Where did I say that you said teaching kids about evolution was wrong? I'm talking about taking facts, and using critical thinking, logic and reason to arrive at theory. These are the skills that we need to teach our children. When you subvert the "critical thinking" part and tell children that their reasoning is wrong because it disagrees with a special book, they don't learn this lesson. They don't learn to think critically ("don't ask why this book is special, just accept that it is") and they don't learn to trust logic and reason (it's wrong here, so it's not trustworthy), and by extension, the scientific method.
These children will be at an enormous disadvantage in fields that require correct application of the scientific method, because they will accept things as dogma, and will confuse dogma with science.
The evolution debate is just the classic example of this. You may feel you have a good handle on the limits of science and the limits of religion, but kids aren't learning about the evolution debate that way.
Wow.. There are so many things wrong here it's funny. Kids are not binary switched that either presume A or B and are incapable of knowing A and B or C,D,E,F either. They in fact can possess and process both evolution and creation and can in fact separate them for their uses as needed. The only reason a child would say evolution is incorrect is when someone either told them that, or someone told them that it makes the bible incorrect. As I previously stated, all you have to do is say science uses this and finds it useful when doing science and there is no conflict at all. The answer is not to restrict one or the other but to actually place them as they are- science and religion.
You say spectacularly obvious, and I say observable. Advances in technology and our ability to model physics in computers allows us to "spy" on realms of the universe we couldn't even imagine a few generations ago. The wiggle room for a god to mess with us in a way we can't detect gets smaller and smaller with every advance.
To be honest, this sounds like the earlier argument: you can never rule out that gods are just being craftier than we are at trying to observe their actions, no matter how good we get at observing the universe. They're gods, right? We'll never be able to perfectly model the entire universe (the simulation would be larger than the universe itself, which obviously can't happen), so we'll never be able to rule this out.
How about another earlier argument, just because you don't know about it or it doesn't work the way you expect doesn't mean it doesn't exist, didn't exist, or never existed (remember the black sheep). By the lack of information or evidence, the best you can say is I see no evidence to support that claim from a scientific standpoint. There is a reason why you couldn't purchase a flat screen TV in 1920.. It's because out technology has not advanced far enough to make it possible at the time. However, that does not mean it could never be possible.
You're right, sorry.
But the scripture does say very specific things about the act of creation that are provably false. A few hundred years ago, most people would claim those things were factual. Today, those things are now considered allegories.
Actually, they are not provably false. What you seem to refuse to understand is that what you know and see today can be the direct result of a creation event in the past. The dating of the rocks, the universe, all that can be because of something happening with the creation. All you have is a provable and reliable alternatives to any creation story.
I think you and I have different ideas about what it means to prove something wrong. If a group of people say X is true, and you demonstrate that X can't really be true, you've proved it wrong. The fact is that there are many stories in the Christian bible that were accepted as absolute t
If the agreement to use the barn included a provision that electricity would not be available, then that provision and not a warranty disclaimer would protect you.
I haven't read the terms worldcon offered but I suspect that they say something about infringement of a copyright instead of randomly refusing to complete service. However, this is more complicated then that because there are two separate yet distinct problems here. If the AI bot was under the control of the streaming provider, the actual claim of a false report could supersede any disclaimer for warranty of service.
Think of it as there being two separate and distinct acts here. In fact, lets assume there are two companies involved on the streaming and ending of the streaming part of this. First there is company A who provided the service. Then there is company B who files a complaint on copyright violations who got the service discontinued in the middle of it. They can technically be the same company but would be treated separate to show how the termination of service is two distinct separate pieces. First, company A has to receive a good faith complaint from company B (company B is actually the agent for the copyright holder). Company A then removed access to the claimed infringing content. The law gives company A immunity from liability for the acts associated with removing access if the procedures were set out and followed (there is no certainty of if they were or weren't). Company B is completely liable for any damages inured from issuing it's take down notice. There is absolutely no legal immunity or defense from that other then actually owning the copyright or being an agent of the owner and the accused being in violation of it. Company B cannot disclaim liability or issue a warranty disclaimer to get around that even when company A and company B are the same companies.
Now the important part here is that company B was performing a separate function then company A. Company B was acting as the agent of a third party- not the customer of company A's services and they made a legal claim that a customer of company A's service did not have a right to some of the copyrighted materials that customer used. So even though the two companies are actually the same company, the loss of services was the result of the company acting on the behalf of another entity and no agreement between the user of services can negate that. Can you imagine a salesman at an investment firm selling you lake front property with a vacation rentals as an investment when there is no lake or vacation houses to rent on the property and trying to release himself from any liability through warranty disclaimers and such when he is the agent of the seller too? It simply wouldn't work.
You cannot really absolve yourself from intentional acts that result in the dismissal of implied services. For instance,you cannot claim you will dig a trench to install a new water main for my home, then knowing that the code says it needs to be 42 inches deep, dig a 6 inch to 12 inch deep trench and say your terms disclaimed any warranty. Another instance, I cannot claim to offer a babysitting service, have you use my service and run out after 4 hours claiming absolutely no warranty when I was supposed to watch your kids for the 8 you were at work. Alternatively, in both situations, I can get hurt and require medical attention and get out of the obligations by a necessity outside my direct actions even if the impairing injury is a result of my own actions.
