No, their first priority is protection of their own IP which they must defend vigorously. Any unofficial "blessing" or slack with that takedown can be used as a chink in their case to retain the IP at a later legal engagement. Rather unlikely, but the law is not filled with many absolute certainties.

I'm certain that the first comment from Blizzard (and not their lawyers) to him was "We apologize for the takedown, but we have to cover our bases. Now, please tell us more about your project. We're a bit curious..." Once actual intent is discovered and identified, I'm willing to bet that they've extended a formal notice of approval to allow him to continue work, and posting videos in the future. Mark my words, in a few days that video will be back up on youtube.

Pretty much this.

Unfortunately, for the past... thirty years or so the basic view of a LOT of shareholders, a view that became steadily more and more common, was that they wanted a positive return each year, each quarter, etc. The boards that existed could see this tide rising steadily, as other boards that failed to deliver were eventually turfed out by shareholders and their proxies who DID want more returns. This then gave pressure to the boards to deliver on these results. Note that this means the boards are beholden to their shareholders. IE the Board has the (non-legal) obligation to follow the shareholder's majority goals. Failure to do so can result in the board being wiped clean (Note that in many companies boards are elected as a slate IE all or nothing).

Nobody likes losing a job, especially one with six figures attached to it, means that most boards will then work towards giving the shareholders what they want. So, one gets cost cutting and other charming crap. That being said, it's pretty much impossible to sue for a failure to generate profits, so long as there is an honest intention generate them (now there's a legal loophole for ya!).

One good thing at least, is that a lot of companies have recognized that chasing the ever-growing stock value (which is what shareholders want after all) is bad for long term business, and have begun working to persuade shareholders to take a longer, more strategic view. Some corps are leveraging this with environmental concerns, or economic stability, but it is happening.

This I can top. My local store has us pay for bags (voluntarily, mind you) by ringing in a PLU code. Only five cents per plastic bag. Pretty common fare around here. Anyhow, so I tell it I grabbed one plastic bag, and then it asks me if I wanted a bag for it. Which would then mean I'd have to plug in another PLU code, and then it would ask me for ANOTHER bag... and so on and so on....

Why, did you want to borrow one?

I can't say how it is down in the States, but I know in Canada the way that scratch tickets work is that they have a bar code on the back, and a serial number hidden under the scratch portion. In order to validate the ticket, the retailer scans the bar code, and then looks for the serial number. The bar code is just a digital representation of the serial number, EXCEPT for the last three digits. The retailer plugs in the last three digits, and then the validator talks to the lotto central server and spits back a result of "Legit win", "Already redeemed" or "Not a Winner".

If Canada does it this way, I'd be surprised if a lot of the US lotto organizations don't either.

The player who actually created the PLEXes got exactly what they wanted. If they had wanted game time instead of ingame currency, they would have created the PLEX, and then immediately used it. Or even more likely, just used the game time code to add play time to their account without even creating a PLEX in the first place.

Nice Try, but no.

The way PLEXes work is that a player buys a gametime code from an authorized online retailer. The player then docks up at a station, and enters the code into a menu. This converts the codes into PLEXs (two PLEX per code). These PLEXes can then be put it onto the market and sold like other items

Now, in this situation all these PLEXes were purchased from multiple sellers in Jita (THE trade hub in EVE). The pilot then decided to move them out of Jita on a small, poorly defended and very weak ship. By all accounts the pilot had bought them in order to move them elsewhere and sell them at a considerable markup and make profit. Unfortunately, some hostiles were waiting outside of the undock point at the Jita space station (not uncommon). They saw a hostile target undock, and they engaged. Boom.

You may notice that the player(s) who actually created the PLEXes were compensated. They made ISK from their sales. The person who bought them however... just did something astronomically stupid.

That's interesting, except for the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the land. You cannot appeal such a decision anymore than you can appeal one made by the Supreme Justices of the United States. True, the victory was not total (damages were not extensive) but Schmeiser was still found guilty.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser#Judgment

... and keep your insurance in force. If said pool on the cheap leaked or burst, flooding your own house or the neighbour's, then the insurance adjuster can look to see if it was a properly installed pool. If it wasn't, then that would be pretty good grounds to have your coverage refused. That would then potentially leave you on the hook for paying any damages that would be your fault. Of course, you could try to sue the pool builder, but I'll wager he'll be quite long gone.

Building inspectors, on this note, will be conducting rounds every now and again to monitor compliance in any case. Google just allows them to do it faster, and with less environmental damage. That means conceivably, the inspectors can look at more serious issues like possibly unsafe decks and wiring. It's also interesting to note that this has been used elsewhere. I recall seeing an article last fall in the local newspaper about how Greek inspectors were doing the same. There, you not only have to have a permit, but there's a yearly tax as well. They looked at a certian suburb of Athens (middle-upper class area) and figured there were about 200 or so legally registered pools. They then did a look through Google Earth, and discovered 1700 pools in the same suburb.

I'm a business major, about to graduate with a BBA in Accounting, and the calculator is by no means a crutch. It is a tool to let me do a LOT of tedious, repetitive math far more accurately and quickly than by hand.

You CAN calculate out a mortgage, depreciation on assets, or a compounded investment portfolio by hand. Each period is only a few basic math steps. You just have to recalculate each period, write down a value, and do it over and over again. Care to estimate how many mistakes you might make just with writing and re-reading or entering numbers? Would you like your mortgage consultant to do that for you? And bill you for that time?

Didn't think so. A calculator automates the tedious parts of my profession so that I can work better. It does the math, but I have to understand HOW it does it, how the variables affect the results, and how to interpret it. Push coming to shove, I could do it by hand. But reality just makes it much easier to use a calculator to crunch out the raw data.

That's what I was taught in University. We do it by hand to understand how our tools work, and then we do it via calculator or Excel to do something usable with it. Understand the basics, and then leverage the power of something that's better at it. You don't slam a carpenter for using a table saw when he could use a handsaw do you? The value of his work isn't what does the cutting, it's the knowledge he has to pick the right tool to give you the result that you want. Why should the usage of a calculator be any different?

Presumably you checked to see what actually constitutes a full stop in your jurisdiction, yes? Because some areas actually state quite deliberately what is considered a full stop.