As I pointed out in my other post, using some of your video around scientific facts could be construed as satire. However, using your image and name isn't cool, if they haven't identified it as satire. Even if they did, I think this isn't a copyright issue, but a libel issue. The video isn't the issue, but your personal character and reputation. Moreover, I believe libel claims have less gray area than copyright, and even if the video isn't a for profit venture, you can get money out of a libel claim.

Not sure why the religious org would lie and claim ownership. After all, I think fair use applies (whether or not you agree with the use):

1) Satire.
2) Did you create the video (looks to be an animated rendering), or is it mashed up? If it's your original content, then there's some protection there, but you can't copyright facts. The same organization could take the source data, and assuming they used the same software you used, would the end product be materially different?

That said, IANAL, but I do believe there are limits on how much of the original content one uses. I can create a satirical derivative of your work all day long, but I don't think I can use the entire thing, only a portion.

Wait, it's a "religious organization", in which case all values fly out the window. If this was an atheist organization pilfering a church's video and redubbing, it'd be "fair use", no?

Public defenders are for those accused of criminal acts. This is a civil case. So no, the OP can't spend tax payer dollars to enforce their copyright.

However, you might be thinking of finding a copyright friendly attorney to do it pro bono, it which case there's no limitations.

How many users are on the Nexus, as opposed to HTC, Motorola, and Samsung devices?

1) User groups, conferences: network network network
2) Volunteer to speak, and put that up on your blog
3) Oh yeah, start a blog. Blog regularly
4) Build your own sites/sample sites

Good approach to getting work: build site, find clients later. Most websites aren't that different. Pick an industry (say, air conditioning repair). Build a generic air conditioning repair site. Then go pitch it to those businesses (Google and start with the ones with current ugliest site); they'll always have you make customizations.

I prefer version number, but they rev so fast that it's irrelevant. Not to mention that when they released on iOS (which is merely a wrapper on WebKit, not a full app with some of the original Chrome bits), they didn't start at 1.0. Had Chrome on my phone for a couple of months, and it's telling me I have an update available for 21.0.1180.80.

I believe the poster was referring to the real version number, not the marketing title. They've incremented more or less in the same way since v 1.0, and for years have included revision/build number (Windows 7 Service Pack 1 is 6.1.7601.17514)

Even if they left, they wouldn't leave. Most iOS devices use Samsung displays.

What if we identify the so called "gay gene"? Rest assured that the Fox News crowd will be rejoicing at the idea of "designer babies" at that point.

The random parent out there wants their kids to be successful. What if we can identify whether a kid would be a 6'6" outgoing athlete as opposed to an introverted short kid who excels in math?

I have CF. I can't play sports, or spend alot of time outside, or do any kind of manual labor. It sucks, yeah, but it also pushed to intellectualism and a career that fits me perfectly (computer programming). Would the world have been better off with another high school jock or construction worker as opposed to a developer?

An example in the post: Cystic Fibrosis. CF patients have increased cholera survival. Most cholera patients die of dehydration, whereas the sodium chloride imbalance in the cells of CF patients allows them to retain more water. (Disclosure: I have CF)

Why do we celebrate college dropouts who form spectacularly successful Internet startups then?

Science is wonderful: not just the science that supports our world view. Articles on Slashdot frequently parade movements to challenge the science status quo (people making rockets in their garage, open source approaches to publication, etc. Perhaps his findings are garbage, but most of your post was nothing more than an ad hominem attack; your only reference to his research was a link to someone else's challenge, not any original thought of your own.

I don't care who he works for, his education level, or who may have sponsored him at any time. Plenty of lesser men is lesser circumstances have changed the world. Let's talk about his findings, and not cheat ourselves by using words like "trash" as if they carried any weight.