copyright hasn't hindered anyone with deep enough pockets yet, in part because copyright (unlike patents) doesn't prevent you from writing your own thing that does X.
Hi, your dishwasher's design infringes on my patent, and you're using it, so you personally are in violation. Give me 5 thousand dollars.
This is one of my main issues with Python. It still creeps me out that the standard loop termination method is an exception. But it sounds like they've optimized that path enough to not hurt.
The design isn't that far along yet. So far it's just "these are the features we want to introduce".
how about one of those car-stopping HERF guns they mentioned yesterday?
Yep. The guardian gets the responsibility, and the authority that goes with it. The baby still has the rights.
Indeed, logic fail. I'm stating that humans have rights even when they don't have authority or responsibility. This does not imply that they ever don't have rights.
The converse of responsibility is not 'rights', it's 'authority'. A newborn has no responsibility or authority but does have rights.
Hmmm. Maybe the prison industry should be backing this too; they can take over the zoo industry and increase revenue.
The addresses which you are supposed to be using as source addresses on outgoing internet-routed packets have a common prefix, assigned by your provider. Addresses not in that block that you are likely to use are private blocks (not to be routed on the internet), link-local addresses (not generally meant to be routed at all), and multicast addresses (to be used as destination addrs, not source).
I realize nobody is promised a profit. My opinion has nothing to do with screenwriters in particular. I believe http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/how-hollywood-accounting-can-make-a-450-million-movie-unprofitable/245134/ (particularly the balance sheet) explains my point of view sufficiently. After all, if big movies are so unprofitable, why do they keep making them?
The problem I have with Hollywood Accounting is that I consider it very dishonest, to the point of fraud, for the producers/studio to imply that the movie might make a profit (by offering profit-based compensation) when history shows that the only part of the studio that makes a profit is marketing and distribution, by charging insane margins.
and the ones who happen to be downwind.
It's still in the class of "any sort of agreement". But if you're looking at government only, there's also agreements to not reveal classified material, which does carry criminal penalties.
Pulling over all cars for a traffic safety checkpoint is considered legit (http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1935). Requiring the breath test is probably not, but if it's really voluntary, then that shouldn't be a problem. Misrepresenting whether it's voluntary is a big problem.