I think you might be confusing patent and trademark.
This is sorta like Apples and Oranges, but...
You mean Apples and Windows, right?
The best 99 you will ever spend:
While I certainly agree that kids at (for example) a birthday party do not need sugar to become hyperactive, there are other studies, and they tend to correlate well with what we know of metabolism and how sugar is metabolized:
Other studies show that since sugar is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, blood sugar rises quickly, which can lead to higher adrenaline levels and thus symptoms similar to those associated with hyperactivity.
A study like this carries a lot more weight as it isolates the ingestion of sugar and objectively measures it's biological impact on the children, as opposed to other studies that do not isolate the various stimuli and only measure the results subjectively.
I have 3 kids under the age of 6 and I call a total bullshit!
There are many recent studies that try to dismiss a correlation between sugar and hyperactivity and most of them appear to be pretty flawed. One study states that the parents of the children in the study did indeed report that sugar correlated to hyper-activity, but dismissed that in favour of "clinical" reports--so in their normal environment kids become hyper after eating sugar, but when you put them in a lab they don't. Perhaps the change of environment has an impact on this? This study also compared sucrose, aspartame, and saccharin based on THE ASSUMPTION that aspartame and saccharin do not cause hyperactivity. But few if any of these studies administered the test dose on an empty stomach and monitored the biochemical response.
Other studies show that since sugar is quickly absorbed into the bloodstream, blood sugar rises quickly, which can lead to higher adrenaline levels and thus symptoms similar to those associated with hyperactivity. This fits much better with what we understand about metabolism and is not based on any assumptions or other external effects, such as change in environment.
a notice claiming that subscribers could face up to $20,000 in damages
Considering the law now features a cap of $5,000 for non-commercial statutory damages would this not count as extortion?
That's pretty cool! I had no idea any such device existed!
yeah, but that still doesn't let you charge the batteries outside of the phone.
The battery tip is great, but even better than "more manufacturers making out of phone chargers" would be standard sized batteries, or at the very least, standard battery connectors, so anyone could make out of phone chargers, or one charger fits all.
I'm sure your digital overlords will be proud that you, their lackey, are so faithfully following the scriptures.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of theft.
Under C11, statutory damages are now limited to $5000 for non-commercial infiringement, so there's not a lot of incentive for the rights holders to pursue litigation.
Maybe not such a crazy idea. Maybe it's time to start laying criminal charges against the sites that deliver malware
If you RTFA, that is exactly the conclusion it draws. There is a fine balance between rewarding the creators and benefiting society. I think one of the great solutions proposed (funny, because I was just discussing this exact idea with someone a couple of nights ago) is to offer the opportunity for incremental increases in copyright term FOR A FEE.
This really is a win-win situation, because the public benefit either way. If a rights holder believes that there is still enough value to hold a copyright, they can pay for it and continue to monopolize revenue generation, but even then, the public still wins because the rights holder is paying into the public coffers which (arguably) benefit everyone.
I didn't happen...yet.
No, he's suing YOU.