It is not entirely intuitively clear to me either, but it is true that almost all prehistoric axes uncovered by archaeologists appear to have been agricultural tools (found on farms alongside ploughs, etc.), and there are few if any examples - specifically of axe-heads for mounting on handles - that predate agriculture. And so this one raised some eyebrows. Archaeologists generally try not to just guess what a tool was used for (or at least not assert that guess as the definite truth).
Aha - thanks, this actually clarifies a lot. I knew there was a distinction between how Java and languages like C++ are compiled, and that Java had a runtime aspect which is what enables it to move so easily between platforms. But I have always been pretty unclear on what exactly that meant and what the real distinction was :)
Definitely. And I should clarify here that I'm a light coder not an experienced software architect - personally I much prefer working with dynamically typed languages (and most of the coding tasks I do are more suited to that anyway). But I'm also well aware of the strength and necessity of stricter languages for many purposes. I like your example here though, as I've definitely enjoyed that kind of thing - for example Wordpress (which I work with a fair bit) provides some great dynamic functions for time/date stuff that accept all sorts of formats from full UTC timecodes to plain language statements like "last 7 days".
Sidenote, I did not know what you brought up above about modern IDEs maintaining a database model of the code and doing such rigorous compile-checking as you type. That makes me want to go back and try to learn C++ again :)
If you change something in Java, which makes it the wrong type to be passed to a function -- then that is a COMPILE TIME error, not a RUN TIME error.
Furthermore on that front - there are times when the lack of strictly typed declarations won't even produce a runtime error, but just bizarre and potentially hard-to-track bugs. For example, if you were to use the example python "max" function here with the numbers 2 and 10, but accidentally passed them as strings instead of integers, it would return 2 as the higher "number" and not generate any error at all.
despite the theoretical requirement for the one filing a DMCA claim to swear under penalty of perjury that they attest to the accuracy of the claims made
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the deviously worded DMCA does not in fact require that, theoretically or otherwise. The "penalty of perjury" portion only applies to the statement that the notice-sender is (or represents) the copyright holder of the work that is allegedly infringed upon. The remainder of a DMCA notice requires only a "good faith belief". This is not only true of the template notice text, but true of the requirements as set out in 512(c)(3):
(v) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.
(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Frankly, I have to tip my hat to the people who devised that wording. Nearly everybody, when discussing DMCA notices, assumes that a penalty of perjury technically applies to the entire thing - but that's simply not the case, thanks to the subtle positioning of those words mid-sentence in point (vi) -- after the requirement of a statement that the information is accurate.
Let's all calm down, and find out if you're actually seeking "a conversation with an intelligent person capable of rational thought" or if you're just a troll.
I'm sorry, but you do seem to have fundamentally misunderstood some aspects of this story, and/or some aspects of copyright law. Please consider these points:
- Owning the copyright on a work, like a show or a book or a song or anything else, does not mean you can stop other people from discussing it or referring to it by name. That is not even close to any of the enumerated legal rights that constitute copyright. To discuss Game of Thrones, to review Game of Thrones, even to spoil Game of Thrones, is in no way copyright infringement all by itself. That's not debatable, that's a fact.
- The question of whether something makes money is largely irrelevant here. The definition of copyright infringement is not dependent on whether the potentially infringing work makes money or not. The question of making money can be a factor in a Fair Use determination, but that is also irrelevant in this case: the video did not use any material from Game of Thrones, and as such is not even potentially infringing, so there's no fair use question here. There is no "use" that has to be determined to be "fair" or not, because there's no "use" at all.
So, please, instead of continuing your "i'm a genius and everyone here is an idiot" rant, dig into this situation a bit and explain your position. No footage was used, no copyrighted material of any kind was used, there was absolutely nothing in the video that constitutes even potential copyright infringement - not from a legal perspective, not from a philosophical perspective, not from any perspective. What rights are you alleging were violated? Can you please explain?
Yeah there's certainly a tradeoff between accuracy and more striking visuals. That said, I don't think it's as dire as you're assuming - the high-res photos give a pretty clear look, and while the texture is shallow, it's very visible: https://www.flickr.com/photos/139914168@N03/26204331356/
If it does require back-doors, where exactly in the bill does it do so?
The very next provision after the one you quoted.
"A provider ... shall ensure that any such products, services, applications or software ... be capable of complying."
At best, the two provisions contradict each other. More accurately, the one you quoted is a weak attempt to deny that they are doing exactly what they are doing: mandating how software and devices must be designed. It's providing some tiny, meaningless leeway.
Basically the part you quoted is saying "You can give us a master key, or a separate entrance, or a hidden recording device, or an infrared camera, or a doorman with orders to let us in - it's totally up to you!"