About 10 months ago, I found my high school graduation video cassette from 1987, so I picked up a used VCR and ripped it and put it up on youtube for family to view.
Last month, I uploading another video and noticed that a DMCA claim had been placed on my graduation video, but the "copyright holder" would allow the video to remain, they were just going to monetize it.
My graduation video was shot by my brother and had our high school band playing Pomp and Circumstance, which is in the public domain. There is no way this is under copyright, so I looked them up and the "song" that I was allegedly violating the copyright of. It turns out that the "copyright holder" was a crappy English DJ duo who had appropriated Pomp and Circumstance in one of their soccer fight songs. The funny part is that my video is 28 years old, their song is about a year old.
I countered their claim with all the info above and the claim was removed.
I realize this was probably a simple signature match, but it only goes to show how broken this system is. I didn't actually received an email about the DMCA claim. There are only 2 emails in my inbox containing the video title, one was when I published it and the other was when the copyright claim was removed, so they don't appear to even be notifying people when a claim is made, at least in the case where the "copyright holder" decides to monetize rather than take the video down, and that is even more nefarious in my opinion. I wasn't monetizing my video, and it has less than 50 views, but if I had been monetizing it and had a larger audience, they would have been stealing from me without my even knowing it. I only noticed the original claim when I uploaded another video to youtube.
For firefighters, a high pressure water blast should do the trick. EMT's might have to fashion some sort of rudimentary surgical-tubing slingshot, though.
The FDA "document" you linked is an FDA docket SUBMITTAL by known conspiracy nut Mark Gold. If you go here: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/DOCKE... and read the findings from the relevant bodies, you will see that most (if not all) of them dismiss his (And Betty Martini's) claims out of hand.
If you want to take nutritional advice from people with no medical background, be my guest.
And seriously, Monsanto suppressed reports that aspartame is bad? Monsanto is in the business of GMO produce, like corn for high fructose corn syrup. I seriously doubt they would want to suppress a report that shows their competitor's product is bad for you. Do you even read what you write?
Wow, are you being sarcastic? I took you seriously right up until you mentioned aspartame. I challenge you to find ANY scientific study that shows aspartame is harmful in any way.
The FDA called aspartame "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved". More than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200...
That was 16 YEARS ago. This horse has been dead a LONG time. Why are you still beating it?
When people sign up for things using one of my email addresses, I simply recover the password through email, then login, cancel the account, change the password and move on.
There is a jackass in NYC who shares my name, and has signed up for things like Spotify and Netflix using a variation of my gmail address (minus the periods, which do not matter to gmail). I cancel everythng he orders using my email address.
The story changes if he emailed them and offered them his domain name at a high price, for one example.
Why does that change things? It's HIS domain name which he has had for 15 years, LONG before they registered their trademark. Why shouldn't he be allowed to make whatever he can from it? Office Space's saying he renewed it in bad faith doesn't make it true. Even if he renewed it after he knew about their trademark, that doesn't make it bad faith. Just because you have a trademark for something doesn't mean you automatically get the domain for it, and it sounds like that's what Office Space wants to believe.
I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta. When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?
When you can point to a law that says it's illegal for them to not pay you.
The difference between you and the owner is that he has legal recourse since libel is illegal. You on the other hand have no legal recourse. What could possibly make you think these two things are even remotely comparable?
I thought so too. I was under the impression that Mars has no spinning iron core anymore, so terraforming is all but impossible since there isn't a strong enough magnetic field to prevent the solar winds from stripping away any potential atmosphere beyond what is currently there. What am I missing here?
So, they can't test my blood to see if I carry vCJD and then clear me to donate if it I don't carry it? I can't imagine that the cost of a test would outweigh potential lives saved.
Also, if vCJD is such a concern, then why do they bar you from donating if you were there for 5 or more years, but if you were only there for 4 years, you're good to go?
Not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand the logic here
I heard 5 years as well, but that figure refers to the cumulative amount of time spent abroad, not how long until you can donate again. It may be different for Middle East than it is for Europe. As far as I can tell from the Red Cross website, because I spent more than 5 years in Germany, I can never donate blood again.
I know this isn't even remotely equivalent, but it rather makes me feel like a felon who can no longer vote, even though I did nothing wrong and was serving my country.
