The meaning of "malice" in the definition of murder is not a dictionary definition, it's a legal one. If you want to know what it means, you need to look at case law and statute.
So what is murder? Well the classic (17th century English) definition is: "when a person unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in rerum naturum under the queen's peace, with malice aforethought"
"reasonable creature in rerum naturum" basically is longspeak for human.
the "queen's peace" bit means that it's not murder for a soldier to kill an enemy during wartime.
"malice" in this sense means nothing more than intention to kill. Legally speaking, executing a person is most definitely killing with malice.
The thing which lets executioners get away with "murder" is the first part - to be murder the killing must be unlawful. Which legal execution, by definition, is not. It's also lawful to kill in self defence, which is why that's not murder.
"However, most IDers look at it with something like Occam's Razor in mind - why would God introduce that much extra complexity to his creation process? If you presuppose an infinitely powerful being, evolution seems like so much wasted effort."
Huh? In what sense is simply creating (for the sake of argument) a single cell and letting evolution chug along "wasted effort" compared to sitting down and individually designing every single lifeform (which also involves making sure the whole ecosphere meshes together properly)? I don't regard the latter as the simpler solution.
And surely if you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, you must accept that evolution is the only acceptable explanation for all the design flaws in living creatures. If God did it all personally, why did he include genetic diseases, cancer, myopia...
On the other hand, if life on Earth was created by Magratheans, that might explain a lot.
The way it operates now, the "cost" is spread among consumers. If only one payment is required, and after that it's free, then the cost for that first unit will go up. RADICALLY.
Think of it like this. Your downloaded music will be free but you'll have to pay $200 to see the band in concert. You'll still save money in the long run. The losers would be the middlemen who make most of the money of music sales today.
"So if I pay a princely sum, for a particular piece of music from someone I like, I will expect similar controls over it's use henceforth. Otherwise there's no way anyone would ever pay out serious cash for art."
Isn't that exactly what happens in the visual arts? (And without the control you so desperately want. An artist who sells a painting keeps the copyright unless he expressly transfers that to. So if you go to a gallery and pay $1 million for a Warhol, you don't get the right to make posters from it. That stays with the Warhol estate.)
"Seems reasonable for an heir to get something for his antecedents labor."
Why? Why should some dunce who has made no contribution to society get the easy life because his daddy wrote some good songs 40 years before? And before anyone starts, there's a difference between inheriting copyright income and inheriting a lump sum. If you inherit $1 million from your dad, I lose nothing. If you inherit copyright on something I want, then I have to pay you money I worked for for something you paid no part in creating.
>> By Bayesian spam filtering, I think you mean general classification problems, in which case, yes, neural networks can implement classification - it's a stretch to say that McClelland and Rumelhart's did, because the possible output included most non-repeating combinations of English phonemes and is thus nearly infinite, but the principle is there.
IIRC, mathematically it's been shown that neural nets and bayesian learning systems (such as spam filters) are entirely equivalent. Check out some of the work by David MacKay at the University of Cambridge.
>>They only want to kill you if you are american. >>Your RFID passport is a dead giveaway (at a distance).
I'm sorry, but it's generally pretty easy to spot an american abroad. Either they're about three times the size of the locals, or they're carrying machine guns, and in either case are most probably complaining loudly, and in a readily identifiable accent, about the lack of adequate local sanitation and fast-food facilities.
You may accuse me of being unfair. And I must admit, some US citizens are neither obese, nor in the military, nor culturally insensitive. Nonetheless I stand by my contention, for though this minority may be US citizens, they are clearly not American, but Unamerican, and of the worst lily livered liberal kind!
You may think I'm just flaming, but there's almost 4 billion people out there who can vouch for the accuracy of what I wrote.
(Surely this whole regeneration whizz was only dreamed up because back in the 60s viewers were unused to lead characters being played by different actors. These days regeneration is rather more strained than simply dropping a new actor into the role. Maybe it's time to let that part of DW lore slip away quickly.)
>> John Pertwee had his own long running kids series about a scarecrow back in the 80s , forget its name.
Worzel Gummage, in which he played the eponymous scarecrow. Which goes to show that there are worse fates than being typecast as Dr Who. At least Dr Who doesn't have a turnip for a head. (On the other hand, as worzel he did get a love interest, if understandably unrequited...)
