I was always under the assumption that a uniformed officer knocks on your door and hands you a slip of paper to escort you "downtown."
Not anymore. Blitzkrieg raids have become SOP for anything more severe than unpaid parking tickets, and will probably remain that way until more citizens start greeting these home invasions with kinetic resistance.
Has anyone tried to sue (this is the US after all) for excessive use of force?
Anyone with some knowledge about economic theory will know that income you get in 20 to 50, not to mention 50 to 95, years from now should have almost no impact on your decision about whether or not to invest time ( = money ) on creating a copyrightable work today.
Unless you calculate a extremely big income or a absurdly low interest the present value of that income is negligible.
Why? Gosling isn't the one holding the patents, he has no standing in this.
No, but he may have lots of good information about what was common knowledge (among experts in this field) at the time of the development of Java. Also what pre-existing knowledge and systems the inventors of Java had for inspiration when developing it.
There is a difference between buying extra content for a game, and buying Items to give you a head start you could achieve by playing.
As games are for your own entertainment I am not implying one is better or worse than the other but it is different.
U.S.A is a socialist country and have always been a socialist country.
You pay taxes and those taxes and those taxes are spent on "the common good": roads, schools, military, police, firebrigades...
Healthcare is just one more ting on the list of what your taxes pay for
Yes, but only the actual original works, reprints are about worthless on a one by one basis. Of course as mass-production it is alot of money there.
Anyway, after 10 years most artist/writers makes little money from their works because they almost always have to sell the copyright to a publisher/record company to get them to produce and promote it
Not knowing the details on cotton the answer is maybe not.
For example your hair does not contain any DNA if it is cut off without the hair sack. Hair does not consist off cells but of a substance prodused by hair sack cells. Of course the hair can easyly be "contaminated" with dna from somewhere else on your body.
Skin on the other hand contains DNA as your topmost layer of skin is actually dead skin-cells.
So it is possible the fibers of cotton used for cotton produkts does not consist off plant cells but off a substance prodused by the cells
"If truth is beauty, how come no one has their hair done in the library?" -- Lily Tomlin