So with respect to determining the direction the country takes as far as what laws are created and passed, the president can only make suggestions to congress, and make them get together to discuss it. He can't make them agree to it or make an actual law out of his ideas.
As opposed to say... any given member of congress? The president also has the power to propose a law, and drafts a budget.
The president isn't supposed to be "in charge". He's merely supposed to execute the laws that have been passed by the Real body in chage: The Congress.
Yeah, I mean, where would anyone get the idea that the President has power over congress?
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Or to order people about and do things like command troops and tell judges how to behave.
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Sad but true -- corporate personhood was invented to deal with issues of standing in federal court. So, to that extent we are peers to corporations. Our immortal, amoral, lobotomized siblings are our peers, and their guardians (i.e. officers and board of directors) are free to direct them to do whatever evil shit they feel is most likely to produce wealth without assessing undue cost.
Expert juries are an interesting concept that pops up in law reviews from time to time. However, to the best of my knowledge, they're not allowed under the common understanding of the right to a jury of your peers.
From about age 21 to 26 I couldn't afford a root canal that was badly needed (two wisdom teeth, cracked open with exposed nerves). One thing you learn dealing with that kind of pain is that eventually -- it just tunes out. (no, the nerves didn't die off -- I wish). The first month or so was hell, but then I got used to it and for awhile I had a pretty impressive pain tolerance. (broken foot? No problem.) Point being, 5900 years in bed, reading great fiction, playing video games, getting visited by family, advancing my interests and continuing the work of my first 100 years -- even with constant pain -- sounds worth it to me.
To be fair, that's not true. I find his remarks more abhorrent because of the underlying thesis:
Akin's argument is essentially that when a woman is "legitimately raped" i.e. doesn't want to have sex with the man forcing himself on her, there can be no pregnancy. Therefore, whenever a rape victim gets pregnant, she actually wanted to have sex with that man, so it wasn't "really" rape, because secretly deep down she wanted it. Therefore, since she wanted to have sex, she should be responsible for the product of that act -- the baby. And thus, its okay to put her in jail if she aborts the rapists baby.
That's why the Republicans have been out there trying to split hairs between "rape rape" "forcible rape" "legitimate rape" and the term us commie hippie pinkos use (i.e. RAPE). Because, as any republican pastor could tell you, deep down that every feminist secretly wants a good round of "illegitimate raping" at least once a year.
He's not. It's like when you cite to caselaw in a brief, if you think there's something out there that calls your legal conclussion into doubt you have an ethical obligation to cite that other caselaw as well and let the judge decide if its relevant. This is sort of similar, but with the added bite of a statutory requirement, you're supposed to disclose prior art that you think looks like it could be related and then tell the patent office why its not a bar to your patent.
Basically, the way out system (doesn't) work right now is that you apply (paying a large fee) the patent office rubber-stamps your application, and then interested parties decide whether its cheaper to license your patent or take you to court to invalidate it. Sounds like a rational system designed by wise and ethical law makers, no? What do you mean it sniffs of graft and corporate influence on politics -- why I never.:D
Alinea is a james beard award winning restaurant with three Michellin stars. It is one of the best restaurants in the world. I tend to judge restaurants on their credentials in their medium of choice (food) not their web page development. But hey, enjoy the gay-bashing chicken shack.
You, a non-lawyer, would get your ass handed to you by Samsung's counsel.
The Witness isn't claiming rights to a patent, he's giving testimony that the technology Apple is claiming a patent over was already out there and known to the public. Patent law isn't just about "I was the first one to claim the exclusive right to a technology" its about invention. If someone else can show that you didn't invent it, that there is "prior art" your patent can be extinguished.
Many of apple's patents are questionable, but this and slide-to-unlock are particularly ripe for invalidation.
ZDNet blew this one. I hereby propose two rules of thumb for reporting on surveilance programs (1) do no cite anonymous sources, no matter how credible, as support for the effectiveness of the progam, and (2) DO NOT put out information that defeats the narrow valid use for the program. ZDNet blew up both in one paragraph, nearly the last paragraph in the article.
"According to a very good source responsible for domestic surveillance operations, an extremely serious al Qaeda terror plot has been uncovered targeting a financial institution, an entertainment centre and a government office building in Los Angeles. The same terrorist-surveillance team conducted pre-operational surveillance of all three sites. The group is currently under watch," he wrote.
Well then, now (a) I am supposed to believe an anonymous source -- which I won't -- so the "proof" of its effectiveness fails and (b) if the source is actually telling the truth - they just announced that they are watching an active Al Qaeda cell in L.A. So... now they can go underground and try to lose the tail. If only there were other articles describing the details of the system . . . oh wait.
It sucks, but your professors will expect you to have a higher level of mathematical knowledge and design assignments that assume you know how to use advanced math. Generally, no, you can look up the forumlas and plug them in or use a package that does the math for you - but your prof may give you ambiguous assignments that you will not no how to solve unless you have the math chops.
That's part of the reason I'm a lawyer and not a programer. Money was also a factor.
First, these companies probably have catastrophic recovery plans in place. Amazon, in particular, is not know for just sitting around leaving its business blowing in the wind.
Second, the loss might slow down the internet, but unless the data hosted at these data centers was unique (which is unlikely) then the other data sites just pick up the slack. Again, that might be slower, but it wouldn't result in loss of data or "teh internet." That is to say, they will act like every other functional part of the internet, route around the damage and carry on.