>>About the only thing GMail has changed in recent memory is that I can now invite 50 people where before I could invite 6.
Recent integration with Picassa for sending pics, "basic HTML" version for people with ancient browsers.
>>Froogle hasn't changed in a long time. It still can't accurately pull prices out of many pages and coverage is spotty.
It's precisely coverage that has changed. It used to be US only, now it's international.
>>Google News hasn't changed in a long time.
A customisable front page was added a few weeks ago. Change which sections are displayed, in what order, how many stories from each section, plus your own search-based sections. (Not to mention the new feature that AFP stories are no longer linked to...)
>>Google desktop search hasn't changed appreciably since it was released. Same with Deskbar.
Neither of these has been around more than a few months. What do you expect?
>>Come to think of it, I am struggling to think of a Google offering that has shown significant incremental improvement since being released.
Struggle no longer, just read the "what's new" pages on Google...
Sure, it gets "taken away again" to leave the band with the $4K. That's my whole point. They get left with $4K after the advance is subtracted from their earnings to date. The advance which they have been paid. Which if they hadn't spent it, would be sitting in their bank account.
True, the figures show they managed to burn through all that money during the year. Being a rock star is expensive, hiring limousines, getting fancy equipment, drinking champagne, living in a tour bus. So maybe at the end of a year of high-cost living they have only $4K left over each. That doesn't mean they earned $4K that year. It means that of their earnings, they spent all but $4K. If they'd kept their old equipment, used a cheaper studio (probably just as good), stayed in motels, had a far smaller (but sufficient) road crew - in other words, if they'd kept the same behaviour as when they were a struggling small-time band - they would have probably saved a lot of money.
But like I said, these kids probably have little education and no prospects outside music. They just burned through the money without thinking. Next time maybe they'll be wiser, and get an accountant as well as a lawyer.
There may well be some truth in the basic scenario, but a little time with a calculator will show that the numbers do not add up. It also seems to ignore the $250K advance in figuring the band's income...so it's not $4K each income, but their portion of $250K, plus the $4K, plus their portion of the $20K publishing advance (which seems to have got lost in the income calculation), less their portion of the $14K owed back in royalties. Which overall probably leaves them with about $60K income for the year each. Not millionaire, true, but not 7-11 and not bad for a bunch of kids with probably little education or prospects at anything else.
"They wouldn't have deprived the world of a brilliant mind. They would have given the world a brilliant mind in a healthy body. I am sure Dr.Hawkins would have been much happier that way."
Don't be so sure. Apparently as a young mathematician Hawking was fairly smart but not so hot - he only just scraped getting a first-class degree - and it was only when he found out he was sick that he knuckled down and started producing genius work. If he'd been born healthy he may well have been happier, but maybe not so brilliant.
Re:An interesting set of designs
on
Re-Imagining Apple
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What you want is a Nokia 7280. No keypad, just a clickwheel (very iPod).
Is this so hard to understand...Repeat after me. THE ISSUE IS NOT GOOGLE SENDING PEOPLE TO AFP'S SITE BUT TO AFP NEWS STORIES ON OTHER WEBSITES. AFP's business is not publishing news but selling it to news publishers. AFP is complaining about Google sending people to those other news publisher's sites without recompensing AFP.
What Google is doing is reproducing AFP stories from 3rd party sites which have bought it from AFP. That means that Google is getting for free what everyone else has to pay for. It costs money to keep journalists stationed all over the world so they get get to news stories before anyone else, and for big stories newspapers etc will pay a premium to get those stories early before they've had time to send their ownn journalists out, while for little stories it's not worth them sending out their own people so they pay AFP instead. Why should Google be treated differently? OK so they're not reproducing the whole story, but they're taking images and info, while they are using the text of the story internally as part of their search/sort systemm which is clearly a business use. So Google is making use of AFP's hard work without giving AFP anything back - unlike news sites where they get traffic back in return.
No doubt if Google offered to pay to use the stories, like everyone else, AFP would be fine with it. But since AFP's business is selling news to news sites, you can see why they'd be pissed off about someone putting their stories out for free.
And so what if AFP is subsidized by the French government? Why should Google get to freeload of French taxpayer's money.
