Don't worry, native speakers usually parse "you" to be impersonal unless context tells us otherwise. Context in your post clearly indicates you were using "you" in an impersonal sense.
That seems like something a TRADEmark would be better suited for. Trademarks are so people don't get confused about who made what. That's how you know the difference between a RHEL box and a CENTOS box, the code is 100% identical, but the TMs are entirely different.
If there were no copyright, you still wouldn't be able to pass off a copied work as your own original creation, that would be fraud. Fraud is illegal because it actually does cause a harm to a real person, you've sold someone something, they think they have something else. This is a harm.
Because they didn't buy a show, they bought a license to stream it. That license they purchased was not irrevocable, it was revocable. This is the reason that I will never "purchase" a show or movie unless I have the right to make a personal hard-copy of it for backup purposes.
I think they would be, but maybe not, I'm not sure if "Sovereign Immunity" applies in this case. Then again, who built the site, actual honest to God U.S. of A. government employees, or did DHHS hand a fist full of cash to some random company and tell them to make it work? If it's the first, who really cares none of that has a copyright restriction to begin with, if it was a contractor it's their fault they need to comply with the license and are the ones to go after.
Guilty of what though? Did his actions warrant the type of heavy handed tactics that the federal prosecutors used? Should there have been a prosecution at all, much less an arrest made?
I do it in spurts too, I mapped out Walt Disney World when I first started since the family and I go often. A lot of the contributors from the USA seem to do it that way, I think it's because the TIGER data-set covers so much of the roads.
I'm glad to see new designs being used. But why do we keep beating the Uranium drum? Thorium is cheap, it's plentiful, and a thorium based reactor can produce useful byproducts.
Well, the thing is, they can. As long as they are given the time and freedom to do it. Right now it's nearly impossible to do anything with Thorium in the USA because of nuclear regulations and that's a real shame because it prevents a very worthy line of research from being pursued and it stops the development of rare earth mining in this country due to the prevalence of Thorium in the rare earth deposits.
Oak Ridge National Lab ran a thorium reactor for about five years before they lost funding for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
The only reason we have Uranium based reactors is because we needed them for atomic weapons. Also, I wasn't suggesting that the only power source we'll ever need are LFTRs, just that they make a lot of sense for the majority of power needs, also they have a really neat-o whiz-bang by-product medically useful radio isotopes.
What's with all the love for solid fuels in your response, don't forget about MSRs. Thorium based reactors are even safer than their pressurized water Uranium based cousins. Not to disparage them, any nuclear is better than coal or oil, but Th is better than U.
Here's a little video about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
Slashdot Mirror
Few native English speakers use one as a pronoun, how does one expect a non-native speaker to know about an obscureish bit of our syntax?
Don't worry, native speakers usually parse "you" to be impersonal unless context tells us otherwise. Context in your post clearly indicates you were using "you" in an impersonal sense.
That seems like something a TRADEmark would be better suited for. Trademarks are so people don't get confused about who made what. That's how you know the difference between a RHEL box and a CENTOS box, the code is 100% identical, but the TMs are entirely different. If there were no copyright, you still wouldn't be able to pass off a copied work as your own original creation, that would be fraud. Fraud is illegal because it actually does cause a harm to a real person, you've sold someone something, they think they have something else. This is a harm.
"Eat moar chikin" Pablo Picasso
What grounds would the class have to sue?
Because they didn't buy a show, they bought a license to stream it. That license they purchased was not irrevocable, it was revocable. This is the reason that I will never "purchase" a show or movie unless I have the right to make a personal hard-copy of it for backup purposes.
Explain how this is minimal government please.
I think they would be, but maybe not, I'm not sure if "Sovereign Immunity" applies in this case. Then again, who built the site, actual honest to God U.S. of A. government employees, or did DHHS hand a fist full of cash to some random company and tell them to make it work? If it's the first, who really cares none of that has a copyright restriction to begin with, if it was a contractor it's their fault they need to comply with the license and are the ones to go after.
Guilty of what though? Did his actions warrant the type of heavy handed tactics that the federal prosecutors used? Should there have been a prosecution at all, much less an arrest made?
We already know it isn't. It's the Most Magical Place on Earth, Disneyland is the Happiest Place on Earth.
Only if you discount the birth rates of first generation immigrants.
What '"fanboy" bullshit' are you talking about exactly?
Yeah, that's why I immediately knew it was MSFT, they always try to do that except for their Windows commercials.
Could you or someone else that is in the know elaborate?
But who says that a government won't call MS two minutes after they get off the phone with Google?
A plus 2 troll? How did that happen
They had the tagline of 'Don't get scroogled' then directed the viewer to go to outlook.com The production values were atrocious.
How about, "They're crazy or sick fucks, the law isn't going to stop them" then?
I do it in spurts too, I mapped out Walt Disney World when I first started since the family and I go often. A lot of the contributors from the USA seem to do it that way, I think it's because the TIGER data-set covers so much of the roads.
I'm glad to see new designs being used. But why do we keep beating the Uranium drum? Thorium is cheap, it's plentiful, and a thorium based reactor can produce useful byproducts.
That didn't change, they just didn't want to see people move to less dickish carriers over the Amazon Appstore
There is in Japan and western Europe.
Well, the thing is, they can. As long as they are given the time and freedom to do it. Right now it's nearly impossible to do anything with Thorium in the USA because of nuclear regulations and that's a real shame because it prevents a very worthy line of research from being pursued and it stops the development of rare earth mining in this country due to the prevalence of Thorium in the rare earth deposits.
Oak Ridge National Lab ran a thorium reactor for about five years before they lost funding for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment The only reason we have Uranium based reactors is because we needed them for atomic weapons. Also, I wasn't suggesting that the only power source we'll ever need are LFTRs, just that they make a lot of sense for the majority of power needs, also they have a really neat-o whiz-bang by-product medically useful radio isotopes.
What's with all the love for solid fuels in your response, don't forget about MSRs. Thorium based reactors are even safer than their pressurized water Uranium based cousins. Not to disparage them, any nuclear is better than coal or oil, but Th is better than U. Here's a little video about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4