They can if they own the copyright. It owuld be a distinction between why they normally do not assert their ownership to fan created videos and they are now.
Now I'm not saying NASCAR is the owner, but Major League Baseball and some of the NFL franchises assert ownership of anything documented at their games. If NASCAR is in the same legal position, you will find they are a valid owner regardless of failing to exert any rights to that ownership in the past. MLB has actually won this in court already.
And if you otherwise ignore NASCAR, I'm not entirely sure why you are upset over this as the content has been restored.
Well, First, I don't watch NASCAR on purpose. But you have to marvel at the engineering involved that allows cars to fly around a track as 160-200+ miles per hour speeds, often just inches away from each other, and when they do have an accident, the drivers walk away with little more then their wallets damaged better then 90% of the time.
If you have to compare the wrecks on the track to wrecks that injure spectators, think of it more like watching kids driving bumper cars at the county fair verses your teenager driving your car and an accident happens. On one, there is a comfortable margin of safety. Or maybe a demolition derby which is a staple at most county fairs would be more accurate.
Major League Baseball asserted ownership of the copyright of anything that happened at their games. This has been long enough ago that a lot of other organizations have done the same. It has even withstood court challenges. If NASCAR asserts the same ownership at their events, then they could very well have a copyright ownership. Their lack of enforcement in the past does not forbid them from enforcement in the future, it just makes them a dick for selectively doing it, and less of a dick for doing it for these reasons. It has nothing to do with not caring about safety as all the information, likely along with more video coverage then the fan's created coverage, will be sent to regulators and authorities for review.
No, a false take down notice if it is knowingly false, subject whoever made the false accusation to liability to all damages including legal fees as a result of the take down.
The problem is in showing you were injured in a way that can be monetized.
There may be rules of the court in which allow for someone to be restricted from an action in the future, but the law only provides for the recovery of damages, costs, and lawyer fees involved with it.
I'm not sure they were false. Major League Baseball and I think most of the football chains have long considered anything that happens within their stadiums to be their copyright and trademark if documented.
NASCAR could have the same legal position except they do not normally restrict the usage of fan generated content.
1: There already is the different versions of the existing planes for different branches. If you look, I simplified all that and just took a general approach to explaining it. You can do the detailed analysis if you want, but be honest and do not forget about the same problems with existing logistics.
2: Insurance was hyperbole you idiot. And yes, the US does insure it's jet fighters. The US itself is a self insurer qualified under existing laws. but that aside, how stupid would you have to be to not see the car analogy in place.
4: so you are saying that if it doesn't exist today, we should never build anything for the future? I mean seriously, what in the hell is your point here?
And pilots can breath in the f-35. Those problems have been found and fixed. They weren't that the pilots couldn't breath either, it was that their supply of oxygen was being reduce as they were breathing causing them to black out. It turns out that an undersized supply line could pinch closed after certain maneuvers cutting the supplemental oxygen supply off sending a pilot into a hypoxia situation.
I know, you will vote in your favorite politician and he will change it all by himself.
Oh Wait!!! is right.
We had a budget surplus before, there was absolutely no political will to change the law. There will never be any political will to do this. You operate under the assumption that politicians offer sound stewardship and have the best interest of the country at heart. Nothing in the last 30 years indicate any of this is true and in fact it appears to be the exact opposite where certain politicians depend on things going badly, on spending more, on arguing against more spending simply to get elected and secure a paycheck for themselves.
Actually, I had no clue what your actual argument was because you jump it around so much. We started this off with you saying something about cutting military engineers to build schools and roads and stuff and I pointed out that those engineers aren't suited for those rolls. You then put something up suggesting that I was saying we should keep military engineers for the sake of keeping them around and I said absolutely we should because without them at the ready, we risk becoming a second rate military reliant upon foreign nations for our technology or a defeated military incapable of effecting our goals.
There are analysis done all the time. The problem you seem to not understand is that without enough engineers for a worst case scenario (which is what military force is traditionally used for- especially in defense), we will lose most all worst case scenarios.
But it seems that you are arguing that more military tech is always better, not matter what.