But let me explain this a little closer to how this situation folds out. Suppose you wanted to use my barn to host an event for one of your clubs. I give you access to it including parking on Friday from 4pm to 11 pm. You come in, set up, all your guests and members show up by 6pm, then the power goes out and you cannot put on your event or even serve the dinner that came with it. Now a no warranty disclaimer would absolve me from liability if the power outage was the result of something outside my control like a neighbor cut a tree down and it landed on the power lines or a car had an accident and took out a telephone pole. But it would not absolve me from liability had I scheduled an electrician to work on something and they disconnected the power to the barn to do it. It would not absolve me if I turned the power off as a joke. It would not absolve me if I turned the power off because I incorrectly thought you were doing something illegal and you weren't.
Not to mention that the safe harbor provisions do not exempt the issuer or claimed infringer from liability. It only provide a set of steps a network provider can take that gives them immunity if they follow them and act on the copyright holder or claimed infringer's behalf upon written notice.
If any company implement's their own copyright detection scheme, they end up acting as the agent of the copyright holder and the DMCA gives no exemptions to that agent. The purpose and intent of the DMCA take downs was to specifically provide neutral networks the ability to remain neutral and not be in violation of the new laws.
The DMCA only gives them immunity from copyright violations if they follow take down issued by copyright right holders and people or entities with rights to act on the copyright holder's behalf. They get immunity from damages incurred by the take down when they provide a way to reinstate the claimed offending material and actually allow that to happen within 15 days (if they ban the user without reinstating that material they lose the immunity from damages unless the copyright holder explicitly states they are going for an injunction).
The purpose of the DMCA's immunity is not to stack the law for or against someone. It is to allow network operators who are neutral to remain neutral without exposing themselves to liability. The problem here is, the DMCA does not exempt the copyright holder or anyone making the claim from any liability. When companies like youtube or Ustream take on the role of enforcement, they are essentially becoming the agent of the copyright holder and do no get an exemption of liability under the law from claiming something is in violation. Fair use of not, the DMCA does not give them immunity for the works of their bots.
I think he is one of those ron paulians or99% 'ers who thinks there will be another civil war in a few years because the Egyptians and Libyans did it and the Syrians are trying.
I've heard the claims of up coming civil wars from several distinct sources of people. It's generally the extreme libertarians who think the government has too much control and is too invasive in every day life and doesn't do the will of the people and the extreme socialist who think the government needs to provide more and doesn't listen to the people. The interesting thing is their point of agreement seems to be the government not listening to the people but what they want them to listen to seems to be completely at odds. At the risk of being modded down, I would liken this to Dumb and Dumber playing cowboys and Indians on the school yard by one group acting like bulls and the other group acting like tech support call centers you cannot understand..
Not necessarily. There can be an implied contract or warranty for service. If Ustream only streamed contracted events or programs you would be right. But if they stream as a public accommodation, source of self promotion, philanthropy, or any other reason and claim they will stream something as part of that, then an implied contract can be inferred without an actual contract existing. The difficulty lies within being able to enforce it without a written agreement. Sometimes it is obvious and there is not problem, sometimes it is less obvious and the case needs to be made.
I disagree; I think it's exactly the point. To teach your children facts (that evolution occurs), and that the logical inference from those facts (a scientific theory of our evolutionary origins) is wrong only because it disagrees with your religion's holy book, which must be correct for all sorts of reasons logical fallacies, prevents your children from understanding, utilizing and trusting the scientific method.
lol.. I never said teaching kids about evolution was wrong, I said denying them creation or anything else because you insist evolution is the only true way was wrong. As I previously said, kids can easily approach things from separate paths as is easily demonstrated with their ability to play the game games on vastly different interfaces. Kids are not a static only one way will ever work.
Perhaps there is a fine line between categorically denying something, and categorically refusing to accept something. I feel I'm doing the latter, not the former.
That's fine and all if it is you and the kids you have a valid right to interact with. But don't try to force your beliefs onto anyone else- especially through the government who is supposed to not take any sides whatsoever at all on religion because of the Constitution.
But you have to think about some things too. Have you ever stopped to realize that a good majority of kids who claim something about creationism are just rebelling against what they think is the accepted norm for the sake of pissing you off? I used to do that in high school biology class all the time. I even claimed to be a Buddhist for 3 weeks to frustrate the teacher come time to dissect a frog. I dared him to give me bad grades or punish me for my religious beliefs. I then became a born again Christian right before becoming an evangelical Atheist because I didn't like the way he treated a friend of mine. 25 years later and I'm here playing devils advocate with you over the insistence that kids only learn that their religion, their parents religion, is wrong when forced to attend a government mandated education course.
Between the time a god considers intervening, and the time someone decides to pause and check their pockets, something must have happened to the person's mind to make them change their behavior. Absent intervention, they wouldn't have paused and checked their pockets, right? The mind is a product of the brain, and the brain is a physical system bound by exactly the same laws of physics everything else appears to be bound by. So something physical must have happened in the brain of this person to cause them to change their behavior.
Or would you turn around and say that the mind is magical and, like gods, not bound by the physical universe?
