Pfizer did get "some" federal money, Just it was from another federal government. It received 375 million Euro from the German government to accelerate the development and production capacity of the vaccine. Because apparently even with the European model of pharmaceutical development it is possible to fund research without having to sell insulin at 200 to 300 dollars per dose.

Can't edit my post, but I thought I would add a little more context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Humm, actually, the largest financial push for the development and testing of the MRNA vaccines came from the German government. Didn't stop both the UK and US government of the time from claiming it was their doing, though.

Actually, it did happen.This is one instance.
https://arstechnica.com/inform...

I swear, I wrote this book without ever reading any other book, so it's surely not going to infringe any copyright.
Same goes for music composed without ever listening to any music or images drawn without ever seeing anything.
I think the copyright office and copyright owners still haven't understood what training an AI model means.

Either no AI work is derivative or all original content is derivative.

They are 5th generation multirole jets, but not air superiority fighters. That said, they are probably about as capable as 4th generation air superiority fighters while also able to handle attack and ground support operations, and (if they get it working, it seems) their sensor integration and battlefield networking systems makes them much more capable than even the early 5th generation air superiority fighters in CAP and interception roles.

That's easy, it's COBOL. Mind you, it's unfortunately still very diffused, just not very popular.

The difference is, if you write a movie script after having watched 30 other movies, do the authors of those 30 movies have a right to declare your script a derivative work?

Sorry, that's a Commonwealth specific definition, not all countries are the same. I didn't mean to indicate that as a Specific Australian case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

No, they are not, or not necessarily. Ministers are appointed by an elected government, but are not by themselves necessarily elected. They are civil servants, and are supposed to have an administrative role. They CAN be politicians, but ideally they should be experts in the matters handled by their ministry instead.

When the requirements are so well designed that their implementation can be actually measured, then a machine can probably do the job. But when the job is too complex for a machine to handle, actually measuring productivity is probably impossible. You can guesstimate things, and it's worked well so far.

Not only the UK had a vote. As a founding member the UK had a veto power. And it also had a bunch of exceptions, for example to the use of the single currency or the freedom of movement. But that wasn't enough, so they decided to take their ball and leave, but taking care of stabbing the ball as well.

Credit towards whom? If you borrowed money from your own citizen you didn't really get any poorer.

The people paying Red Hat money rarely handle bug finding and fixing. The mind share they risk to lose is essentially the world of unpaid beta testers, the ones that are complaining, and that might just as well just move over to other distributions. Red Hat might think it's not a big loss, they might be right, but it's a bit early to see how it plays out. When the vast majority of Linux users stops being on a red Hat clone the ecosystem becomes more fragile for Red Hat enterprise users, because their tech personnel is no longer using Fedora or CentOS at home and the skills no longer overlap.

Modern lava lamps already come with LED lighting and a couple of high wattage resistors as a heat source. they can even have RGB lighting.