Wife: Britney Spears has a show in Vegas now. I kinda want to see it.
Me, with a skeptical look on my face and a concerned tone of voice: Eh, I don't know. Do you think she's going to be nasty, doing all that over-sexualized stuff, dancing around half naked and crap?
How many 100+ year old veterans do you think there are? One law specified companies in a certain industry founded in 1954 (or whatever year) in a certain county. Exactly one company qualified, of course. How much that company donated to the politician who sponsored the law, I don't know.
A bill of attainder is a finding that a person is guilty of a specific criminal act. "Every veteran before 1918 gets an extra $10,000 of social security" isn't a criminal conviction, and therefore is not a bill of attainder. You will notice it applies to very few people, approximately one.
Anyway you asked for some citations for laws that apply to a single person or company. Here are a few which actually NAME the person. Most of them don't name the person, they just use criteria specific enough to apply to only one person:
More commonly, Congress would pass a law saying something like "all Presidential candidates must... any commercial real estate holdings valued at more than $5 million". Gee, I wonder which presidential candidate had over $5 milion in commercial real estate. That law pretty much covers everybody, right?:)
It's not unusual for Congress to pass a law that applies to a single company, though. They can pass a law saying: "All social networks founded in Cambridge, MA in 2004 must be broken up"
The court would then rule that Facebook was in fact founded in Cambridge in 2004, and therefore needs to be broken up.
It would then be the executive that actually does the things, so I don't think it's really accurate to say "only the courts can..." Congress decides under what conditions a company can be forcibly broken up, and they can decide to break up Facebook. If Congress did so, the role of the court would be basically be to notice that Congress decided to break up Facebook ("social networks founded in Cambridge in 2004").
You're right that the vast majority of musicians aren't represented by a major label. Millions of songs are available on MySpace free, legally.
The major labels did actually do what you suggested and did not post the music to YouTube. Did that mean people sought out independent artists? Nope, it just want they illegally posted it to YouTube. Apparently the vast majority of people only want major label music for whatever reason. There are millions and millions of freely available songs, nobody listens to them.
Maybe that's because the major label music is less likely to suck. Especially regarding production quality. The free music on MySpace and other places includes some very good artists and some very bad artists. I guess people don't want to look for the stuff they like. In particular, the major labels have very good producers working in state of the art studios. Apparently people like that, because they'd rather steal the 0.1% of music that's put out by major labels than listen to the 99.9% that is legally available for free.
Censorship has a very specific definition. The government can easily infringe your first amendment rights through methods other than censorship. There can also be censorship that does not violate the first amendment.
Censorship is a system wherein censors view and edit speech before it can be seen by the public. You will never read or hear something that has been censored. The job of the censor is to block things the government doesn't want you to see or hear.
If someone gets it trouble after they say something, such as violating federal law by fraudulently pumping their stock price via posting material falae statements about the company they are the CEO of, they could make a first amendment argument (and probably lose). It's not censorship by definition because nobody prevented the speech.
Censorship: The government edits the news broadcast before it is broadcast.
Not censorship, a different violation of freedom of speech: The state of New York fines a broadcaster for being critical of Socialist House rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Is censorship, is not a violation of the first amendment: Facebook blocks all posts mentioning Colin Powell.
Not censorship and not a violation of the first amendment: People who conspire to call in false bomb threats get in trouble.
Note in Sega they copied a few bytes. That was important. Interoperability is a consideration, but the case should not be read to mean that you can do whatever you want for interoperability. Sega held that you can copy a few bytes of functional code for interoperability.
I've read most of the opinion (ruling) and so far it's page after page of why Google should lose. I was thinking you had linked to a ruling FOR Google. I kinda want to skip to the the ruling to find out, but I kinda like the suspense too.:)
This ruling could affect interoperability, which is why I'd like to see Google win, but I don't think current law is in their side. I may come across a solid argument of why the law is on the side, but I haven't yet.