Military tech is a necessity else you end up with things like the draft and millions of unwilling citizens being slaughtered when the fighting is pressed on them. Do you realize that more people die every year from ill intent (read murder, homicide, a chargeable offense under the law) in the state of California then soldiers we lost from Afghanistan and Iraq from 2002-2008. And every soldier we lost joined the military on their own accords. This does not happen without the tech to back it up. Right now, the Taliban uses foreign tech to effectively monitor the positions of our drones in order to evade detection. They glue shards of glass and other things to their transport vehicles in order to defeat our million dollar flying cameras when they go into villages and kill the people for helping us or gather stashed supplies to continue their fights. It is a never ending battle to ensure your tech is capable of doing the jobs that is relied on. It is a never ending battle to ensure our missiles, our soldiers, engage the enemy and not innocents in the area. Without this tech, it get bloody and a lot more people get dead who shouldn't have.
I suggest that you at once stop producing food and train all these people to be engineers and mechanics to make sure that the taliban don't have better drones than you do.
If you want a first class military capable of defending against all threats known and possibly unknown, you will continually need to create a demand for the engineers and they will continually engineer worth while technology and products with a few failures in between. Some of this tech will be transferred to the private sector and you will benefit from it as well.
We do not live in world where a civilian can just up and grab a gun and defend the country as the only thing necessary any more. We do not live in a world where if we fall behind in our tech and one of our allies decides to become an enemy, we can defend ourselves after the fact because of how advanced and efficient the military forces are. For every measure we create to create strength, an enemy can defeat given enough time. For every defense an enemy can defeat, we lose the advantage and make it more likely military will need to be used.
Defense tech is not like a company where you can compare expenses verses profit. We gave up fighting for spoils of war a long time ago. When an ally or enemy advances enough to make our technology inferior, we either replace it with superior tech or become ineffective and unable to defend ourselves. Of course there is a measure of how many engineers are needed and how many contractors are needed, that is dictated by the abilities of technology. Right now, as we speak, the taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan can use foreign tech to find where our drones and air craft are so they can avoid detection and capture/confrontation on our terms. Missiles and drone strikes are still killing innocent civilians on those areas. It is not like we will need less tech, less abilities, or less capabilities to hit the bad guys while not injuring the innocents.
So you are saying, the number of engineers and teachers available shall define how much is spent on military engineering and schools?
Actually, I was saying that not spending the money in one area does not automagically mean those engineers can be useful or productive in another. But now that you mention it, Yes, the amount of engineers trained should dictate where the money is spent when it comes to defense. And this is not out of line with your entire " efforts shall be made to get more" statement.
You see, a certain amount of military engineers need to be employed at all times in order to continue to advance military technology else we will find ourselves like Russia was at the start of WWII or even worse yet, like Iran and Iraq are today. It's not that they do not have engineers to solve problems for them, it's specifically that they do not have the advanced military engineering capabilities and instead rely on purchasing technology and stockpiling it as other countries develop and implement, then determine it ok to sell to them.
I don't really care what your opinion on that is, we need those engineers and the military tech to advance otherwise we will end up in world wars when crazy idiots do it.
I don't know why or what you are calling bullshit on. I certain never said anything to lead the opinion opposite of what you claimed. I said specifically that there is more in savings then the cost of the plane.
As for the last air threat, I think you are discounting the likes of China who is creating new fighters and Russia can easily become a threat again- even if not to US directly.
That might be true in the end. I don't really see why we need to save money on the things in the first place but I guess political pressure is there which is why they wanted to try.
Have you paid attention to that group of people over the last 100 years? Ever since 1935, one set of them has been apposed to limiting the size of government and in favor of spending every last dime it takes in while more recently, the other groups has bit its nose off to spite its face in an attempt to say I'm gonna get mine too.
While technically they can create a rainy day fund or the equivalent then proceed to fund it, the reality is you might be more lucky getting all the rich people to divide every dollar they possess over 5 million dollars equally between the population and hand it out with no strings attached. Yes, that too can happen. But until it does, I'll just say it won't happen.
One of the biggest problems is that the bids submitted are often not the product produced. Imaging you bidding to repair the storm damage on my home. you place the bid, I accept it, then I decide i want the new front door to be one of the security doors I recently found out about. I then notice the front entrance would look better with a stained wood rather then painted wood. Oh, and I want Oak trim instead of pine and wooden floors instead of carpeting.
