Yes, but since they're entitled to an agreed share, there has to be an argument that the actors and directors are shareholders. If any other company's majority shareholder paid company money to a company that they wholly own in this way, for services that other companies could clearly provide more cheaply, they wouldn't just be sued. They'd be in prison for fraud.
Seems that Hollywood has a property that should be hugely successful. They are using the investments that other people made to make it so.
It seems that the producers are deliberately trying to not make money from these investments. I'm pretty certain that if any other business executive decided to run a business in such a way as to minimise shareholder value, they would be in serious legal trouble.
Except that's not what's happening. The frog has become a little distressed. The scientist has turned down the temperature slightly.
Chances are that any opposition government will realise cancelling this is a vote winner (the present government has a choice between looking weak or continuing with an unpopular policy).
But range gives diminishing returns. Sure, your car has a 900 mile range. What's your range? Personally I like to take a break every couple of hours. This break can be combined with a refuel.
So, 50-100 miles isn't enough. 200 miles will probably be fine. If I could leave my car at a recharge station and come back to it once it was done, then maybe I'd even be okay with a 30 minute recharge time.
Are easy to grasp, and have all sorts of uses. You can produce them on a CRT simply using a scanline technique, they're simple to address logically, and sections can be moved around (albeit by discrete amounts) trivially, and you can apply some simple but useful filters very easily.
Other representations in addition are also useful. Some people find fourier transforms of the data helpful. Others find it useful to identify lines and discrete shapes.
It seems that Kirsch has been playing with another representation. Seems to do a rather good job of enhancing certain types of typical real world image. Good stuff, but not a reinvention of the pixel.
Actually the highest rated requests seem to be such matters as the Digital Economy Bill, and the various pieces of overzealous law and order and anti-terrorism legislation enacted over the past decade. None of the 60 top rated requests are anything to do with the EU.
Considering how much of the press is concerned with EU law, it's amazing how few people are actually troubled by it.
Of course the purpose of the ban is clear to anyone with a brain cell (BP and your government are in bed together in wanting to cover up the real results of your governments failure to protect its citizens)
And what does a whopping 20 metre distance do to aid a cover up? Hell, we've got footage of a pipe under the sea pumping out gallons of oil, but you think they're doing something else that's not only worse, but also visible only up close?
I never said it was about hunting. However, I can find a quote or two that suggest that it's purely for national security (including the preamble itself). There are plenty of quotes from various members backing that up. The fact that a couple of the framers also felt it was important for overthrowing the government is largely irrelevant.
which, contrary to popular belief didn't give us the right to bear arms because the founding fathers wanted us to go deer hunting but rather as a last resort to oppose government force.
Really? where does it say that in the constitution?
You do realise the second amendment was ratified by a lot of people, who all had their own reasons for believing it to be important, don't you?
There's heaps of statistical noise in football! They weren't predicting a result. Just predicting a probability. A single result is absolutely meaningless.
In finance, a 10% probability of making $100 is considered the same value as a 1% probability of making $1000. Make enough bets and you'll win on average.
Much as I'd like to get rid of this law I can't see how it could possibly cost the state anything, let alone the hundreds or so that I'm paying extra in tax every year.
Dumb laws on the books means potential lawsuits (if it's possible) over such laws.
And it is indeed possible Stop and search laws were successfully challenged in the European court.
By the way, does the UK has jury nullification?
Yes, and no. Jury nullification isn't actually an explicit legal right as such in the UK or the US. It's a de facto power. The Jury has a duty to make a judgement on the law and the facts of the case. The thing is they don't need to give a reason and if they don't there's absolutely nothing that can be done.
So yes, the Jury may pass a judgement of not guilty because the law is stupid. On the other hand, they can also pass a judgement of guilty because of the result of a coin toss.
Windows may have needed an HTML display library, a network library with http support and a windowing. Neither of these is Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is a very simple application that ties these libraries together (and adds a certain amount of extra functionality) to make a functional web browser. MS could have removed this simple application and satisfied the justice department.
Microsoft argued that anything that was used by IE was part of IE. They argued that a basic text renderer was part of it so if they removed IE, they'd have to remove text rendering. Clearly not remotely true.