So far I've come across why the law *should* allow it (why someone wishes it lawful), and people repeating Google's very flawed arguments, arguments that very clearly misstate the law.
The court actually brought that up. Google makes their own index of the web. if I were to steal a copy of Google's index and sell it, they may be able to sue me for copyright infringement.
Google's index is fair use of the snippets they use, the court has ruled, because it's transformative. You make a web page about iPad repair, Google makes an index of the web. Their use of a snippet from your page doesn't replace your page, in fact it makes your page more valuable for having been indexed.
ReactOS requires 96 MB, so I'm going to say it's not just like Windows.:)
In fact, it was discovered that ReactOS developers copy/pasted code from Windows (via a disassembler), so indeed there are copyright concerns. Microsoft didn't care enough to even comment about it. Perhaps that was because ReactOS has dozens of users, but anyway Microsoft didn't indicate that they *care* about ReactOS doing blatant copyright violation, copy-pasting from Windows.
If Google were making billions of dollars distributing ReactOS on Chromebooks (Winbooks), then I bet Microsoft would care, and a court could decide how much ReactOS infringes, and if any of that infringement is fair.
> Choosing to write a program in Java is not a copyrightable choice Having made that one choice, the declarations for the Java API now can only be written one way.
Writing a program *in* Java doesn't require you to implement Java the Java API. Writing a program that *is* Java requires implementing Java API.
They are allowed to USE Java. It does not follow that they are allowed to BE Java. I can distribute write a program that USES Windows, that doesn't mean I can distribute a CD that IS Windows or that looks and acts exactly like Windows, so it is Windows as far as anyone can tell, or that I can distribute Linux without following the GPL just because I can distribute a program that runs on Linux.
Google / you are conflating writing an application FOR Java with writing an implementation of Java, an exact copy of its external appearance.
What do you think of this. I create a space movie with Han Solo and Yoda, but I implement the characters with CGI, rather than with actors? Does it matter if I implement them with actors or with CGI?
I take it you're not a programmer, or not a very good one. There is a VAST difference between a very good programmer and a beginner - the problem does not in fact define how the solution must be written, and every programmer would write the same thing.
Linux and Windows are vastly different because Microsoft didn't *discover* an operating system, they *created* one. (Somebody else created DOS). Creating new things is called being creative.
> Complicated math was true before you stumbled on it and the same is true of algorithms.
"The first search result should be Snopes" isn't a mathematical truth. It's not only not a mathematical truth, it's not even a truth, but an opinion, an editorial decision. Editorial opinions can be written using letters of the alphabet (which pre-existed!), and other characters on the keyboard such as "+" and âs. The fact that the concept of square root exists doesn't make it a mathematical fact that you should buy a stock when we the square root of the trading volume is greater than the CEO's age; that's an opinion. (A stupid opinion).
The fact that algorithms can easily give dumb answers demonstrates that they aren't mathematical truth - because they aren't even truth, they are opinion.
Btw thanks for the link to whichever decision that is. I'll read through it a bit later. I take it that's a court that ruled in favor of Google. I'm curious to read that because while I *want* Google to win, I can't imagine how they can under current law.
Let's try looking at this from another angle. I have a right to make a space fighting movie. The general idea used in Star Trek, Stars Wars, etc isn't copyright protected. What is protected is the storyline, the particular collection of characters, character names, catch phrases, etc. So let's try translating what you wrote to such a situation. You said:
-- Google's claim is that the abstract Java API is a "system or method of operation", and that it includes the specific names as part of that. --
Do I have the right to use the specific names of Star Wars characters such Yoda, Han Solo, Princess Leia, etc in my space movie, because all of the character names are part of the idea of a space movie? Obviously not. I can make a movie about space, I can have a hero. I can't name my here Han Solo.
Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986), is a great example of merger. It was a movie about cops in the South Bronx. Like another movie about cops in the South Bronx, "the scenery would include drunks, stripped cars, prostitutes, and rats." That's not a copyright violation, the court ruled, because ANY MOVIE about Bronx cops would have those sorts of things.