Now suppose suppose some of those changes are made because materials for the original bid are no longer available, too difficult to acquire in the quantities needed, or studies have shown them to be vastly inferior to the new materials. Suppose some of those changes were made because it vastly increased the over all value of the complete project and future proofed the home from similar damages in future storms. Suppose some of those changes were made because long term maintenance would be cheaper and/or functionality could be increased. Would you still charge me the same as the original bid? Of course not, you would charge me the increased costs plus your profit
Bids on military projects often change like this. The projects are often long enough in development that serious changes in technology happens or the required roles or needs of the military change or the politicians get involved and want things built in certain places (to benefit their local constituency).
Are you arguing to cut spending or to spend the money elsewhere?
I highly doubt the engineers working on the f-35 would be suitable for working on schools, highways, vaccines. However, their use of the materials and applied sciences with pave he way to make those schools, highways, vaccines better through technologies developed to handle the extremes the f-35 will be subject to.
I think he is saying that every claim needs to be closely examined in the context of the bias of the person making the claim. It's like the vegan environmentalist arguing about cow farts and global warming or an agriculture group arguing for ethanol subsidies or even the oil industry arguing again global warming being real.
It is not replacing just one plane though. It is replacing 5 or 6 planes- each with different roles. Now think of this, suppose it only replaces 3 types of aircraft currently in use. No more training on 2 other aircraft to certify pilots, no more separate spare parts, storage and logistics programs for 2 other aircraft. No more cross training and specialty training of mechanics and support personnel (these aren't like cars where the concept of changing a starter is transferable to models you had no training on. mistakes can cost lives and parking a broken down jet at 35000 feet in the air will always result in an insurance claim where a car breaking down on the highway is more of a safety hazard and inconvenience.)
The cost of the plane alone is not the only savings.
Your supposition is flawed. It relies on the idea that government would actually have the ability to save money not needed to cover expenses. It does not except at certain state and local levels if those areas are specifically set up to do so. By law, congress has to spend every last dollar taken in. Now this spending can be on some new program, increases to existing programs, or servicing the debt but it completely lacks the ability to create a rainy day fund or anything of the sort which would have decreased any of the discussions we are having today.
If you cut spending and create a surplus, something has to be done with the surplus which was the start of the discussion when Bush lowered taxes for as you put it "popularity" purposes.
Significant changes in process needs to happen before what you suggest is possible. The system in place is entrenched and likely will not be changed any time in the future. If we run a surplus, the only thing that will happen is pork spending gets larger as well as our other spending. Think about it, the Government accounting office, the group that watches the watchers, was wasting money left and right for years and no one thought it was out of order or suspicious until someone posted a video on youtube about them mocking the process.
Yes, you do. It will come in extremely handy when you have 100 people over for a cook out, family reunion, wedding, whatever and they each have a device that wants to connect.
1 gig speeds might not be something useful in your future, but it certainly can be useful to others.
This might not be as strong of a point as first it seems. Cultural differences as well as sources of food might play a roll in it not happening on different continents. It may very well be that the food isn't initially exposed to the bacteria during the process in the first place making the exposure or growth of the bacteria less likely as well as different ways to commonly prepare the food might kill it off before it enters the body.
But over all, yes, I agree there will likely be other causes or reasons for the uptick in food born illnesses. But your observation suffers the same as the initial about the bags.
A lot of the honey in the store is filtered a lot more then from local producer. You end up with the pollen and other fragments removed in store brand where this usually is still present in local brands.
With that being said, not everyone can tell the difference but those who can will strongly favor one over the other. If you can taste a difference between clover honey and buckwheat honey, you will likely value the local supplier over the industrialized store brands and be willing to pay twice as much.
Opinion can be fact or taken as fact. An accident scene interpreter gives opinion that is treated as fact. Expert witnesses give opinion that is considered fact.
In this case, the guy's standing and position could lead his opinion as being accepted as fact by most who viewed it. This is probably why the school was brought into the suit. Random guy rambling is obvious opinion. Specific guy who works in a specific field at a specific place rambling about his field of expertise creates fact.
