States that want lax gun laws would just create State Militias that were mostly unreguluated. These would be sepperate from the national guard. These would basically be gun clubs. In places like Kentucky a 14 year old would be able to join. The only service requirement would be taking a NRA gun class. I guess you would also need to say the pledge of allegiance.
Doesn't matter. If I rob someone in Alaska who happens to own a house in New York the crime still occurred in Alaska. These people had assets in CA. If they want the protection of NJ law they should keep their assets in NJ.
I suggesting they are name dropping Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to make their claims sound more plausable. I bet the following statements are just as true/false.
Newtons First Law of Motion allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations
The Pythagorean Theorem allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations
With raw foods it is about the low quality food that poor urban people consume. Raw milk might not kill you at a French New York Restaurant. But it has certainly killed lots of urban poor people. Raw milk was banned as a way of limiting TB. In 1815, one in four deaths in England was due to "consumption". Anti-biotics and a vacines have reduced the risks of eating raw foods. (but only if you have good health care)
I think that might scare people from upgrading. Going from 7.10322 to to 8 is scarier than going from 7.10322 to 7.10322g
It suggests that upgrading will break things.
I don't think this headset is first. I think I recall palmer or cormack talking about 4k when they discussed the headsets they tried prior to developing the rift. That 4k was one of the requirements for some defense application. I suppose this might be the first prototype 2.5k display whose parts cost less than 10 grand.
Not sure how California law defines it but in my book, politics is people and corporations, organizations, laws and policies are not people.
and
Politics is people, my friend
I think read you post just fine. You define politics twice.
I'm being a bit of troll but dictionaries tend to define single words. So you would take the adjective political and apply it to the noun campaign.
a series of activities designed to produce a particular result
a series of military battles, attacks, etc., designed to produce a particular result in a war
So a referendum on goverement laws is a political campaign. Of course this is all meaningless. We are being used in a few people's private squabble over who runs Mozilla. Someone leaked dirt on thier boss so they could be the new boss.
When your not sure what words mean you should use a dictionary. That way you can understand things when people communicate to you. If you make up your own definitions people will think your ignorant.
Politics: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government
the work or job of people (such as elected officials) who are part of a government
the opinions that someone has about what should be done by governments : a person's political thoughts and opinions
I don't see how you could enforce the priority lane. Suppose someone stubburn pulls into the lane without the proper plate. What do you do? Push their car into a ditch? You either have big argument while one of you lanes is closed, use violence, or have it work on a honor system and hope the cheaters don't cause a pile up.
The backstabbing reality show is a different beast than the skill based reality shows. Iron Chef, American Idol, Project Runway, and Star Search don't emphasize that kind of drama. If they do it at all they use the judges instead of the contestants. They balance out a mean judge with a nice one. Instead they focus on the drama created by stressfull live performance.
The law they wrote made it easier for business method patents to be thrown out and challenged in court. They had the oppurtunity to overule SCOTUS and get rid of Bilski. Instead they made it easier for Bilski to used. That kinda implies the opposite.
It is their job to settle disputes between the federal circuit judges. With this case went before 10 judges their was 7 different opinions. No majority opinion. They could not find 6 judges who could agree what the law was. No one has any clue what Congress meant by process. So they sort of don't have a choice but to interpret the statute.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, but I mean,
you know, it in different directions. And I
understand him to say that in each of those places,
that's where the computer is needed.
MR. PERRY: Mr. Chief Justice, Figure 16 has
nothing to do with the invention asserted against my
client in this case. There are two inventions in this
patent. One invention involving multilateral contract
formation is not asserted against my client. And all of
these drawings pertain to that. The only drawings that
pertain to the asserted claims are 25 and 33 to 37. And
that was established below, and it's established in this
Court. And Mr. Phillips has never disputed it.
So the claim he's pointed the Court the
figure he's pointed the Court to has nothing to do with
the invention. It's for a different invention that is
not at issue in this case.
You can challenge it with the PTO. But that has next to nothing to do with the lawsuit they bring. The judge will assume you plea is going to fail and you will have to litigate things in front of a judge or in front of a jury.
The Congress shall have power... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
No Apple did more than that. They told them what prices to sell at and that all their competators would sell at that price.
To dramatize the immediate increase in the price of e-books that the Publishers could achieve under the Apple agency agreement, and to assure each Publisher Defendant that it was being treated no differently than its competitors, Moerer sent a table of proposed book prices to them in identical e-mails on The Draft Agreement capped e-book prices at $12.99 for New Release titles with hardcover list prices of $30 or under, and set a $14.99 price tier cap for New Release titles with hardcover list prices above $30, with incremental price tier increases for every $5 increase in the hardcover list price above $30. For books other than New Releases, the price cap was set at $9.99.