What's not protectable are elements that EVERY WORK in the genre tend to have. Space movies have laser weapons, and spaceships which inexplicably have wings.
Computer languages have functions like copying a string, which may be called copy, strcpy, strncpy, string.Copy, or just "=". Merger says can't complain that another language, much like yours, has string copy, because that's part and parcel of writing a programming language - they all have that, it's needed.
You said "In the Java language, there is only one way to declare a function". The key words there are "in the Java language". In other words, "if you're making an exact copy of Java...". Google has no inherent right to make and sell a copy of Java.
Merger would apply if you could say "the only way to make a programming language is to...". We know that making a programming language doesn't require duplicating Java (from the users' point of view), but most languages don't. Most programming languages do a lot different, a lot smaller, and a lot better.
When Google says "in the Java language there is only one way", what Google is really saying is "the only way to copy Java is to copy Java". Well it doesn't work that way.
You're correct, you don't understand. First, copyright and patent are two different things.
Second, what you can't patent is the laws of nature, including the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics. So you can't patent gravity - you CAN patent an elevator, which uses the laws of physics. You can't patent " x+y = y + x", you can patent machines that use gears and levers (which are multiplication). Java is not a law of nature. In fact in may be an abomination of nature.:)
You're right the amount of copying isn't the only factor. The four factors are:
the purpose and character of your use (is it commercial, transformative?)
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken
the effect of the use upon the potential market for the original
Google fails the first. It's commercial. Original Java is a programming API, Google's copy is a programming API; there is no transformation into something else.
Google fails the second. There have been lots of programming languages. Google not only could have made their own language different from Java, but they HAVE since done so, while also publishing a copy of Java.
Google fails the third factor. They copied thousands of lines
Google fails the fourth factor. They wanted to license Java for Android and Oracle wanted to license it to them. Google basically decided to go ahead and use Java commercially, in the same way that Oracle intended to use it, and just not pay the license fee. Oracle was trying to sell Java for phones via other avenues as well.
I'd love to find a law that lets Google win this. I haven't seen a good one yet. Maybe Congress could make a law about interoperability, if Congress can ever do their job.
It's not one sentence. You can use one sentence from a book. You can't use thousands of sentences. And certainly not arranged in the same in the same chapters (objects).
Google has all the same stuff, thousands of words, arranged in the same structure. We're not talking about two or three words like a song title, or a sentence. The Java API is thousands of words - a complete book. I can't think of any law that allows copying thousands of words, though I wish I could.
I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion that the Java API can't be copyright, but I'm not convinced by your argument.
Titles of popular songs: Come Home Stay One Smile I Love You
Given that song titles are typically 1-3 words, of course the same word is used as a title for multiple songs. In many cases there are ten different songs to hit the billboard charts with the same title.
The Java API is thousands of words. (Grotesquely oversized, some would say). The only way you end up with the same thing that Java made is if you intentionally copy them. In fact, you'd have to copy them very carefully, it would be easy to mess up and have a method take arguments in a different order or something.
With song titles, if you pick any common English word, that's probably the title of an existing song. You almost can't avoid using the the same title. With Java, it's very hard to copy it exactly. It's also very easy to write an API that's just as good, or in fact better, that isn't identical to Java.
Song titles aren't copyrighted because they are one or two words, maybe three. Other people have already used the same title before and they will again purely by chance. The same is not true of Java.
> If its larger metal parts you need, you could get a wax printer then send the mold off to be cast.
I paid about $20-25 all-in for a custom designed metal ring (jewelry). I believe it used 3D print of the wax, then that can be cast in steel, gold, silver - whatever metal you want.
My understanding is that an object twice as big would NOT be twice as expensive. There are costs to just handling the order. Whether $20-25 is affordable depends on the application, I suppose.
Probably 99% of the time, you can choose whether to go to doctor A, or doctor B down the street. How many times have you been to a doctor? How many of those times had you been shot, or lost a limb?
