can certainly hope!;)
Actually I think only a few tweaks need to be made to the DMCA to make it workable in the Age of the Internet.
First, bad-faith DMCA takedown notices need consequences. It should be wire fraud to knowingly issue a DMCA take-down notice either for works the issuer does not hold copyright for, or for very clear cases of fair use of their copyrighted material. This would add some real consequences for issuing bad take-down notices without damaging the immediacy of the system (which is necessary, given the speed of copying today).
Second, fair use provisions need to apply to the anti-circumvention clause (frankly, I don't think it should be there at all). If the purpose of circumventing the protection device is a fair use of the material, then the circumvention should be legal. This keeps the legal sting for illegal activities (which was already there, frankly, but whatever) while still allowing the fair use of the material.
Fixing those two would fix 99% of the problems with the DMCA overnight.
Not sure why this is a -1, because parent has a point. While it may not be clear who is paying whom royalties, etc., It is clear that the OP is not the copyright holder to any of the materials.
But they do own the rights to the composition of the materials. If they have legal right to use the music, then they get copyright on the composition. If they don't own the rights to the music, then the original copyright owners own the rights to the composition. It does not become a free for all.
In other words, while it may not be clear whether or not Somethin' Else owns the copyright on the compilations (if they are correctly licensed, then they almost certain do), it is abundantly clear that Kaner does not, in any case.
To break it down for you on who owns the copyright here:
Record labels own the copyrights to the original music used in the mixes - they often license to radio shows in mass, as is almost certainly the case here.
Depending on the contract, either the DJ's or the show producers (or someone else involved in the mix) own the copyrights to the composition of the mix - the order of the songs, their flow, and any other tweaks to the sound the DJ makes.
Depending on the show's contract with the record labels, you may be ok with permission solely from the DJ's/Producers, but you may need permission from them and the record labels, which would probably be next to impossible. Either way, you at least need the producer's permission, without which you can't even claim a good-faith attempt to uphold the law.
Either way, it's not a gray area for Kaner in the slightest. What he is doing is 100% illegal.
It's as if they want to claim that Google's ability to find such stuff makes them liable.
That's exactly what they are claiming, and the DMCA requires Google to comply if it wants to retain its safe harbor status.
According to the DMCA safe harbor provisions, they may be liable if they don't immediately respond to a take-down notice by removing the link to the material. There is an "Information gathering services" provision in the DMCA.
Under the DMCA, Google need not host anything, a simple link is good enough, and removal of the link on notice is required. And of course, thanks to the Berne convention a UK company can indeed sue a US company for infringements that occur in the US.
What is disgusting about the DMCA is its automatic nature, and the absolute lack of repercussions for filing a false notice. It aught to be wire fraud, but it isn't considered such. There is no right to question on Google's part, they must respond to any DMCA take-down notice immediately or risk liability in the case of a lawsuit. It doesn't matter one whit if the notice is blatantly invalid.
If the DMCA were a two edged sword, instead of the hatchet it is now, it would be used a lot more responsibly.
The problem with cumulative voting is it was only designed to work win situations with 3 winners and clear political divisions. It also does nothing for third party candidates with overwhelming opposition.
It's also usually very disproportionate, due to the practice of "bullet voting". This is the very technique that is supposed to get minority parties more representation. Often what happens, though, is the incumbent gets a free ride. He only needs about 34% support to ensure he remains in office, making an incumbent extremely difficult to remove, even if 60% of the people oppose him. It does lower the barrier of entry, but it also makes compromises by voters less likely, reducing an alternative's chances.
For example, suppose a left leaning candidate gets 60% of the vote (overwhelming support), two right leaning candidates each get 15% of the vote, and a centrist candidate gets 10% of the vote. Well, now you have a situation where the majority of the people in a district (70%) are under-represented at least 2-1. It also destroyed the moderate vote, instead of promoting it. It is entirely possible that had there been no "bullet voting" option, the vote would have gone more like 40% left, 30% center, and a run-off between the two right candidates, leaving a very well represented district. However, without bullet voting the system offers no advantage to minority candidates.
For example, in the previous situation if you introduce a green party candidate with a focused campaign and no green competition, it's entirely possible that he could siphon 20% of support off the left candidate, making the vote 40% left, 20% green, and a runoff between two 15% right. Here again, though, the centrist position loses with only 10% of the vote, due largely to the bullet voting from the left and green candidates (the right is obviously in-fighting here, another common problem with cumulative voting). The candidate that the largest percentage of people would accept gets the fewest number of votes.
All you need for an example is Illinois between 1870 and 1980. They initiated it for very specific reasons: to ensure at least one of the minority candidates in each district would be elected in spite of the extremely entrenched parties. It worked perfectly for that specific purpose, but as party division decreased, other problems started becoming apparent, like no-contest districts. The parties would only put up one candidate, thus ensuring their candidate one, regardless of the rest of the vote (they only needed a little over 30%). Racial minorities went very under-represented because the districts had to be large enough to ensure 3 candidates for cumulative voting to work properly. There would be large all-black neighborhoods in districts that were primarily white, leading to very little representation for the black citizens.