So you are saying that if a supernatural being existed that was capable of doing something to impact our universe, he would have to do it in some spectacular way that is directly obvious to you and anyone else you think needs to know or understand it and no other way is possible? On what grounds to you base this necessity for some mind blowing interaction setting off seismographs and radar defense system that can only happen how you insist it must happen?
The point of my statement was to show how simple and subtle the interaction could possibly be and how difficult it might be to understand it or detect it.
If this were the right attitude, we'd still be burning witches and imprisoning anyone that suggested the earth was round, or that the sun doesn't revolve around it. At some point you have to take a stand and call ignorance what it is. Thinking about the last few hundred years, are you really of the opinion that the world would be a better place if religion were always allowed to trump science?
Your strawman is bordering a false dichotomy. Burning witches and claiming the earth is flat is not something directly or even indirectly supported by
There is a hazardous materials response guide that all first responders will have access to. There will be a pocket version in every vehicle that would respond to a hazmat incident. Every truck that transports hazardous materials in the US has to have the pocket version in the truck also. There is even a toll free number that anyone can call in case of emergency that will provide the appropriate response including initial and mandatory evacuation distances. If someone is looking for a MSDS, they should not be making decisions at the scene other then maybe evacuation distances, they are under qualified.
In other words, they wouldn't even need the tablet with 3g access because the information should already be readily available to anyone qualified to respond.
Basically this argument boils down to the assertion that because something could exist outside of the observable universe, it's appropriate to believe something exists outside of the observable universe. I don't subscribe to that notion. If it's outside of the observable universe, it cannot interact with the observable universe. Once it interacts with the observable universe, it becomes observable and we can learn something about it. Until then it's just mental masturbation and I have more interesting things to do with my life.
Whether it is appropriate to believe something or not is sort of beside the point. The point is that it is inappropriate categorically deny something because you didn't see it or do not understanding how it could happen.
I'm not quite sure I'm following. If I'm on the top of a building with a large rock in hand, and I'm intent on dropping it on someone's head, but a god is intent on preventing me, somehow, when I release that rock, something has to prevent it from reaching its target. Either His Divine Hand would knock the rock aside, or maybe the god will be sneaky about it and poof into existence a penny that causes a child to stop and pick it up, which causes my target to pause for a moment after I released the rock. But what if I plastered the city block with a million cameras and sensors? Surely I would observe the penny poofing into existence. Oh but gods are craftier than that, right? They'll just go back in time and create the penny before I put up all of my cameras. There's no way to win this argument. Either gods interact with the universe in ways that we can observe, or for some reason they want to be sneaky and avoid anyone claiming to be a scientist from ever seeing them.
lol.. So it would have to happen the exact way you think it would happen. What if the divine intervention was making someone pause and check their pockets for an article they needed and the penny fell out at that time? You see, divine intervention does not have to work outside the laws of physics, it can work well within them for the most part.
There is a story about a flood coming and a preacher not leaving saying god will take care of him. As the town was evacuating, several people stopped and asked the preacher if he wanted a ride, he said no, god will take care of me. The river swelled past the banks and flooded the last road out of town and someone on a boat came by and said, hop in preacher, I'll get you to safety. The preacher said, that's ok, the lord with take care of me. Finally, the town is flooded and the preacher is sitting on a roof top and a helicopter came by. It lowered a rope and a guy who said put this harness on, well will fly you to safety. The preacher said, that's ok, god will take care of me. Later that night, the preacher went to sleep and fell off the roof and into the flood waters and died. He gets to heaven and asks why god didn't take care of him. The reply was, he sent the town folks to help you and the preacher denied that, he sent a boat to fetch you to safety and the preacher rejected that, he even sent a helicopter to help him and the preacher refused that. What more did the preacher expect to be done.
Whether you want to believe that any of those attempts to get the preacher to safety was divine intervention or not is beside the point that the intervention does not need to be some elaborate work of smoke and magic in order to happen.
But this is a bit beyond the concept of creationism though.
I think maybe this comes from my suggestion that if it ain't observable, it ain't knowable? I don't know how much that has to do with science per se, but for me, it's common sense. What's the point in trying to figure something out that's impossible to ever figure out? Either gods interact with the universe in ways we can study, or they don't. If they don't, they can never influence our lives, and so they essentially don't exist. "But you'll see!" implies that th
They used to claim that the increase lubrication caused greater fuel efficiency in the bio form. Diesel is a lot like gas where it is formulated in different types in different parts of the country at different times of the year. This claim may be just something that is regional or perhaps only applicable during certain types of the year.
As for restaurants, Every one I worked at sold the waste oil to make soap and other supplies from. At a family style restaurant I was part owner of once, we got something like $100-$150 a month from our waste oil and they came and picked it up. This was 20 years ago but I was really surprised to find stories of people just getting the waste oil from restaurants. They must have stopped using it for those purposes or maybe the owners didn't know of it.
This guy is "correct" in the sense that Newton was correct about gravity. Both created a model of the universe that accurately allows them the ability to predict something, like the color of sheep. If this man never sees a sheep that isn't white, his model is sufficiently accurate and might as well be absolute truth.
