waldo
-
Posts
17,650 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by waldo
-
-
Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas
Genetic studies have consistently indicated a single common origin of Native American groups from Central and South America1, 2, 3, 4. However, some morphological studies have suggested a more complex picture, whereby the northeast Asian affinities of present-day Native Americans contrast with a distinctive morphology seen in some of the earliest American skeletons, which share traits with present-day Australasians (indigenous groups in Australia, Melanesia, and island Southeast Asia)5, 6, 7, 8. Here we analyse genome-wide data to show that some Amazonian Native Americans descend partly from a Native American founding population that carried ancestry more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans and Andaman Islanders than to any present-day Eurasians or Native Americans. This signature is not present to the same extent, or at all, in present-day Northern and Central Americans or in a ~12,600-year-old Clovis-associated genome, suggesting a more diverse set of founding populations of the Americas than previously accepted.
. -
I'm shocked you're ignoring all those Conservative MP Jason Kenney tweet references provided - shocked I tells ya!
I didn't bring it to this thread...jacee did. In post 10 she directly linked back to her point on the other thread talking about linguistic evidence
So waldo, please for the sake of your own sanity, please try to read the thread and comprehend what is going on before you lash out again in some ignorant fit of rage.don't backpedal now! As a carry-over from the other (now locked) thread, you took extreme exception to the reference to white supremacy like statements/positions. You were so, as you say, in an "ignorant fit of rage", that you falsely claimed the MLW member in question directly claimed Jason Kenney is a white supremacist! Only you could look back to that linked reference and take on your pursuit and carry it into this thread... I presume to attempt to provide cover for Conservative MP Jason Kenney. No one here had been discussing anything to do with Jason Kenney and white supremacy. That's on you here - completely on you! In your trouble to highlight the other threads' statement by red-colour highlighting it here in your copy/paste, apparently you have difficulty in recognizing the clear differentiation being made... you should read it again - slowly!
now clearly, linguistic evidence is a legitimate point of discussion within this thread! Unfortunately for you, your attempt to introduce the issue of Jason Kenney and white-supremacist like statements isn't... or is it? If so, you really should address those tweets of Kenney's, hey!
. -
Sometimes thing get to serious here, we need a little comic relief.
so your repeat personalization focused on the Prime Minister of Canada's hair, cuteness, etc.,... that's just you adding "comic relief"?
.
-
That exception is your interpretation of the law. If you feel that your interpretation is correct then lawyer up'! In the meantime the judge has spoken!!
don't throw away your internet lawyer degree now! Not now! You're faced with the CBC Terms of Use reference that defers to the Copyright Act, you're faced with the Copyright Act, you're faced with the declared exceptions within the Copyright Act and you're faced with direct reference to Supreme/Federal Court rulings relative to the Copyright Act. But I'm sure you presented all this in your whine/wail to MLW moderation, right?
.
-
Yes...he certainly does feel that he can do what he wants. The funny this is this whole issue started when I asked him why he left out certain info. If he would have just stated it was a mistake then I would have moved on.....but nope! Making such an admission is not possible for that guy.
ah perfect! Since you went wailing/whining to MLW moderation, all your related gems have been hidden given the broad swath collateral damage done in hiding literally dozens of posts. What you refer to as a 'mistake' is what you yourself called "trivial and of no consequence"... and yet you went into your deflection mode when I repeatedly asked you to state what difference it made. More pointedly, I went to the trouble to do the trivial math and show you that, in fact, the single poll in question actually bettered the rating you were so concerned about. Once you were presented with that lil' nugget you shifted completely and started your dance over supposedly infringing upon the CBC copyright! Yes, yet another of your ready-reach deflection/derails when the waldo puts you under his thumbscrews!
.
-
you walked away with your tail between your leg for 3 weeks. What can I say.
if that's what you consider discussing further with MLW moderation and being advised I could put the images up again - where I chose not to bother. As I said, there might have been a further question concerning the issue of attribution and dynamically generated images. For only your presumed need to posture, you brought the whole thing forward again, completely out of the blue and unrelated to anything being discussed... for what reason?
.
Thus far I have given you free advice but I think it would only be fair to start charging you for such requests. Having said that, the way the system works is each lawyer is allowed to provide their evidence and the judge decides what is the correct path. And in this case....the judge has spoken.
As per the CBC page, they specifically state that you are to ask for permission before use. I trust you and this site would not want to be involved in discussions with CBC regarding your lack of permission to use said graphic which is why reasonable steps were taken to remove it.