These were all reasons Illinois eventually got rid of cumulative voting (they did try to fix it in the 70's, but it didn't work).
I do think moving away from a winner-take-all system is a good idea, I'm really getting tired of the two party system, and winner-take-all makes anything else impossible.
...said the Prime Minister of a constitutional monarchy.
If you're arguing for democracy, you'd better re-read Churchill's statement, because that's exactly he said. If you're arguing against democracy, I don't know why you didn't offer an alternative form of government than the democracy that Churchill supported, nor do I understand what you mean by your constitutional monarchy comment in that case.
To put it in more straightforward terms for you, this is what he said:
All forms of government are terrible, but democracy is the best of them.
And how do you know how many customers would have left with poorer customer service, and how do you know how many more customers you would have retained/gained had you better customer service? Especially in the case of Verizon, who is consistently ranked at the top in surveys of customer satisfaction?
How do you count that?
It can be estimated, but an estimate always less trustworthy than a fact. The bean counters can say "We saved a million dollars last month by simply cutting out X." What if the effects of cutting out X don't show up for a year? Their total loss could be 5 times what they gained, but because it is spread out over a year they never see it.
That's the problem with bean counters - they aren't visionaries. They cannot take into account loyalty, satisfaction, and desire. They only count numbers, and their numbers will show they are winning even as they lose.
All snarking aside - this is a case of Verizon forgetting who they work for. They work for the Customers - NOT the money. They have to keep "what is best for Customers" in mind when dealing with money.
Yeah, I know I am full of crap. I hate big soulless companies too. But if their policy is to screw their customers at every turn, they will lose me as a customer.
You are completely wrong. No business works for the customer, ever. The customer is a source of income - a market to sell their wares. They do the best they can to maximize the consumption of their product. A business can be about the money and the customers (it's actually a really good strategy for getting more money - a net gain for everybody), and indeed a large consideration for what the customer will buy is necessary, but it cannot only be about the customers. If they were, everything would be free, and they would be broke before they even started. That's usually called a charity, and relies on external support to keep functioning (donations, government funding, etc).
The heartless among business executives may try to screw over the customer at every turn, but it's generally bad practice to do so (whether they actually care or not) in the long term. Sometimes business execs forget that, and then the business starts tanking and it ends up being consumed by another business unless they change their strategy.
Sometimes we get so focused on fancy cutting edge things that we miss the basics...
You mean like the lupus nephritis she had? You know, the disease that attacks the kidneys (among other things) which was killing her? You know the one that is in no way associated with vitamin D deficiencies?
Yeah, your focus is in the wrong place alright.
Still, always good advice to get out in the sun. Just don't get sun burned, that causes skin cancer.
The kidney had friggin bone marrow and blood vessels growing inside it man. It's a filter, it's not supposed to have a bunch of tubes and blood-generating tissue in it.
I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that was a contributing factor to the kidney failure.
Now, from the sounds of things it really just sped the process up a bit (her condition was terminal), so it's not major heartbreaking news. However, others have said the proper procedure has had good results, and the Thai clinic did it incorrectly (you're supposed to inject the stem cells in the blood, not the kidneys).
No, it means she died, and they're pretty sure the treatment did it.
For zombies, I'm not sure what the formula is, do you need to be dead, but not completely dead? Or do you need to be so dead it sorta loops back around and you come back to "life"?
Modern movies suggest the former, classic movies suggest the latter. Has our body of zombie knowledge increased to the point that we know more now? Or are movie scientists just making it all up?
So I am curious, since it is morally objectionable to deny a zygote the potential of turning into a baby do you also consider anyone who does not practice a strict regimen of sexual intercourse during the appropriate periods to prevent sperm and ovam being lost to nocturnal emission or a menstrual cycle as an immoral person?
According to the Christian Bible, it's morally objectionable to spill a man's seed on the ground, so the case could be made.
If you find it morally objectionable to not provide a group of cells a womb in which to gestate because there is a potential to create a human being then you surely must also find it morally objectionable to not provide every sperm cell and every ovam a womb in which to combine into a zygote, grow into a blastocyst and eventually form into a human being.
You don't have to, we place limits on what we find objectionable all the time. We have varying degrees of just about everything we find objectionable.
However, it's certainly possible to go as far as you suggest from a strict reading of the Bible.
And it gets worse. It is virtually impossible to locate an ovam and womb or every single sperm cell so every single male of the human species is a die hard baby killer, by your logic.
Not by his logic, only by yours. By anybody else's logic baby killing can't occur until an egg has been fertilized. Before that it's just wanton waste (which I believe is the basis for making "spilling the seed" a sin).
In other words, the case exists to say Christians should find everything from masturbation up to late-term abortion objectionable (and most die-hards do). However, the case is not there to say they should believe masturbation is the same as abortion. Nobody thinks a sperm cell and an ovum are separately unique human beings, and that killing one of them is murder. It's only when they join together to create a unique human being that it becomes a form of murder.
