I make a point of buying viscous products in flat-topped containers, but standing the bottle upside down is a poor alternative even for those wide-topped ketchup bottles that are designed to be stored that way.
If they are designed to be stored that way, then they aren't being stored upside down in the first place, are they? If the writing on the bottle appears right-side up, but the opening for dispensing is on the bottom, how can you say that it is being stored upside down?
You may, however, have to manipulate the bottle to be upside down briefly while you are opening and closing it in order to have some control over exactly how much of the contents you dispense.
While I'm sure you are right that it is not what they mean, it most definitely is what they said. They said "each" without qualifying it with "average", and as such have said something that at best is simply factually false, and at worst just plain confusing.
For example, while it's true that there is an average of approximately one human testicle per human being, it is ludicrous to think that each human has one testicle.
Oracle vs Google re: the Java API comes to mind as one noteworthy example...
But what, exactly, makes their use of this work "fair"? They rebroadcasted the work without permission of the copyright holder, and I'm not sure they even acknowledged the copyright holder in their rebroadcast. Unless facebook live's terms of usage states that they own the content that is uploaded to it, I think that the guy's copyright was most definitely infringed.
Eugenics became a dirty word because of Nazis, who would improve humanity by killing off the "degenerates". But there is nothing wrong with improving the human stock per se..
Perhaps not, except for the fact that if you *don't* "kill off the degenerates", then they will continually breed with your so-called "improved stock", defeating any attempts to improve them over the course of generations, unless you legislate mandatory sterilization for absolutely everyone that does not fit certain criteria, which itself poses no small ethical problem for those that might consider it... Perhaps almost ironically, it has much in common with the ethical problems created by outlawing abortion.
Theft - the unlawful deprivation from the rightful owner of some of their lawfully recognized property.
Copyright infringement - the unlawful deprivation from the rightful owner of some measure of exclusivity of control over who may copy a work. This exclusivity is supposed to be part of copyright, and so is rightfully the property of the copyright holder. You can hardly say that the copyright holder has just as much exclusivity of control over who may copy a work if somebody copies the work without authorization because by definition, exclusive means that nobody else is doing it.
So how, exactly, is copyright infringement not theft?
Brain off-line, please wait.