Now....if you want to lawyer up and take on the ol' CBC with your Exception list then have at er'
no - I previously suggested the question of screen capture is one the CBC site indicates could be reviewed further on a case-by-case basis... since you felt emboldened to bring this forward again, completely out of the blue and unrelated to anything being discussed, I suggested you pursue further, accordingly. I mean it only appears to be a significant point for you... and your presumed posturing. Of course, that seeking permission, per the CBC Terms of Use, is outside the covering umbrella of the Copyright Act. Something you clearly don't want to acknowledge... don't want to even touch. Instead you go into your typical fall-back bluster-mode! Of course you do. Notwithstanding that, I also linked to prior discussion exchange with MLW moderation that addressed the issue of image attribution and Supreme/Federal Court rulings in that regard. Something else you refuse to acknowledge... geezaz, just where did you get your internet law degree from?
.
-
Fair enough Charles....I will continue to discuss aboriginal settlements and related topics to such settlements. As suggested by jacee, various theories involved include dogma which relates to white supremacy. I will continue to discuss this topic.
although that was a point of discussion in the other (now locked) thread, you are the only one that has chosen to extend upon that other thread point of discussion... in fact, you've chosen to explicitly target the member over that point and bring it to this thread - something that was not being discussed here previously.
but on the point you seem determined to, as you say, "continue to discuss", I'm confused over the tweet from Conservative MP Jason Kenney where he stated he needed an "English to English translation" to understand Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan. Can ya help out there? Then there's the tweet Kenney did delete where he spoke of "perfect, unaccented English" as a Canadian quality... then there's the tweet where Kenney misrepresented a photo of Muslim women in chains... and then, of course, the recent tweet where he spoke of indigenous people's being settlers too! Of course there are other examples that cause some to pause and question the position of Conservative MP Jason Kenney. Since you state an intent to further discuss this, perhaps you could help provide explanation/cover for Conservative MP Jason Kenney in regard this perception some have.. and are forming. Thanks in advance.
.
-
Next question?
thanks for clarifying. As you had locked the prior thread where another MLW member had generally spoken of her interpretation of Conservative MP Jason Kenney's "white supremacist like" statements/positions... and as that point of prior thread discussion was brought into this thread by another/different MLW member, it was unclear what you were speaking to when you broadly instructed to "avoid thread drift". My interpretation is that you view the question of Jason Kenney holding white supremacist like statements/positions to be thread drift. Thanks.
.
-
That's the same thing he did to the article from ICR!
He copy/pasted and manipulated the content by reformatting it......to make it resemble like my format. However, waldo was so busy copy/pasting from ICR that he failed to recognized that he included the author's own ideas along with the statement of facts - and he didn't attribute his copy/paste to the author of that article.
there were possible implications of plagiarism on your part - I interpret that's been taken care of now, right?... please clarify if not the case - thanks in advance. Again, full attribution was provided inclusive of the originating link and a linked graphic of the actual text in question... you know, what you failed to provide yourself.
.
-
In all of your babbling and whining above you failed to mention the most important parts:
1. The graphic that you chose to copy from CBC was not presented the way the CBC had it on their site. You purposely and deceitfully manipulated the graph for some reason that only a waldo could understand.
Once again...you're welcome!
isn't one of the important parts the fact this now dated concern of yours was long moved on from (some ~3 weeks ago) - for some reason you just needed to bring it forward once again. Isn't another important part the one where you absolutely refuse to address what possible gain was realized... where the issue in question, that concerned one of 10 polls within the period covered by the image in question, actually improved the rating you seemed so concerned over. Clearly you had no response and absolutely refused to even acknowledge the repeated challenges in that vein put to you. Instead, you opted to play internet lawyer, complain to MLW moderation, where subsequently multi-pages of discussion were hidden - inclusive of your tap-dance to actually avoid the repeated challenges put to you.
I trust you will further leverage your internet lawyer degree and take up the point of MLW member BubberMiley concerning the Copyright Act and fair dealing... particularly this clause within the source corporations "Terms of Use": "To that end, no publication, reproduction or communication of such content to the public is authorized except in the specific cases set out in the federal Copyright Act"
you're welcome!
.
-
The new Canadian copyright law allows you to reproduce 10% of a work with attribution under the Fair Dealing provisions.
I'm not sure the 10% factor even applies under the "Exceptions" declarations of the Copyright Act; for example:
Exceptions
Fair Dealing
29.1 Fair dealing for the purpose of criticism or review does not infringe copyright if the following are mentioned:
a - the source; and
-
b - if given in the source, the name of the
(i) author, in the case of a work,
(ii) performer, in the case of a performer’s performance,
(iii) maker, in the case of a sound recording, or
(iv) broadcaster, in the case of a communication signal
in the case that MLW's internet lawyer is pursuing, for a possible image in question, source identification inclusive of source (corporation) name was provided, along with the name of the website application that dynamically generated the image as well as the name of the author of that application.
.
-
Folks,
Avoid thread drift.
clarification request: respectively, as the nature of described thread drift is not stated, and as prior posts by a MLW member introducing interpretations of Jason Kenney and white supremacy have been left up/intact... is that interpretation/discussion point on topic, or is it a thread derail? Please advise - thanks in advance.
