your "direct experience", lets hear it.
Who stole. Literally stole, not invented separately, not had a competing product on the market that was eventually argued to sorta kinda infringe on some level, but stole. Who stole what patent and why, and how was it resolved?
Without details "direct experience" is a claim that anyone can throw out. sound and fury, but no substance.
You make it sound like making minor changes in the shape of next-year's truck involved tearing down the factory or replacing all the equipment. Car and truck plants around the world manage to do a changeover, many of them yearly, without somehow selling off "the tooling" to a knockoff company.
So instead of a raging legal fight across borders and continents, with millions in lawyer fees across years, we have a few hours overall of work by a salaried manager (Mr Harborn) and one or two sketch artists, also probably salaried or doing these pieces at no great cost in time or money. This is a success story for everyone but lawyers.
And where is the harm? you have still failed to come through with that.
Ok, some people may believe a rumor for a short time that a celebrity is dead. The source of this rumor will experience a lot of negative notoriety when this is confirmed false. Anyone who repeats it will also have egg on their face for believing the internet without doing minimal fact checking. Tome Cruise is not harmed.
Second example, Someone is spreading false statements. The reactions could be to.. a) overreact like you suggest or b) ignore it. The source full of negative and/or misleading falsehoods will be recognized for being outrageous or at least as unreliable as a tabloid. People who want to believe these rumors will not be swayed one way or another by taking action at the source, making it pointless. Just like your "masnick is a weenie" statement is just noise.
Mike is not somehow harmed.
Welcome to the internet.
People do not always tell the truth here.
Liars eventually get called liars, Other things are recognized as being more useful and therefor rise to the top.
Its money that got Many more cycles through the economy.
That 4 dollars i saved on a purchase did not magically disappear. It went into food from the locally-texan-owned (and taxed) bakery at the corner. It went into my rent. It went into a any number of things, moving around the state economy and being taxed as appropriate.
I Am cycling the money. If there is a short gap on when Rick Perry and his friends get to play with it, too bad for them.
One time, i visited Wikileaks and poked my head through a door marked "Employees Only", and what i saw was amazing!
The entire site was all made of cardboard and plywood and little bits of tape! Sure, they painted a nice site on the front, but if you start wiggling it at the edge you see where the 'roof' starts to flop around. Maybe it is a fake site, and all the residents of the real site are up the hill waiting for Taggart and his posse to whup and holler their way in before blowin' the whole thing down!
That's right, i wasn't doing anything with those rights anyhow.
And if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!
I wouldn't want a world where the police can't shut down a crack-house without first having to apprehend the owner.
The comparison you are looking for is
"I wouldn't want a world where the police have to follow due process to enforce the law. I think they should be able to shut down that crack house, my neighbor's house, even my house as long as they promise that they are 'helping the children' or 'fighting terrorists'. I am sure they will never Use all of these powers, right?"
Justice is now decided on the idea that "We are more or less certain you might be part of this group of people and have therefore tried you (not Actually you, simply some person we also think is in the group) in your absence. You are declared guilty due to our choice to compare you with these other people and your inability or lack of notification to choose not to be part of this class"
Some amazing justice there, joe. It is amazing that you are hungering to be a part of it.
rather then a milling output, i would suggest an automated mixer that can accept pre-measured dough components, then tip the completed material onto the pizza tray moving through the line. This could be replaced with a system that retrieves a pre-made dough ball, or even a pick-and-thaw dispenser that thaws par-cooked dough.
For shaping i would suggest a press-style mold. Lock the pizza pan into place on the line, apply pressure with a properly shaped disc to stamp an optimum shape. Automated application of non-stick oil before pressing would help.
Printbed sauce application system would be interesting. Even more if it could handle 2 or 3 input lines, allowing artistic swirls of marinara, alfredo sauce and/or peppery olive oil or pesto. Imagine an evolutionary algorithm slowly developing the perfect flavor! Cheese application might be possible with the same system, though odd pelletizing or compounding might ruin.
A delta-robot with a vac' gripper might be a better choice, allowing rapid placement of items like sliced cheeses, discs of pepperoni and/or sausage. Optional is a low-power CO2 laser and aiming array in conjunction with the feed-tube for the pepperoni, allowing the addition of monogrammed meat product.
Final is a pass-through oven, and i think developments in the pizza industry are pushing these to be smaller and faster all the time..
So.. um.. where was i..
It is good that the judge eventually retracted this demand.
And .torrent = .pizza
All those provisions seem to spell out that Twitter is the one with the license to display (use) any content you give them. There is nothing that says anyone without a connection or business relationship with twitter can freely use your content.
The point is that a huge portion of an interconnected web of systems all tied to a single spot that could be shut down.
Its like never realizing that all of the traffic in your town routes around to a single intersection, and one day a single small fender-bender (or road-cones, the analogy is getting stretched a bit) serves to shut down everything.
And i am certain that the concept of "internet disconnect" came up somewhere.
politically connected manager: We have to find a we to shut down all internet traffic!
reluctant IT tech: well, in theory if you simply shut down This data-switch here, it will shut down all the data flow between here and everywhere, but i don't suggest..
politically connected manager: Brilliant! Throw The Switch!
joe: If you really didn't think it was OK, you would say so. But you don't.
That's right folks, joe has officially stopped reading. You would think this would put a crimp in that career in law, but it is largely built around ignoring statements that you would like to ignore as well.
depends on how carefully put together the legalese is.
1. You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube's prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player).
The issue is not distribution.
2. You agree not to alter or modify any part of the Service.
The "Service", which is probably defined in the terms, is likely the mechanism of the streaming and displaying. Not hacking Youtube = probably not altering "The Service"
3. You agree not to access Content through any technology or means other than the video playback pages of the Service itself, the Embeddable Player, or other explicitly authorized means YouTube may designate.
"The Content" could be defined as the entire Audio/Visual/layered package delivered from youtube. Once re-created into an mp3, it is no longer "The Content" that was delivered. This seems to be more a provision to explicitly lock-out frame-grabbing overlays or "youtube ad-remover" scripts.