No. When you buy a CD, without any other T&Cs imposed at sale, you are not buying two things as you suggest (the physical media and the right to listen to the music), though that is what record companies would like. You are buying the CD and can do whatever you like with it so long as it does not infringe the maker's copyright. You can listen to the CD not because they've sold you the right to do so, but because you're not copying anything, you're not making money from the music, and so you're not infringing their copyright.
The reason "first sale" does not apply to reselling the music on a CD separately from the CD is precisely because you have not separately bought the CD and the music on it, but have bought a single item and your "first sale" right only applies to that item i.e. the CD. You can only resell the music separately if you copy it and copying for commercial gain is not fair use and so is a breach of copyright.
There's no legal reason why, if I bought music unattached to a physical medium, I would not be able to resell it. The problem is that data must always have some physical representation and you can't move it without copying it. If it could be possible to transmit music without copying it (eg some quantum teleportation setup), first sale would apply.
"the seller cannot impose rules on the buyer without explicit (hand signed) acceptance of EACH clause on a written contract"
IAAL (in Europe but not Italy) and can state for a fact that this is not the case in all of Europe, and I very much doubt it is in Norway or Italy.
Think about it. What is a contract? It's not a piece of paper, it's any legally enforceable agreement between two or more people. Every time you buy anything, that's a contract. And any time you buy anything online there will be sellers' terms and conditions to agree with, regarding payment and delivery if nothing else. So either this person is wrong, or online commerce does not exist in Italy (and nor does any business not in which written docs are not exchanged).
I can believe that many EULAs are invalid under European consumer protection laws, but they're not invalid simply because they don't make you sign a document. (Indeed the point of most consumer protection laws are to protect you even if you do sign that document, since they recognise that the individual consumer isn't in much of a position to dictate terms to megacorp.)
You lost me with the hormone thing, but there's more to this than teachers boring kids...especially since the study is more concerned with kids who use computers a lot at home, not at school, so teacher is nothing to do with it. (and face it, no kid ever wants to do homework, however interesting it may be.)
There's probably many reasons for the finding that computers can hurt education, but to me two stick out. The first is that it's easy for a kid using a PC to pretend he's studying (and many parents think it's educational for them to use a PC whatever they do on it). By contrast, it's obvious that a kid just sat in front of the TV is not learning anything.
Second, computers make it easy to produce work without learning. 20 years ago even a kid who just copied an assignment from someone else had to read the whole document in order to write it out again. Now you can "research" your answers on the web, copy and paste them without even needing to read them, let alone understand them.
As for computers in the classroom - well having returned to school recently I'm experiencing that at the moment (albeit from a graduate perspective). And so far, they are a complete waste of time and resources. We have computers on every desk in the lecture theatre. What are they used for? Broadcasting the same notes that are projected at the front of the room. Doh! (And of course, the computers are locked down in broadcast mode so we can't even make use of them to write up notes...) Yes, this is a dumb use of computers. But bear in mind that I'm in law school not tech school, so it's not like computers could be of direct relevance to what we have to do anyway. It's more like they are trying to justify the ridiculous fees they charge - "look! shiny computers on each desk! pay us more!"
But the problem with the 'neutral point of view' (and one seen commonly in American journalism) is that it creates the illusion that all points of view are equally valid. That might be fine in lit crit, but in science it is not. The fact that a tiny minority of experts do not accept global warming or evolution or some other scientific theory for which there is overwhelming evidence is not reason to give the alternatives equal airtime: that only results in giving a legitimacy to marginal views. And in modern science, a view which stays on the margins for any length of time is almost certainly false, because ideas that work are rapidly adopted and turned into research grants.
Except that the BBC is not funded by the government, but by viewers. It is funded by a compulsory levy on TV owners, true, but that money is not a "tax" in the sense that it is not paid to the government - it's paid to the BBC.
Which by the above logi makes the BBC a tool of the people, not the government or the corporations. And yes, that is better.
Hello? The suit is for libel. The whole point about libel is that the libel MUST BE UNTRUE. A video can only be a libel if what it depicted didn't happen i.e. it's fictional or misleadingly edited. Now if you showed the Paris video and claimed that in fact the video used a body double because PH is in fact a man, then you'd have a libel.
Slashdot Mirror
The meaning of "malice" in the definition of murder is not a dictionary definition, it's a legal one. If you want to know what it means, you need to look at case law and statute.