.
-
I agree with CA on copyright laws, Waldo. An image is different than presenting a statement of fact.
If you present an image - which is the product of someone - you've got to give attribution for it.
perhaps you should actually take the time to review the posts you presume to comment on. You're adding nothing here, you're off-base and presuming to speak for a moderator. Notwithstanding you presuming to speak of providing proper attribution is the height of hypocrisy.
.
-
They both have nice hair .I am amazed they did not get into a pissing match over who is the cutest.
somehow, others in the thread managed to discuss issues/influences beyond your perpetual fixation with the superficial and your continued personalization - go figure!
one influence surprisingly not mentioned in the OP was the 'cock-up' unleashed by former Harper Conservative Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Diane Finley... yet another gem Harper buried in an omnibus bill: Conservative Colours - The Harper Conservatives and the colour-coding of Canada
Rather than enable meaningful public and parliamentary debate on this Act {Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)}, which plays a pivotal role in populating the country, growing the labour force and, not incidentally, building the citizenry, Harper opted to change things by legislative stealth. Without consultation or warning, the Conservatives introduced their bundled bill in mid-March. This legislation gives the Immigration Minister the power to decide who gets into Canada and who doesn’t, regardless of Canada’s admission criteria laid out in other legislation.
Against the very real backdrop of nearly a million people waiting for years in a growing backlog of applications for Canadian citizenship, Harper proposed to tackle the problem by changing the rules of selection and granting the Immigration Minister unprecedented powers to fast-track some classes of immigrants and discard others.
Visa officers would no longer use standardized rules to assess applicants. Instead, the Minister would determine who gets in and who does not.
.
-
Less than a third of voters....
that's a call for electoral reform if there ever was one! I trust MLW member Smoke would agree.
.
-
Adam Larsson isn't some scrub. He's a 23 year old top-pairing defenseman.
top-pairing... right-shot... defenseman - the single-most point of (prior) Oiler deficiency. Now, the dominoes will fall; I expect Lucic will also sign with the Oilers - that (and changes yet to come) will allow some to forget about Hall. Besides, MLW member Boges is just miffed that the spotlight wasn't on the Maple Laughs for even just this short while!
.
-
per yesterday's separate thread discussion, a MLW member has taken it upon himself to presume to interpret Canadian law, particularly copyright focused; in fact the MLW member presumes to state that "anything used from a particular site requires explicit permission granted". Notwithstanding this "tact/approach" taken was the member's 'last deflecting resort' given the member's inability to actually respond to repeated posted challenges... as relayed below, a relatively recent MLW posting exchange that dealt with a prior circumstance of an image hidden by MLW moderation:
in regards an image I presented within a MLW post, clarification request on inline linking... so-called 'hot-linking' where a virtual presentation of an image was viewed on a MLW website page... but hosted 'physically' on the site/page of the targeting link. Per Dr. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa and holder of the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law:
The third claim involved a link to a photograph posted on the photographer’s site. The court had no trouble concluding that the link was not copyright infringement, rightly noting that the photographer authorized the communication of the work by posting it on his website. This finding should put an end to claims that linking to copyright materials somehow raises potential legal risks. The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled against attributing defamation to such links and now the Federal Court has concluded that links cannot be said to constitute unauthorized communication and therefore infringement. The implications once again extend to forums, blogs, and other venues as well as the Access Copyright model licence.
....which clearly states: "No reproduction without permission" at the bottom. I reviewed this with Greg and the image is back up on display.
in a more recent MLW thread exchange numerous images were 'hidden' by MLW moderation; subsequent moderator exchange advised so-called "collateral clean-up damage" resulted in images being improperly hidden. Although not explicitly stated by MLW moderation, I interpret there may be an uncertain position in regards 3rd-party image-hosting of a screen-shot image of a dynamically generated image... in the particular case of how this image was presented within a MLW post, as a direct link to a dynamic generated image isn't possible, I chose to acknowledge the corporation involved, the name of the application dynamically generating the respective image, and the name of the related author. I would surmise there is a legitimate question of how 3rd-party hosting of attributed screen-shot images might apply with respect to current judicial review and interpretations therein.
I haven't bothered to pursue this ~3-week old circumstance further... choosing just to drop it, to move on. However, the MLW member now claiming to have "saved" the board (and the waldo too) seems most emboldened to want to bring this up again, totally unrelated to any current discussion! Given that emboldened want to something I've simply dropped and moved on from, I trust the saving MLW member will take this further and, per the corporation's own website published 'terms of use' suggestion, make contact for a case-by-case review/determination of how the corporation views the hosting of attributed screen-shot images on 3rd-party image hosting sites. As this is clearly an importantdeflectionissue for this MLW member, and the member presumes to interpret Canadian law, I trust he will bring notice back to MLW in regards the corporation's review/determination... I mean, otherwise... why bother to bring this forward yet again? (note: the waldo is not an internet lawyer... and has never claimed to be one).