I share this view, but not because of my religious background. It's because the only difference between a toddler and an embryo is the number and level of development of the cells that make up each. The only real difference between an embryo and a zygote is also the number and level of development of the cells. Simple logic tells me that if there is no significant difference between the two, then if it is ok to kill one, it must be ok to kill the other. If it isn't ok to kill one, then it cannot be ok to kill the other. I happen to believe intentionally killing toddlers is murder, so I must believe intentionally killing fetuses and zygotes is murder as well.
That makes me against abortion of any kind. However, I'm not against embryonic stem cell research. As long as the embryos were aborted naturally (i.e. miscarriages) or death was otherwise unavoidable (complications of some kind that resulted in the death of the baby, it sucks but that's medicine) I have absolutely no problem with it. It's the killing of babies (even single-cell babies) that I have a problem with it, and the same is true for nearly all "religious wackos" in the world as well.
Nobody (who is at least a little sane, anyway) is against embryonic stem cell research because it's taking stem cells from dead embryos. They are against it because, in a culture where abortion (which they oppose) is permitted, they are afraid of anything that may increase the incentive to abort a baby.
Think about it. If a doctor tells a woman who is deciding whether or not to abort her baby (or if it's well known) that she'll be benefiting science if she has the abortion, is she not going to be slightly more likely to do it? Of course she is. How much will depend on the person and why she is getting the abortion. Anybody who believes it is morally wrong to support abortion is going to have a real problem with government funding research that can be used indirectly to promote abortion.
None of this would be happening if working with stem cells and bioengineering proper was legalized at large.
I hate to break it to you, but stem cell research is alive and well in the US, and has never ever been made illegal.
What did happen was public funding of embryonic stem cell research was stopped. This is an ethics decision, based on that administration's political values. Funding for non-embryonic stem cell research was actually significantly increased by the same administration that halted funding for embryonic stem cell research. If your still not getting it, it was the Bush administration. It was the same administration responsible for the most significant increase in funding for the sciences in the last 20+ years. Anti-science indeed!
A few truths about the state of stem cell research:
1.)Scientists think adult stem cells are limited to reproducing the tissues they originated from, whereas they know embryonic stem cells are not. Obviously this is not the case, since these adult stem cells produced many different types of tissues in the patient's kidneys
2.)Adult stem cells are much more difficult to culture than embryonic stem cells. Large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell therapy, so this is definitely an issue.
3.)Embryonic stem cells are much more likely to be rejected by the host than adult stem cells. In other words, even though they are easier to reproduce, they work less reliably.
Quit listening to anti-religion bullshit and open your own damn eyes and ears. Most of what you hear is total bigotry against religions, as though believing one thing makes you incapable of understanding anything. The fact is, anybody who does not follow a standard religion has a "religion replacement" that they follow just as fervently and dogmatically. Atheists are the epitome of this, and are really some of the most dogmatic people you'll ever come across (some of them right up there with street-corner evangelists). I generally prefer agnostics, as they tend to have a more open and reasonable outlook on things.
"Almost 'certainly killed' her" means you are slightly unsure that this definately killed her.
Almost, but not quite.;)
"Almost certain" means your certainty is very high, but not complete. Contrast it with "uncertain", which means you don't really know. "Almost certain" means there is a chance I'm wrong, but it's extremely unlikely, whereas "certain" means there is no chance you are wrong. That's assuming you aren't using hyperbole, in which case people say "certain" when they mean "pretty certain". That doesn't do anybody any good.
However, it doesn't sound like hyperbole in this case, given the evidence they have found. It seems pretty reasonable that after injecting adult stem cells (which are cells that can become any cell in the body) the cells basically turned cancerous instead of generating new, healthy kidney cells (which was obviously the intent of the treatment). This is evidenced by the fact that they found things like bone marrow growing in the kidney. Her kidneys were already failing, which was killing her, this caused her kidneys to fail, after which she died. Ergo, the stem cell treatment almost certainly killed her. It's not exactly a stretch, though simple logic is not enough to create complete certainty.
Apparently not, the GP replied (before the P you're replying to posted) stating that chemo had left him extremely weak (it does, it's hard to say whether my grandpa died of leukemia or chemo therapy, it's a devastating treatment) and Tai Chi has allowed him to regain all his strength (and particularly his balance) back and more than he had before in the last 10 years.
He also states specifically that it was the drug that rid him of cancer in the original post, not the Tai Chi.
He posted that two hours before your reply, and a few minutes before the P's reply, so I really wonder who's reading the thread at all.
In other words, he was a little unclear, yet you automatically assumed he was talking mumbo-jumbo. You put words in his mouth he didn't say, and now you just look like a dumbass.
If they say it, and they've obviously done it, then it just might be true.
Then that makes it, almost by definition, faith.