The January 4 term sheet had set a price cap at $14.99 for any book with a hardcover list price above $35, and $12.99 for any hardcover book listed below $35. The Draft Agreement, by contrast, set the demarcation between $12.99 and $14.99 at $30, allowing for higher e-book prices in relation to a title’s hardcover list price.
the same day Apple sent out the Draft Agreements. The table showed fiction NYT Bestsellers from every member of the Big Six. It listed the book’s title, author, and publisher. It showed each title’s hardcover list price, followed by its retail prices when sold as an Amazon hardcover book; Amazon e-book; Barnes & Noble e-book; and finally, as a proposed iTunes e-book.
The proposed prices under the iTunes column were always either $12.99 or $14.99, and were always several dollars higher than the then-existing e-book price at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. In some cases, the iTunes e-book price was even higher than the Amazon hardcover price.31
Sensitive to the fact that the table looked like an Apple retail price list, Moerer clarified in a follow-up email to Shanks that the prices in the table’s final column designating the “iTunes eBook Retail Price” are the “top price tier we’ve proposed” and that “[i]n the agency model, Penguin would set retail prices at its sole discretion, at this price or any lower price, with Apple acting as your agent.” While the final column would only display Apple’s e-book prices for titles published by the particular Publisher receiving that version of the table, the layout made it easy for the Publishers to see that they were all being treated identically
At the time she made her statement she had seen all documented evidense. She had all the depositions, paperwork, phone records, and emails. Based on that she warned Apple that there was actual evidense against it. The only extra evidense that occured during the trail was witness testimony and cross examinations. The witnesses stated the same things in their depositions. Your just demonizing a judge for disagreeing with you.
Apple did not meet with a cartel of App publishers and coordinate prices. The App market does not contain huge players that control access to 90% best selling applications. To be clear I don't think Apple created the ebook cartel. It clearly existed for awhile. I think they got involved with it too closely and got a little dirty.
The minimum price for books was set above the market price. The cartel set the minimum to 15 when books were selling at 10. The minimum price for apps in the USA is a dollar. You can't go much lower than a dollar before you hit hard limits from credit card fees and server costs.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be hard in places like Chicago or New York. Basically you would need to break the law or move if you want a gun for self protection.
States that want lax gun laws would just create State Militias that were mostly unreguluated. These would be sepperate from the national guard. These would basically be gun clubs. In places like Kentucky a 14 year old would be able to join. The only service requirement would be taking a NRA gun class. I guess you would also need to say the pledge of allegiance.
Doesn't matter. If I rob someone in Alaska who happens to own a house in New York the crime still occurred in Alaska. These people had assets in CA. If they want the protection of NJ law they should keep their assets in NJ.
Newtons First Law of Motion allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations
The Pythagorean Theorem allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations
Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows a small region of empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to quantum fluctuations
I don't remember that in the principle when I took physics. I think they are skipping quite a few steps in the summary.
With raw foods it is about the low quality food that poor urban people consume. Raw milk might not kill you at a French New York Restaurant. But it has certainly killed lots of urban poor people. Raw milk was banned as a way of limiting TB. In 1815, one in four deaths in England was due to "consumption". Anti-biotics and a vacines have reduced the risks of eating raw foods. (but only if you have good health care)
I think that might scare people from upgrading. Going from 7.10322 to to 8 is scarier than going from 7.10322 to 7.10322g It suggests that upgrading will break things.
I don't think this headset is first. I think I recall palmer or cormack talking about 4k when they discussed the headsets they tried prior to developing the rift. That 4k was one of the requirements for some defense application. I suppose this might be the first prototype 2.5k display whose parts cost less than 10 grand.
I regret replying to this. Feeding my inner Troll. Can I mod myself down?
Not sure how California law defines it but in my book, politics is people and corporations, organizations, laws and policies are not people.
and
Politics is people, my friend
I think read you post just fine. You define politics twice.
I'm being a bit of troll but dictionaries tend to define single words. So you would take the adjective political and apply it to the noun campaign.
a series of activities designed to produce a particular result
a series of military battles, attacks, etc., designed to produce a particular result in a war
So a referendum on goverement laws is a political campaign. Of course this is all meaningless. We are being used in a few people's private squabble over who runs Mozilla. Someone leaked dirt on thier boss so they could be the new boss.
Politics: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government
the work or job of people (such as elected officials) who are part of a government
the opinions that someone has about what should be done by governments : a person's political thoughts and opinions
I don't see how you could enforce the priority lane. Suppose someone stubburn pulls into the lane without the proper plate. What do you do? Push their car into a ditch? You either have big argument while one of you lanes is closed, use violence, or have it work on a honor system and hope the cheaters don't cause a pile up.