The point of the liability immunity provisions is that ISPs have a lot of customers who may or may not be uploading infringing work, and can't be expected to check each and every one of them for infringement. In many cases they won't even know if it's infringing.
Looks to me like manufacturers simply aren't going to be permitted to have the walled garden approach that Apple have. So if you have a mobile phone that communicates only in Morse code and can be programmed in Intercal, that's fine but you have to make sure there aren't any artificial barriers to prevent others from making a phone that can communicate with it.
The whole "This could solve crimes" thing is really overblown here. I mean technically it could conceivably be used as evidence, but I could imagine it being a little more useful for forensic identification. If you have no idea who someone is, knowing that they probably lived in Denver until 3 weeks ago before moving to New York is going to narrow down your possibilities considerably. NO good on its own still, but it's another tool to use.
Oh, I agree. There are all sorts of reasons they shouldn't charge the termination fee. The fact that they can't provide the service in the area she lives is one of them. It's 2010, so coverage is a reasonable expectation. The fact that it will not cost them anything like that much money is another.
That she lost her husband is very sad, but really beside the point.
I agree. For those who have read this comment and still disappointed in not knowing - broadly it seems to be a patent on hedge betting in commodities trading.
It seems to have been rejected on account of it not being useful concrete and tangible.
Anyway - don't quote me here or rely on my summary. I skimmed Wikipedia and post here to give everyone at least some vague context.
No, he's talking about the lesser known song by the Diana Ross and the Supremes - "Throws out Bilski Patent". Also on that album is "You can't patent Math",
She has cost the phone company a certain amount for the phone they fronted her. This has no remaining value for them.
Does she also get away without paying her credit card bills? Perhaps she bought something for her husband. Will Visa refund that one since she no longer needs it?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but since they're entitled to an agreed share, there has to be an argument that the actors and directors are shareholders. If any other company's majority shareholder paid company money to a company that they wholly own in this way, for services that other companies could clearly provide more cheaply, they wouldn't just be sued. They'd be in prison for fraud.
He probably got paid. The contract would have been for basic rate + royalties. He just didn't get royalties.
Seems that Hollywood has a property that should be hugely successful. They are using the investments that other people made to make it so.
It seems that the producers are deliberately trying to not make money from these investments. I'm pretty certain that if any other business executive decided to run a business in such a way as to minimise shareholder value, they would be in serious legal trouble.
Except that's not what's happening. The frog has become a little distressed. The scientist has turned down the temperature slightly.
Chances are that any opposition government will realise cancelling this is a vote winner (the present government has a choice between looking weak or continuing with an unpopular policy).
But range gives diminishing returns. Sure, your car has a 900 mile range. What's your range? Personally I like to take a break every couple of hours. This break can be combined with a refuel.
So, 50-100 miles isn't enough. 200 miles will probably be fine. If I could leave my car at a recharge station and come back to it once it was done, then maybe I'd even be okay with a 30 minute recharge time.
Multiply m/s by 2 to get a rough idea of mph. You're still 12% out but you can get an idea of whether speeds are similar.
Are easy to grasp, and have all sorts of uses. You can produce them on a CRT simply using a scanline technique, they're simple to address logically, and sections can be moved around (albeit by discrete amounts) trivially, and you can apply some simple but useful filters very easily.
Other representations in addition are also useful. Some people find fourier transforms of the data helpful. Others find it useful to identify lines and discrete shapes.
It seems that Kirsch has been playing with another representation. Seems to do a rather good job of enhancing certain types of typical real world image. Good stuff, but not a reinvention of the pixel.
He might have been in the early 80's when the song was written.
Actually the highest rated requests seem to be such matters as the Digital Economy Bill, and the various pieces of overzealous law and order and anti-terrorism legislation enacted over the past decade. None of the 60 top rated requests are anything to do with the EU.
Considering how much of the press is concerned with EU law, it's amazing how few people are actually troubled by it.
