Parents forcing a cure on a child can be just as bad in some cases
I don't think this is the case.
Again, there are well accepted medical procedures that parents cannot consent for on behalf of their child.
These procedures obviously exclude things that are life-threatening, but are more cosmetic. For instance, a parent cannot consent to a boob job on behalf of their child. And since the child cannot consent to anything on their own until about 16~18 (depends on the procedure) they cannot get it.
Another example of something that a parent cannot consent to on behalf of a child is an abortion... unless it is life-threatening. And at 16-18 years (depending on the state), not at all, unless the patient cannot give consent themselves (in which case, the parent is a medical proxy.)
I remember when I was in high school and my brother told me that they used to use color blind people to spot the tanks in the world war because they were immune to color camouflage. I remember being totally surprised because at the time I thought they just painted the tanks that way to make them stand out more so people would see the tanks coming and run in fear! Honestly, you couldn't make it stand out more if you painted it yellow with big black polka dots. You can color it any way you want, it will always look the same... like a tank.
Look into Razzle Dazzle as a camouflage for boats in World War 1. You perhaps won't be able to appreciate much of the colors, but we painted boats crazy colors at weird angles to mess with people with color vision, because they could not appropriately account for the different shapes produced by the colors.
tetrachromat requires 4 color receptor coding genes...2 on each X-chromosome...the y-chromosome can only hold 1.
So I hope you're a female slashdotter. Otherwise, a gender-change seems to be an extreme price to pay to get your vision patched to tetrachromatic.
It's well known that a lot of the spontaneous genetic mutations occurs through duplication and later modification of that gene.
So, it makes sense that we had the blue-green sensors (just like our Ape ancestors) with the green sensor on the X chromosome. Then spontaneously the gene is duplicated, spreads throughout the population... perhaps this unmutated copy is held also by a close-ish related species. But then somewhere along the line it mutates, and voila, the first human ancestor can see red. This is now a positive mutation, and spreads throughout the species.
Done and done.:) Theory matches fact... more proof of Evolution.
The genes wouldn't have to be on the X-chromosome, would they?
And technically, you don't have to be female to be a tetrochromat. It's the TDF gene that determines sex, not the chromosome. And due to a variety of genetic, environmental, and endocrinological disorders, a person's sex doesn't always match their genes.
One does however need two X-chromosomes for natural tetrachromaticity. Which is possible if someone ends up with an XXY genotype. These individuals typically come out male, yet are just as likely as females to have color-blindness and other sex-linked conditions.
So, yeah, it's kind of possible that a male with congenital adrenal hyperplasia could end up with natural tetrachromaticity, but tetrachromaticity is quite rare as well.
But the fact remains that color blindness is a disability, even though it is a lesser disability than most.
But color blindness is not as big of a disability, because we actually account for it, and it is not actively discriminated against.
If people are fine with it, and do not want to risk the cure, then fine. That's their choice. They do not HAVE to be fixed, that's the whole point of a right of self determination. Parents forcing a cure on a child can be just as bad in some cases, and there are certain well accepted medical conditions that parents cannot consent for on behalf of their children.
There are a number of DSM conditions that are not really a problem unless they start causing profound issues with the person's life.
There are already a number of conditions that can be corrected if they must be... but the question still remains: is this problem so bad that the risks involved in the cure outweigh the dangers involved in the process. No medical cure is without side-effects, or dangers of incorrect application. This retrovirus correcting your red-green colorblindness might also kill off all of your red/green cones.
As always, if this is causing a problem with the person's life, and they have given informed consent as to the corrective procedure, then ok.
It's the same with depression. Everyone gets depressed once and awhile, but the question is, has it become so profound that it needs correction.
So, there were only 1:10 Germans per Japanese "rounded up", but then Germans certainly exceeded 100:1 or 1,000:1 to Japanese... this idea that they were "soundly rounded up" is kind of inaccurate. If one were Japanese-American, one were much more likely to be interned. Likely, if one were a German-American (like my grandfather's family, which were 100% German) one were most likely not to be interned at all... or even particularly hassled.
This all being said, I'm 25% pure German blood, speak German fluently, and would rather be a German citizen than an American citizen most of the time. I would likely be one of those Germans rounded up at the time...