On the other hand, if this man ever came across wool that came from a sheep that wasn't white, he would have to decide between (a) theorizing the existence of sheep of other colors, possibly resulting in a quest to confirm his theory and advance his knowledge of the universe; or (b) he can shrug his shoulders and say "God did it," and never be the wiser.
And yet they call that a fallacy because all of what you know is not the entirety of what exists. dyeing wool is a common thing. He could just say a merchant did it and be both right or wrong.
Because no known mechanism exists for a divine being to affect our universe. If the deity appeared before someone, and spoke to them, somehow the deity is affecting our universe, by creating the perception of the deity's image and voice in the mind of an observer. If the deity is actually creating audible pressure waves in the air, and emitting photons that can be picked up by the observer's eyes, those are things that can be measured by other processes. The spontaneous creation of photons and sound would be an interesting event, and if they can't be explained, would require some theories as to where they came from.
At the very least, these observations would register as evidence that our theories are incomplete, and any model/theory that outright forbids the events that were observed would be immediately suspicious.
How interesting. So you do not think that outside of an entity being divine, that it can interact with the known universe in ways that are not divine. As soon as entity is classified as divine, its abilities would be beyond any limitation you would arbitrarily place on it.
As for incomplete theories and suspect models, isn't the exact opposite happening? Well, first, when did science decide it knew everything and we couldn't know more? That alone seems a bit concerning, but the crux of the argument put forth seems to be that it is impossible for a divine or supernatural being to exist because science knows it all.
My rules of physics? Your bias is showing.
Not at all. You are the one insisting a set of rules exist that can never be broken despite it happening all around you on a quantum level.
I disagree. Nobody ever said we have a complete understanding of the universe. But we do know a great deal about it, and the theories that we've devised are consistent with all of our observations, including the fact that we observe people that believe in gods, and we observe literature that makes claims about gods. All it takes is one reliable observation to destroy a scientific theory (or at least spur a refinement to it). If you want to replace theories of evolution with something based on a religion, start with finding that observation that disproves evolution.
lol.. You where just saying the opposite. Please make up your mind. Now, as I previously said, nothing is stopping your understanding of the universe as being the result of a creation. Do you understand that? What you know could be the direct result of a direct act. It may not point to that act either and even lead you to conclusions other than it. You can say the theories of evolution are supported by fact and are useful. You can even say creation is not needed, but you cannot say it "shuts down" any account of a creation.
Really? So you claim you do not believe in a god or the bible but you can speak for him should he exist.
As for your kids game of telephone, nothing you said yet has demonstrated your ignorance on the subject this well. You see, the stories weren't just recalled by some old fuck with a failing memory like the ancients in African tribes. The stories were very well part of every day life and people were expected to study them in public, learn and understand them, and recite them in front of everyone else in the village. There is no room for error because when someone got something wrong, the entire audience would correct them. There were entire feasts planned with the sole purpose of elders, priests and so on in a village would go to central locations and recite the same stories in front of others who knew it. the feast of tabernacles is one of these such events.
If someone got something wrong in the story, they were corrected. The jews still do this to this day, the Christians don't so much as a whole but it is still practiced. Your basic understanding is completely flawed on this.
Everything you said could be said about history books. But here is where they are similar, the stories in the bible are not just made up. They were studied and told from generation to generation in a methodical way and everyone was supposed to know and understand it. How we know the bible is accurate, because except for a few minor wordings and the new testament, it's the same as the Jewish Talmud for the most part. Are you forgetting the Jesus was a Jew?
So, how are you supposed to follow a manual that doesn't include all the instructions, maybe puts some of them in different orders and isn't consistent?
You mean other then ignore it and ask the questions already answered by it? Seriously, that is the point of contention here. You said if he wanted people to follow his word, he would have created a manual. Well, he did create one, it is more of a history book but answers all those questions and now you are objecting because one was created.
How do you seriously constitute that to the "will" of said god? Maybe that ignorance you speak of is not mine.
I'm pretty sure it is yours. You went through all that trouble trying to depict an elaborate scheme that you thinks means everyone else is incorrect but failed to recognize it wasn't done in a vacuum and the very same processes are what happens to this day with history as we know it.
Umm.. I guess your just too ignorant to get it. The bible is his manual.. It tells the history of his demands and how they changed over time and what he expects now.
You do not have to life you life based around the bible. We were given free will in order to make our own decisions on it. But when you ask stupid questions that are already answered, RTFM is somewhat appropriate.
By definition, if I cannot observe something, it cannot affect me. If something, such as a god, were capable of having any effect whatsoever in the universe, by definition, that effect would be observable by us. We would perceive that effect as a deviation from our understanding of the laws of physics, and we would have to throw away all of our theories that do not explain that observation, and try to find a new theory that incorporated it. If this happens often enough, the scientific theories about the nature of the universe would begin to describe a universe guided by a deity, and science would confirm (presumably your) religion.
