In any case, the rule was repealed and it was repealed retroactively: furniture designs that had already entered the public domain were shoved back under life-plus-seventy copyrights, and the industry was given a grace period to purge their stocks.
This? This is what theft involving copyright actually looks like. Barring the 'grace period' the copyrights in question went from 'everyone can use them, no one needs to pay' to 'no-one can use them unless they pay', almost literally overnight.
What was free for everyone to use after it made it through the original government granted monopoly period is now locked back up, and to make matters worse I imagine those with 'infringing' stock are going to be forced to destroy it if they can't sell it in time in order to avoid costly lawsuits for infringement, a demonstrable loss due to copyright, as opposed to the theoretical losses attributed to copyright infringement.
The point is that the numbers make it clear the fearmongering is insanely overblown.
Would I take a handful from a bowl of 963 million Skittles where three might be poisoned? No, I don't like Skittles. Would I do it if you replaced that with a candy I do like? Absolutely, because the odds of anything bad happening from doing so is so insignificant that if I'm going to worry about it there are probably hundreds of things I should be downright terrified of.
I'm pretty sure I've got better odds of tripping over a cat and breaking my neck than I am of dying from a terrorist, refugee, or terrorist refugee, but you won't see me freakin' out and running in terror every time I see a cat, or calling for the deportation of all felines 'just in case one of them has a mind to kill'.
If 1 in 3.64 billion is enough to justify keeping refugees out then the 4.5 per 100,000 means everyone needs to leave the country, because you're vastly more likely to be killed by someone already living here.
Is it possible that some insanely dedicated and skilled terrorist/murderer/communist would pretend to be a refugee and sneak into the country that way? Sure, but the numbers make it pretty clear that the odds of it happening are infinitesimal, and as such said possibility is hardly a sound justification to freak out over refugees and bar them from entry or make an already insanely complicated process even more difficult.
The carrot is clearly not going to work because over-classification is more valuable to the agencies than a minor monetary reward. If the carrot isn't an option, time to break out the stick, namely penalties to their budgets for over-classification.
If they actually stand to lose something then they'll actually care enough to at least consider which is more valuable, the current budget or obscuring their actions just because.
“The commonwealth and DA have a duty not merely to convict, but a duty to seek justice,” Mr. Dyller said. “If there is no consequence for those officers, it’s a signal to other officers it’s not the end of the world if you cut corners. ... For every time someone is caught, there has to be 100 times when they are not.”
The lawyer nails it, there's no reason for cops not to bend if not flat out break the law, and plenty of reasons for them to do so. Sure they got caught this time, but I'm totally certain that this is hardly the first time they've ignored the law and still gotten a conviction from it, so why would they care that it didn't work this once?
Tossing the evidence, and as a result the case is a good start, but it absolutely needs to be followed by actual punishments for those cops involved. Dock their pay for minor screw-ups, fire them permanently for huge 'mistakes' and fire them and bring charges for those times when they screw up so badly that you know without a shadow of a doubt that it was intentional.
Not in the slightest, if anything that just makes my disgust with the cops higher. They had a chance to follow the law and get a massive amount of highly dangerous drugs and those selling it off the streets, and instead the dealers walk because the cops were too incompetent and/or corrupt to do it right.
I too like to make myself feel better by complaining that an article that I didn't have to read but did anyway contained something that I disagreed with, since I was clearly owed an article that I found agreeable.
I also like to save time by combining one complaint with another, entertaining myself by complaining when other people point out absurd, unjust, greedy or flat out stupid things, because my time is worth more than that dammit and it's the fault of everyone else for highlighting things that I don't care about.
This is Australia you're talking about, where everything up to and including the ground itself is trying to kill you, I'd think a mamma spider and a hundred or so baby spiders would be just another day on the job for an electrician there.
