For the content, one only needs a good faith belief. There could be a garage band in the background singing "row roe row your boat" and the automated whatever thinks it is part of some bands album and issues the warning. That would be a good faith belief that the content was infringing. But as you showed, would not be perjury.
The perjury clause isn't for the claim of infringement or mistaken claim, it's for the statement that you are a copyright owner and/or authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. For the actually claimed infringement, it only takes a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
Misidentifying a file would not be perjury. The best that could happen is damages and law fees from the person making the claim of infringement.
Is there some reason they would jump to an "it's aliens" conclusion in this case?
It's in the wording of the article summery. Radio pulse sort of initially brings thoughts of a radio station receiver like in a car or home theater, a purpose constructed signal meant to convey messages. Add in the "might have been picking up signals originating from sources on or near Earth" and it kind of reinforces the sentiment of a constructed signal.
GP isn't the only one making that jump either. There are some posts about decoding it and so on.
Listen, I understand how you feel threatened by what I said. I understand how you badly want it not to be true. But we are not talking about those who can do the science, the entire premise was those who cannot. It doesn't matter who is here and not right now, those people will only be able to trust what you say is true.
As for miracles, try doing a google search for modern miracles and see what doesn't happen any more. People are still claiming they happen.
I'm sure there is a huge difference when you ignore the parts you do not agree with. Like this sections started out though, you don't get to ignore reality and impose your own. You do not have to believe miracles happen but you do have to acknowledge that others do. Your premise is lot on reality.
You are probably correct.
However, you would think that the laser would need to be sighted separate from the gun. In order to compensate for gravity, the barrel of the gun is usually lifted so the trajectory is an arch of sorts rather than a straight line. A laser on the other hand, while also suffering from gravity, will not be near as much or even notifiable. This isn't a problem with handguns because the range they are used in is so close that gravity doesn't take hold. Long shots will require a lot of compensation.
Perhaps there is also a method of pre-aiming the so it is as accurate as the sights on the riffle.
People claim miracles still happen. People claim they talk with God, have a personal relationship with Jesus. That is happening today.
I get it. You don't seem to though. To most people, the claim that you recreated the science so it is true will be no different than me saying God told me to give you $20. When someone is incapable of doing the science for whatever reason, they are left with believing what someone else says. It's not difficult and I understand your rejection of it, But it is the reality we live in.
Sigh.. The high school science teacher (preacher) does not have to prove anything- just dictate from the book. The students (parishioners) have to learn it and accept it in order to get a passing grade and graduate. It all revolves around trusting that what someone else says is true. How is this no different?
And no, the scientific method doesn't make any difference to those who have no ability to check it. You are basically saying that because others will also say it is true, you will believe it to be true. But then we are bombarded with articles about scientific journals printing improper materials and groups of people conspiring to taint peer review. But you trust is it all true. NASA has basically lost the magical incantations to build a Saturn V rocket and yet you can prove it wrong.
Yes, some people, somewhere, might end up with enough knowledge and resources to test something. People also claim to be told to do things by God, to see miracles, that their success is because of a God. For the vast majority of people, there is no difference in mental process. You have faith in science, people have faith in religion, some people have both because they are both tools and used for different purposes.
I don't know if he and any link to anything he has said but project echelon has been around for a while and near as I can tell, records the audio and uses a computer to search for key words. If the key word was found, it was sent to a live person for further review and any actions if necessary. This setup necessarily required recording in order to preserve the calls for review.
There was no discretion in the calls either. The only difference between these claims and Echelon is that echelon used foreign agents to collect US data in order to skirt constitutional issues.
It would probably be easier to have a couple cameras capable of seeing infrared and ultraviolet. You will see the laser on target and can just remove yourself from the area before the trigger is pulled.
To the masses, there is no difference. Even to you, there is likely no difference for the most part. People claim they talk to God all the time, they say God told them to do something. God telling several people to do something is little different to someone who doesn't posess the knowlege,, skill, resources, or time to verify everything science says. It's just more people in robes (lab coats) telling them something is true.
) The scientists making the claims have access to particle colliers, arrays of telescopes, etc., with which they CAN AND DO objectively recreate the claims being made.
And the people making the claims in the bible had access to God or so the claim is. People to this day believe God told them to do things.
2) The religious leaders making religious claims have nothing more than dusty old books, with which they CANNOT AND DO NOT recreate the miracles that the books claim, nor do they objectively demonstrate the existence of God.
Dusty old books just like science text books. The science teachers (preachers) rely largely on the exact same principles and your students do too. The point is not that one is right or wrong, it was that the process of dissemination is not much different and the weight you place on it is mooted because few people will ever be able to do the science or invalidate any claims.
So, humans that are alive and working TODAY can demonstrate the claims of science, whereas no living breathing human can demonstrate the claims of religion.
Yes, a small few people can say they can demonstrate the claims of science. The rest of us have to believe what they say. It's not much different.
So section 5 was basically the bills as passed and title 15 section 45 is the act in the US code. Do I have that right?
In that case, they are claiming the entire section 45 as the basis of the illegality which makes some sense. After reading it, I saw several places in which it should apply.
Thanks for the explanation. For a minute there, I thought Amazon would be able to get off on a technicality and the FTC was incompetent or something. Turns out it was just me.
And the exact same thing happens with science. Most people do not posess the knowlege,, skill, resources, or time to verify everything science says. They have to take the word for it from some authoritive figure. It is no differnt. The more true something is, the more it might be repeated and hence we are on par with religion again.
Every explaination either becomes turtles all the way down or ends with an i don't know.
Now, i'm not sure a creator is "needed". But it is part of the religion so we got one. Religion doesn't typically search for something to believe, it is told.
No, God did give msn knowlege. Before Adam tasted the apple, God brought all the animals and stuff before him snd told him to name them. He had quite a bit of knowlege before the apple came into play.