As I was filling out the Census Form for our household, I asked my roommate the questions. She was absolutely surprised at how short it was, and was full of "so why are people freaking out about this?"
That would mean Representatives and Senators would be subject to arrest on their way to voting.
I'm sure THAT would NEVER be abused. EVER.
I remember hearing about a legislative body, where the minority had enough people that if they weren't there, there would be no quorum, so the body couldn't get anything done. They were really upset about a particular issue, and just disappeared. There was a lot of questions about whether they could be arrested and returned to the legislative body.
OMG... no. It does not DESTROY the pain sensor. It binds to it. Receptors--all of them--can be overwhelmed though. This is why "the second pepper isn't as hot". The pain receptors are activated, and the brain starts ignoring a certain level of input from them.
If capsaicin worked the way you describe it, House would have injected it into his leg and killed off all the pain receptors long ago.
If you'll notice, almost all communities that make very spicy dishes serve them with milk products, lots of starches, and acidic sauces or side dishes. They usually have some potent alcohol to go along with it. Mexican food is a perfect example, but Thai and Indian foods follow the pattern just as well.
A. The best way to ease the burning sensation is to drink milk, or eat any dairy product.A substance found in dairy products known as casein helps to disrupt the burning sensation. If you get the oil on your skin you may want to rub it with rubbing alcohol first then soak in milk, this seems to alleviate the burning. If you get capsaicinoids in your eyes the only thing you can do is repeatedly rinse with water.
It's also best to use latex gloves when dealing with them... i.e. cleaning them, cutting them up, preparing them, etc.
New Mexicans seem to be a different breed of chile consumer... but then, from our best understandings, that's the area where they seem to have originated...
From comments on TFA, "The Lab" writes: "a science editor would be more capable of pointing out what is really exciting here, which is the ability to stop cells from producing a given protein."
I think the cancer aspect is great (if it works) but this has potential for curing a whole host of diseases.
Now we just need to figure out how to change people's DNA on the fly.
Does this mean that we could make the body START to produce a protein? Like... to fix the human dependency of Vitamin C in our diets?
I know I mentioned this one time on slashdot before, but it'd be super cool to fix us to being like every other animal on Earth (except Guinea Pigs) and make our own Vitamin C...
The precise problem with how East-Asian languages are taught is rote memorization. They present you with a character and simply say "this means language", and it's pronounced "go".
Likewise, Japanese tends to teach by patterns. Example: "*owner* wa *object* ga arimasu" means "owner has an/the object". Then later, they say "in order to say that someone has done something, use the pattern: *doer* wa *action in informal case* no ga arimasu."
The problem with this, is that people don't realize that the "no" particle above is being used to turn a sentence into a noun phrase, and you're simply saying literally, "the person has that action", the same as if you were saying that they have an object.
We present these languages, and scripts as if the only way to learn them is through rote memorization...
I like how people purpose mnemonic techniques and everything for remembering the Chinese characters, when they're composed of relatively simple characters. Sure there are 214 radicals, and some chars without radicals, but seriously, remembering that a word is composed of "tree tree cover" is like remembering that "marajuana" has a "j" that is pronounced like an "h" because it's from Spanish.
So much of this confusion about Chinese characters is because they're so opaque, and no one seems to bother to teach them well enough.
Nobody breaks into people's houses to install hardware keyloggers to steal their online banking passwords. And yet, some banks put up "security measures" like on-screen keyboards you have to type on with a mouse just to avoid keyloggers.
Except the investigating police force, which is trying to catch the person who stole tons of money. If the bank loses that money because it was made illegally by another person, they have to foot the costs of the investments that they had made with that money.
It's like the Safe Deposit box security in Swiss banks... of course they don't want to lose all that gold and money that the Nazis stole.
Well, I'm fortunately blessed with good ability to break apart the law and seek out the understand of it. I took the example LSATs and placed in the 90th percentile, despite starting to take it at 10pm, reasonably drunk, and while my fiancé at the time and his mother were yelling/discussing in the room next door.
