Sure, but that statute took about a hundred to actually work its way through the British legal system. With France ending up with the same concept at about the same time. But since they named it they get the credit:)
Also, Britain is in Europe too and hence the same as France for the purposes arguing against "public domain is an American thing".
Not getting caught is completely different than ensuring that when the laws are written (or if you screwed that up when they are interpreted) whatever it is you do isn't illegal.
Those mythologies and histories are in the public domain though having passed into it long before we started making copyright eternal by extending the length anytime something was about to enter the public domain. So they're fair game.
Non-violent criminals are exactly the ones you want to use tracking bracelets on. The violent criminals you put in prison so that they can't just remove their tracking bracelet and go and do some violence (or not bother removing it and skipping to the violence part).
Of course in this case he isn't convicted, he's only been charged. So he accepted those bail conditions, he could have sat in jail for two years awaiting trial instead if he has something against those conditions.
It doesn't matter if they are OK or not they are not deaths and do not register in the under five mortality rates - you know the statistic that was used as evidence for something it clearly doesn't show.
I don't need to recognize that at all or work on it. I was very specific about what I was referring to. But sure resort to the personal attacks when the arguments fail I guess.
It's clearly not gender specific unless the poster lied about the girl's rate and gave a lower number than it actually is - which would seem a rather stupid thing to do when trying to claim it is high.
The under five mortality rate is just a statistic, maybe it's missing a bunch of people - in which case you argue that you don't present the figure and pretend it's gender specific.
Abortions would be one obvious answer for those missing girls. That's clearly not a mortality since there was never a person in the first place. But that's completely irrelevant since I didn't take issue with that claim. I took issue with presenting a non-gender specific statistics and taking on a gender to mislead the reader into thinking the statistic is gender specific.
How is that going to change that the under-five mortality rate is India is 1 in 20. And thus if it is 1 in 20 for girls then it must also be 1 in 20 for boys and thus there is no gender component or bias in under-five mortality which is clearly what the post was trying to imply. And no I don't count abortions as murders or put them in mortality rates - but I'm a godless moron headed for hell anyway:)
That it sucks to be a girl in most of the world (by population) is irrelevant to the original claim. Which as far as I can tell was "girl children die at exactly the same rate as boy children in India" - since that's what the cited statistic says.
If girl's do in fact die under age 5 more than boys, then surely there's a better statistic to cite rather than expecting to people to buy and watch a movie.
I also love the "hance of being killed in Syrian Civil War" comparison when numbers for under five mortality in Syria are easily available where the poster for the Indian number from for an actual useful comparison - and yes I realize you are probably not the anonymous coward who was trying to lie about the numbers they knew didn't support their implication.
The under-five mortality rate in India is 53 per 1000. In other worlds 1 in 20. Which of course means you've added "if you're a girl" for no reason other than to try and imply something that is isn't true.
Yes the child mortality rate in India is high, but it is not gender specific as you are trying to imply. Which is the antithesis of "no opinions, those are numbers".
To be a parent you must be a "parent of someone" it is a term that requires another party. To be a woman you are not a "woman of someone" there is no other party necessary. And hence the usage of "their" is completely different, and if you didn't know that you wouldn't be able to type through the drooling over the keyboard and hence you're being deceptive on purpose. Or maybe someone made an idiotic drool proof keyboard...
Sure they could offer profit sharing, but that's complicated with lots of edge cases and as I said hollywood style accounting makes it pretty pointless. Note, it's a completely different situation than app stores - that isn't "profit sharing" that's revenue sharing. And there's no accounting trickery since the entity trying to get their share is the one processing the payments and thus skimming them off the top before the other guy actually gets anything (there's no way to say sell your stuff to your Uncle Bob for $1 who then sells it to the public for the $50 it's actually "worth" when the app store it inserting themselves in the "to the public" step; whereas there is with if you promised X% of the profits to kickstarter backers).
And no companies won't just put all their risky crap on kickstarter - there's a rather large reputation when kickstarters go bad. And Microsoft in particular is in a bad state to try those games. It's not worth the bad publicity when things go south to them. For smaller places and actual "startups" there's no reputation to really care about, if it goes bust the whole company is likely bust anyway.
And I didn't claim kickstarter was a donation platform so I'm not sure why that's relevant to mention. (Though it can be - you can back a project that offers no "rewards" or back a project at a level that offers nothing in return).
Sure it's really stupid to have to say "possibly" and "allegedly" in cases like this. But in theory that's how it is supposed to be.
These are rules written by people in the government to restrict what people in the government can do - the chance that there are ridiculous loopholes and grey areas is approximately 273%.
Paying with equity would be illegal, and thus not such a great idea. The Title III JOBS act provisions are not "live" yet, since the SEC hasn't managed to finalize the rules yet.
But a cut of the profit is not equity anyway.
Of course most successful kickstarters have more than 20 backers, so 5% of the profit is going to be rather tricky. If you mean 5% of the profit shared amongst all backers then I doubt that is going to have much impact on the "lose money" part. 100% of the funding for 5% of the profits? I'm sure there'd be no hollywood accounting there.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but that statute took about a hundred to actually work its way through the British legal system. With France ending up with the same concept at about the same time. But since they named it they get the credit :)
Also, Britain is in Europe too and hence the same as France for the purposes arguing against "public domain is an American thing".
That's a trademark. Which is clearly not a copyright.
But sure, they can take a public domain character and create a copyrighted work out of it of that's what you mean.
No. The concept of something expiring into the public domain originated in France.
All of those are valid (if pointless) questions, so what it your point?
The subset of Christians who are called Catholics could be better or worse than the entire set of Christians.
Just like the subset of humans who are 3 years old have an average height shorter than that the set of all humans.