Slashdot Mirror
They can if they own the copyright. It owuld be a distinction between why they normally do not assert their ownership to fan created videos and they are now.
Now I'm not saying NASCAR is the owner, but Major League Baseball and some of the NFL franchises assert ownership of anything documented at their games. If NASCAR is in the same legal position, you will find they are a valid owner regardless of failing to exert any rights to that ownership in the past. MLB has actually won this in court already.
And if you otherwise ignore NASCAR, I'm not entirely sure why you are upset over this as the content has been restored.
Well, First, I don't watch NASCAR on purpose. But you have to marvel at the engineering involved that allows cars to fly around a track as 160-200+ miles per hour speeds, often just inches away from each other, and when they do have an accident, the drivers walk away with little more then their wallets damaged better then 90% of the time.
If you have to compare the wrecks on the track to wrecks that injure spectators, think of it more like watching kids driving bumper cars at the county fair verses your teenager driving your car and an accident happens. On one, there is a comfortable margin of safety. Or maybe a demolition derby which is a staple at most county fairs would be more accurate.
Where does it say they lied about the copyright?
Major League Baseball asserted ownership of the copyright of anything that happened at their games. This has been long enough ago that a lot of other organizations have done the same. It has even withstood court challenges. If NASCAR asserts the same ownership at their events, then they could very well have a copyright ownership. Their lack of enforcement in the past does not forbid them from enforcement in the future, it just makes them a dick for selectively doing it, and less of a dick for doing it for these reasons. It has nothing to do with not caring about safety as all the information, likely along with more video coverage then the fan's created coverage, will be sent to regulators and authorities for review.
No, a false take down notice if it is knowingly false, subject whoever made the false accusation to liability to all damages including legal fees as a result of the take down.
The problem is in showing you were injured in a way that can be monetized.
There may be rules of the court in which allow for someone to be restricted from an action in the future, but the law only provides for the recovery of damages, costs, and lawyer fees involved with it.
I'm not sure they were false. Major League Baseball and I think most of the football chains have long considered anything that happens within their stadiums to be their copyright and trademark if documented.
NASCAR could have the same legal position except they do not normally restrict the usage of fan generated content.
Evidently you are daft one.
1: There already is the different versions of the existing planes for different branches. If you look, I simplified all that and just took a general approach to explaining it. You can do the detailed analysis if you want, but be honest and do not forget about the same problems with existing logistics.
2: Insurance was hyperbole you idiot. And yes, the US does insure it's jet fighters. The US itself is a self insurer qualified under existing laws. but that aside, how stupid would you have to be to not see the car analogy in place.
4: so you are saying that if it doesn't exist today, we should never build anything for the future? I mean seriously, what in the hell is your point here?
And pilots can breath in the f-35. Those problems have been found and fixed. They weren't that the pilots couldn't breath either, it was that their supply of oxygen was being reduce as they were breathing causing them to black out. It turns out that an undersized supply line could pinch closed after certain maneuvers cutting the supplemental oxygen supply off sending a pilot into a hypoxia situation.
I know, you will vote in your favorite politician and he will change it all by himself.
Oh Wait!!! is right.
We had a budget surplus before, there was absolutely no political will to change the law. There will never be any political will to do this. You operate under the assumption that politicians offer sound stewardship and have the best interest of the country at heart. Nothing in the last 30 years indicate any of this is true and in fact it appears to be the exact opposite where certain politicians depend on things going badly, on spending more, on arguing against more spending simply to get elected and secure a paycheck for themselves.
Actually, I had no clue what your actual argument was because you jump it around so much. We started this off with you saying something about cutting military engineers to build schools and roads and stuff and I pointed out that those engineers aren't suited for those rolls. You then put something up suggesting that I was saying we should keep military engineers for the sake of keeping them around and I said absolutely we should because without them at the ready, we risk becoming a second rate military reliant upon foreign nations for our technology or a defeated military incapable of effecting our goals.
There are analysis done all the time. The problem you seem to not understand is that without enough engineers for a worst case scenario (which is what military force is traditionally used for- especially in defense), we will lose most all worst case scenarios.