It's not faith when you've got a very strong piece of evidence staring you in the face.
but the reasons you cite are not really valid scientific evidence.
That means absolutely nothing. Evidence, by itself, is never scientific. It's the repetition and measurement that are scientific.
His reasons are based on observation that his instructor is extremely fit at an age where most men are very feeble, and his own recovery has been excellent. There is no faith there, it's based on observation. According to you, there is no scientific evidence that people can read. I mean, just because someone says reading is how they extract information out of a book doesn't make it true right? Must all be faith, right?
Did he use modern scientific methodologies? No, of course not. But to say it's faith because he didn't is flat out idiotic. No fact is scientific. Ever. A fact is a fact. It is either true or it isn't. An observation is simply an observation, there is nothing in the world that makes one observation scientific and another observation non-scientific. Science is the process of generating and confirming theories about observations. Nothing more. We see X. We want to know why X exists. So we test X, and come up with theories, which should fit the pattern X gives us. If X changes (we observe something new) and the theory doesn't fit, then the science was wrong.
In other words, you're completely fucking wrong, you idiot retard.
Second: When I purchased my smartphone, I didn't like being forced to purchase the "unlimited" plan for $30/month. Since the phone has WiFi and I'm usually near a WiFi access point, I was willing to rely on that to save some money.
My local carrier is actually trying that: For a month they are giving away a Blackberry with every new contract (I know, still a contract, but it's a free BB), with no data plan required. If you don't have a data plan, you simply won't be able to connect to the internet via the cell network, otherwise all Blackberry features will be available when connected to a wifi network.
Slashdot Mirror
My turn to be pedantic, yay!
in the space of the last 35 years we have extracted as much copper as there was extracted before in the entire history of human kind.
You mean something along the lines of "In the last 35 years we've mined as much copper as had been extracted in all of history up to that point." Or rather, half of all the copper that has been extracted in the entire history of mankind has been extracted in the last 35 years.
However, even so it's a flawed metric (though the correct figures are still impressive). We've been extracting copper for millenia, and we've been growing at a rate of 2% since 1900. Before that we grew much, much slower. In other words, the rate of extraction in 1900 may have been double what was extracted in the prior 100 years, or 300 years, or 10 years, who knows? Wikipedia doesn't, anyway. We've been extracting it for millenia, so if you follow that long tail back say, 4,000 years (a reasonable figure, I believe) and average it out at about .2 mega-tons per year (the recent years pick up the early years' slack), you get 800 mega-tons. In the last 100 years we've extracted roughly 700 mega-tons, and in the last 35 years roughly 420 megatons.
In other words we're definitely on track to do what you suggest, but it's going to take about 50-60 years before they can say "we've collected more in the last 35 years than was collected in the entire prior history of mankind".
Moreover, what of the skills required to safely and temporarily store radio active waste, which we still cannot deal with effectively in the so-called developed world?
You do realize the waste comes out in teeny tiny amounts, right? In the US, 50 year old reactors use 1% of the Uranium fuel (other more rational countries allow reactors to get ten times that) and almost all of the waste is store on-site. 50 years of waste, on-site, safely. Procedures needed to handle radio-active waste aren't very different than handling other types of hazerdous materials. Think about it. No other process can claim even holding 1 year of waste on site. Long-term storage of the material would be easy if it were not such a politically charged issue.
The infrastructure issue is a red herring, as nuclear plants are built where they are needed, meaning transport is extremely easy. Infrastructure costs for biogas are significantly higher, since you need pipelines to transport it long distances (given that where it can be produced may not be where it needs to be consumed).
I'm guessing you missed the part in the summary where it said "Ronnie Lee Gardner". He was a mass-murderer.
The real problem with firing squads and other methods compared to injection is how hard it is on the executioners not the prisoners. A firing squad is a very humane way to kill a murderer, as you noted. However, each member of the firing squad knows he killed the man himself (or at least, he definitely contributed). They try to work around that by making one round a blank. The marksmen know one round is a blank, but they don't know which. This allows them to rationalize that it may not have been their bullet. This simply introduces uncertainty though, because they know they have 4:1 odds that their bullet is real.
With lethal injection, everyone has a complete rationalization that they did not kill the man. The nurse who inserts the needle didn't throw the switch or fill the poison vials, so obviously they didn't kill him. The man who filled the vials didn't throw the switch or insert the needle, so obviously they didn't kill him. The switch is on a timer, so nobody actually physically threw the switch, and the guy who set the timer was simply setting a timer, he was in no way involved in filling the vials or inserting the needle or giving the orders to kill the man.
Everyone knows they were involved, but they each only share a small fraction of the responsibility, and alone none of their actions killed anyone. This gives them deniability, and allows their consciences to remain clean.
That is why lethal injection is popular. There are other more humane ways to kill, but it's "humane enough" and allows deniability for all involved.
Indeed, hanging is actually very tricky.
Set the drop to be too short, and they guy's neck doesn't break and you have to wait 15 minutes while he chokes to death - not pretty.