I am O Neg (universal donor*) CMV Neg (good for premature babies) and I used to donate regularly, up until some time in the late 90s when the Red Cross stopped accepting donations from individuals who had lived in areas where mad cow disease had occurred, like Europe. I lived in Germany as a dependent for 4 years and as a service member for 3 years.
From what I understand, the reason is because of Variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease, which they think is a mutated form of Mad Cow disease that has jumped to humans. So because I was in an area where Mad Cow disease has occurred, I can no longer donate blood because it could carry vCJD. Don't they have tests for this?!?
The whole point I am making is that it should not have to be "good" or "justifiable". In fact, there should be no need for any reason at all
Why not? Age didn't gain protected status for no reason. Older people have the same right to work as younger people.
It is none of our business. Both literally and otherwise...
I understand what you are saying. You want business owners to have the right to build whatever team they want, and there are any number of reasons for that, not all of which are discriminatory. Maybe you just want a younger looking public-facing team because you think it makes your company look fresh and cutting edge, and that's valid, but too many employers have demonstrated that those decisions sometimes ARE used to discriminate against older workers, and so the government stepped in. If you don't understand why the government stepped in, then you haven't been passed over for someone younger (yet).
We're not even talking about how this affects the workers. Imagine if there were no age discrimination laws, and all the companies in your area started grabbing all the fresh young college grads, and stopped hiring anyone over, say, 38. Now you have a whole population of perfectly qualified, willing workers who can no longer find work, simply because they were born earlier. How fair is that?
Not hiring someone strictly because of age is not a thought crime, it's an ACTUAL crime. You can hate or dislike older people all you want, but as soon as you act on that hate or dislike, it's a crime. So no, they are not trying to punish thought crimes.
and force employers into hiring those, whom they do not wish to hire, for whatever reason.
If an employer's only reason for not wanting to hire someone is age, then it's not a good, or justifiable reason. If the skillset is there and the person is physically and mentally capable of doing the job, what possible part could age play in the decision? Don't like to look at grey hair or wrinkles? Tough.
I'm not an expert either, but it seems to me that the activity they were seeing in the brain was not in that area. If I recall, they were using those caps with all the wires coming out of them to monitor brain activity, not some of the more sophisticated/expensive machines, so I don't know how accurate that is.
I get that I can simulate it, but I choose not to because it makes me uncomfortable:)
To your point of not being able to tell how far away anything really was, it's interesting because one of the pages I found during my cursory search said that stereoscopic depth perception only works within about 20 feet, anything further than that, the difference between left and right images is so negligible that your brain doesn't register any difference, and can't determine distance anyway. To get any better distance would require moving the eyes farther apart.
Right. My point was that at least some states don't seem to require it, and while I feel it's pretty essential to driving, I have no clue what it would be like to actually go through life without it. Maybe it's not as "required" as I think it is, so maybe it's not that irresponsible either.
"If 3D movies don't work on her, she probably has limited or no depth perception, which is a huge problem for driving"
BUT
A cursory google search shows stereo vision or depth perception doesn't seem to be a requirement for a driver license, at least in some areas. Only "sufficient vision" and a regular field of view are required. People can get a driver license with only one eye.
Personally, *I* wouldn't feel comfortable driving with limited depth perception, or only one eye, but I'm speaking from the perspective of having both of those things all of my life. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing ANYTHING without depth perception or only having one eye.
I watched a show a few months back, one of those shows where they talk about people with different/special abilities, synesthesia, a German guy who was blind from birth, but could understand and draw perspective, etc.
There was one study they talked about where they had a group of people who were blind in one eye, but the blindness was the result of a brain injury or defect, not a problem with their actual eyes. In the study, the subjects had their sighted eye covered, and were shown pictures of faces with various emotions/expressions to the blind eye. They found that even though they were blind in that eye, they could still "see" the emotion in the faces and would mimic it on their own face.
Basically, they were saying that the visual signals were getting into the brain and were being interpreted on some level by an unknown part of the brain before getting lost in the damaged visual cortex. I wonder if this has something to do with it?
Slashdot Mirror
About 10 months ago, I found my high school graduation video cassette from 1987, so I picked up a used VCR and ripped it and put it up on youtube for family to view. Last month, I uploading another video and noticed that a DMCA claim had been placed on my graduation video, but the "copyright holder" would allow the video to remain, they were just going to monetize it. My graduation video was shot by my brother and had our high school band playing Pomp and Circumstance, which is in the public domain. There is no way this is under copyright, so I looked them up and the "song" that I was allegedly violating the copyright of. It turns out that the "copyright holder" was a crappy English DJ duo who had appropriated Pomp and Circumstance in one of their soccer fight songs. The funny part is that my video is 28 years old, their song is about a year old.