So what is murder? Well the classic (17th century English) definition is: "when a person unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in rerum naturum under the queen's peace, with malice aforethought"
"reasonable creature in rerum naturum" basically is longspeak for human.
the "queen's peace" bit means that it's not murder for a soldier to kill an enemy during wartime.
"malice" in this sense means nothing more than intention to kill. Legally speaking, executing a person is most definitely killing with malice.
The thing which lets executioners get away with "murder" is the first part - to be murder the killing must be unlawful. Which legal execution, by definition, is not. It's also lawful to kill in self defence, which is why that's not murder.
"However, most IDers look at it with something like Occam's Razor in mind - why would God introduce that much extra complexity to his creation process? If you presuppose an infinitely powerful being, evolution seems like so much wasted effort."
Huh? In what sense is simply creating (for the sake of argument) a single cell and letting evolution chug along "wasted effort" compared to sitting down and individually designing every single lifeform (which also involves making sure the whole ecosphere meshes together properly)? I don't regard the latter as the simpler solution.
And surely if you believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing God, you must accept that evolution is the only acceptable explanation for all the design flaws in living creatures. If God did it all personally, why did he include genetic diseases, cancer, myopia...
On the other hand, if life on Earth was created by Magratheans, that might explain a lot.
The way it operates now, the "cost" is spread among consumers. If only one payment is required, and after that it's free, then the cost for that first unit will go up. RADICALLY.
Think of it like this. Your downloaded music will be free but you'll have to pay $200 to see the band in concert. You'll still save money in the long run. The losers would be the middlemen who make most of the money of music sales today.
"So if I pay a princely sum, for a particular piece of music from someone I like, I will expect similar controls over it's use henceforth. Otherwise there's no way anyone would ever pay out serious cash for art."
Isn't that exactly what happens in the visual arts? (And without the control you so desperately want. An artist who sells a painting keeps the copyright unless he expressly transfers that to. So if you go to a gallery and pay $1 million for a Warhol, you don't get the right to make posters from it. That stays with the Warhol estate.)
"Seems reasonable for an heir to get something for his antecedents labor."
Why? Why should some dunce who has made no contribution to society get the easy life because his daddy wrote some good songs 40 years before? And before anyone starts, there's a difference between inheriting copyright income and inheriting a lump sum. If you inherit $1 million from your dad, I lose nothing. If you inherit copyright on something I want, then I have to pay you money I worked for for something you paid no part in creating.
>> By Bayesian spam filtering, I think you mean general classification problems, in which case, yes, neural networks can implement classification - it's a stretch to say that McClelland and Rumelhart's did, because the possible output included most non-repeating combinations of English phonemes and is thus nearly infinite, but the principle is there.
IIRC, mathematically it's been shown that neural nets and bayesian learning systems (such as spam filters) are entirely equivalent. Check out some of the work by David MacKay at the University of Cambridge.
>>They only want to kill you if you are american.
>>Your RFID passport is a dead giveaway (at a distance).
I'm sorry, but it's generally pretty easy to spot an american abroad. Either they're about three times the size of the locals, or they're carrying machine guns, and in either case are most probably complaining loudly, and in a readily identifiable accent, about the lack of adequate local sanitation and fast-food facilities.
You may accuse me of being unfair. And I must admit, some US citizens are neither obese, nor in the military, nor culturally insensitive. Nonetheless I stand by my contention, for though this minority may be US citizens, they are clearly not American, but Unamerican, and of the worst lily livered liberal kind!
You may think I'm just flaming, but there's almost 4 billion people out there who can vouch for the accuracy of what I wrote.
don't blame me. I just wrote the post. I'm not responsible for how people respond to it...
so how many regenerations is James Bond allowed?
(Surely this whole regeneration whizz was only dreamed up because back in the 60s viewers were unused to lead characters being played by different actors. These days regeneration is rather more strained than simply dropping a new actor into the role. Maybe it's time to let that part of DW lore slip away quickly.)
>> John Pertwee had his own long running kids series about a scarecrow back in the 80s , forget its name.
Worzel Gummage, in which he played the eponymous scarecrow. Which goes to show that there are worse fates than being typecast as Dr Who. At least Dr Who doesn't have a turnip for a head. (On the other hand, as worzel he did get a love interest, if understandably unrequited...)
that's the first slashdot post in ages that genuine made me laugh aout loud (and almost choke on my lunch). someone mod this up...
well if they can't use OSX, they're a bunch of fucking amateurs...
yeah well, that's like, just your opinion, man.
