I heard it as far back as the 80s. Your music is automatically copyrighted if you're in the US the moment it is put into physical form. When you write a lyric, record a tune, it's copyrighted, but the issue this is addressing is proving that.

Generally, the best protection is registration with the copyright office, but you don't need it.

Here a good article about copyright and the factors affecting protection of your original works.

When you say people's interpretation of science, now you're talking exactly about what I said. It's not an interpretation of science, it's just parroting what their religious leaders have told them to think. Very few, if any, are aware of any science at all. Science is just one of those things a lot of religious leaders are against - and this goes back as far as anything even vaguely approaching science has existed. It has always been negated and fought by religion.

But you know, the internet makes everyone an expert on everything, because they Googled something, without regard for the fact that Google's algorithm is designed to give them more of what they already like. Yet somehow they think this is objective. So anyone quoting science, as the reason why they are transphobic, is highly suspect. Chances are, no science was actually involved.

Pretty sure an incomplete sentence is never a fix. Or perhaps it is, if you.

It's really easy to understand, when you see that some people think they have some sort of god-given right to force others to live only in the way that they've been told by their religious leaders that people have to be.

Those leaders tell them that a made-up, giant all-encompassing Sky being wants them to do whatever the leader tells them to do. The fact that those leaders prove time and again that they themselves can make no claim to any moral high ground doesn't matter. They've been raised to believe authoritarians, punished when they didn't, and it was all done lovingly in the name of their religion.

They literally think they have the right to intervene in the in the lives of others who aren't affecting them in any way, to force those lives into a different pattern- a pattern that makes them, the perpetrator, more comfortable, and allows them to pat one another's back for having accomplished "God's work."

Flushed out another regressive transphobe. I don't think this resignation is quite the statement she thought it was.

Is it more ethical when the animals are hunted, rather than farmed?

But it's generally the considered consensus in evolution that our brains became large because our archaic ancestors started eating meat.

It's a straw man argument.

The problem is, that's a straw man argument. You start off with it being the killing of animals. I could easily start it off with the necessary eating of other life forms. Both are true, but expressing it as if that is the issue, killing animals, is disingenuous at best, and as I said, definitely a strawman.

Thank you. You expressed much better the exact things that sprung out at me from that article.

They carefully avoided mentioning anything about how the milk tastes.

So let's see how the scorecard looks:

• Killer autonomous/remotely controlled robots? Check.

• Massive orbital satellite system that can control connected devices from space? Check.

• AI evolving at an exponential rate? Check.

SkyNet? Any minute now.

If you're regularly on any phone or computer, use Google Calendar. It will send alerts a few days before whatever event you want to be reminded of.

I will typically set a reminder for a week or two before to follow up.

Meanwhile, once again having projection as their only means of communication, the right is trying to cast this as degrading women's health. I'm pretty sure the only procedure the right wing will ever actually approve for women would be trappanning.