This may surprise you, but contrary to what some people believe it is actually possible to be against both people, and criticism of one doesn't mean support of the other. One can be critical of one candidate without supporting the other, and if you think an article calling Trump out on another lie is somehow evidence of support for Hilary then does that make the multiple articles critical of something Hilary has said or done evidence of support for Trump?
As for 'easily check yourself', absolutely right, a quick search should clear that right up.
Clinton auto-complete results.
'Hilary Clinton c...' Campaign College Children Commercial
'Hilary Clinton cr...' Crying Crowds Cried Crisis of character
'Hilary Clinton cri...' Cried Crisis of character Criminal investigation Google Cried after Donald Trump
'Donald Trump cri...' Crimea Cries Crippled america Cribs
Yup, you were absolutely right, that quick check made it quite clear that the two are receiving drastically different results from auto-complete, confirming that Google is indeed giving Hilary special treatment. I mean sure she had 'cried' and 'crisis of character' several times, but Trump had both Cuba and China in the first set, obvious evidence of malicious intent on Google's behalf.
“I’d like to know what agenda they propose is being driven, and how somebody like Eric Lander – who mapped the human genome — is going to preside over a process that is intended to undermine the criminal justice.”
Justice requires that you make absolutely sure that you convict the right person, even to the point of tossing a potential conviction if the evidence isn't rock solid that they're guilty of the crime they are being tried for.
If he was really interested in 'justice' he would support wholeheartedly any attempt to make sure that the tools used to secure a conviction are as close to being 100% accurate as humanly possible. That he and several other groups instead choose to attack both the study and the people who wrote it make clear that they don't give a damn about justice, all they want is convictions.
If nothing else it would be entertaining watching them run around like headless chickens, bleating about the 'invasive, unwarranted government interference in private business.'
They want to be able to bill if you use 'too much' by claiming that paying by use is only fair. Except using less doesn't mean you pay less, and they are completely indifferent to making sure that the systems counting 'how much is used' is actually accurate, since again, using less doesn't mean paying less, so any mistakes come out in their favor.
They want it both ways basically, they want to excuse usages caps by comparing it to stuff like water and electricity('Pay more to use more'), but they don't want their services treated as such by an outside party, and they certainly don't want to apply the other side('Use less, pay less').
A report released last week by the Cato Institute measured the risk to Americans posed by refugees. The report found that an American’s chances of being killed by a refugee in a terrorist attack in any given year are 1 in 3.64 billion. America’s murder rate — at 4.5 per 100,000 capita — is about 163,800 times higher.
Three skittles means you triple the number, giving you just shy of eleven billion.
Assume for the sake of argument that that's true, that they really do 'unfairly' focus on negative Trump stories, I wonder if that might have anything at all to to with his stance and actions towards them? Saying he wants to 'open up' libel laws, suing reporters and others who say mean things about them, to the point of bragging that even a loss still cost the other person money?
In their shoes I'd probably focus on highlighting his negatives too, because a Trump presidency is not likely to be kind to them.
Hardly, a gun does not a nutjob make, anymore than a knife, sword, or bow would. What matters is what the person does, how they act, not what they have. A person does not go from normal to nutjob simply by picking up a gun.
'Nearly eight months later, a grand jury has returned charges against six of the officers. Five of the officers -- all supervisors -- are facing misdemeanor charges of dereliction of duty. Officer Brelo, the cop who single handedly delivered over a third of the 137 bullets, will be facing something more severe.
The Cuyahoga County Grand Jury today voted to indict Cleveland Police Patrol Officer Michael Brelo on two counts of Manslaughter for the killing of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams on November 29, 2012.
Under Ohio Revised Code Section 2903.03, Manslaughter is a felony of the first degree, carrying a mandatory prison sentence of from three to 11 years.'
Out of everyone involved, five were charged with misdemeanors for 'dereliction of duty', with the guy who jumped on the car's hood and emptied several clips into two unarmed people faced not murder charges but manslaughter, as though it was purely accidental that 49 rounds split between two people was enough to kill them.