I've already been helping out some lawyers dealing with issues for my fiancé and his mom as sort of a paralegal, but also providing some insight. I was able to explain to a former assistant attorney general why jurisdiction in the particular case was wrong (the wording was super gay), and another younger lawyer at an upscale lawfirm told me that I was pretty much the best paralegal he ever had.
In any case, I'm not so sure about working the IP field... in fact, it's likely the least likely for me to work in. I'd probably work in labor law, and discrimination... maybe ACLU... I'm certainly not looking at this for money.:)
> if his car was operating at wide open throttle his car had plenty of vacuum.
A gasoline engine has little or no vacuum at wide open throttle. It's the pistons pumping air out of the manifold while the throttle limits the rate at which it can flow in that creates the vacuum. If you'd ever driven a really old car you'd know this: the vacuum-operated windshield wipers quit when you floor the accelerator.
In a new car with power-breaks tough, it would be a hydraulic system, not a vacuum system though, right?
With the engine past the redline there is very little vacuum to operate the power brakes. Without power assist the brakes may not be able to overcome the engine (this is, IMHO, a fundamental design defect).
The police officer who helped stop the guy in California remarked on camera that he definitely knew that the brakes were being applied/had been applied enough to heat them up to the point that he could smell them.
Given practical software engineering conditions though, a) is highly unlikely while b) is highly likely.
Anyone who is properly aware of programming should realize that (a) is almost impossible, while (b) is almost guaranteed.
Unless you've been programming like the people who program for the Space Shuttles, then bugs are a certainty, especially in uncertain hardware.
Toyota defended against the ABC story where the guy caused unintended acceleration by damaged a wiring harness with "this is a condition that we don't feel that we have to test for." Such a statement is absurd! Why is your software NOT prepared to deal with something like that? Do you have any fault detection at all?
People have a tendency to assume that their software will always be running on pristine hardware, and in cases where a failure will not result in a danger to life or limb, that's a perfectly reasonable assumption. If your hardware fails so bad that your software won't work, then no big loss, buy a new one. But in situations were people are trusting their lives and safety on computers, you should never make the assumption that your hardware is "pristine"... check for faults, check for the "two plus two equals five condition", check for EVERYTHING YOU CAN.
But this won't actually happen, because 4 incidents resulting in death will cost the company less than the time required to ensure that they would get 0 incidents.
I think your model's premise is based on probability more than presumption, which is what I didn't initially see, or I might have been able to clarify this sooner.
I think if I had been aware of Black's Law Dictionary definition of "presumption" I might have saved us a bunch of time as well.
*laugh*
Hey, if you're in the Seattle area, would you be willing to take on a legal clerk seeking to eventually take the bar? lol Law school is cool, and all, but I don't really have the money to afford it... actually, other ideas might help out as well.
Then you should not insist on monomaniacal fidelity to a self-created model that contradicts reality, both technical and legal. As I said, it's not an illogical model, it's just not the one that actually exists
I do not see how you could call this "monomaniacal fidelity"... as you have been educating me this whole time, I've dropped numerous misconceptions left and right... That I'm boneheaded enough that you have to explain it multiple times, or in different ways is this any different from any person learning? I don't think so. No one learns perfectly from mistaken to correct in one step.
While you see my "false pedanticism" is interfering with the issue, it's now helping me understand. You have since clarified that I had the entire model wrong. The model as I presented it, must have a "default" or "catch-all" state...
Perhaps if you had been clearer, or I had been less boneheaded sooner, I would have understood that the entire model was wrong. Basically, that vesting of copyright interest is applied well before the work is created, rather than after the work is created. That would be the missing piece I was missing all along.
These misunderstandings should be a natural expectation to occur in the situation where Slashdot posts a story by a layperson opining about UK law, and commentors discussing it as if it were US law.
I do however appreciate you remaining on the case until I understood this stuff better.
I do definitely appreciate posting the definition for "presumption"... I don't have Black's Law Dictionary, nor ready access to it, so it helps me understand the correct language that you're using, and avoid equivocating with common non-legal language.
Ok, to bring things back together. The proper way to think about the "pseudo-code" for this matter would be:
var work = artist creates a work
if (work is for hire) work->author = patron else work->author = artist
work->copyright = work->author
As a personal matter, I cannot pedantically accept this as not having a "default state". There is one condition, and a "catch all" condition that applies for all other cases.