Military tech is a necessity else you end up with things like the draft and millions of unwilling citizens being slaughtered when the fighting is pressed on them. Do you realize that more people die every year from ill intent (read murder, homicide, a chargeable offense under the law) in the state of California then soldiers we lost from Afghanistan and Iraq from 2002-2008. And every soldier we lost joined the military on their own accords. This does not happen without the tech to back it up. Right now, the Taliban uses foreign tech to effectively monitor the positions of our drones in order to evade detection. They glue shards of glass and other things to their transport vehicles in order to defeat our million dollar flying cameras when they go into villages and kill the people for helping us or gather stashed supplies to continue their fights. It is a never ending battle to ensure your tech is capable of doing the jobs that is relied on. It is a never ending battle to ensure our missiles, our soldiers, engage the enemy and not innocents in the area. Without this tech, it get bloody and a lot more people get dead who shouldn't have.
Don't be silly.
If you want a first class military capable of defending against all threats known and possibly unknown, you will continually need to create a demand for the engineers and they will continually engineer worth while technology and products with a few failures in between. Some of this tech will be transferred to the private sector and you will benefit from it as well.
We do not live in world where a civilian can just up and grab a gun and defend the country as the only thing necessary any more. We do not live in a world where if we fall behind in our tech and one of our allies decides to become an enemy, we can defend ourselves after the fact because of how advanced and efficient the military forces are. For every measure we create to create strength, an enemy can defeat given enough time. For every defense an enemy can defeat, we lose the advantage and make it more likely military will need to be used.
Defense tech is not like a company where you can compare expenses verses profit. We gave up fighting for spoils of war a long time ago. When an ally or enemy advances enough to make our technology inferior, we either replace it with superior tech or become ineffective and unable to defend ourselves. Of course there is a measure of how many engineers are needed and how many contractors are needed, that is dictated by the abilities of technology. Right now, as we speak, the taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan can use foreign tech to find where our drones and air craft are so they can avoid detection and capture/confrontation on our terms. Missiles and drone strikes are still killing innocent civilians on those areas. It is not like we will need less tech, less abilities, or less capabilities to hit the bad guys while not injuring the innocents.
Actually, I was saying that not spending the money in one area does not automagically mean those engineers can be useful or productive in another. But now that you mention it, Yes, the amount of engineers trained should dictate where the money is spent when it comes to defense. And this is not out of line with your entire " efforts shall be made to get more" statement.
You see, a certain amount of military engineers need to be employed at all times in order to continue to advance military technology else we will find ourselves like Russia was at the start of WWII or even worse yet, like Iran and Iraq are today. It's not that they do not have engineers to solve problems for them, it's specifically that they do not have the advanced military engineering capabilities and instead rely on purchasing technology and stockpiling it as other countries develop and implement, then determine it ok to sell to them.
I don't really care what your opinion on that is, we need those engineers and the military tech to advance otherwise we will end up in world wars when crazy idiots do it.
I don't know why or what you are calling bullshit on. I certain never said anything to lead the opinion opposite of what you claimed. I said specifically that there is more in savings then the cost of the plane.
As for the last air threat, I think you are discounting the likes of China who is creating new fighters and Russia can easily become a threat again- even if not to US directly.
That might be true in the end. I don't really see why we need to save money on the things in the first place but I guess political pressure is there which is why they wanted to try.
Have you paid attention to that group of people over the last 100 years? Ever since 1935, one set of them has been apposed to limiting the size of government and in favor of spending every last dime it takes in while more recently, the other groups has bit its nose off to spite its face in an attempt to say I'm gonna get mine too.
While technically they can create a rainy day fund or the equivalent then proceed to fund it, the reality is you might be more lucky getting all the rich people to divide every dollar they possess over 5 million dollars equally between the population and hand it out with no strings attached. Yes, that too can happen. But until it does, I'll just say it won't happen.
One of the biggest problems is that the bids submitted are often not the product produced. Imaging you bidding to repair the storm damage on my home. you place the bid, I accept it, then I decide i want the new front door to be one of the security doors I recently found out about. I then notice the front entrance would look better with a stained wood rather then painted wood. Oh, and I want Oak trim instead of pine and wooden floors instead of carpeting.
