Automotive News quoted Kowall as saying, “I hope that we never have to use it. That's why the penalties are what they are. The potential for severe injury and death are pretty high. Some of these people are pretty clever. As opposed to waiting for something bad to happen, we're going to be proactive on this and try to keep up with technology.”
Which is why they promptly went on to passing the following laws: Anyone who is caught driving over the legal alcohol limit is sentenced to life in prison. Anyone who texts while driving (or otherwise doesn't stare unblinkingly at the road 100% of the time)is sentenced to prison. Anyone who talks to drivers is sentenced to life in prison. Anyone who doesn't perform a legal lane change is sentenced to life in prison. Anyone who drives even a fraction of an MPH over the legal speed limit is sentenced to life in prison. And lastly... Anyone who buys firearms is sentenced to life in prison.
How about we give up civil liberties and freedoms in direct ratio to how many people die or are injured from having that freedom? Since drunk drivers cause a lot of fatalities, it's ok to occasionally check drivers near/leaving bars to see if they are breaking that specific law.
Since you are more likely to be eaten by a shark than die from a terrorist, it is NOT ok to secretly and without any restriction check on any and ALL communications by people on your own whim.
It means they find out the IP ranges of VPN outlet providers in the UK and block them. Since they can't see where the person on the other end of the tunnel is at, they simply block the exit node on the assumption it is outside the country.
Is it possible to make copyright be an opt-in system, not opt-out? The vast majority of all that content is not going to be monetized or whatever purpose copyright is supposed to serve (seriously).
There may be a small amount that feel they should be entitled to a copyright, and should thus declare ahead of time the copyright (in detail?). And it should be a process that takes effort to go through (registering your twitter account - for example - as a copyright protected item with the copyright office) to prevent people just blanket protecting every last instagram of their lunch.
As long as the product placement is subtle (no, having a future Will Smith have an odd desire to wear "vintage" Nike shoes isn't subtle) and not blatant, I don't care if that is the funding model. Have the characters drink a coke (you don't need the label perfectly 100% turned to the camera, guys, nobody drinks like THAT) if you want. During the conversation in the store, have them throw a Doritoes bag in the cart, ok.
My family just took a trip from Utah to California. Not only did they inspect both bags both times (we're still at 100% inspection rate), but the locks were cut on the way back. They left a slip indicating they had to cut off the TSA-APPROVED lock in order to get in there.
Yeah, I understand the confusion. Fox news is the 24/7, fox-branded, news-only channel. You were probably thinking of the local fox "affiliate" in your area that is broadcast over the air for free. This channel often has a morning/evening news segment, but also has other shows like Simpsons, Family Guy, etc.
Ironically enough - despite them being free over the air - local channels charge re-broadcasters like Dish a large amount to be able to show these local channels to their subscribers. And implement strict rules on ensuring ONLY the people in the area normally covered by the over-the-air signal can get the rebroadcasted signal from the satellite.
I'd been hit by the FBI virus years ago. It brought up a full screen program that wouldn't let me access control panel or anything else. I got around it by figuring out that it took a few seconds to pop up when I changed users. That was enough time to bring up control panel and kill the process before it fully launched and locked it down again.
Pretty old virus, actually. Funny how our government demands payment in untraceable money orders.
I think the problem needs to be looked at as whether the general idea of a character can be copyrighted, or the specific implementation of it. Basically, is the copyright on the specific books expired (leading to the ability for anyone to "copy" and print out their own copies with maybe slight changes in cover art and shapes), or has the copyright on the character itself expired.
If the latter, then this case is null, and anyone can make any stories they damned well please despite the fact that the original author made another book with it's own copyright.
Easy enough to put vent holes near the bottom of the can so there won't be a vacuum cause by the bag being removed. Or, alternately, rather than lift the can over the bag, make it so the can has a large door in the side to take it out that way.
I don't see what the smart can's point is, unless there are people unable to lift ~3 pounds of bag high above their heads. If that is the case, lifting the can isn't much better. Side doors, people!
You know, I see that there is sort of a problem here. It's vague, but I can see how an owner of a software who has their product "named" (slightly) in a movie can have an issue. If people (like me) hear the name and then go out and find there IS a software program called Clean Slate, I might associate the capabilities in the movie with the real program.
Wouldn't be the first time someone used a real-world program in a movie - *cough product placement *cough* - to show off the capability. After the movie, I might have an unrealistic expectation of the software's capability.
But then, I graduated from kindergarten and didn't believe they had anything to do with each other, so I never thought about it again.