I suppose easiest way to describe what I'm saying is that the artist has the copyrights via "catch all", should no other conditions apply...
To me, this states a "default" state. I can understand and accept a difference in the legal wording actually used by law.
What I was attempting to establish for myself, was what would be the best possible language for any particular party. If the contract is not written so as to state that it is "work for hire", whether this is fundamentally necessary in court or not, is a good idea, because it could potentially be the single failing pin to determining that it is a work for hire.
Namely, saying in a contract that something is being performed as a "work for hire" is not sufficient to ensure that it is so, but it can end up being necessary.
Imagine the red face on a patron, whom after fighting in court to have the copyrights found in him, finds that if his contract had just said "this is a work for hire", would have had the copyrights... yet because of a failure to state so in the contract, he does not.
Thus, for the patron, regardless of if a "work for hire" argument would succeed in court, it is still in their best interest to include such language in the contract.
Basically, as my sig used to say, I'm a pedantic bitch... I like to ensure that everything is covered as precisely as possible.
Do you care if your neighbor is from your own culture and thus understands, for example, that it's not acceptable to make loud noises at night because most folks work during the day? And thus someone from a culture where partying outside well into the morning hours is going to be bothering the hell out of you?
Wait... so them teenagers are all dirty foreigners? I KNEW IT!!!
The same argument was made with the Irish, and the Italians, and what do we think now? Is there anything more American than going out to a bar on St. Patty's day and drinking yourself drunk. And more so, is there anything more American than our pizza, spaghetti, etc?
This "culture" argument is stupid, and has been blown off hojillions of times before in our culture.
Slashdot Mirror
Parents forcing a cure on a child can be just as bad in some cases
I don't think this is the case.
Again, there are well accepted medical procedures that parents cannot consent for on behalf of their child.
These procedures obviously exclude things that are life-threatening, but are more cosmetic. For instance, a parent cannot consent to a boob job on behalf of their child. And since the child cannot consent to anything on their own until about 16~18 (depends on the procedure) they cannot get it.
Another example of something that a parent cannot consent to on behalf of a child is an abortion... unless it is life-threatening. And at 16-18 years (depending on the state), not at all, unless the patient cannot give consent themselves (in which case, the parent is a medical proxy.)
I remember when I was in high school and my brother told me that they used to use color blind people to spot the tanks in the world war because they were immune to color camouflage. I remember being totally surprised because at the time I thought they just painted the tanks that way to make them stand out more so people would see the tanks coming and run in fear! Honestly, you couldn't make it stand out more if you painted it yellow with big black polka dots. You can color it any way you want, it will always look the same... like a tank.
Look into Razzle Dazzle as a camouflage for boats in World War 1. You perhaps won't be able to appreciate much of the colors, but we painted boats crazy colors at weird angles to mess with people with color vision, because they could not appropriately account for the different shapes produced by the colors.
tetrachromat requires 4 color receptor coding genes...2 on each X-chromosome...the y-chromosome can only hold 1.
So I hope you're a female slashdotter. Otherwise, a gender-change seems to be an extreme price to pay to get your vision patched to tetrachromatic.
It's well known that a lot of the spontaneous genetic mutations occurs through duplication and later modification of that gene.
So, it makes sense that we had the blue-green sensors (just like our Ape ancestors) with the green sensor on the X chromosome. Then spontaneously the gene is duplicated, spreads throughout the population... perhaps this unmutated copy is held also by a close-ish related species. But then somewhere along the line it mutates, and voila, the first human ancestor can see red. This is now a positive mutation, and spreads throughout the species.
Done and done. :) Theory matches fact... more proof of Evolution.
The genes wouldn't have to be on the X-chromosome, would they?
And technically, you don't have to be female to be a tetrochromat. It's the TDF gene that determines sex, not the chromosome. And due to a variety of genetic, environmental, and endocrinological disorders, a person's sex doesn't always match their genes.
One does however need two X-chromosomes for natural tetrachromaticity. Which is possible if someone ends up with an XXY genotype. These individuals typically come out male, yet are just as likely as females to have color-blindness and other sex-linked conditions.