I countered their claim with all the info above and the claim was removed.
I realize this was probably a simple signature match, but it only goes to show how broken this system is. I didn't actually received an email about the DMCA claim. There are only 2 emails in my inbox containing the video title, one was when I published it and the other was when the copyright claim was removed, so they don't appear to even be notifying people when a claim is made, at least in the case where the "copyright holder" decides to monetize rather than take the video down, and that is even more nefarious in my opinion. I wasn't monetizing my video, and it has less than 50 views, but if I had been monetizing it and had a larger audience, they would have been stealing from me without my even knowing it. I only noticed the original claim when I uploaded another video to youtube.
For firefighters, a high pressure water blast should do the trick. EMT's might have to fashion some sort of rudimentary surgical-tubing slingshot, though.
I thought it was the humans who polluted the skies in an ill-fated attempt to cause solar-powered machines to fail.
You're thinking of The Matrix.
The FDA "document" you linked is an FDA docket SUBMITTAL by known conspiracy nut Mark Gold. If you go here: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/DOCKE... and read the findings from the relevant bodies, you will see that most (if not all) of them dismiss his (And Betty Martini's) claims out of hand.
He also has NO medical background and professes to be an expert in holistic healing. http://americanloons.blogspot....
If you want to take nutritional advice from people with no medical background, be my guest.
And seriously, Monsanto suppressed reports that aspartame is bad? Monsanto is in the business of GMO produce, like corn for high fructose corn syrup. I seriously doubt they would want to suppress a report that shows their competitor's product is bad for you. Do you even read what you write?
Wow, are you being sarcastic? I took you seriously right up until you mentioned aspartame. I challenge you to find ANY scientific study that shows aspartame is harmful in any way.
The FDA called aspartame "one of the most thoroughly tested and studied food additives the agency has ever approved". More than 100 toxicological and clinical studies it has reviewed confirm that aspartame is safe for the general population. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/200...
That was 16 YEARS ago. This horse has been dead a LONG time. Why are you still beating it?
When people sign up for things using one of my email addresses, I simply recover the password through email, then login, cancel the account, change the password and move on.
There is a jackass in NYC who shares my name, and has signed up for things like Spotify and Netflix using a variation of my gmail address (minus the periods, which do not matter to gmail). I cancel everythng he orders using my email address.
and since you did not end you comment is some form of you have outed yourself
Huh?
The story changes if he emailed them and offered them his domain name at a high price, for one example.
Why does that change things? It's HIS domain name which he has had for 15 years, LONG before they registered their trademark. Why shouldn't he be allowed to make whatever he can from it? Office Space's saying he renewed it in bad faith doesn't make it true. Even if he renewed it after he knew about their trademark, that doesn't make it bad faith. Just because you have a trademark for something doesn't mean you automatically get the domain for it, and it sounds like that's what Office Space wants to believe.
I "believe" Google should pay me for beta-testing their various products that almost never leave beta. When can I expect the courts to make them send me a check?
When you can point to a law that says it's illegal for them to not pay you.
The difference between you and the owner is that he has legal recourse since libel is illegal. You on the other hand have no legal recourse. What could possibly make you think these two things are even remotely comparable?
TWO WEEKS
I thought so too. I was under the impression that Mars has no spinning iron core anymore, so terraforming is all but impossible since there isn't a strong enough magnetic field to prevent the solar winds from stripping away any potential atmosphere beyond what is currently there. What am I missing here?
my C64 is for rocking the video games man!
Time for some Commando!
So, they can't test my blood to see if I carry vCJD and then clear me to donate if it I don't carry it? I can't imagine that the cost of a test would outweigh potential lives saved.
Also, if vCJD is such a concern, then why do they bar you from donating if you were there for 5 or more years, but if you were only there for 4 years, you're good to go?
Not trying to start an argument, just trying to understand the logic here
I heard 5 years as well, but that figure refers to the cumulative amount of time spent abroad, not how long until you can donate again. It may be different for Middle East than it is for Europe. As far as I can tell from the Red Cross website, because I spent more than 5 years in Germany, I can never donate blood again.