. -
Interesting....I save you and this forum from potential copyright infringement which was CLEARLY laid out on the CBC site and you call that 'whiney'. I even gave you a chance to remove it by showing you it was illegal but hey....you are who you are. As for me being a moderator....no...just a guy who plays by the rules.
you're a saviour! In regards a screenshot, the CBC site actually states the determination is done on a 'case-by-case' basis review. For reference referral to hosted images the CBC requires a link to the image/acknowledgement of source; as that direct link can't be realized in the case of a dynamic generated image, I screenshot the image and hosted it on a 3rd party site while giving props to CBC and the author involved... let me know what they say when you contact them directly, hey saviour! Of course, let's not forget your saviour act was your go-to as you absolutely refused the numerous challenges put to you; post after post you refused to respond and in your absolute frustration and petulant manner, chose to take up this saviour play of yours!
.
Chased? No....the topic being discussed here was not appropriate for the OP of that thread as it had nothing to do with native migration/origins. This thread is all about native migration so until the moderators tell me otherwise I will continue to engage in conversation/debate on the possible migrations/origins and their impacts on modern day. Is that ok with you?
nice try! The chase is you carrying the 'Jason Kenney white supremacist' issue here... where it didn't exist until you derailed the thread with it. Is this you saying you're done with derailing the thread now?
.
-
Hey now...you're just sour that your recent copyright infringement from the CBC got you into hot water. Come to think of it i haven't seen you posting any sort of graphics lately. I guess that one stung pretty bad hey??
Maybe you should fire up another handle and start posting them again?no - all your whiney complaining to moderation managed to accomplish was a wholesale gutting by the moderator of whole pages of discussion inclusive of all images... I've been advised I could put them up again, but why bother. It is quite telling that you actually think you're a board moderator here!
.
As for this recent account, numerous members called jacee out on her ties of white supremacy to what Kenney said including MLW member Squid who used the term 'hyperbole'. Of course in your mind one is only a white supremacist if they belong to a club. Claiming his position/policy is a kin to white supremacists but not claiming he is one is pure BS. Does that mean I can say that my policy against visual minorities is the same as racists but I'm not a racists since I don't belong to a club??? Only you and jacee would actually see how that is absolutely preposterous!!
you've now chosen to assign a position to me - well done... then again, it fits you to a tee! Clearly, pointing out your purposeful thread derail has you reverting to your lashing out/attack mode! If you want to be complete please add in then other MLW member who also called out your act. I didn't say a damn thing about Jason Kenney being a white-supremacist... and didn't say a damn thing about the related posts... other than to highlight you being called out in the other thread and to emphasize MLW member 'jacee' never explicitly labeled Jason Kenney a white-supremacist. But hey, you've accomplished your intent - you've chased MLW member 'jacee' here and you've brought the derail here - you did that! You managed to get the other thread locked... are you going for a 2-fer?
.
-
For all the 'screw the posties' reaction, does anyone actually know what the strike (if it happens) is about?
-
If we're drawing conclusions on what Kenney said based on word association, I think we can do the same in this case for jacee.
you could choose to do so... in spite of her repeat emphasis on comments/policy attachments and not using the direct label. But that was the other thread - there's only one 'no accountability' reason that's found its way to this thread in a clear derail attempt.
.
-
But that didn't stop you from making the leap from your very minute, extreme fringe theory to claiming someone was a White Supremacist
clearly there was a reference to position/policy... there was no direct claim. Before you had the other thread locked, that very point was made to you by another MLW member. Instead of recognizing the error of your ways, you chose to further extend on your most visible 'attack mode' libel claim... and posturing on behalf of "MLW moderation". You've now chosen to carry that on through to this thread, attempting yet another thread derail.
.
-
As usual, your regular obsession with posters from other countries weighing in on your dear USA, USA!
the guy certainly favours quite the self-serving double-standard as he forever shows just how important Canada is to him!
.
-
The guys think the DNA markers can be explained completely with migrations from Asia:
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/abstract/S0002-9297(08)00139-0?cc=y=
ya ya... you flogged this once already! Do you think your (almost decade old dated) 2007 published reference should just automatically negate subsequent... more recent... discoveries? Is that what you're saying?
.
Canada surrenders to Mexico
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
the provided quote from the document speaks volumes... one of the influences contributing to an increase in "questionable" asylum claims is/was said to be the years-long waiting lists for regular processing. Not only did Harper's under the cover of omnibus changes not improve processing backlog, it increased it... notwithstanding the level of promised additional personnel hiring to assist in processing the backlog never materialized.
.