So, yeah, it's kind of possible that a male with congenital adrenal hyperplasia could end up with natural tetrachromaticity, but tetrachromaticity is quite rare as well.
But the fact remains that color blindness is a disability, even though it is a lesser disability than most.
But color blindness is not as big of a disability, because we actually account for it, and it is not actively discriminated against.
If people are fine with it, and do not want to risk the cure, then fine. That's their choice. They do not HAVE to be fixed, that's the whole point of a right of self determination. Parents forcing a cure on a child can be just as bad in some cases, and there are certain well accepted medical conditions that parents cannot consent for on behalf of their children.
There are a number of DSM conditions that are not really a problem unless they start causing profound issues with the person's life.
There are already a number of conditions that can be corrected if they must be... but the question still remains: is this problem so bad that the risks involved in the cure outweigh the dangers involved in the process. No medical cure is without side-effects, or dangers of incorrect application. This retrovirus correcting your red-green colorblindness might also kill off all of your red/green cones.
As always, if this is causing a problem with the person's life, and they have given informed consent as to the corrective procedure, then ok.
It's the same with depression. Everyone gets depressed once and awhile, but the question is, has it become so profound that it needs correction.
Compare and contrast these "concentration camps" with the Nazi version of "concentration camps".
Germans were soundly rounded up as well. I think the Italians got a free ride in WWII, and God only knows where the Irish were sent. Dubuque, I heard.
(Numbers are approximate.)
Japanese-Americans interned up: 110,000
German-Americans interned: 11,000
Italian-Americans interned: somewhere between 200~400
So, there were only 1:10 Germans per Japanese "rounded up", but then Germans certainly exceeded 100:1 or 1,000:1 to Japanese... this idea that they were "soundly rounded up" is kind of inaccurate. If one were Japanese-American, one were much more likely to be interned. Likely, if one were a German-American (like my grandfather's family, which were 100% German) one were most likely not to be interned at all... or even particularly hassled.
This all being said, I'm 25% pure German blood, speak German fluently, and would rather be a German citizen than an American citizen most of the time. I would likely be one of those Germans rounded up at the time...
As I was filling out the Census Form for our household, I asked my roommate the questions. She was absolutely surprised at how short it was, and was full of "so why are people freaking out about this?"
That would mean Representatives and Senators would be subject to arrest on their way to voting.
I'm sure THAT would NEVER be abused. EVER.
I remember hearing about a legislative body, where the minority had enough people that if they weren't there, there would be no quorum, so the body couldn't get anything done. They were really upset about a particular issue, and just disappeared. There was a lot of questions about whether they could be arrested and returned to the legislative body.
OMG... no. It does not DESTROY the pain sensor. It binds to it. Receptors--all of them--can be overwhelmed though. This is why "the second pepper isn't as hot". The pain receptors are activated, and the brain starts ignoring a certain level of input from them.
If capsaicin worked the way you describe it, House would have injected it into his leg and killed off all the pain receptors long ago.
If you'll notice, almost all communities that make very spicy dishes serve them with milk products, lots of starches, and acidic sauces or side dishes. They usually have some potent alcohol to go along with it. Mexican food is a perfect example, but Thai and Indian foods follow the pattern just as well.
Let's ask the Chile Pepper Institute: http://www.chilepepperinstitute.org/frequently_asked_questions.php
Q. How do you get the burning to stop?
A. The best way to ease the burning sensation is to drink milk, or eat any dairy product.A substance found in dairy products known as casein helps to disrupt the burning sensation. If you get the oil on your skin you may want to rub it with rubbing alcohol first then soak in milk, this seems to alleviate the burning. If you get capsaicinoids in your eyes the only thing you can do is repeatedly rinse with water.
It's also best to use latex gloves when dealing with them... i.e. cleaning them, cutting them up, preparing them, etc.
New Mexicans seem to be a different breed of chile consumer... but then, from our best understandings, that's the area where they seem to have originated...
From comments on TFA, "The Lab" writes: "a science editor would be more capable of pointing out what is really exciting here, which is the ability to stop cells from producing a given protein."
I think the cancer aspect is great (if it works) but this has potential for curing a whole host of diseases.
Now we just need to figure out how to change people's DNA on the fly.
