The firms, which included Microsoft, HBO Europe, Sony Music and Twentieth Century Fox, estimated that the financial damage amounted to 5.7m Czech Crowns (Â£148,000). But the Business Software Alliance (BSA), which represented Microsoft, acknowledged that Jakub could not pay that sum. Instead, the companies said they would be happy to receive only a small payment and his co-operation in the production of the video. In order for the firms' promise not to sue to be valid, they said, the video would have to be viewed at least 200,000 times within two months of its publication this week.
How will not getting 200,000 views enable him to be more able to pay the amount he is said to owe, exactly? If the whole point of cooperating with them and making the video was to reduce his damages, apparently on the basis that he supposedly would not be able to afford the damages in the first place, it seems entirely pointless to threaten to come back and sue him for just as much if it doesn't reach a particular view count.
That said, this story is probably high-profile enough that he will probably get the requisite number of views anyway.
Then explain to me why the average person's most frequent use of their vehicle is irrelevant.
Because when other use-cases really exist, even though they are much less frequent, one ends up either having to own two cars, one of which hardly gets used, or they end up having to deal with renting one. The former isn't typically seen as cost effective by many (and in some cases isn't even viable on account of a lack of parking), and the latter is staggeringly inconvenient compared to just owning the car.
It's only when they think they need to drive to go on vacation that it matters.
Or if you didn't fill up/recharge last night because you forgot or what have you, and can't make it to work in the morning on what you have. With a gasoline car, it amounts to a brief five minutes of additional time on the way to work to fill up and you are good to go... with no need to think about it for several days.
And you missed mine, which is that once gimp meets a person's functional requirements, the name is unlikely to matter to many more people. I would suggest that it only significantly gets associated with the negative meaning of a homophone for its name by people because it isn't adequate in the first place.
Plus, you can call it whatever the heck you want.... it's open source you could even make a fork.... if the fork is just a name change, then such a fork would be quite trivial, if your fork isn't widely adopted by the community, then wouldn't that suggest that the name isn't as big a deal as you are implying?
Woolsey said Snowden, who divulged classified [information] in 2013, is partly responsible for the terrorist attack in France last week that left at least 120 dead and hundreds injured
What is his alleged basis for concluding that the information that Snowden released in 2013 had anything more to do with those attacks than any other entirely random element, such as merely the invention of the smart phone? I'd be sincerely surprised if there really was a connection, but it's nonetheless a sincere question. Is there any even hypothetical reason to sincerely suspect that the info that Snowden released actually contributed to these attacks, or are people that allege such a connection just using Snowden as a convenient scapegoat (presumably because they didn't like what Snowden did)?
Unix is the worst operating system; except for all others. -- Berry Kercheval