Is parent the only other one here who recognises a tautology when it smacks them between the eyes?

Clearly the editors don't.

-Englishmonger

Goregasm: The Legend of the Dong-Slayer - it sold 61m copies. The ultimate melding of violence and porn. If an egomaniac can pull it off, surely the big wigs can too.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/10/24/30-rock-tracy-jordans-porno-video-game-sells-61m-units/

This sounds all roses and sweetness but the reality is, surgery involves volatile hours. Some degree of predictability may be known, for example weekend nights probably have a greater probability of road accidents, but for the most part, surgeons have to perform at a moment's notice to save lives.

Whilst you could simply employ more staff to ensure there's a healthy buffer of refreshed and well slept surgeons, I'd hazard a guess this is far more costly than most hospitals could afford or would want to cut into profits.

Declaring sleep deprivation might make some academic journal tingle inside, but how will that affect lives? You get a disclaimer and a law suit potentially sidelined. But the patient then must wait for a suitable surgeon to perform. In many locations, that simply might not be an option.

Yes. They're now selling promoted tweets for up to $100,000. Engagement rates were significantly higher than what was seen on Google's sponsored links, though that's likely due to its novelty. With enough promoted tweets however, you could start to see some serious cash rolling in.

Didn't he see the frame that briefly flashes up before starting the game?

"The following story is fictional and does not depict any actual person or event. Any similarities to actual people, places or events is purely coincidental." /facetiousness

Er what? I think you misread what the CEO was saying (assuming the article you don't cite mentions it). Netflix was saying that third-party content providers were not essential to its success. At the end of the day, Netflix has the subscriber base and the cash rolling in to negotiate with whomever they want. It doesn't matter if they go direct or via some third-party route.

At the end of the day, it's in the studios' or brokers' best interest to receive large slabs of money because content providers can double dip as much as they want. First the air it on TV (money), host it on their sites (more money), make it available to iTunes and other pay-per-view services (the dollars continue to flow), then sign up as many streaming services as those companies can afford (ooooh, they're getting richer) before releasing to DVD and syndication.

Direct or indirect - Netflix doesn't care because someone will agree to those handsome checks.

If you use some starch, the ironing will be crisp!

Hence the pursuit and vilification of individuals *cough Assange* and organizations whose propagation of information is at odds with the U.S. was perfectly acceptable in 2010.

So 2011 will be all different then.

From TFA, you can still buy his defense package from here

If the non-profit organization liked the story, why wouldn't they simply acknowledge Righthaven by way of summary and then link back to the source. Copying verbatim, even with acknowledgement, denies Righthaven hits to its website that otherwise would have been forthcoming.

What is fair use? IANAL but I would hazard a guess that entire reproductions without permission aren't fair.