I wonder if that protects the person who makes the parody, rather than the app developer who make $4K a month. Lawyers will not typically go after targets that don't have money for payouts.
"For the food association, a subject who faced toward the ambient geomagnetic north or east, depending on the experiment, was gently provided with a chocolate chip [52] (nutrient facts, S1 Table) on his/her right palm by an experimenter, and given 30 s to eat it."
Right. Just considering how Chrome uses energy on my Mac, I think they might have further to go before they are truly mitigating their own impact and reaching carbon neutral.
Very good answer. The botanical illustrator is taught how to demonstrate specific features of different taxonomies in a way that's natural and visually pleasing but conveys three dimensions of information, tactility, color, and biological characteristics (for example, do branches grow opposite one another or in a spiral up the stem, what is the texture under the leaf as well as above it, what does a bud look like, what does a live flower look like, what animals use this as a host plant and how, etc) that would be extremely difficult to photograph well.
Yes I've seen the same thing and more than once. Why should anyone leave, it's easy enough, and probably would be worse somewhere else. To me it's sad when this happens, because it's slowing down people who could be contributing to innovation and cool stuff, but I get it, paychecks are good.
They have probably got to the stage where they don't want innovation. They have a machine that prints money like there is no tomorrow. Why risk that with new ideas.
By now, many of us have experienced an oddly targeted ad delivered to them after having a conversation. Facebook and Instagram deny it very publicly. Coincidentally there's an exploit that allows audio access to iOS devices after someone hits an infected webpage. I can imagine an ad company trying to use this kind of exploit.
But Apple PR says it's all okay. It must be true so don't even think about it. Those Google security researchers are probably just jealous.
You're making a big assumption that the author of a scientific paper gets to have any rights whatsoever. But that aside - these journals keep valuable research locked up from plenty of long-dead researchers. Their estates aren't getting the money when a grad student is grifted for $90 to view the paper.