Not getting caught is completely different than ensuring that when the laws are written (or if you screwed that up when they are interpreted) whatever it is you do isn't illegal.
Those mythologies and histories are in the public domain though having passed into it long before we started making copyright eternal by extending the length anytime something was about to enter the public domain. So they're fair game.
You're insane.
Non-violent criminals are exactly the ones you want to use tracking bracelets on. The violent criminals you put in prison so that they can't just remove their tracking bracelet and go and do some violence (or not bother removing it and skipping to the violence part).
Of course in this case he isn't convicted, he's only been charged. So he accepted those bail conditions, he could have sat in jail for two years awaiting trial instead if he has something against those conditions.
Then it's someone else's problem.
When my kid breaks your window playing baseball you come and talk to me. When some other kid does you don't. That's all pretty fucking basic.
So stop wasting time with stupid slashvertisements for your engine that no one wants.
It doesn't matter if they are OK or not they are not deaths and do not register in the under five mortality rates - you know the statistic that was used as evidence for something it clearly doesn't show.
I don't need to recognize that at all or work on it. I was very specific about what I was referring to. But sure resort to the personal attacks when the arguments fail I guess.
It's clearly not gender specific unless the poster lied about the girl's rate and gave a lower number than it actually is - which would seem a rather stupid thing to do when trying to claim it is high.
The under five mortality rate is just a statistic, maybe it's missing a bunch of people - in which case you argue that you don't present the figure and pretend it's gender specific.
Abortions would be one obvious answer for those missing girls. That's clearly not a mortality since there was never a person in the first place. But that's completely irrelevant since I didn't take issue with that claim. I took issue with presenting a non-gender specific statistics and taking on a gender to mislead the reader into thinking the statistic is gender specific.
Why?
How is that going to change that the under-five mortality rate is India is 1 in 20. And thus if it is 1 in 20 for girls then it must also be 1 in 20 for boys and thus there is no gender component or bias in under-five mortality which is clearly what the post was trying to imply. And no I don't count abortions as murders or put them in mortality rates - but I'm a godless moron headed for hell anyway :)
That it sucks to be a girl in most of the world (by population) is irrelevant to the original claim. Which as far as I can tell was "girl children die at exactly the same rate as boy children in India" - since that's what the cited statistic says.
If girl's do in fact die under age 5 more than boys, then surely there's a better statistic to cite rather than expecting to people to buy and watch a movie.
I also love the "hance of being killed in Syrian Civil War" comparison when numbers for under five mortality in Syria are easily available where the poster for the Indian number from for an actual useful comparison - and yes I realize you are probably not the anonymous coward who was trying to lie about the numbers they knew didn't support their implication.
The under-five mortality rate in India is 53 per 1000. In other worlds 1 in 20. Which of course means you've added "if you're a girl" for no reason other than to try and imply something that is isn't true.
Yes the child mortality rate in India is high, but it is not gender specific as you are trying to imply. Which is the antithesis of "no opinions, those are numbers".
To be a parent you must be a "parent of someone" it is a term that requires another party. To be a woman you are not a "woman of someone" there is no other party necessary. And hence the usage of "their" is completely different, and if you didn't know that you wouldn't be able to type through the drooling over the keyboard and hence you're being deceptive on purpose. Or maybe someone made an idiotic drool proof keyboard...
You can't be dumb enough to both not know what settled means in that context and not know how to find out.
So I guess you're being rhetorical and trying to make a point, but are unable to not be passive-aggressive about it for some strange reason?
It's almost as if helping people survive who are similar to you could have an evolutionary advantage over helping people less similar to you.
Sure they could offer profit sharing, but that's complicated with lots of edge cases and as I said hollywood style accounting makes it pretty pointless. Note, it's a completely different situation than app stores - that isn't "profit sharing" that's revenue sharing. And there's no accounting trickery since the entity trying to get their share is the one processing the payments and thus skimming them off the top before the other guy actually gets anything (there's no way to say sell your stuff to your Uncle Bob for $1 who then sells it to the public for the $50 it's actually "worth" when the app store it inserting themselves in the "to the public" step; whereas there is with if you promised X% of the profits to kickstarter backers).
And no companies won't just put all their risky crap on kickstarter - there's a rather large reputation when kickstarters go bad. And Microsoft in particular is in a bad state to try those games. It's not worth the bad publicity when things go south to them. For smaller places and actual "startups" there's no reputation to really care about, if it goes bust the whole company is likely bust anyway.
And I didn't claim kickstarter was a donation platform so I'm not sure why that's relevant to mention. (Though it can be - you can back a project that offers no "rewards" or back a project at a level that offers nothing in return).
Innocent until proven guilty...
Sure it's really stupid to have to say "possibly" and "allegedly" in cases like this. But in theory that's how it is supposed to be.
These are rules written by people in the government to restrict what people in the government can do - the chance that there are ridiculous loopholes and grey areas is approximately 273%.
Paying with equity would be illegal, and thus not such a great idea. The Title III JOBS act provisions are not "live" yet, since the SEC hasn't managed to finalize the rules yet.
But a cut of the profit is not equity anyway.
Of course most successful kickstarters have more than 20 backers, so 5% of the profit is going to be rather tricky. If you mean 5% of the profit shared amongst all backers then I doubt that is going to have much impact on the "lose money" part. 100% of the funding for 5% of the profits? I'm sure there'd be no hollywood accounting there.
And that makes US laws matter, because?
How does that make a difference in Canada?
Sure if you have a week, to copy 160MB in 1.44MB chunks swapping floppies around 100+ times.
Which has nothing to do with "carbon".
Are you really that incredibly stupid to think it would be? Or are you just being intentionally deceitful?
That matters wasn't a criteria.
Which is not nobody, right?