No, see, if the cars catch fire *before* the explosives go off, that makes the scene less exciting. If the cars don't catch on fire, well, pyrotechnics can take care of that.
With $10,000 on the line, it'll be interesting to see how anyone manages to crack the code.
Fixed that for you. Not a question of "if"...
Who else is on the subcommittee? Turns out it's 7 republicans and 4 democrats. While I can believe that the Rs may have dominated the vote, it's about as valid as assuming both sides agreed on the cut, since the quote from Senator Lamar Alexander specifies "We've withdrawn..." meaning it wasn't just his decision.
Really, though, you expect one single person is the only one ever asked to decide anything? Well, you might, but I don't think you should admit to it, if you do. But in case you do, perhaps you should examine this:
"Instead, appropriators will zero out ITER spending until DOE comes up with reliable numbers, said Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, at a hearing today. "We provide no funding for ITER until the department provides this committee with a baseline cost, schedule, and scope," she said.
Don't ask me why I decided to go to google for this stuff, but I didn't really need to. Even the first link in the submission specifies that it was a Democrat who chairs the subcommittee and who warned almost 3 months ago that the funding was in jeapordy.
Missing Option: Celebrating my friend's birthday. It sure is nice of the entire USA to have a fireworks show for her.
Besides, what better way to make sure you know what the consumers are experiencing by making sure your gear (no pun) is acquired from the same place?
If Apple (or any company) gave him special supplies, maybe they might deliberately make his item somehow superior (whether through special hardware or software options or optimizations that aren't available for the general public)?
So who regulates cars without guns attached? Or are those unregulated?
I read through the actual law and I don't see anywhere that specifies each CEO and officers of a violating company can be fined. The law specifies "individuals" can be fined up to $1million, and "any other person" (presumably corporations-as-people) can be fined up to $10million.
Anyone care to clue me in?
Actual FULL text of the law: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
About the metaphor, it clarifies what the article is about. Not everyone immediately knows Alopecia Universalis is completely distinct from Plaque Psoriasis--not that most people probably even know anything about either of those.
Given that $324 million for 64 000 employees means just a hair over $5000 per person, I'd have to say the judgement should have been closer to $3 Billion. Or, if you really want to talk punitive, $32 Billion.
Imitation spurs innovation by differentiating, however slightly, from the original and other knockoffs so that people will aquire your product.
Litigation prevents innovation and generates bad publicity, driving people away from your platform no matter how Right and Just your litigation may be. A vocal minority will always misrepresent your position to sway the market away from you.
For the Market, Imitation is clearly superior.
For the Seller, it's perhaps less clear which is better. Litigation is clearly a suprerior short-term solution but very harmful to your brand in the long-term.
Intervening obstacles would be my number 1 assumption. Also, not having to run a wire through the planet, and not having to aim a laser with 0.000000000001 arc-seconds of precision (for intrastellar).
Minimum wage here is $9/hr. Doubling that and taking away my tips would result in a drastic pay-cut for me.
You know how you can retain your good memories of Star Wars? Don't watch the movies. As for the rest of us who never read the books and thought the original movies were a range of merely okay to pretty dismal, let us watch these new movies in equally okay to dismal peace.
"Effectively"? It sounds like a $1 booking fee (operational fee per booking for the service provider) plus a percent of total service provided (i.e. miles). This means you get billed for using the service to get a cab ($1), plus they get a cut of the total transit mileage (10% fare). That seems fair and normal for this sort of business--I mean hell, pizza delivery services charge a fucking delivery fee that doesn't go to the driver as a tip, because they have to idle and coordinate drivers while paying them a wage.
Pizza delivery places don't take the delivery charge out of the tip. That's in addition to the tip. If Uber added the "10% of fare" and "$1 booking fee" directly to the pre-tip amount owed by the passenger, then that would be fair. Making the cab driver pay for the privilidge of having the service target his company is inappropriate.
If someone was using your name to sell their product, doesn't that imply that you support or endorse their product? Someone must ask for permission to legally (legitimately?) make the claim that you support or endorse their product. The vast majority of people believe this, and the law revolves around what "reasonable people" would understand.
In this case, even though the name was stripped out, the player is still clearly and obviously identifiable in the game. Someone who played the game before watching the sport would see the player in real life and think "Hey, that's the guy from my game!" This is EA very obviously overreaching, and we should not try to justify bad habits by big businesses.