Set the drop too long and the head pops off. Better for the guy dieing, as he doesn't suffer nearly as long (a couple minutes until brain death, but as the spine is severed he likely feels nothing). However that's not exactly a dignified death.
If you don't mind popping heads off, why not go back to the guillotine? If well built it's flawless, and far, far cheaper than injection.
All capital punishment is hard on the executioner. You basically have to be some level of sociopath not to be affected by it, which, incidentally, is probably a good use for sociopaths.
If I were to die, I'd want it to be by firing squad - that's just awesome (though really hard on the executioners).
UK copyrights basically apply in the US as if they were works completed in the US by a US citizen.
This is the part that is unique to copyright and patent law (which the OP clearly does not understand).
For any other case, both companies must be operating in the same company, and the grievance must have occurred in that company. A UK company can't sue a US company for anti-competitive practices, for example, if that UK company is not competing in that exact same market.
That's not how copyright works due to the Berne Convention.
If Jim-Bob in the UK has a UK copyright on a song, and Fred Fredrickson in the US decides he's going to send it to 100,000 of his closest friends, Jim-Bob can sue Fred in US court under US copyright law for violation of his UK copyright. UK law does not apply, but the copyright transfers over and Jim-Bob gets the exact same legal copyrights as a US citizen.
Whether or not the UK has a DMCA-like provision (apparently it does, the OP is wrong on that as well), it doesn't matter. It wouldn't apply anyway. It's US law that applies, and under US law, an "information gathering service" must remove links to copyrighted content upon receiving a DMCA takedown notice.
surely there is nothing to see here?
Not really, other than some slashdotters may not have been aware that the DMCA applies to links as well as content.
The OP is clearly confused about how cross-country copyright law works. He seems to think a UK should not be allowed to issue a notice to Google via US law. He is obviously unaware that this has been the way international copyright has worked for the last 30 years for the US, and close to 100 years across Europe (though I think the UK was a later signer as well, maybe 40's or 50's, not sure though).
Say hello to the Berne Convention.
There's really nothing stopping cross-jurisdictional takedowns from being issued.
Just some slight clarifications, you're pretty much spot on.
When it's two countries that are involved, the Berne convention requires that Google comply with a legal US DMCA notice by a UK company, regardless of whether or not the UK company has a US presence. Both US and UK (and any other Berne signatory) law have been amended to provide for this. That same notice does not apply in the UK, however if the notice is compatible with UK law they can simply re-issue it (or issue it at the same time) in the UK, assuming they have a valid UK target. The US notice does not apply in the UK, and vice versa. There must be two separate (even if identical) notices.
Obviously within each country, national laws apply everywhere, while jurisdiction shopping only affects local laws that may apply.
One of the great wonders of the human mind is the ability to see simple mistakes and not get derailed by them. In most adequately functioning brains, this ability is so powerful that the individual is not always consciously aware anything is amiss at first glance.
However, the parent poster's brain seems to be malfunctioning. People with poorly working brains tend to appear to be pedantic assholes, concerned only about the tiniest meaningless details, but I caution people not to make that mistake. This may be caused by a serious brain deficiency, which makes certain individuals function more like simple computers instead of the complex human beings they aught to be.
I urge you to look upon TYH.DataAngel not with annoyance, or anger, but with pity.
Still, the possibility does remain that TYH.DataAngel is nothing more than a pedantic asshole. One can certainly hope! ;)
Actually I think only a few tweaks need to be made to the DMCA to make it workable in the Age of the Internet.
First, bad-faith DMCA takedown notices need consequences. It should be wire fraud to knowingly issue a DMCA take-down notice either for works the issuer does not hold copyright for, or for very clear cases of fair use of their copyrighted material. This would add some real consequences for issuing bad take-down notices without damaging the immediacy of the system (which is necessary, given the speed of copying today).
Second, fair use provisions need to apply to the anti-circumvention clause (frankly, I don't think it should be there at all). If the purpose of circumventing the protection device is a fair use of the material, then the circumvention should be legal. This keeps the legal sting for illegal activities (which was already there, frankly, but whatever) while still allowing the fair use of the material.
Fixing those two would fix 99% of the problems with the DMCA overnight.
Not sure why this is a -1, because parent has a point. While it may not be clear who is paying whom royalties, etc., It is clear that the OP is not the copyright holder to any of the materials.
But they do own the rights to the composition of the materials. If they have legal right to use the music, then they get copyright on the composition. If they don't own the rights to the music, then the original copyright owners own the rights to the composition. It does not become a free for all.
In other words, while it may not be clear whether or not Somethin' Else owns the copyright on the compilations (if they are correctly licensed, then they almost certain do), it is abundantly clear that Kaner does not, in any case.
To break it down for you on who owns the copyright here:
Record labels own the copyrights to the original music used in the mixes - they often license to radio shows in mass, as is almost certainly the case here.
Depending on the contract, either the DJ's or the show producers (or someone else involved in the mix) own the copyrights to the composition of the mix - the order of the songs, their flow, and any other tweaks to the sound the DJ makes.
