Or, if Disney didn't want to do that, they could have at least told them to explicitly acknowledge the terms they might be using that are owned by Disney, and to state that Disney has not sponsored or endorsed the event, which would make their usage fall into nominative use, giving Disney no legally sustainable reason to sue them in the first place since nominative usage of a trademarked term, even in public, is considered non-diluting.
Because the effort necessary to implement an incremental solution effective enough to make a difference is not actually significantly less than the effort of doing almost all of it at once.... it's getting over that first big barrier of social apathy and inertia that is the real problem.... once you can do that, you're sailing... but even then, only if you've influenced enough of the population to offset the inevitable increases caused by regions that didn't bother to implement your new policies.
Getting half the planet to reduce their CO2 emissions does nothing when the rest of the planet is still producing more of them. Or did you suppose that somehow, magically, everybody that didn't reduce their CO2 emissions would just stay the same where they were?
Copyright infringement generally involves, you know.... copying. They didn't copy, they reverse engineered. Clean room reverse engineering is both common and entirely legal.
"better" for insignificant amounts of better, perhaps.
Sure you can always theoretically scale that up... but by the time you've gotten together enough people for all of their otherwise insignificant contributions to actually add up to something measurable, you've implemented the aforementioned perfect or nearly perfect solution anyways.
No, it is not relatively easy to tell if someone is using encryption, and can always be contrived so as to be impossible.
The only people who would fail to get away with using encryption if it were actually outlawed are people that are too stupid to know how to not get caught.
But those aren't the people that are the problem that law enforcement is worried about.
Of course... because everyone knows that being a new parent is "time off" from doing any actual work.
It's less about rewarding people for procreating and more about the company trying to not lose valuable employees just because they've had a kid and would otherwise leave.
I'm not so sure it's that simple. A lot of times when shit like this goes down, nobody was expecting it from *THAT* company, and it catches the "owners" entirely off guard. At least initially, yes... I'd say that it is a situation where people are uninformed.
As for why people keep going back, I would suggest that apathy plays less of a part in the matter more than the inconvenience of doing without whatever product or service that the company has offered.
Okay, so they can slow the growth rate of the tumor, perhaps even to levels such that the tumor might not even be technically malignant anymore, but it's still there... taking up space in the body, and waiting to become malignant again if its growth should ever resume, presumably some time after treatment has stopped. The cancerous cells still need to be removed from the body, and would require a lumpectomy, at least. Honestly, I'm not sure what significant advantages this offers for breast cancer in the first place. A real revolution would be something that non-invasively eradicates cancer cells while the leaving healthy ones intact and unaffected.
Assuming that one day. they can create robots that are indistinguishable from human beings with regards to outward appearance, to tactile sensation, and with respect to how they would interact with people, I expect that the ultimate consequence of robots that can effectively function as complete companions, including as a romantic partner, would be that the only people that would seek romantic relationships with other real people are those that want to procreate.
Oh, and to answer your last question, probably most of them.
Much cheaper? No.... the Volt goes for more than $40k... although this is half the price of the model S, it is still not much less than what Tesla Model III will go for in Canada.
Sure, but if nobody else in the strata actually *HAS* an electric car yet, then nobody else is going to be chomping at the bit to offset your own costs. Thus, nobody can really afford to be first, and it never gets any cheaper.
Oh, andI was never comparing the costs of a tesla to a Yaris anyways. I wa comparing it to what I would suggest are otherwise similar classes of vehicles that are available for well under $30k cdn. I would not expect it to be comparable to cars that are under $20k.
As I said, they are $50k here. Obviously I wouldn't expect a car like a Tesla to go for as little as a Yaris does, but I *would* expect it to not cost so much more that after financing I'd be spending twice as much on the car as I otherwise would on financing and gas combined.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, if Disney didn't want to do that, they could have at least told them to explicitly acknowledge the terms they might be using that are owned by Disney, and to state that Disney has not sponsored or endorsed the event, which would make their usage fall into nominative use, giving Disney no legally sustainable reason to sue them in the first place since nominative usage of a trademarked term, even in public, is considered non-diluting.
Not true... please look up the term "nominative use".
Those laws explicitly do not apply to law enforcement.