Now suppose suppose some of those changes are made because materials for the original bid are no longer available, too difficult to acquire in the quantities needed, or studies have shown them to be vastly inferior to the new materials. Suppose some of those changes were made because it vastly increased the over all value of the complete project and future proofed the home from similar damages in future storms. Suppose some of those changes were made because long term maintenance would be cheaper and/or functionality could be increased. Would you still charge me the same as the original bid? Of course not, you would charge me the increased costs plus your profit
Bids on military projects often change like this. The projects are often long enough in development that serious changes in technology happens or the required roles or needs of the military change or the politicians get involved and want things built in certain places (to benefit their local constituency).
Are you arguing to cut spending or to spend the money elsewhere?
I highly doubt the engineers working on the f-35 would be suitable for working on schools, highways, vaccines. However, their use of the materials and applied sciences with pave he way to make those schools, highways, vaccines better through technologies developed to handle the extremes the f-35 will be subject to.
I think he is saying that every claim needs to be closely examined in the context of the bias of the person making the claim. It's like the vegan environmentalist arguing about cow farts and global warming or an agriculture group arguing for ethanol subsidies or even the oil industry arguing again global warming being real.
It is not replacing just one plane though. It is replacing 5 or 6 planes- each with different roles. Now think of this, suppose it only replaces 3 types of aircraft currently in use. No more training on 2 other aircraft to certify pilots, no more separate spare parts, storage and logistics programs for 2 other aircraft. No more cross training and specialty training of mechanics and support personnel (these aren't like cars where the concept of changing a starter is transferable to models you had no training on. mistakes can cost lives and parking a broken down jet at 35000 feet in the air will always result in an insurance claim where a car breaking down on the highway is more of a safety hazard and inconvenience.)
The cost of the plane alone is not the only savings.
Your supposition is flawed. It relies on the idea that government would actually have the ability to save money not needed to cover expenses. It does not except at certain state and local levels if those areas are specifically set up to do so. By law, congress has to spend every last dollar taken in. Now this spending can be on some new program, increases to existing programs, or servicing the debt but it completely lacks the ability to create a rainy day fund or anything of the sort which would have decreased any of the discussions we are having today.
If you cut spending and create a surplus, something has to be done with the surplus which was the start of the discussion when Bush lowered taxes for as you put it "popularity" purposes.
Significant changes in process needs to happen before what you suggest is possible. The system in place is entrenched and likely will not be changed any time in the future. If we run a surplus, the only thing that will happen is pork spending gets larger as well as our other spending. Think about it, the Government accounting office, the group that watches the watchers, was wasting money left and right for years and no one thought it was out of order or suspicious until someone posted a video on youtube about them mocking the process.
Yes, you do. It will come in extremely handy when you have 100 people over for a cook out, family reunion, wedding, whatever and they each have a device that wants to connect.
1 gig speeds might not be something useful in your future, but it certainly can be useful to others.
You forgot killed because the swat team went to the wrong house yet again.
I dare you too start a white house petition to appoint someone's lips from the FCC to suck our dicks.
I think I might actually sign that one in order to see the president "deaL with it".
Even where plastic bags are banned?
This might not be as strong of a point as first it seems. Cultural differences as well as sources of food might play a roll in it not happening on different continents. It may very well be that the food isn't initially exposed to the bacteria during the process in the first place making the exposure or growth of the bacteria less likely as well as different ways to commonly prepare the food might kill it off before it enters the body.
But over all, yes, I agree there will likely be other causes or reasons for the uptick in food born illnesses. But your observation suffers the same as the initial about the bags.
A lot of the honey in the store is filtered a lot more then from local producer. You end up with the pollen and other fragments removed in store brand where this usually is still present in local brands.
With that being said, not everyone can tell the difference but those who can will strongly favor one over the other. If you can taste a difference between clover honey and buckwheat honey, you will likely value the local supplier over the industrialized store brands and be willing to pay twice as much.
Opinion can be fact or taken as fact. An accident scene interpreter gives opinion that is treated as fact. Expert witnesses give opinion that is considered fact.
In this case, the guy's standing and position could lead his opinion as being accepted as fact by most who viewed it. This is probably why the school was brought into the suit. Random guy rambling is obvious opinion. Specific guy who works in a specific field at a specific place rambling about his field of expertise creates fact.