There is a story about a guy who gets on a train. He looks out the window and see sheep. They are all white so he declares all sheep are white- none can be black or blue because he has never saw any like that. Are you saying that this guy is correct or something in his declaration simply because you too have only seen white sheep? You have other problems too. Why are you insisting that a divine intervention would have to deviate from the laws of physics as we know it? That is only a precondition imposed by you- you are essentially saying X can only do Y, Y can't happen therefore X is not true. But what you are neglecting is that the understanding of X or Y can very well be the basis for your understanding of the laws of nature/physics. But your rules of physics seem to not be hard set rules when we look at quantum applications so again, you have perpetuated the myth that everything has to be how you know it.
How can an eyewitness account confirm a god? How did these eyewitness accounts come to you? In a book written by a person? What makes you think the thing the eyewitness observed was actually a god? What makes you think that the written account of that story was even truthful, or translated correctly?
How can an eye witness confirm anything happen? How can any history be recorded and told after it happened? what makes you think the English actually lost the American revolutionary war or that injustices occurred in the practice of slavery? If eye witness accounts have no legitimacy at all, then most of what we know can be tossed to the side.
From a scientific standpoint, it is exactly zero evidence. From a faith-based perspective, people tend to believe what they want to believe, and so I completely understand and appreciate that things written in a book that all of your peers believe is true and accurate means that you're likely to believe it's true and accurate. I don't suffer from your groupthink and confirmation bias, and so written 3rd-party anecdotes such as this don't sway me.
And here you go putting a fallacy into play. Why is it that you insist that there is only way to show something and that is through science? There is no scientific evidence that Hilter existed. There are however, written accounts and documents as well as eye witnesses to events. Do you refused to suffer group think in this regard too? Now yes, we have video and audio recording of Hitler, but go back in time a bit before that was available. Do any of them exist?
Another way to think about "evidence" in situations like this: if these observations happened today, and were written down by someone in the same manner (i.e., we can't talk to the person making the observation, or the person that recorded the observation), would a courtroom in the US admit that account as evidence?
So if the mob kills all witnesses to the crime, the crime never happened?
I think the other poster was talking about the literal creation stories, where earth was created 6000 years ago, life was created exactly as it appears today, etc. None of that is consistent with our observations of the world around us and there are no plausible theories that incorporate both the creationist account and those observations.
Oh, a book adopted by a church that wants you to follow them... sure. Of course, you'll have to be given that book, in whatever edition suites the church best.
I'm not sure what you think your point is unless it's some sort of protest about someone saying read a math book when you have questions about math. Do you normally get all upset when someone says Read the fucking manual too? Because that is in essence what is happening here, you asked questions that had already been answered and right in front of you had you not refused to look for the answers yourself.
So why can't this "God" figure tell every single person what is expected instead of relying on other people or a book to spread the word?
And how exactly would he do that? Maybe put it in a book or tell others to spread the word? Or are you saying that God needs to hold your hand and walk you through everything instead of you learning something yourself? We learned early on in the bible that after the fall of man, God's tends to frighten people which is why he used specific people instead of just saying something. But hey, why let a perfectly good rant about what you think it wrong with something go to waste just because it's already answered in the reference material right?
It's not like this "God" has the omnipotent power to create universes in seven days and it can't make information readily available to each person.
Again, this is answered in the book called the bible. Perhaps you should gloss over it, or grab a cliff note's version so your ignorance is not so annoying and maybe your expectations can be grounded more within reality.
I guess you haven't read the bible. All those questions are answered in the first chapter- even most cliff notes versions that are available cover it well.
But judging from your comment, I would assume you aren't interested in knowing those answers and were attempting to troll.
With a code name like Prop M, it is no wonder people thought the moon landings happened in a Hollywood stage somewhere. I mean, Prop is what they call the set items used to give realistic effects to the stage and for helping tell stories, and of course M just seems like a catalog number.
Seriously, if i heard of a mars lander being called a prop, I might suspect some of the extremely extraordinary accomplishments too.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow.. There are so many things wrong here it's funny. Kids are not binary switched that either presume A or B and are incapable of knowing A and B or C,D,E,F either. They in fact can possess and process both evolution and creation and can in fact separate them for their uses as needed. The only reason a child would say evolution is incorrect is when someone either told them that, or someone told them that it makes the bible incorrect. As I previously stated, all you have to do is say science uses this and finds it useful when doing science and there is no conflict at all. The answer is not to restrict one or the other but to actually place them as they are- science and religion.
How about another earlier argument, just because you don't know about it or it doesn't work the way you expect doesn't mean it doesn't exist, didn't exist, or never existed (remember the black sheep). By the lack of information or evidence, the best you can say is I see no evidence to support that claim from a scientific standpoint. There is a reason why you couldn't purchase a flat screen TV in 1920.. It's because out technology has not advanced far enough to make it possible at the time. However, that does not mean it could never be possible.
Actually, they are not provably false. What you seem to refuse to understand is that what you know and see today can be the direct result of a creation event in the past. The dating of the rocks, the universe, all that can be because of something happening with the creation. All you have is a provable and reliable alternatives to any creation story.
If the agreement to use the barn included a provision that electricity would not be available, then that provision and not a warranty disclaimer would protect you.
I haven't read the terms worldcon offered but I suspect that they say something about infringement of a copyright instead of randomly refusing to complete service. However, this is more complicated then that because there are two separate yet distinct problems here. If the AI bot was under the control of the streaming provider, the actual claim of a false report could supersede any disclaimer for warranty of service.