Because the effort necessary to implement an incremental solution effective enough to make a difference is not actually significantly less than the effort of doing almost all of it at once.... it's getting over that first big barrier of social apathy and inertia that is the real problem.... once you can do that, you're sailing... but even then, only if you've influenced enough of the population to offset the inevitable increases caused by regions that didn't bother to implement your new policies.
Getting half the planet to reduce their CO2 emissions does nothing when the rest of the planet is still producing more of them. Or did you suppose that somehow, magically, everybody that didn't reduce their CO2 emissions would just stay the same where they were?
Copyright infringement generally involves, you know.... copying. They didn't copy, they reverse engineered. Clean room reverse engineering is both common and entirely legal.
Where did you see that they were hosting any copyrighted content?
[nt]
"better" for insignificant amounts of better, perhaps.
Sure you can always theoretically scale that up... but by the time you've gotten together enough people for all of their otherwise insignificant contributions to actually add up to something measurable, you've implemented the aforementioned perfect or nearly perfect solution anyways.
It's not a fallacy in this case, because only a perfect (or at least nearly perfect) solution will actually make a difference.
How do you stop steganography, exactly?
No, it is not relatively easy to tell if someone is using encryption, and can always be contrived so as to be impossible.
The only people who would fail to get away with using encryption if it were actually outlawed are people that are too stupid to know how to not get caught.
But those aren't the people that are the problem that law enforcement is worried about.
It's odd that you'd be fine with government benefits but not if the company is paying for it themselves.
I think he's really overestimating how many people would consider parenting a new-born child any kind of "time off" from work at all.
"costs" more? Hmmm... I wasn't aware it costs anything. I would imagine it could run afoul of laws prohibiting sale of human beings otherwise.
Of course... because everyone knows that being a new parent is "time off" from doing any actual work.
It's less about rewarding people for procreating and more about the company trying to not lose valuable employees just because they've had a kid and would otherwise leave.
I'm not so sure it's that simple. A lot of times when shit like this goes down, nobody was expecting it from *THAT* company, and it catches the "owners" entirely off guard. At least initially, yes... I'd say that it is a situation where people are uninformed.
As for why people keep going back, I would suggest that apathy plays less of a part in the matter more than the inconvenience of doing without whatever product or service that the company has offered.
Good to know.
Okay, so they can slow the growth rate of the tumor, perhaps even to levels such that the tumor might not even be technically malignant anymore, but it's still there... taking up space in the body, and waiting to become malignant again if its growth should ever resume, presumably some time after treatment has stopped. The cancerous cells still need to be removed from the body, and would require a lumpectomy, at least. Honestly, I'm not sure what significant advantages this offers for breast cancer in the first place. A real revolution would be something that non-invasively eradicates cancer cells while the leaving healthy ones intact and unaffected.
When a person upgrades their device they pay the costs associated with that upgrade, so how does that cost the service provider anything, exactly?
Assuming that one day. they can create robots that are indistinguishable from human beings with regards to outward appearance, to tactile sensation, and with respect to how they would interact with people, I expect that the ultimate consequence of robots that can effectively function as complete companions, including as a romantic partner, would be that the only people that would seek romantic relationships with other real people are those that want to procreate.
Oh, and to answer your last question, probably most of them.
How about a suit that lets old people feel like to be young again?
Now *THAT* there'd be a real market for.
Much cheaper? No.... the Volt goes for more than $40k... although this is half the price of the model S, it is still not much less than what Tesla Model III will go for in Canada.
Sure, but if nobody else in the strata actually *HAS* an electric car yet, then nobody else is going to be chomping at the bit to offset your own costs. Thus, nobody can really afford to be first, and it never gets any cheaper.
Oh, andI was never comparing the costs of a tesla to a Yaris anyways. I wa comparing it to what I would suggest are otherwise similar classes of vehicles that are available for well under $30k cdn. I would not expect it to be comparable to cars that are under $20k.
As I said, they are $50k here. Obviously I wouldn't expect a car like a Tesla to go for as little as a Yaris does, but I *would* expect it to not cost so much more that after financing I'd be spending twice as much on the car as I otherwise would on financing and gas combined.