Does this mean that we could make the body START to produce a protein? Like... to fix the human dependency of Vitamin C in our diets?
I know I mentioned this one time on slashdot before, but it'd be super cool to fix us to being like every other animal on Earth (except Guinea Pigs) and make our own Vitamin C...
You're just jealous that we'd have them talking English within the week, and have built a call-centre around them in two.
You Brits don't speak REAL English, though...
Our TV broadcasts have already spoken for us, and it wasn't a good message.
WE DEMAND TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO SINGLE WHITE FEMALE LAWYER!!
The precise problem with how East-Asian languages are taught is rote memorization. They present you with a character and simply say "this means language", and it's pronounced "go".
Likewise, Japanese tends to teach by patterns. Example: "*owner* wa *object* ga arimasu" means "owner has an/the object". Then later, they say "in order to say that someone has done something, use the pattern: *doer* wa *action in informal case* no ga arimasu."
The problem with this, is that people don't realize that the "no" particle above is being used to turn a sentence into a noun phrase, and you're simply saying literally, "the person has that action", the same as if you were saying that they have an object.
We present these languages, and scripts as if the only way to learn them is through rote memorization...
I like how people purpose mnemonic techniques and everything for remembering the Chinese characters, when they're composed of relatively simple characters. Sure there are 214 radicals, and some chars without radicals, but seriously, remembering that a word is composed of "tree tree cover" is like remembering that "marajuana" has a "j" that is pronounced like an "h" because it's from Spanish.
So much of this confusion about Chinese characters is because they're so opaque, and no one seems to bother to teach them well enough.
Nobody breaks into people's houses to install hardware keyloggers to steal their online banking passwords. And yet, some banks put up "security measures" like on-screen keyboards you have to type on with a mouse just to avoid keyloggers.
Except the investigating police force, which is trying to catch the person who stole tons of money. If the bank loses that money because it was made illegally by another person, they have to foot the costs of the investments that they had made with that money.
It's like the Safe Deposit box security in Swiss banks... of course they don't want to lose all that gold and money that the Nazis stole.
Well, I'm fortunately blessed with good ability to break apart the law and seek out the understand of it. I took the example LSATs and placed in the 90th percentile, despite starting to take it at 10pm, reasonably drunk, and while my fiancé at the time and his mother were yelling/discussing in the room next door.
I've already been helping out some lawyers dealing with issues for my fiancé and his mom as sort of a paralegal, but also providing some insight. I was able to explain to a former assistant attorney general why jurisdiction in the particular case was wrong (the wording was super gay), and another younger lawyer at an upscale lawfirm told me that I was pretty much the best paralegal he ever had.
In any case, I'm not so sure about working the IP field... in fact, it's likely the least likely for me to work in. I'd probably work in labor law, and discrimination... maybe ACLU... I'm certainly not looking at this for money. :)
> if his car was operating at wide open throttle his car had plenty of vacuum.
A gasoline engine has little or no vacuum at wide open throttle. It's the pistons pumping air out of the manifold while the throttle limits the rate at which it can flow in that creates the vacuum. If you'd ever driven a really old car you'd know this: the vacuum-operated windshield wipers quit when you floor the accelerator.
In a new car with power-breaks tough, it would be a hydraulic system, not a vacuum system though, right?
*she says ramming her nose into boy talk*
> And I know how to hit the brakes...
With the engine past the redline there is very little vacuum to operate the power brakes. Without power assist the brakes may not be able to overcome the engine (this is, IMHO, a fundamental design defect).
The police officer who helped stop the guy in California remarked on camera that he definitely knew that the brakes were being applied/had been applied enough to heat them up to the point that he could smell them.
Given practical software engineering conditions though, a) is highly unlikely while b) is highly likely.
Anyone who is properly aware of programming should realize that (a) is almost impossible, while (b) is almost guaranteed.
Unless you've been programming like the people who program for the Space Shuttles, then bugs are a certainty, especially in uncertain hardware.
Toyota defended against the ABC story where the guy caused unintended acceleration by damaged a wiring harness with "this is a condition that we don't feel that we have to test for." Such a statement is absurd! Why is your software NOT prepared to deal with something like that? Do you have any fault detection at all?