Depending on the show's contract with the record labels, you may be ok with permission solely from the DJ's/Producers, but you may need permission from them and the record labels, which would probably be next to impossible. Either way, you at least need the producer's permission, without which you can't even claim a good-faith attempt to uphold the law.
Either way, it's not a gray area for Kaner in the slightest. What he is doing is 100% illegal.
It's as if they want to claim that Google's ability to find such stuff makes them liable.
That's exactly what they are claiming, and the DMCA requires Google to comply if it wants to retain its safe harbor status.
According to the DMCA safe harbor provisions, they may be liable if they don't immediately respond to a take-down notice by removing the link to the material. There is an "Information gathering services" provision in the DMCA.
Under the DMCA, Google need not host anything, a simple link is good enough, and removal of the link on notice is required. And of course, thanks to the Berne convention a UK company can indeed sue a US company for infringements that occur in the US.
What is disgusting about the DMCA is its automatic nature, and the absolute lack of repercussions for filing a false notice. It aught to be wire fraud, but it isn't considered such. There is no right to question on Google's part, they must respond to any DMCA take-down notice immediately or risk liability in the case of a lawsuit. It doesn't matter one whit if the notice is blatantly invalid.
If the DMCA were a two edged sword, instead of the hatchet it is now, it would be used a lot more responsibly.
The problem with cumulative voting is it was only designed to work win situations with 3 winners and clear political divisions. It also does nothing for third party candidates with overwhelming opposition.
It's also usually very disproportionate, due to the practice of "bullet voting". This is the very technique that is supposed to get minority parties more representation. Often what happens, though, is the incumbent gets a free ride. He only needs about 34% support to ensure he remains in office, making an incumbent extremely difficult to remove, even if 60% of the people oppose him. It does lower the barrier of entry, but it also makes compromises by voters less likely, reducing an alternative's chances.
For example, suppose a left leaning candidate gets 60% of the vote (overwhelming support), two right leaning candidates each get 15% of the vote, and a centrist candidate gets 10% of the vote. Well, now you have a situation where the majority of the people in a district (70%) are under-represented at least 2-1. It also destroyed the moderate vote, instead of promoting it. It is entirely possible that had there been no "bullet voting" option, the vote would have gone more like 40% left, 30% center, and a run-off between the two right candidates, leaving a very well represented district. However, without bullet voting the system offers no advantage to minority candidates.
For example, in the previous situation if you introduce a green party candidate with a focused campaign and no green competition, it's entirely possible that he could siphon 20% of support off the left candidate, making the vote 40% left, 20% green, and a runoff between two 15% right. Here again, though, the centrist position loses with only 10% of the vote, due largely to the bullet voting from the left and green candidates (the right is obviously in-fighting here, another common problem with cumulative voting). The candidate that the largest percentage of people would accept gets the fewest number of votes.
All you need for an example is Illinois between 1870 and 1980. They initiated it for very specific reasons: to ensure at least one of the minority candidates in each district would be elected in spite of the extremely entrenched parties. It worked perfectly for that specific purpose, but as party division decreased, other problems started becoming apparent, like no-contest districts. The parties would only put up one candidate, thus ensuring their candidate one, regardless of the rest of the vote (they only needed a little over 30%). Racial minorities went very under-represented because the districts had to be large enough to ensure 3 candidates for cumulative voting to work properly. There would be large all-black neighborhoods in districts that were primarily white, leading to very little representation for the black citizens.
These were all reasons Illinois eventually got rid of cumulative voting (they did try to fix it in the 70's, but it didn't work).
I do think moving away from a winner-take-all system is a good idea, I'm really getting tired of the two party system, and winner-take-all makes anything else impossible.
...said the Prime Minister of a constitutional monarchy.
If you're arguing for democracy, you'd better re-read Churchill's statement, because that's exactly he said. If you're arguing against democracy, I don't know why you didn't offer an alternative form of government than the democracy that Churchill supported, nor do I understand what you mean by your constitutional monarchy comment in that case.
To put it in more straightforward terms for you, this is what he said:
All forms of government are terrible, but democracy is the best of them.
And how do you know how many customers would have left with poorer customer service, and how do you know how many more customers you would have retained/gained had you better customer service? Especially in the case of Verizon, who is consistently ranked at the top in surveys of customer satisfaction?
How do you count that?
It can be estimated, but an estimate always less trustworthy than a fact. The bean counters can say "We saved a million dollars last month by simply cutting out X." What if the effects of cutting out X don't show up for a year? Their total loss could be 5 times what they gained, but because it is spread out over a year they never see it.
That's the problem with bean counters - they aren't visionaries. They cannot take into account loyalty, satisfaction, and desire. They only count numbers, and their numbers will show they are winning even as they lose.
All snarking aside - this is a case of Verizon forgetting who they work for. They work for the Customers - NOT the money. They have to keep "what is best for Customers" in mind when dealing with money.