Think of it as there being two separate and distinct acts here. In fact, lets assume there are two companies involved on the streaming and ending of the streaming part of this. First there is company A who provided the service. Then there is company B who files a complaint on copyright violations who got the service discontinued in the middle of it. They can technically be the same company but would be treated separate to show how the termination of service is two distinct separate pieces. First, company A has to receive a good faith complaint from company B (company B is actually the agent for the copyright holder). Company A then removed access to the claimed infringing content. The law gives company A immunity from liability for the acts associated with removing access if the procedures were set out and followed (there is no certainty of if they were or weren't). Company B is completely liable for any damages inured from issuing it's take down notice. There is absolutely no legal immunity or defense from that other then actually owning the copyright or being an agent of the owner and the accused being in violation of it. Company B cannot disclaim liability or issue a warranty disclaimer to get around that even when company A and company B are the same companies.
Now the important part here is that company B was performing a separate function then company A. Company B was acting as the agent of a third party- not the customer of company A's services and they made a legal claim that a customer of company A's service did not have a right to some of the copyrighted materials that customer used. So even though the two companies are actually the same company, the loss of services was the result of the company acting on the behalf of another entity and no agreement between the user of services can negate that. Can you imagine a salesman at an investment firm selling you lake front property with a vacation rentals as an investment when there is no lake or vacation houses to rent on the property and trying to release himself from any liability through warranty disclaimers and such when he is the agent of the seller too? It simply wouldn't work.
You cannot really absolve yourself from intentional acts that result in the dismissal of implied services. For instance,you cannot claim you will dig a trench to install a new water main for my home, then knowing that the code says it needs to be 42 inches deep, dig a 6 inch to 12 inch deep trench and say your terms disclaimed any warranty. Another instance, I cannot claim to offer a babysitting service, have you use my service and run out after 4 hours claiming absolutely no warranty when I was supposed to watch your kids for the 8 you were at work. Alternatively, in both situations, I can get hurt and require medical attention and get out of the obligations by a necessity outside my direct actions even if the impairing injury is a result of my own actions.
But let me explain this a little closer to how this situation folds out. Suppose you wanted to use my barn to host an event for one of your clubs. I give you access to it including parking on Friday from 4pm to 11 pm. You come in, set up, all your guests and members show up by 6pm, then the power goes out and you cannot put on your event or even serve the dinner that came with it. Now a no warranty disclaimer would absolve me from liability if the power outage was the result of something outside my control like a neighbor cut a tree down and it landed on the power lines or a car had an accident and took out a telephone pole. But it would not absolve me from liability had I scheduled an electrician to work on something and they disconnected the power to the barn to do it. It would not absolve me if I turned the power off as a joke. It would not absolve me if I turned the power off because I incorrectly thought you were doing something illegal and you weren't.
Freedom through obscurity is... Oh wait- what?
Not to mention that the safe harbor provisions do not exempt the issuer or claimed infringer from liability. It only provide a set of steps a network provider can take that gives them immunity if they follow them and act on the copyright holder or claimed infringer's behalf upon written notice.
If any company implement's their own copyright detection scheme, they end up acting as the agent of the copyright holder and the DMCA gives no exemptions to that agent. The purpose and intent of the DMCA take downs was to specifically provide neutral networks the ability to remain neutral and not be in violation of the new laws.
The DMCA only gives them immunity from copyright violations if they follow take down issued by copyright right holders and people or entities with rights to act on the copyright holder's behalf. They get immunity from damages incurred by the take down when they provide a way to reinstate the claimed offending material and actually allow that to happen within 15 days (if they ban the user without reinstating that material they lose the immunity from damages unless the copyright holder explicitly states they are going for an injunction).
The purpose of the DMCA's immunity is not to stack the law for or against someone. It is to allow network operators who are neutral to remain neutral without exposing themselves to liability. The problem here is, the DMCA does not exempt the copyright holder or anyone making the claim from any liability. When companies like youtube or Ustream take on the role of enforcement, they are essentially becoming the agent of the copyright holder and do no get an exemption of liability under the law from claiming something is in violation. Fair use of not, the DMCA does not give them immunity for the works of their bots.
I think he is one of those ron paulians or99% 'ers who thinks there will be another civil war in a few years because the Egyptians and Libyans did it and the Syrians are trying.
I've heard the claims of up coming civil wars from several distinct sources of people. It's generally the extreme libertarians who think the government has too much control and is too invasive in every day life and doesn't do the will of the people and the extreme socialist who think the government needs to provide more and doesn't listen to the people. The interesting thing is their point of agreement seems to be the government not listening to the people but what they want them to listen to seems to be completely at odds. At the risk of being modded down, I would liken this to Dumb and Dumber playing cowboys and Indians on the school yard by one group acting like bulls and the other group acting like tech support call centers you cannot understand..