Unlike car dealers, most medical places don't post their prices on their web site, but you can call and ask. Unless you've been shot, which is 0% of my family's medical costs. I'm kinda old, I've bought medical care for myself or family probably hundreds of times. So far, not even once have we had a life threatening emergency where we had to rush to the nearest emergency room. A few times (less than 2% of medical) we've needed to choose one of three nearby emergency rooms).
Even if I need to see a doctor within the next couple hours, it takes 5-10 minutes to make a couple calls. You can even check into prices at your two nearest ERs TODAY, before you need them.
If you're that bothered about the cost of medical care (which I can understand), a very simple way to reduce the cost is to call and *ask*.
My doctor said I needed an MRI and handed me the phone number of an MRI place. I called them and asked the price. It took them about five minutes to figure out it would cost $1,500. I then did a Google search for "Dallas MRI". The very first place listed in the Google search results did it for $450.
A year later my wife needed an MRI. She went to the pace that charges $450, not the place her doctor handed her a card for ($1500 again).
Would you buy a car or even a phone without checking the price? Of course not, but people go buy medical stuff and then wait for a bill, not even asking what their price is.
'Ecuador to cease its "espionage activities" against him'
Bitch, you're in their their embassy, as a guest. Yes they're going to know what you're doing in their F-ing embassy.
It will be funny after he's extradited and the US unseals the charges they have him nailed on - jaywalking. Put his butt in jail six years so far by holding their cards close to their chest.
> I as a potential consumer can't have as much confidence in the services that Yelp provides if I know that they may have reviews that even a court found to be outright libelous.
The reviews that Yelp chooses to show are strongly influenced by whether the business pays Yelp for "advertising" (extortion). You should have no more confidence in Yelp than you have in any other advertisement.
Slashdot Mirror
Actual conversation between my wife and I:
Wife: Britney Spears has a show in Vegas now. I kinda want to see it.
Me, with a skeptical look on my face and a concerned tone of voice: Eh, I don't know. Do you think she's going to be nasty, doing all that over-sexualized stuff, dancing around half naked and crap?
Her: Well it IS Britney Spears, so I guess so.
Me: Sounds good! :)
Totally agree on the dynamic range thing.
Women who look like porn stars - well I can live with that.
That should say "every veteran born before 1918".
How many 100+ year old veterans do you think there are?
One law specified companies in a certain industry founded in 1954 (or whatever year) in a certain county. Exactly one company qualified, of course. How much that company donated to the politician who sponsored the law, I don't know.
A bill of attainder is a finding that a person is guilty of a specific criminal act. "Every veteran before 1918 gets an extra $10,000 of social security" isn't a criminal conviction, and therefore is not a bill of attainder. You will notice it applies to very few people, approximately one.
Anyway you asked for some citations for laws that apply to a single person or company. Here are a few which actually NAME the person. Most of them don't name the person, they just use criteria specific enough to apply to only one person:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
https://www.congress.gov/bill/...
More commonly, Congress would pass a law saying something like "all Presidential candidates must ... any commercial real estate holdings valued at more than $5 million". Gee, I wonder which presidential candidate had over $5 milion in commercial real estate. That law pretty much covers everybody, right? :)
It's not unusual for Congress to pass a law that applies to a single company, though. They can pass a law saying:
"All social networks founded in Cambridge, MA in 2004 must be broken up"
The court would then rule that Facebook was in fact founded in Cambridge in 2004, and therefore needs to be broken up.
It would then be the executive that actually does the things, so I don't think it's really accurate to say "only the courts can ..." Congress decides under what conditions a company can be forcibly broken up, and they can decide to break up Facebook. If Congress did so, the role of the court would be basically be to notice that Congress decided to break up Facebook ("social networks founded in Cambridge in 2004").
You're right that the vast majority of musicians aren't represented by a major label. Millions of songs are available on MySpace free, legally.