I know this isn't even remotely equivalent, but it rather makes me feel like a felon who can no longer vote, even though I did nothing wrong and was serving my country.
I am O Neg (universal donor*) CMV Neg (good for premature babies) and I used to donate regularly, up until some time in the late 90s when the Red Cross stopped accepting donations from individuals who had lived in areas where mad cow disease had occurred, like Europe. I lived in Germany as a dependent for 4 years and as a service member for 3 years.
From what I understand, the reason is because of Variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease, which they think is a mutated form of Mad Cow disease that has jumped to humans. So because I was in an area where Mad Cow disease has occurred, I can no longer donate blood because it could carry vCJD. Don't they have tests for this?!?
* Rh is also a factor.
The whole point I am making is that it should not have to be "good" or "justifiable". In fact, there should be no need for any reason at all
Why not? Age didn't gain protected status for no reason. Older people have the same right to work as younger people.
It is none of our business. Both literally and otherwise...
I understand what you are saying. You want business owners to have the right to build whatever team they want, and there are any number of reasons for that, not all of which are discriminatory. Maybe you just want a younger looking public-facing team because you think it makes your company look fresh and cutting edge, and that's valid, but too many employers have demonstrated that those decisions sometimes ARE used to discriminate against older workers, and so the government stepped in. If you don't understand why the government stepped in, then you haven't been passed over for someone younger (yet).
We're not even talking about how this affects the workers. Imagine if there were no age discrimination laws, and all the companies in your area started grabbing all the fresh young college grads, and stopped hiring anyone over, say, 38. Now you have a whole population of perfectly qualified, willing workers who can no longer find work, simply because they were born earlier. How fair is that?
they seek to punish thought-crimes
Not hiring someone strictly because of age is not a thought crime, it's an ACTUAL crime. You can hate or dislike older people all you want, but as soon as you act on that hate or dislike, it's a crime. So no, they are not trying to punish thought crimes.
and force employers into hiring those, whom they do not wish to hire, for whatever reason.
If an employer's only reason for not wanting to hire someone is age, then it's not a good, or justifiable reason. If the skillset is there and the person is physically and mentally capable of doing the job, what possible part could age play in the decision? Don't like to look at grey hair or wrinkles? Tough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Their technology is used to avoid blinding oncoming drivers instead of trying to "miss" raindrops.
It's already happening with some companies. http://3dprintingindustry.com/...
Nibbler?
I'm not an expert either, but it seems to me that the activity they were seeing in the brain was not in that area. If I recall, they were using those caps with all the wires coming out of them to monitor brain activity, not some of the more sophisticated/expensive machines, so I don't know how accurate that is.
I get that I can simulate it, but I choose not to because it makes me uncomfortable :)
To your point of not being able to tell how far away anything really was, it's interesting because one of the pages I found during my cursory search said that stereoscopic depth perception only works within about 20 feet, anything further than that, the difference between left and right images is so negligible that your brain doesn't register any difference, and can't determine distance anyway. To get any better distance would require moving the eyes farther apart.
Right. My point was that at least some states don't seem to require it, and while I feel it's pretty essential to driving, I have no clue what it would be like to actually go through life without it. Maybe it's not as "required" as I think it is, so maybe it's not that irresponsible either.
I was going to post something to the effect of:
"If 3D movies don't work on her, she probably has limited or no depth perception, which is a huge problem for driving"
BUT
A cursory google search shows stereo vision or depth perception doesn't seem to be a requirement for a driver license, at least in some areas. Only "sufficient vision" and a regular field of view are required. People can get a driver license with only one eye.
Personally, *I* wouldn't feel comfortable driving with limited depth perception, or only one eye, but I'm speaking from the perspective of having both of those things all of my life. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing ANYTHING without depth perception or only having one eye.
I watched a show a few months back, one of those shows where they talk about people with different/special abilities, synesthesia, a German guy who was blind from birth, but could understand and draw perspective, etc.
There was one study they talked about where they had a group of people who were blind in one eye, but the blindness was the result of a brain injury or defect, not a problem with their actual eyes. In the study, the subjects had their sighted eye covered, and were shown pictures of faces with various emotions/expressions to the blind eye. They found that even though they were blind in that eye, they could still "see" the emotion in the faces and would mimic it on their own face.
Basically, they were saying that the visual signals were getting into the brain and were being interpreted on some level by an unknown part of the brain before getting lost in the damaged visual cortex. I wonder if this has something to do with it?