Not necessarily. There can be an implied contract or warranty for service. If Ustream only streamed contracted events or programs you would be right. But if they stream as a public accommodation, source of self promotion, philanthropy, or any other reason and claim they will stream something as part of that, then an implied contract can be inferred without an actual contract existing. The difficulty lies within being able to enforce it without a written agreement. Sometimes it is obvious and there is not problem, sometimes it is less obvious and the case needs to be made.
lol.. I never said teaching kids about evolution was wrong, I said denying them creation or anything else because you insist evolution is the only true way was wrong. As I previously said, kids can easily approach things from separate paths as is easily demonstrated with their ability to play the game games on vastly different interfaces. Kids are not a static only one way will ever work.
That's fine and all if it is you and the kids you have a valid right to interact with. But don't try to force your beliefs onto anyone else- especially through the government who is supposed to not take any sides whatsoever at all on religion because of the Constitution.
But you have to think about some things too. Have you ever stopped to realize that a good majority of kids who claim something about creationism are just rebelling against what they think is the accepted norm for the sake of pissing you off? I used to do that in high school biology class all the time. I even claimed to be a Buddhist for 3 weeks to frustrate the teacher come time to dissect a frog. I dared him to give me bad grades or punish me for my religious beliefs. I then became a born again Christian right before becoming an evangelical Atheist because I didn't like the way he treated a friend of mine. 25 years later and I'm here playing devils advocate with you over the insistence that kids only learn that their religion, their parents religion, is wrong when forced to attend a government mandated education course.
So you are saying that if a supernatural being existed that was capable of doing something to impact our universe, he would have to do it in some spectacular way that is directly obvious to you and anyone else you think needs to know or understand it and no other way is possible? On what grounds to you base this necessity for some mind blowing interaction setting off seismographs and radar defense system that can only happen how you insist it must happen?
The point of my statement was to show how simple and subtle the interaction could possibly be and how difficult it might be to understand it or detect it.
Your strawman is bordering a false dichotomy. Burning witches and claiming the earth is flat is not something directly or even indirectly supported by
There is a hazardous materials response guide that all first responders will have access to. There will be a pocket version in every vehicle that would respond to a hazmat incident. Every truck that transports hazardous materials in the US has to have the pocket version in the truck also. There is even a toll free number that anyone can call in case of emergency that will provide the appropriate response including initial and mandatory evacuation distances. If someone is looking for a MSDS, they should not be making decisions at the scene other then maybe evacuation distances, they are under qualified.
In other words, they wouldn't even need the tablet with 3g access because the information should already be readily available to anyone qualified to respond.
Whether it is appropriate to believe something or not is sort of beside the point. The point is that it is inappropriate categorically deny something because you didn't see it or do not understanding how it could happen.
lol.. So it would have to happen the exact way you think it would happen. What if the divine intervention was making someone pause and check their pockets for an article they needed and the penny fell out at that time? You see, divine intervention does not have to work outside the laws of physics, it can work well within them for the most part.
There is a story about a flood coming and a preacher not leaving saying god will take care of him. As the town was evacuating, several people stopped and asked the preacher if he wanted a ride, he said no, god will take care of me. The river swelled past the banks and flooded the last road out of town and someone on a boat came by and said, hop in preacher, I'll get you to safety. The preacher said, that's ok, the lord with take care of me. Finally, the town is flooded and the preacher is sitting on a roof top and a helicopter came by. It lowered a rope and a guy who said put this harness on, well will fly you to safety. The preacher said, that's ok, god will take care of me. Later that night, the preacher went to sleep and fell off the roof and into the flood waters and died. He gets to heaven and asks why god didn't take care of him. The reply was, he sent the town folks to help you and the preacher denied that, he sent a boat to fetch you to safety and the preacher rejected that, he even sent a helicopter to help him and the preacher refused that. What more did the preacher expect to be done.
Whether you want to believe that any of those attempts to get the preacher to safety was divine intervention or not is beside the point that the intervention does not need to be some elaborate work of smoke and magic in order to happen.
But this is a bit beyond the concept of creationism though.
They used to claim that the increase lubrication caused greater fuel efficiency in the bio form. Diesel is a lot like gas where it is formulated in different types in different parts of the country at different times of the year. This claim may be just something that is regional or perhaps only applicable during certain types of the year.
As for restaurants, Every one I worked at sold the waste oil to make soap and other supplies from. At a family style restaurant I was part owner of once, we got something like $100-$150 a month from our waste oil and they came and picked it up. This was 20 years ago but I was really surprised to find stories of people just getting the waste oil from restaurants. They must have stopped using it for those purposes or maybe the owners didn't know of it.
And yet they call that a fallacy because all of what you know is not the entirety of what exists. dyeing wool is a common thing. He could just say a merchant did it and be both right or wrong.
How interesting. So you do not think that outside of an entity being divine, that it can interact with the known universe in ways that are not divine. As soon as entity is classified as divine, its abilities would be beyond any limitation you would arbitrarily place on it.
As for incomplete theories and suspect models, isn't the exact opposite happening? Well, first, when did science decide it knew everything and we couldn't know more? That alone seems a bit concerning, but the crux of the argument put forth seems to be that it is impossible for a divine or supernatural being to exist because science knows it all.
Not at all. You are the one insisting a set of rules exist that can never be broken despite it happening all around you on a quantum level.
lol.. You where just saying the opposite. Please make up your mind. Now, as I previously said, nothing is stopping your understanding of the universe as being the result of a creation. Do you understand that? What you know could be the direct result of a direct act. It may not point to that act either and even lead you to conclusions other than it. You can say the theories of evolution are supported by fact and are useful. You can even say creation is not needed, but you cannot say it "shuts down" any account of a creation.