Of course the purpose of the ban is clear to anyone with a brain cell (BP and your government are in bed together in wanting to cover up the real results of your governments failure to protect its citizens)
And what does a whopping 20 metre distance do to aid a cover up? Hell, we've got footage of a pipe under the sea pumping out gallons of oil, but you think they're doing something else that's not only worse, but also visible only up close?
Here was I thinking we had a coalition of Tory and Libs.
I never said it was about hunting. However, I can find a quote or two that suggest that it's purely for national security (including the preamble itself). There are plenty of quotes from various members backing that up. The fact that a couple of the framers also felt it was important for overthrowing the government is largely irrelevant.
which, contrary to popular belief didn't give us the right to bear arms because the founding fathers wanted us to go deer hunting but rather as a last resort to oppose government force.
Really? where does it say that in the constitution?
You do realise the second amendment was ratified by a lot of people, who all had their own reasons for believing it to be important, don't you?
There's heaps of statistical noise in football! They weren't predicting a result. Just predicting a probability. A single result is absolutely meaningless.
In finance, a 10% probability of making $100 is considered the same value as a 1% probability of making $1000. Make enough bets and you'll win on average.
Much as I'd like to get rid of this law I can't see how it could possibly cost the state anything, let alone the hundreds or so that I'm paying extra in tax every year.
Dumb laws on the books means potential lawsuits (if it's possible) over such laws.
And it is indeed possible Stop and search laws were successfully challenged in the European court.
By the way, does the UK has jury nullification?
Yes, and no. Jury nullification isn't actually an explicit legal right as such in the UK or the US. It's a de facto power. The Jury has a duty to make a judgement on the law and the facts of the case. The thing is they don't need to give a reason and if they don't there's absolutely nothing that can be done.
So yes, the Jury may pass a judgement of not guilty because the law is stupid. On the other hand, they can also pass a judgement of guilty because of the result of a coin toss.
Windows may have needed an HTML display library, a network library with http support and a windowing. Neither of these is Internet Explorer. Internet Explorer is a very simple application that ties these libraries together (and adds a certain amount of extra functionality) to make a functional web browser. MS could have removed this simple application and satisfied the justice department.
Microsoft argued that anything that was used by IE was part of IE. They argued that a basic text renderer was part of it so if they removed IE, they'd have to remove text rendering. Clearly not remotely true.
The point of the liability immunity provisions is that ISPs have a lot of customers who may or may not be uploading infringing work, and can't be expected to check each and every one of them for infringement. In many cases they won't even know if it's infringing.
i.e. exactly what youTube does.
And nobody believes it now.
A possible alternative headline could be "Obvious lie from MS turns out to be a lie"
Looks to me like manufacturers simply aren't going to be permitted to have the walled garden approach that Apple have. So if you have a mobile phone that communicates only in Morse code and can be programmed in Intercal, that's fine but you have to make sure there aren't any artificial barriers to prevent others from making a phone that can communicate with it.
The whole "This could solve crimes" thing is really overblown here. I mean technically it could conceivably be used as evidence, but I could imagine it being a little more useful for forensic identification. If you have no idea who someone is, knowing that they probably lived in Denver until 3 weeks ago before moving to New York is going to narrow down your possibilities considerably. NO good on its own still, but it's another tool to use.
Oh, I agree. There are all sorts of reasons they shouldn't charge the termination fee. The fact that they can't provide the service in the area she lives is one of them. It's 2010, so coverage is a reasonable expectation. The fact that it will not cost them anything like that much money is another.
That she lost her husband is very sad, but really beside the point.
I agree. For those who have read this comment and still disappointed in not knowing - broadly it seems to be a patent on hedge betting in commodities trading.
It seems to have been rejected on account of it not being useful concrete and tangible.
Anyway - don't quote me here or rely on my summary. I skimmed Wikipedia and post here to give everyone at least some vague context.
No, he's talking about the lesser known song by the Diana Ross and the Supremes - "Throws out Bilski Patent". Also on that album is "You can't patent Math",
She has cost the phone company a certain amount for the phone they fronted her. This has no remaining value for them.
Does she also get away without paying her credit card bills? Perhaps she bought something for her husband. Will Visa refund that one since she no longer needs it?