>>About the only thing GMail has changed in recent memory is that I can now invite 50 people where before I could invite 6.
Recent integration with Picassa for sending pics, "basic HTML" version for people with ancient browsers.
>>Froogle hasn't changed in a long time. It still can't accurately pull prices out of many pages and coverage is spotty.
It's precisely coverage that has changed. It used to be US only, now it's international.
>>Google News hasn't changed in a long time.
A customisable front page was added a few weeks ago. Change which sections are displayed, in what order, how many stories from each section, plus your own search-based sections. (Not to mention the new feature that AFP stories are no longer linked to...)
>>Google desktop search hasn't changed appreciably since it was released. Same with Deskbar.
Neither of these has been around more than a few months. What do you expect?
>>Come to think of it, I am struggling to think of a Google offering that has shown significant incremental improvement since being released.
Struggle no longer, just read the "what's new" pages on Google...
>>We only have three color channels
You should get cable.
Sure, it gets "taken away again" to leave the band with the $4K. That's my whole point. They get left with $4K after the advance is subtracted from their earnings to date. The advance which they have been paid. Which if they hadn't spent it, would be sitting in their bank account.
True, the figures show they managed to burn through all that money during the year. Being a rock star is expensive, hiring limousines, getting fancy equipment, drinking champagne, living in a tour bus. So maybe at the end of a year of high-cost living they have only $4K left over each. That doesn't mean they earned $4K that year. It means that of their earnings, they spent all but $4K. If they'd kept their old equipment, used a cheaper studio (probably just as good), stayed in motels, had a far smaller (but sufficient) road crew - in other words, if they'd kept the same behaviour as when they were a struggling small-time band - they would have probably saved a lot of money.
But like I said, these kids probably have little education and no prospects outside music. They just burned through the money without thinking. Next time maybe they'll be wiser, and get an accountant as well as a lawyer.
There may well be some truth in the basic scenario, but a little time with a calculator will show that the numbers do not add up. It also seems to ignore the $250K advance in figuring the band's income...so it's not $4K each income, but their portion of $250K, plus the $4K, plus their portion of the $20K publishing advance (which seems to have got lost in the income calculation), less their portion of the $14K owed back in royalties. Which overall probably leaves them with about $60K income for the year each. Not millionaire, true, but not 7-11 and not bad for a bunch of kids with probably little education or prospects at anything else.
"They wouldn't have deprived the world of a brilliant mind. They would have given the world a brilliant mind in a healthy body. I am sure Dr.Hawkins would have been much happier that way."
Don't be so sure. Apparently as a young mathematician Hawking was fairly smart but not so hot - he only just scraped getting a first-class degree - and it was only when he found out he was sick that he knuckled down and started producing genius work. If he'd been born healthy he may well have been happier, but maybe not so brilliant.
What you want is a Nokia 7280. No keypad, just a clickwheel (very iPod).
Is this so hard to understand...Repeat after me. THE ISSUE IS NOT GOOGLE SENDING PEOPLE TO AFP'S SITE BUT TO AFP NEWS STORIES ON OTHER WEBSITES. AFP's business is not publishing news but selling it to news publishers. AFP is complaining about Google sending people to those other news publisher's sites without recompensing AFP.
What Google is doing is reproducing AFP stories from 3rd party sites which have bought it from AFP. That means that Google is getting for free what everyone else has to pay for. It costs money to keep journalists stationed all over the world so they get get to news stories before anyone else, and for big stories newspapers etc will pay a premium to get those stories early before they've had time to send their ownn journalists out, while for little stories it's not worth them sending out their own people so they pay AFP instead. Why should Google be treated differently? OK so they're not reproducing the whole story, but they're taking images and info, while they are using the text of the story internally as part of their search/sort systemm which is clearly a business use. So Google is making use of AFP's hard work without giving AFP anything back - unlike news sites where they get traffic back in return.
No doubt if Google offered to pay to use the stories, like everyone else, AFP would be fine with it. But since AFP's business is selling news to news sites, you can see why they'd be pissed off about someone putting their stories out for free.
