Uzi Nissan
Google Images fails to replicate the image that came to my mind with that name.
Think Mad Max.
I can't help thinking that if he had registered the website under his first name he might have had more issues than just being taken to court if he didn't hand it over. Cough
Sounds like the war cry of the butt hurt to me.
Well GP was reviewing a colonic irrigation service
It still wouldn't matter. The other authors can license any way they want as long as it is compatible with your license. In the case of the GPL they can release their software as later version and still push back to your project under your version. You can take your code and release it proprietary and gpl at the same time because it's your code.
Read the license from the perspective of your users. If a later GPL version adds new protections against software patents, API copyrights, or whatever else the legal system dreams up, the users can opt to follow the terms of that license. If, in a moment of collective insanity, the FSF publishes a less-free GPL, the user can opt to use the earlier version your software was originally released under.
That clause actually ensures that the current version establishes a minimum set of rights.
The FSF post didn't say either what terms of the license they thought Apple was violating, nor why they think distributing via the app store is any different than distributing via the post office.
If I mail GPL software via the postal service, I have to comply with the GPL, which mainly means I have to include an offer to provide source code upon request. The postal service doesn't have to do ANYTHING regarding the license, they are a third party facilitating my distribution. It could be argued that Apple is no different- the person distributing via the app store needs to comply, Apple doesn't have to do anything to be in compliance.
By the wording of the license, it would be possible to argue either way, so a court would look at the INTENT of the license, it's PURPOSE. The gpl helpfully states it's purpose and intent right at the top - to maintain the four freedoms. As long as the freedoms are being maintained (by having source available, etc.), the court would probably rule that it's perfectly okay to distribute via the mail, ftp, email, http, or the app store.
Precisely... the two ideas are independent.
If his investments are publicly-traded, selling his stake does nothing. The companies he's invested in won't lose his money, because he'd just be selling to another individual, so "his money" becomes "the other guy's money". If it's a private investment, where he may be contractually limited in what he can do, then the whole discussion is rather moot. He may be able to sell his way out of the investment, which would reduce the company's operating capital somewhat, but unless he's a major shareholder, the impact on the company will be minimal.
On the other hand, if he keeps his investments, he likely gets votes in how the company operates. Being Bill Gates, he probably gets a few more votes and can bend a few more ears than regular folks can. If the investments do anything, good or bad, that's where it lies... they give Mr. Gates the ability to push the fossil-fuel companies in a more environmentally-friendly direction.
They have had kits that do not require a 3d printer for that for a long time now. There are a few different companies offering it. Here are a couple that I know of.
And I there there is a clone a willy kit somewhere but cannot remember the URL for it. All of these options are much cheaper than a 3d printer and you can put vibrators in them as well as glow in the dark colors and even lights. Lots of fun- just don't make a bunch of them and hand them out in the secret Santa at work next year. Trust me, it's not as fun or funny as you might think.
I saw that number written on the bathroom wall at the club I was at last night. You must get around.
Anyhow, I do not know if the FCC has an 800 number to call and check for flight restrictions. They should. I kind of assumed they did, actually.
If they do, I don't know about it.
Most of the fun for me was making the replica. It's like building models except they work like the real things. My stuff is a lot smaller but I've seen the larger ones in real life. They have them now with Jet engines and speeds that are unreal for a remote controlled unit. Or if anything, they are way beyond my skill levels. When I was into it enough to spend money, the jets were a pipe dream or electric motor with a prop enclosed in a housing to simulate a jet engine. Now they are a reality and actually burn fuel.
As for mounting a gun, of course that wouldn't be legal but we had some mount flour bombs, open bomb bays and drop bugs (beneficial bugs for pest controls in agriculture). I've heard stories of people mounting home made paintball guns. You could do it but I do not know if the air frame would survive the recoil. You could likely get a POV camera mounted to aim it too with all the new fangled electronics they have now. It sounds like it would be fun to try.
Indirectly, we did that.
We earned our income, and contributed our taxes to a big pool, and we elected legislators to decide if we should invest in SpaceX, industry bailouts, balancing budgets, military expansions, welfare programs, or any of the millions of other programs that all want a piece of the subsidy pie.
Even still, do you think it prudent to fly your UAV over a forest fire and add the mayhem?
I wouldn't just because of the chance of losing the plane let along any mayhem it might add to the situation.
here is no such thing as, well they are already at risk and the additional risk is trivial.
I would never say anything like that, my comment was how does someone know. It's a communication thing and despite you thinking it should be obvious, at least three people we know of didn't. Maybe what is needed is an 800 number or website someone can check and possible reminders to check packed into different items with the drone or drone parts.
As for a 4 foot wingspan, I don't have any but I do remember RC planes that large and larger being flown. But these were RC planes and line of sight. I havn't kept up with them and most of my experience was in recreating original planes at scale models that actually fly. I never got into the jet engines though and the larger ones were completely out of my budget. But there is one of the largest planes being flown.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Can you imagine the electronics that could fit into one of these..
Yes, the old testament where the bible says do something this way which is repeated in the new testament where the same occurs. The bible recognizes outsiders and unfaithful so the fact of it happening outside of religious demands is meaningless when checking to see if the bible allows polygamous marriages. It says to have one man and one women and the two become one.
That defeats the comment that if someone reads a bible, polygamous marriage would have been legal from the beginning. It clearly instructs the Jews and Christians to not participate in it and that it is wrong to do. The fact that it happened is a bit like ignoring what it says.
No, not really. And besides, if it is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, then any additional legislation should not be a barrier to it. If it was, then it would have been a barrier to gay marriage just the same.
Here we are in a unique circumstance where because of an argument about constitutionality, laws have to be changed and the argument for not changing them to cover the same argument over a different set of people is you would have to change laws. It's like logic is thrown out the window or something.
Its used in genesis way before Corinthians. It's mentioned in the new testament several times too. In fact, The new testament mentions that god made woman from man therefore when a man takes a wife the two become one.
It has enough meaning that at least two books were clear in this interpreting.
For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!