Yeah, I know I am full of crap. I hate big soulless companies too. But if their policy is to screw their customers at every turn, they will lose me as a customer.
You are completely wrong. No business works for the customer, ever. The customer is a source of income - a market to sell their wares. They do the best they can to maximize the consumption of their product. A business can be about the money and the customers (it's actually a really good strategy for getting more money - a net gain for everybody), and indeed a large consideration for what the customer will buy is necessary, but it cannot only be about the customers. If they were, everything would be free, and they would be broke before they even started. That's usually called a charity, and relies on external support to keep functioning (donations, government funding, etc).
The heartless among business executives may try to screw over the customer at every turn, but it's generally bad practice to do so (whether they actually care or not) in the long term. Sometimes business execs forget that, and then the business starts tanking and it ends up being consumed by another business unless they change their strategy.
Sometimes we get so focused on fancy cutting edge things that we miss the basics...
You mean like the lupus nephritis she had? You know, the disease that attacks the kidneys (among other things) which was killing her? You know the one that is in no way associated with vitamin D deficiencies?
Yeah, your focus is in the wrong place alright.
Still, always good advice to get out in the sun. Just don't get sun burned, that causes skin cancer.
The kidney had friggin bone marrow and blood vessels growing inside it man. It's a filter, it's not supposed to have a bunch of tubes and blood-generating tissue in it.
I'm no expert, but I'm guessing that was a contributing factor to the kidney failure.
Now, from the sounds of things it really just sped the process up a bit (her condition was terminal), so it's not major heartbreaking news. However, others have said the proper procedure has had good results, and the Thai clinic did it incorrectly (you're supposed to inject the stem cells in the blood, not the kidneys).
No, it means she died, and they're pretty sure the treatment did it.
For zombies, I'm not sure what the formula is, do you need to be dead, but not completely dead? Or do you need to be so dead it sorta loops back around and you come back to "life"?
Modern movies suggest the former, classic movies suggest the latter. Has our body of zombie knowledge increased to the point that we know more now? Or are movie scientists just making it all up?
So I am curious, since it is morally objectionable to deny a zygote the potential of turning into a baby do you also consider anyone who does not practice a strict regimen of sexual intercourse during the appropriate periods to prevent sperm and ovam being lost to nocturnal emission or a menstrual cycle as an immoral person?
According to the Christian Bible, it's morally objectionable to spill a man's seed on the ground, so the case could be made.
If you find it morally objectionable to not provide a group of cells a womb in which to gestate because there is a potential to create a human being then you surely must also find it morally objectionable to not provide every sperm cell and every ovam a womb in which to combine into a zygote, grow into a blastocyst and eventually form into a human being.
You don't have to, we place limits on what we find objectionable all the time. We have varying degrees of just about everything we find objectionable.
However, it's certainly possible to go as far as you suggest from a strict reading of the Bible.
And it gets worse. It is virtually impossible to locate an ovam and womb or every single sperm cell so every single male of the human species is a die hard baby killer, by your logic.
Not by his logic, only by yours. By anybody else's logic baby killing can't occur until an egg has been fertilized. Before that it's just wanton waste (which I believe is the basis for making "spilling the seed" a sin).
In other words, the case exists to say Christians should find everything from masturbation up to late-term abortion objectionable (and most die-hards do). However, the case is not there to say they should believe masturbation is the same as abortion. Nobody thinks a sperm cell and an ovum are separately unique human beings, and that killing one of them is murder. It's only when they join together to create a unique human being that it becomes a form of murder.
I share this view, but not because of my religious background. It's because the only difference between a toddler and an embryo is the number and level of development of the cells that make up each. The only real difference between an embryo and a zygote is also the number and level of development of the cells. Simple logic tells me that if there is no significant difference between the two, then if it is ok to kill one, it must be ok to kill the other. If it isn't ok to kill one, then it cannot be ok to kill the other. I happen to believe intentionally killing toddlers is murder, so I must believe intentionally killing fetuses and zygotes is murder as well.
That makes me against abortion of any kind. However, I'm not against embryonic stem cell research. As long as the embryos were aborted naturally (i.e. miscarriages) or death was otherwise unavoidable (complications of some kind that resulted in the death of the baby, it sucks but that's medicine) I have absolutely no problem with it. It's the killing of babies (even single-cell babies) that I have a problem with it, and the same is true for nearly all "religious wackos" in the world as well.
Nobody (who is at least a little sane, anyway) is against embryonic stem cell research because it's taking stem cells from dead embryos. They are against it because, in a culture where abortion (which they oppose) is permitted, they are afraid of anything that may increase the incentive to abort a baby.
Think about it. If a doctor tells a woman who is deciding whether or not to abort her baby (or if it's well known) that she'll be benefiting science if she has the abortion, is she not going to be slightly more likely to do it? Of course she is. How much will depend on the person and why she is getting the abortion. Anybody who believes it is morally wrong to support abortion is going to have a real problem with government funding research that can be used indirectly to promote abortion.