And so what if AFP is subsidized by the French government? Why should Google get to freeload of French taxpayer's money.
No. When you buy a CD, without any other T&Cs imposed at sale, you are not buying two things as you suggest (the physical media and the right to listen to the music), though that is what record companies would like. You are buying the CD and can do whatever you like with it so long as it does not infringe the maker's copyright. You can listen to the CD not because they've sold you the right to do so, but because you're not copying anything, you're not making money from the music, and so you're not infringing their copyright.
The reason "first sale" does not apply to reselling the music on a CD separately from the CD is precisely because you have not separately bought the CD and the music on it, but have bought a single item and your "first sale" right only applies to that item i.e. the CD. You can only resell the music separately if you copy it and copying for commercial gain is not fair use and so is a breach of copyright.
There's no legal reason why, if I bought music unattached to a physical medium, I would not be able to resell it. The problem is that data must always have some physical representation and you can't move it without copying it. If it could be possible to transmit music without copying it (eg some quantum teleportation setup), first sale would apply.
"the seller cannot impose rules on the buyer without explicit (hand signed) acceptance of EACH clause on a written contract"
IAAL (in Europe but not Italy) and can state for a fact that this is not the case in all of Europe, and I very much doubt it is in Norway or Italy.
Think about it. What is a contract? It's not a piece of paper, it's any legally enforceable agreement between two or more people. Every time you buy anything, that's a contract. And any time you buy anything online there will be sellers' terms and conditions to agree with, regarding payment and delivery if nothing else. So either this person is wrong, or online commerce does not exist in Italy (and nor does any business not in which written docs are not exchanged).
I can believe that many EULAs are invalid under European consumer protection laws, but they're not invalid simply because they don't make you sign a document. (Indeed the point of most consumer protection laws are to protect you even if you do sign that document, since they recognise that the individual consumer isn't in much of a position to dictate terms to megacorp.)
You lost me with the hormone thing, but there's more to this than teachers boring kids...especially since the study is more concerned with kids who use computers a lot at home, not at school, so teacher is nothing to do with it. (and face it, no kid ever wants to do homework, however interesting it may be.)
There's probably many reasons for the finding that computers can hurt education, but to me two stick out. The first is that it's easy for a kid using a PC to pretend he's studying (and many parents think it's educational for them to use a PC whatever they do on it). By contrast, it's obvious that a kid just sat in front of the TV is not learning anything.
Second, computers make it easy to produce work without learning. 20 years ago even a kid who just copied an assignment from someone else had to read the whole document in order to write it out again. Now you can "research" your answers on the web, copy and paste them without even needing to read them, let alone understand them.
As for computers in the classroom - well having returned to school recently I'm experiencing that at the moment (albeit from a graduate perspective). And so far, they are a complete waste of time and resources. We have computers on every desk in the lecture theatre. What are they used for? Broadcasting the same notes that are projected at the front of the room. Doh! (And of course, the computers are locked down in broadcast mode so we can't even make use of them to write up notes...) Yes, this is a dumb use of computers. But bear in mind that I'm in law school not tech school, so it's not like computers could be of direct relevance to what we have to do anyway. It's more like they are trying to justify the ridiculous fees they charge - "look! shiny computers on each desk! pay us more!"
But the problem with the 'neutral point of view' (and one seen commonly in American journalism) is that it creates the illusion that all points of view are equally valid. That might be fine in lit crit, but in science it is not. The fact that a tiny minority of experts do not accept global warming or evolution or some other scientific theory for which there is overwhelming evidence is not reason to give the alternatives equal airtime: that only results in giving a legitimacy to marginal views. And in modern science, a view which stays on the margins for any length of time is almost certainly false, because ideas that work are rapidly adopted and turned into research grants.
Except that the BBC is not funded by the government, but by viewers. It is funded by a compulsory levy on TV owners, true, but that money is not a "tax" in the sense that it is not paid to the government - it's paid to the BBC.
Which by the above logi makes the BBC a tool of the people, not the government or the corporations. And yes, that is better.
Hello? The suit is for libel. The whole point about libel is that the libel MUST BE UNTRUE. A video can only be a libel if what it depicted didn't happen i.e. it's fictional or misleadingly edited. Now if you showed the Paris video and claimed that in fact the video used a body double because PH is in fact a man, then you'd have a libel.