That only works when you get the people drunk first. The contestants were way to sober and strung up from drinking Mountian Dew.
The backstabbing reality show is a different beast than the skill based reality shows. Iron Chef, American Idol, Project Runway, and Star Search don't emphasize that kind of drama. If they do it at all they use the judges instead of the contestants. They balance out a mean judge with a nice one. Instead they focus on the drama created by stressfull live performance.
The law they wrote made it easier for business method patents to be thrown out and challenged in court. They had the oppurtunity to overule SCOTUS and get rid of Bilski. Instead they made it easier for Bilski to used. That kinda implies the opposite.
Apparently the PTO doesn't allow patents with code in them because no one understands code.
It is their job to settle disputes between the federal circuit judges. With this case went before 10 judges their was 7 different opinions. No majority opinion. They could not find 6 judges who could agree what the law was. No one has any clue what Congress meant by process. So they sort of don't have a choice but to interpret the statute.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, but I mean, you know, it in different directions. And I understand him to say that in each of those places, that's where the computer is needed.
MR. PERRY: Mr. Chief Justice, Figure 16 has nothing to do with the invention asserted against my client in this case. There are two inventions in this patent. One invention involving multilateral contract formation is not asserted against my client. And all of these drawings pertain to that. The only drawings that pertain to the asserted claims are 25 and 33 to 37. And that was established below, and it's established in this Court. And Mr. Phillips has never disputed it. So the claim he's pointed the Court the figure he's pointed the Court to has nothing to do with the invention. It's for a different invention that is not at issue in this case.
You can challenge it with the PTO. But that has next to nothing to do with the lawsuit they bring. The judge will assume you plea is going to fail and you will have to litigate things in front of a judge or in front of a jury.
which has nothing at all to say about patents
Article One, section 8, clause 8
The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To dramatize the immediate increase in the price of e-books that the Publishers could achieve under the Apple agency agreement, and to assure each Publisher Defendant that it was being treated no differently than its competitors, Moerer sent a table of proposed book prices to them in identical e-mails on The Draft Agreement capped e-book prices at $12.99 for New Release titles with hardcover list prices of $30 or under, and set a $14.99 price tier cap for New Release titles with hardcover list prices above $30, with incremental price tier increases for every $5 increase in the hardcover list price above $30. For books other than New Releases, the price cap was set at $9.99. The January 4 term sheet had set a price cap at $14.99 for any book with a hardcover list price above $35, and $12.99 for any hardcover book listed below $35. The Draft Agreement, by contrast, set the demarcation between $12.99 and $14.99 at $30, allowing for higher e-book prices in relation to a title’s hardcover list price. the same day Apple sent out the Draft Agreements. The table showed fiction NYT Bestsellers from every member of the Big Six. It listed the book’s title, author, and publisher. It showed each title’s hardcover list price, followed by its retail prices when sold as an Amazon hardcover book; Amazon e-book; Barnes & Noble e-book; and finally, as a proposed iTunes e-book. The proposed prices under the iTunes column were always either $12.99 or $14.99, and were always several dollars higher than the then-existing e-book price at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. In some cases, the iTunes e-book price was even higher than the Amazon hardcover price.31 Sensitive to the fact that the table looked like an Apple retail price list, Moerer clarified in a follow-up email to Shanks that the prices in the table’s final column designating the “iTunes eBook Retail Price” are the “top price tier we’ve proposed” and that “[i]n the agency model, Penguin would set retail prices at its sole discretion, at this price or any lower price, with Apple acting as your agent.” While the final column would only display Apple’s e-book prices for titles published by the particular Publisher receiving that version of the table, the layout made it easy for the Publishers to see that they were all being treated identically
The publishers were named in the conspiracy. They settled out of court.
At the time she made her statement she had seen all documented evidense. She had all the depositions, paperwork, phone records, and emails. Based on that she warned Apple that there was actual evidense against it. The only extra evidense that occured during the trail was witness testimony and cross examinations. The witnesses stated the same things in their depositions. Your just demonizing a judge for disagreeing with you.
Apple did not meet with a cartel of App publishers and coordinate prices. The App market does not contain huge players that control access to 90% best selling applications. To be clear I don't think Apple created the ebook cartel. It clearly existed for awhile. I think they got involved with it too closely and got a little dirty.
The minimum price for books was set above the market price. The cartel set the minimum to 15 when books were selling at 10. The minimum price for apps in the USA is a dollar. You can't go much lower than a dollar before you hit hard limits from credit card fees and server costs.