So neither person has a claim.

And this Price guy's reputation is in the toilet. Things have a way of working out.

That's not the way fair use works. If I write a review that includes quotes from your novel, I have created a new work that makes fair use of your material. You are NOT now a joint owner of my review. If you choose to reproduce my review, even if it contains your content, you are infringing. (Unless of course you can make a fair use argument yourself).

That's not even close to what happened in this case.

TFS mentioned that adding the comment was unlikely to be the basis of transformation. It is transformative because of the radical context change which creates a commentary on the medium in the same way Marcel Duchamp transformed a porcelain urinal into art by placing it in a gallery and titling it "Fountain."

Andy Warhol using an image of a Campbell's Soup can in his art did not mean Campbell's had to change their can or stop selling soup.

I don't believe there's any case against Mahoney using the image she made. I'd like to see it go to court.

Companies that do this clearly don't care about productivity, because cost is only one part of the equation. No one who understands anything about business ever does anything because it costs less. They do things because the output per dollar spent is higher. If they are focused on cost, or do something imbecilic like think of their business in terms of "costs centres" and "profit centres" (hint: if it's necessary for your business it's a profit centre, since you can't generate a profit without it... if it isn't necessary for your business you shouldn't be doing it) they they aren't any good at running a business.

There can be reasons for putting people into one big room, and high-walled cubicals can be arranged to produce barely-sufficient privacy to get decent productivity at significantly lower cost, but none of these depend on cost. They depend on output per dollar.

Trying to work in an open office is like trying to write music in a bus station.

How is this insightful? The Patriot Act is less than 36 hours away from expiring, and all signs point toward the extension being filibustered into defeat.

It's insightful because only some provisions of the Patriot Act will expire, and the FISA court will continue to do whatever they want.

Laws as sweeping as the Patriot Act don't just go away.

As for the other activities, well, this is how spying gets done. That is how you spy on people in this day and age. With all of the justified criticism of the NSA, it would still be bad if they couldn't spy at all. They do, in fact, have a function to fulfill, and it is a function that needs fulfilling.

Why don't you unpack that statement a little bit? What is the domestic function of the NSA?

If you said anything besides, "It doesn't have a domestic function" then you are wrong. The US government is not supposed to be spying on US citizens. If there's some foreign government or organization that's communicating with an American citizen or permanent resident in order to commit a crime, just get a goddamned warrant.

I think a Dixieland Jazz parade would be suitable.

I'm prepared to play in the second line at the Patriot Act jazz funeral.

https://youtu.be/ZyI2XJCJ9ic

they don't even have bars in panama city. its cuz of the laws.

https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

https://plus.google.com/106354...

Ever been to a Panama City Bar?

Oh yeah. When I was in college, I had a cousin who was stationed at Tyndall AFB and visited him. Must have been February 1981 or '82.

An "Underwater Sonic Screwdriver" sounds like a drink you'd order at a Panama City bar.

I have an application for this where I'm using 365 to 395 nm older style to attract bugs efficiently.

Come on, give us a few details. Are you collecting the bugs for research or are you using the lights as bait for your backyard zapper? Or are you collecting bugs to feed to your pet iguanas?

That's too tantalizing a statement for you not to tell us a little more.

you're changing the goalposts

we were talking about leaders of nations, and now you are talking about the unrelated honorific applied to sports stars

so if you're changing the subject, i'll take that as your intellectually dishonest way of conceding my point here

i'm glad i've been able to show you something about your world. it's ugly. it's unfortunate. but it's reality we have to deal with

okay, you don't like that stalin was a leader, he didn't deserve it

i agree with you

but how are you going to change that?

welcome to an ugly aspect of your reality

All he did was facilitate transactions among consenting adults.

Illegal transactions. And he got a cut from every deal made.