Really? So you claim you do not believe in a god or the bible but you can speak for him should he exist.
As for your kids game of telephone, nothing you said yet has demonstrated your ignorance on the subject this well. You see, the stories weren't just recalled by some old fuck with a failing memory like the ancients in African tribes. The stories were very well part of every day life and people were expected to study them in public, learn and understand them, and recite them in front of everyone else in the village. There is no room for error because when someone got something wrong, the entire audience would correct them. There were entire feasts planned with the sole purpose of elders, priests and so on in a village would go to central locations and recite the same stories in front of others who knew it. the feast of tabernacles is one of these such events.
If someone got something wrong in the story, they were corrected. The jews still do this to this day, the Christians don't so much as a whole but it is still practiced. Your basic understanding is completely flawed on this.
Yes, just like history books are.
Everything you said could be said about history books. But here is where they are similar, the stories in the bible are not just made up. They were studied and told from generation to generation in a methodical way and everyone was supposed to know and understand it. How we know the bible is accurate, because except for a few minor wordings and the new testament, it's the same as the Jewish Talmud for the most part. Are you forgetting the Jesus was a Jew?
You mean other then ignore it and ask the questions already answered by it? Seriously, that is the point of contention here. You said if he wanted people to follow his word, he would have created a manual. Well, he did create one, it is more of a history book but answers all those questions and now you are objecting because one was created.
I'm pretty sure it is yours. You went through all that trouble trying to depict an elaborate scheme that you thinks means everyone else is incorrect but failed to recognize it wasn't done in a vacuum and the very same processes are what happens to this day with history as we know it.
Umm.. I guess your just too ignorant to get it. The bible is his manual.. It tells the history of his demands and how they changed over time and what he expects now.
You do not have to life you life based around the bible. We were given free will in order to make our own decisions on it. But when you ask stupid questions that are already answered, RTFM is somewhat appropriate.
There is a story about a guy who gets on a train. He looks out the window and see sheep. They are all white so he declares all sheep are white- none can be black or blue because he has never saw any like that. Are you saying that this guy is correct or something in his declaration simply because you too have only seen white sheep? You have other problems too. Why are you insisting that a divine intervention would have to deviate from the laws of physics as we know it? That is only a precondition imposed by you- you are essentially saying X can only do Y, Y can't happen therefore X is not true. But what you are neglecting is that the understanding of X or Y can very well be the basis for your understanding of the laws of nature/physics. But your rules of physics seem to not be hard set rules when we look at quantum applications so again, you have perpetuated the myth that everything has to be how you know it.
How can an eye witness confirm anything happen? How can any history be recorded and told after it happened? what makes you think the English actually lost the American revolutionary war or that injustices occurred in the practice of slavery? If eye witness accounts have no legitimacy at all, then most of what we know can be tossed to the side.
And here you go putting a fallacy into play. Why is it that you insist that there is only way to show something and that is through science? There is no scientific evidence that Hilter existed. There are however, written accounts and documents as well as eye witnesses to events. Do you refused to suffer group think in this regard too? Now yes, we have video and audio recording of Hitler, but go back in time a bit before that was available. Do any of them exist?
So if the mob kills all witnesses to the crime, the crime never happened?
I'm not sure what you think your point is unless it's some sort of protest about someone saying read a math book when you have questions about math. Do you normally get all upset when someone says Read the fucking manual too? Because that is in essence what is happening here, you asked questions that had already been answered and right in front of you had you not refused to look for the answers yourself.
And how exactly would he do that? Maybe put it in a book or tell others to spread the word? Or are you saying that God needs to hold your hand and walk you through everything instead of you learning something yourself? We learned early on in the bible that after the fall of man, God's tends to frighten people which is why he used specific people instead of just saying something. But hey, why let a perfectly good rant about what you think it wrong with something go to waste just because it's already answered in the reference material right?
Again, this is answered in the book called the bible. Perhaps you should gloss over it, or grab a cliff note's version so your ignorance is not so annoying and maybe your expectations can be grounded more within reality.
ha... I see what you did there.. must be turtles all the way down.
Why not? I mean you just did. The center of the universe had/has nothing to do with creationism. Perhaps you should practice what you preach some.
I guess you haven't read the bible. All those questions are answered in the first chapter- even most cliff notes versions that are available cover it well.
But judging from your comment, I would assume you aren't interested in knowing those answers and were attempting to troll.
You are correct, no one evolved from a monkey.
Interesting, a clueless AC chimes in with nonsense too. This world never stops impressing me.
Ok, I will admit I couldn't understand a word they were saying. But that was freaking awesome.. I can imagine what was being said..
With a code name like Prop M, it is no wonder people thought the moon landings happened in a Hollywood stage somewhere. I mean, Prop is what they call the set items used to give realistic effects to the stage and for helping tell stories, and of course M just seems like a catalog number.
Seriously, if i heard of a mars lander being called a prop, I might suspect some of the extremely extraordinary accomplishments too.