The USPO, by adhering to strict copyright laws, has contributed over $3 million to the private sector, and several million to the legal sector - promoting American job growth and adding to the American economy.
And that is how copyright saves jobs and helps the economy. :/
Hawaii Five 0 has had some clangers too - especially the Microsoft ones. Using the internet on the mobile phone to "bing it" sounded as natural and comfortable as wearing swimwear to Mt. Everest. And your right, the car 'commercials' are pretty obvious too.
"Photoshop a historical event marred by copyright law."
Can't afford it. According to current law, I have to:
1. Buy a license to cover publicity rights.
2. Buy a license to cover copyrights (of the photographers, agents, whatever)
3. Pay a lawyer to advise me of my options when I get the inevitable nastygram, because it's posted on a blog so it must be infringing.
4. Pay a huge settlement fee because I can't afford the lawyer to defend me through a protracted and lengthy court case because perchasing the licences doesn't protect me, it's only an "affirmative defense".
Too expensive for a little light entertainment and 30 minutes creative fun for a Photoshop challenge.
*Narrows eyes and peers suspiciously* Or are you one of the fair use wackos???
Both meanings have morphed, like many words. A seed becomes an idea, and a nursery becomes a place where the seeds (ideas) are planted and nurtured (seminar, seminary, etc).
Seminal now can be used, perfectly correctly and acceptably, as "Highly influential in an original way; constituting or providing a basis for further development: a seminal idea in the creation of a new theory". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/seminal
Short version: You are both correct. Both meanings are applicable. :)
I suspect mostly he wanted to see how many stupid tardian blogs would carry his story. He has proven his point that you guys are all suckers for his cause.
Perhaps, but mostly he's proven how much free advertising you can get if you are friendly, enthusiastic, and embrace the public, instead of hurling insults and lawsuits at them.
I doubt he will be paying you back for all your generosity
You've missed the point completely. Generosity doesn't require reciprocity. Generosity doesn't involve a quid pro quo, or backscratching deals. The fact that generosity is often returned is due to good will, and the desire to do something nice for those who have done something you feel is worthwhile. Generosity is given freely.
I didn't mean 'proper' as in 'correct'. There are two categories of noun - common and proper. A common noun doesn't have a capital letter, and refers to a person, place of thing. A proper noun does have a capital letter, and refers to a spceific person, place or thing. A person's name, 'Marcel' for example, is a proper noun, whereas 'person' is a common noun.
So the sentence I typed was correct:
The Almighty Squiggle Line (name)probably believes that "English"(name) is a proper noun, deserving of a capital letter. Your obeisance to the Almighty Squiggle Line was wise, young Grasshopper.(name, and KungFu reference).
And I try very hard to resist the lure of being a grammar Nazi, but since the OP asked, I thought it was okay to answer. :)
I'll start with a disclaimer - I'm very, very fuzzy on the details of setting up networks.
I'm Australian, and with Telstra, one of the largest ISPs. I've never purchased or upgraded my modem/router without it being automatically set up with a WPA/password on it. It doesn't mean others don't, but I've always assumed they do.
If Australian ISPs set this up out of the box, wouldn't that mean that those with open wifi have done that out of preference? Or am I just severely confused and ignorant on the matter?
You are aware that the Swedish definition of rape is different to other countries, right?
Assange had consentual sex with both women. The rape allegation is over whether or not he wore a condom - an in both cases there is doubt over whether his objection is enough to constitute "rape", as he did concede to their request to wear one.
I'm not saying the following is the be all and end all on the topic, but it is a good read to understand some of the issues on this particular subject. Feel free to research further on your own.
I have mixed feelings about this. I've donated to Wikileaks even with the financial blockade and I do believe the US is very wrong in many ways about all that is happening both to Wikileaks and Bradley.
Agreed. Even the legit case they may have had against Manning has been soured by the methods they used.
However, if he gets elected he'll get both a powerful tool to protect himself and to create a legal base for whistleblowers in Australia (making it potentially a safe heaven for such ppl). Of course it can go wrong...
I'm not sure this is an issue? Having a tool to protect himself would only be a bad thing if he was guilty of something - which is highly contentious at this stage. The sexual assault allegations were raised and dropped - then raised again by lawyers when the whole Wikileaks thing gained publicity. The facts in this area are murky and dubious - on both sides.
As for the legality of Wikileaks - again, highly contentious. Whether personal opinions tend towards his actions being right or wrong, legally there hasn't been a case made for his actions being illegal. If his actions are legal, Assange having some tools to protect himself may be a good thing.
Finally, I'm not sure there is an issue with Australia becoming a safe haven for whistleblowers. "Safe haven" implies illegality - whistleblowing is a legal action, and doesn't require a safe haven from anything except extortion and aggressive persecution. Personally, I'm fine with Australia being a safe haven from those actions. (As a side note, it was interesting watching all the major Australian news outlets prominently display contacts for whistleblowers at the height of the Wikileaks publicity.)
I think it's something to follow with interest rather than pure amusement.
I also agree with this! Although I think the interesting aspect will be regarding the legality of Wikileaks, and the US Government's reactions to Wikileaks/Assange's actions.
Personally, I think he has some great ideals, but is a bit of a tosser. Hell, it's a combination that probably makes for a successful politician! But I would like to see some of his ideals - especially regarding openness and transparency of government actions - become more of political focus. And running for government may achieve some of this. If Assange's ego doesn't get in the way.