The major labels did actually do what you suggested and did not post the music to YouTube. Did that mean people sought out independent artists? Nope, it just want they illegally posted it to YouTube. Apparently the vast majority of people only want major label music for whatever reason. There are millions and millions of freely available songs, nobody listens to them.
Maybe that's because the major label music is less likely to suck. Especially regarding production quality. The free music on MySpace and other places includes some very good artists and some very bad artists. I guess people don't want to look for the stuff they like. In particular, the major labels have very good producers working in state of the art studios. Apparently people like that, because they'd rather steal the 0.1% of music that's put out by major labels than listen to the 99.9% that is legally available for free.
Censorship has a very specific definition. The government can easily infringe your first amendment rights through methods other than censorship. There can also be censorship that does not violate the first amendment.
Censorship is a system wherein censors view and edit speech before it can be seen by the public. You will never read or hear something that has been censored. The job of the censor is to block things the government doesn't want you to see or hear.
If someone gets it trouble after they say something, such as violating federal law by fraudulently pumping their stock price via posting material falae statements about the company they are the CEO of, they could make a first amendment argument (and probably lose). It's not censorship by definition because nobody prevented the speech.
Censorship:
The government edits the news broadcast before it is broadcast.
Not censorship, a different violation of freedom of speech:
The state of New York fines a broadcaster for being critical of Socialist House rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Is censorship, is not a violation of the first amendment:
Facebook blocks all posts mentioning Colin Powell.
Not censorship and not a violation of the first amendment:
People who conspire to call in false bomb threats get in trouble.
I went ahead and read the rest of it.
Note in Sega they copied a few bytes. That was important. Interoperability is a consideration, but the case should not be read to mean that you can do whatever you want for interoperability. Sega held that you can copy a few bytes of functional code for interoperability.
I've read most of the opinion (ruling) and so far it's page after page of why Google should lose. I was thinking you had linked to a ruling FOR Google. I kinda want to skip to the the ruling to find out, but I kinda like the suspense too. :)
This ruling could affect interoperability, which is why I'd like to see Google win, but I don't think current law is in their side. I may come across a solid argument of why the law is on the side, but I haven't yet.
So far I've come across why the law *should* allow it (why someone wishes it lawful), and people repeating Google's very flawed arguments, arguments that very clearly misstate the law.
The court actually brought that up. Google makes their own index of the web. if I were to steal a copy of Google's index and sell it, they may be able to sue me for copyright infringement.
Google's index is fair use of the snippets they use, the court has ruled, because it's transformative. You make a web page about iPad repair, Google makes an index of the web. Their use of a snippet from your page doesn't replace your page, in fact it makes your page more valuable for having been indexed.
ReactOS requires 96 MB, so I'm going to say it's not just like Windows. :)
In fact, it was discovered that ReactOS developers copy/pasted code from Windows (via a disassembler), so indeed there are copyright concerns. Microsoft didn't care enough to even comment about it. Perhaps that was because ReactOS has dozens of users, but anyway Microsoft didn't indicate that they *care* about ReactOS doing blatant copyright violation, copy-pasting from Windows.
If Google were making billions of dollars distributing ReactOS on Chromebooks (Winbooks), then I bet Microsoft would care, and a court could decide how much ReactOS infringes, and if any of that infringement is fair.
> Choosing to write a program in Java is not a copyrightable choice Having made that one choice, the declarations for the Java API now can only be written one way.
Writing a program *in* Java doesn't require you to implement Java the Java API.
Writing a program that *is* Java requires implementing Java API.
They are allowed to USE Java. It does not follow that they are allowed to BE Java. I can distribute write a program that USES Windows, that doesn't mean I can distribute a CD that IS Windows or that looks and acts exactly like Windows, so it is Windows as far as anyone can tell, or that I can distribute Linux without following the GPL just because I can distribute a program that runs on Linux.
Google / you are conflating writing an application FOR Java with writing an implementation of Java, an exact copy of its external appearance.
What do you think of this. I create a space movie with Han Solo and Yoda, but I implement the characters with CGI, rather than with actors? Does it matter if I implement them with actors or with CGI?
