If you try and reimplement a complex format you are very likely to end up writing very similar code to the original imlementation simply because there is only one sane way to imlement bits of it.
Then that block of code would be functional, rather than creative, and it wouldn't be covered by copyright (if the courts agree with you, assuming it comes to that)
End result is someone with a natural tan who spends every day in the sun is less likely to be affected than a pale geek who goes out once a week and gets roasted.
What about a pale geek like me, who can't get much of a tan no matter how much sun I get?
. . . I vote we ban scented candles and perfumes.
I join you in your vote. (Even though you seem to be kidding, I would be well pleased if that ban were voted in . . . and enforced with my daughter.)
There's no reason a lawsuit and tribunal should ever be able to override the laws of a land. The government decides what is law, and the people decide who is government.
You're missing the point.
In the USA, at least, if the government signs and ratifies a treaty, possibly like the *Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement mentioned in the GGP, that treaty would trump any laws of a government in the USA. According to the Constitution, it would even trump the Constitution.
*IANAL, so I am not sure if the TPPA would rise fully to the level of a treaty in that sense - that might become a matter for the courts to decide.
I live in an urban area, and unfortunately there has been an influx of hipsters over the last three or four years. . .
.Getting these hipsters to clean up their dogs' shit isn't going to happen. It's all over the place.
B.S. I grew up in an urban area and lived there for decades. I can tell you unequivocally that the dogshit was there before the hipsters arrived.
Optogenetics only works with GENETICALLY MODIFIED neurons, so won't easily work as a therapeutic technique.
It's probably far too early to talk seriously about potential applications in humans, but let's do it anyway . .
Has Canada been invaded since the US Navy was formed?
Yes, they were invaded by the US.
So their logic is that limiting this kind of engineering is limiting free speech.
Yes, but they didn't go as far as the Slashdot headline - they outlined the conditions under which the government could restrict it and the extent to which it could be restricted (assuming the supreme court follows precedents on similar/analogous cases)
(It's greed-motivated nonsense of course.)
No - RTFA (The law review article, not just the Slashdot summary or the motherboard.vice web page)
By that interpretation blowing up the moon is protected speech.
RTFA (not the web article, the law journal paper)
"It's like deja vu all over again." -- Yogi Berra