People have a tendency to assume that their software will always be running on pristine hardware, and in cases where a failure will not result in a danger to life or limb, that's a perfectly reasonable assumption. If your hardware fails so bad that your software won't work, then no big loss, buy a new one. But in situations were people are trusting their lives and safety on computers, you should never make the assumption that your hardware is "pristine"... check for faults, check for the "two plus two equals five condition", check for EVERYTHING YOU CAN.
But this won't actually happen, because 4 incidents resulting in death will cost the company less than the time required to ensure that they would get 0 incidents.
I think your model's premise is based on probability more than presumption, which is what I didn't initially see, or I might have been able to clarify this sooner.
I think if I had been aware of Black's Law Dictionary definition of "presumption" I might have saved us a bunch of time as well.
*laugh*
Hey, if you're in the Seattle area, would you be willing to take on a legal clerk seeking to eventually take the bar? lol Law school is cool, and all, but I don't really have the money to afford it... actually, other ideas might help out as well.
Then you should not insist on monomaniacal fidelity to a self-created model that contradicts reality, both technical and legal. As I said, it's not an illogical model, it's just not the one that actually exists
I do not see how you could call this "monomaniacal fidelity"... as you have been educating me this whole time, I've dropped numerous misconceptions left and right... That I'm boneheaded enough that you have to explain it multiple times, or in different ways is this any different from any person learning? I don't think so. No one learns perfectly from mistaken to correct in one step.
While you see my "false pedanticism" is interfering with the issue, it's now helping me understand. You have since clarified that I had the entire model wrong. The model as I presented it, must have a "default" or "catch-all" state...
Perhaps if you had been clearer, or I had been less boneheaded sooner, I would have understood that the entire model was wrong. Basically, that vesting of copyright interest is applied well before the work is created, rather than after the work is created. That would be the missing piece I was missing all along.
These misunderstandings should be a natural expectation to occur in the situation where Slashdot posts a story by a layperson opining about UK law, and commentors discussing it as if it were US law.
I do however appreciate you remaining on the case until I understood this stuff better.
I do definitely appreciate posting the definition for "presumption"... I don't have Black's Law Dictionary, nor ready access to it, so it helps me understand the correct language that you're using, and avoid equivocating with common non-legal language.
Ok, to bring things back together. The proper way to think about the "pseudo-code" for this matter would be:
var work = artist creates a work
if (work is for hire) work->author = patron
else work->author = artist
work->copyright = work->author
As a personal matter, I cannot pedantically accept this as not having a "default state". There is one condition, and a "catch all" condition that applies for all other cases.
I suppose easiest way to describe what I'm saying is that the artist has the copyrights via "catch all", should no other conditions apply...
To me, this states a "default" state. I can understand and accept a difference in the legal wording actually used by law.
What I was attempting to establish for myself, was what would be the best possible language for any particular party. If the contract is not written so as to state that it is "work for hire", whether this is fundamentally necessary in court or not, is a good idea, because it could potentially be the single failing pin to determining that it is a work for hire.
Namely, saying in a contract that something is being performed as a "work for hire" is not sufficient to ensure that it is so, but it can end up being necessary.
Imagine the red face on a patron, whom after fighting in court to have the copyrights found in him, finds that if his contract had just said "this is a work for hire", would have had the copyrights... yet because of a failure to state so in the contract, he does not.
Thus, for the patron, regardless of if a "work for hire" argument would succeed in court, it is still in their best interest to include such language in the contract.
Basically, as my sig used to say, I'm a pedantic bitch... I like to ensure that everything is covered as precisely as possible.
Do you care if your neighbor is from your own culture and thus understands, for example, that it's not acceptable to make loud noises at night because most folks work during the day? And thus someone from a culture where partying outside well into the morning hours is going to be bothering the hell out of you?
Wait... so them teenagers are all dirty foreigners? I KNEW IT!!!
The same argument was made with the Irish, and the Italians, and what do we think now? Is there anything more American than going out to a bar on St. Patty's day and drinking yourself drunk. And more so, is there anything more American than our pizza, spaghetti, etc?
This "culture" argument is stupid, and has been blown off hojillions of times before in our culture.