I take it you're not a programmer, or not a very good one. There is a VAST difference between a very good programmer and a beginner - the problem does not in fact define how the solution must be written, and every programmer would write the same thing.
Linux and Windows are vastly different because Microsoft didn't *discover* an operating system, they *created* one. (Somebody else created DOS). Creating new things is called being creative.
> Complicated math was true before you stumbled on it and the same is true of algorithms.
"The first search result should be Snopes" isn't a mathematical truth. It's not only not a mathematical truth, it's not even a truth, but an opinion, an editorial decision. Editorial opinions can be written using letters of the alphabet (which pre-existed!), and other characters on the keyboard such as "+" and âs. The fact that the concept of square root exists doesn't make it a mathematical fact that you should buy a stock when we the square root of the trading volume is greater than the CEO's age; that's an opinion. (A stupid opinion).
The fact that algorithms can easily give dumb answers demonstrates that they aren't mathematical truth - because they aren't even truth, they are opinion.
Btw thanks for the link to whichever decision that is. I'll read through it a bit later. I take it that's a court that ruled in favor of Google. I'm curious to read that because while I *want* Google to win, I can't imagine how they can under current law.
Let's try looking at this from another angle.
I have a right to make a space fighting movie. The general idea used in Star Trek, Stars Wars, etc isn't copyright protected. What is protected is the storyline, the particular collection of characters, character names, catch phrases, etc. So let's try translating what you wrote to such a situation. You said:
--
Google's claim is that the abstract Java API is a "system or method of operation", and that it includes the specific names as part of that.
--
Do I have the right to use the specific names of Star Wars characters such Yoda, Han Solo, Princess Leia, etc in my space movie, because all of the character names are part of the idea of a space movie? Obviously not. I can make a movie about space, I can have a hero. I can't name my here Han Solo.
Google is mistating merger.
Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1986), is a great example of merger. It was a movie about cops in the South Bronx. Like another movie about cops in the South Bronx, "the scenery would include drunks, stripped cars, prostitutes, and rats." That's not a copyright violation, the court ruled, because ANY MOVIE about Bronx cops would have those sorts of things.
What's not protectable are elements that EVERY WORK in the genre tend to have. Space movies have laser weapons, and spaceships which inexplicably have wings.
Computer languages have functions like copying a string, which may be called copy, strcpy, strncpy, string.Copy, or just "=". Merger says can't complain that another language, much like yours, has string copy, because that's part and parcel of writing a programming language - they all have that, it's needed.
You said "In the Java language, there is only one way to declare a function". The key words there are "in the Java language". In other words, "if you're making an exact copy of Java ...". Google has no inherent right to make and sell a copy of Java.
Merger would apply if you could say "the only way to make a programming language is to ...". We know that making a programming language doesn't require duplicating Java (from the users' point of view), but most languages don't. Most programming languages do a lot different, a lot smaller, and a lot better.
When Google says "in the Java language there is only one way", what Google is really saying is "the only way to copy Java is to copy Java". Well it doesn't work that way.
You're correct, you don't understand. First, copyright and patent are two different things.
Second, what you can't patent is the laws of nature, including the laws of physics and the laws of mathematics. So you can't patent gravity - you CAN patent an elevator, which uses the laws of physics. You can't patent " x+y = y + x", you can patent machines that use gears and levers (which are multiplication). Java is not a law of nature. In fact in may be an abomination of nature. :)
You're right the amount of copying isn't the only factor. The four factors are:
the purpose and character of your use (is it commercial, transformative?)
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken
the effect of the use upon the potential market for the original
Google fails the first. It's commercial. Original Java is a programming API, Google's copy is a programming API; there is no transformation into something else.
Google fails the second. There have been lots of programming languages. Google not only could have made their own language different from Java, but they HAVE since done so, while also publishing a copy of Java.