That's exactly what hap
None of this would be happening if working with stem cells and bioengineering proper was legalized at large.
I hate to break it to you, but stem cell research is alive and well in the US, and has never ever been made illegal.
What did happen was public funding of embryonic stem cell research was stopped. This is an ethics decision, based on that administration's political values. Funding for non-embryonic stem cell research was actually significantly increased by the same administration that halted funding for embryonic stem cell research. If your still not getting it, it was the Bush administration. It was the same administration responsible for the most significant increase in funding for the sciences in the last 20+ years. Anti-science indeed!
A few truths about the state of stem cell research:
1.)Scientists think adult stem cells are limited to reproducing the tissues they originated from, whereas they know embryonic stem cells are not. Obviously this is not the case, since these adult stem cells produced many different types of tissues in the patient's kidneys
2.)Adult stem cells are much more difficult to culture than embryonic stem cells. Large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell therapy, so this is definitely an issue.
3.)Embryonic stem cells are much more likely to be rejected by the host than adult stem cells. In other words, even though they are easier to reproduce, they work less reliably.
Quit listening to anti-religion bullshit and open your own damn eyes and ears. Most of what you hear is total bigotry against religions, as though believing one thing makes you incapable of understanding anything. The fact is, anybody who does not follow a standard religion has a "religion replacement" that they follow just as fervently and dogmatically. Atheists are the epitome of this, and are really some of the most dogmatic people you'll ever come across (some of them right up there with street-corner evangelists). I generally prefer agnostics, as they tend to have a more open and reasonable outlook on things.
"Almost 'certainly killed' her" means you are slightly unsure that this definately killed her.
Almost, but not quite. ;)
"Almost certain" means your certainty is very high, but not complete. Contrast it with "uncertain", which means you don't really know. "Almost certain" means there is a chance I'm wrong, but it's extremely unlikely, whereas "certain" means there is no chance you are wrong. That's assuming you aren't using hyperbole, in which case people say "certain" when they mean "pretty certain". That doesn't do anybody any good.
However, it doesn't sound like hyperbole in this case, given the evidence they have found. It seems pretty reasonable that after injecting adult stem cells (which are cells that can become any cell in the body) the cells basically turned cancerous instead of generating new, healthy kidney cells (which was obviously the intent of the treatment). This is evidenced by the fact that they found things like bone marrow growing in the kidney. Her kidneys were already failing, which was killing her, this caused her kidneys to fail, after which she died. Ergo, the stem cell treatment almost certainly killed her. It's not exactly a stretch, though simple logic is not enough to create complete certainty.
Are we even reading the same thread?
Apparently not, the GP replied (before the P you're replying to posted) stating that chemo had left him extremely weak (it does, it's hard to say whether my grandpa died of leukemia or chemo therapy, it's a devastating treatment) and Tai Chi has allowed him to regain all his strength (and particularly his balance) back and more than he had before in the last 10 years.
He also states specifically that it was the drug that rid him of cancer in the original post, not the Tai Chi.
He posted that two hours before your reply, and a few minutes before the P's reply, so I really wonder who's reading the thread at all.
In other words, he was a little unclear, yet you automatically assumed he was talking mumbo-jumbo. You put words in his mouth he didn't say, and now you just look like a dumbass.
As long as someone says it, it must be true!
If they say it, and they've obviously done it, then it just might be true.
Then that makes it, almost by definition, faith.
It's not faith when you've got a very strong piece of evidence staring you in the face.
but the reasons you cite are not really valid scientific evidence.
That means absolutely nothing. Evidence, by itself, is never scientific. It's the repetition and measurement that are scientific.
His reasons are based on observation that his instructor is extremely fit at an age where most men are very feeble, and his own recovery has been excellent. There is no faith there, it's based on observation. According to you, there is no scientific evidence that people can read. I mean, just because someone says reading is how they extract information out of a book doesn't make it true right? Must all be faith, right?
Did he use modern scientific methodologies? No, of course not. But to say it's faith because he didn't is flat out idiotic. No fact is scientific. Ever. A fact is a fact. It is either true or it isn't. An observation is simply an observation, there is nothing in the world that makes one observation scientific and another observation non-scientific. Science is the process of generating and confirming theories about observations. Nothing more. We see X. We want to know why X exists. So we test X, and come up with theories, which should fit the pattern X gives us. If X changes (we observe something new) and the theory doesn't fit, then the science was wrong.
In other words, you're completely fucking wrong, you idiot retard.
Second: When I purchased my smartphone, I didn't like being forced to purchase the "unlimited" plan for $30/month. Since the phone has WiFi and I'm usually near a WiFi access point, I was willing to rely on that to save some money.
My local carrier is actually trying that: For a month they are giving away a Blackberry with every new contract (I know, still a contract, but it's a free BB), with no data plan required. If you don't have a data plan, you simply won't be able to connect to the internet via the cell network, otherwise all Blackberry features will be available when connected to a wifi network.