Google fails the third factor. They copied thousands of lines
Google fails the fourth factor. They wanted to license Java for Android and Oracle wanted to license it to them. Google basically decided to go ahead and use Java commercially, in the same way that Oracle intended to use it, and just not pay the license fee. Oracle was trying to sell Java for phones via other avenues as well.
I'd love to find a law that lets Google win this. I haven't seen a good one yet. Maybe Congress could make a law about interoperability, if Congress can ever do their job.
It's not one sentence. You can use one sentence from a book. You can't use thousands of sentences. And certainly not arranged in the same in the same chapters (objects).
Google has all the same stuff, thousands of words, arranged in the same structure. We're not talking about two or three words like a song title, or a sentence. The Java API is thousands of words - a complete book. I can't think of any law that allows copying thousands of words, though I wish I could.
I'm not saying you're wrong in your conclusion that the Java API can't be copyright, but I'm not convinced by your argument.
Titles of popular songs:
Come Home
Stay
One
Smile
I Love You
Given that song titles are typically 1-3 words, of course the same word is used as a title for multiple songs. In many cases there are ten different songs to hit the billboard charts with the same title.
The Java API is thousands of words. (Grotesquely oversized, some would say). The only way you end up with the same thing that Java made is if you intentionally copy them. In fact, you'd have to copy them very carefully, it would be easy to mess up and have a method take arguments in a different order or something.
With song titles, if you pick any common English word, that's probably the title of an existing song. You almost can't avoid using the the same title. With Java, it's very hard to copy it exactly. It's also very easy to write an API that's just as good, or in fact better, that isn't identical to Java.
Song titles aren't copyrighted because they are one or two words, maybe three. Other people have already used the same title before and they will again purely by chance. The same is not true of Java.
> If its larger metal parts you need, you could get a wax printer then send the mold off to be cast.
I paid about $20-25 all-in for a custom designed metal ring (jewelry). I believe it used 3D print of the wax, then that can be cast in steel, gold, silver - whatever metal you want.
My understanding is that an object twice as big would NOT be twice as expensive. There are costs to just handling the order. Whether $20-25 is affordable depends on the application, I suppose.
Probably 99% of the time, you can choose whether to go to doctor A, or doctor B down the street. How many times have you been to a doctor? How many of those times had you been shot, or lost a limb?
Unlike car dealers, most medical places don't post their prices on their web site, but you can call and ask. Unless you've been shot, which is 0% of my family's medical costs. I'm kinda old, I've bought medical care for myself or family probably hundreds of times. So far, not even once have we had a life threatening emergency where we had to rush to the nearest emergency room. A few times (less than 2% of medical) we've needed to choose one of three nearby emergency rooms).
Even if I need to see a doctor within the next couple hours, it takes 5-10 minutes to make a couple calls. You can even check into prices at your two nearest ERs TODAY, before you need them.
If you're that bothered about the cost of medical care (which I can understand), a very simple way to reduce the cost is to call and *ask*.
My doctor said I needed an MRI and handed me the phone number of an MRI place. I called them and asked the price. It took them about five minutes to figure out it would cost $1,500. I then did a Google search for "Dallas MRI". The very first place listed in the Google search results did it for $450.
A year later my wife needed an MRI. She went to the pace that charges $450, not the place her doctor handed her a card for ($1500 again).
Would you buy a car or even a phone without checking the price? Of course not, but people go buy medical stuff and then wait for a bill, not even asking what their price is.
'Ecuador to cease its "espionage activities" against him'
Bitch, you're in their their embassy, as a guest. Yes they're going to know what you're doing in their F-ing embassy.
It will be funny after he's extradited and the US unseals the charges they have him nailed on - jaywalking. Put his butt in jail six years so far by holding their cards close to their chest.
> I as a potential consumer can't have as much confidence in the services that Yelp provides if I know that they may have reviews that even a court found to be outright libelous.
The reviews that Yelp chooses to show are strongly influenced by whether the business pays Yelp for "advertising" (extortion). You should have no more confidence in Yelp than you have in any other advertisement.