Watch out for the next versions of Direct X etc. being Metro only, and traditional desktop apps crippled in terms of what they can access by comparison.
At that point the only way to get the best performance will be through being a Metro app, bought on the store, giving Metro apps a competitive edge. Microsoft would be unlikely to approve Steam as a Metro app in much the same way Apple would reject any app which acts as an alt app store.
At which point the Justice department steps in and kicks MS's balls into mid-jowl. Microsoft just got burned for this in Europe, and was almost broken up by Justice in the 90s. Maybe they want to test the line -- see what they can get away with today -- but the answer is probably "not much."
This dogma over the last two decades or so has led us right to the edge of record-setting long unemployment and poverty.
Its hard to unbundle the damage done by off-shoring and automation from the damage done by making markets more "efficient" by buying out and cutting down profitable companies to make them perform better.
Since we started cutting taxes on investment income and income over $1,000,000 there is less and less incentive to make long-term investments (which defer income, and thus taxation) in favor of short-term high-risk high-yield gambles that get taxed at 15-20%. In the 1950s, the owner of a corporation wouldn't take a $5,000,000 buyout for his company, because that single sale event would be taxed at an effective rate in the high 80-percentile -- thus encourage owners and innovators to retain control, to treat their company itself as the source of wealth through operation, rather than treating the company as a commodity to be liquidated as soon as that made economic sense.
Its been a long and brutal slide down to a 30% tax rate (easily avoidable down to 15% or lower) and the results speak for themselves. Tax policy and unemployment are inexorably linked.
Slashdot Mirror
So with respect to determining the direction the country takes as far as what laws are created and passed, the president can only make suggestions to congress, and make them get together to discuss it. He can't make them agree to it or make an actual law out of his ideas.
As opposed to say ... any given member of congress? The president also has the power to propose a law, and drafts a budget.
The president isn't supposed to be "in charge". He's merely supposed to execute the laws that have been passed by the Real body in chage: The Congress.
Yeah, I mean, where would anyone get the idea that the President has power over congress?
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3: He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Or to order people about and do things like command troops and tell judges how to behave.
U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2:The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Well.. other than our founding documents I mean.
(Trade dress which isn't patentable due to prior art)
Also because trade dress is trademark law, not patent law. Design patents are specific where trade dress is general.
Corporations are people my friend.
Sad but true -- corporate personhood was invented to deal with issues of standing in federal court. So, to that extent we are peers to corporations. Our immortal, amoral, lobotomized siblings are our peers, and their guardians (i.e. officers and board of directors) are free to direct them to do whatever evil shit they feel is most likely to produce wealth without assessing undue cost.
Expert juries are an interesting concept that pops up in law reviews from time to time. However, to the best of my knowledge, they're not allowed under the common understanding of the right to a jury of your peers.
Plug in, tune out.
From about age 21 to 26 I couldn't afford a root canal that was badly needed (two wisdom teeth, cracked open with exposed nerves). One thing you learn dealing with that kind of pain is that eventually -- it just tunes out. (no, the nerves didn't die off -- I wish). The first month or so was hell, but then I got used to it and for awhile I had a pretty impressive pain tolerance. (broken foot? No problem.) Point being, 5900 years in bed, reading great fiction, playing video games, getting visited by family, advancing my interests and continuing the work of my first 100 years -- even with constant pain -- sounds worth it to me.
Oddly enough, the second example has worked in case studies.
Also more like to cause police and other armed people to notice your committing murder. Just saying.
I which states now? There isn't a ton of federal law to worry about in the U.S., it's mostly state laws that screw you up.
WOOOSH
Woot, and excuse to buy a new TV.
He corrected it to state that he meant "forcible rape." Local Fox affiliate.
To be fair, that's not true. I find his remarks more abhorrent because of the underlying thesis:
Akin's argument is essentially that when a woman is "legitimately raped" i.e. doesn't want to have sex with the man forcing himself on her, there can be no pregnancy. Therefore, whenever a rape victim gets pregnant, she actually wanted to have sex with that man, so it wasn't "really" rape, because secretly deep down she wanted it. Therefore, since she wanted to have sex, she should be responsible for the product of that act -- the baby. And thus, its okay to put her in jail if she aborts the rapists baby.
That's why the Republicans have been out there trying to split hairs between "rape rape" "forcible rape" "legitimate rape" and the term us commie hippie pinkos use (i.e. RAPE). Because, as any republican pastor could tell you, deep down that every feminist secretly wants a good round of "illegitimate raping" at least once a year.
He's not. It's like when you cite to caselaw in a brief, if you think there's something out there that calls your legal conclussion into doubt you have an ethical obligation to cite that other caselaw as well and let the judge decide if its relevant. This is sort of similar, but with the added bite of a statutory requirement, you're supposed to disclose prior art that you think looks like it could be related and then tell the patent office why its not a bar to your patent.
:D
Basically, the way out system (doesn't) work right now is that you apply (paying a large fee) the patent office rubber-stamps your application, and then interested parties decide whether its cheaper to license your patent or take you to court to invalidate it. Sounds like a rational system designed by wise and ethical law makers, no? What do you mean it sniffs of graft and corporate influence on politics -- why I never.
Alinea is a james beard award winning restaurant with three Michellin stars. It is one of the best restaurants in the world. I tend to judge restaurants on their credentials in their medium of choice (food) not their web page development. But hey, enjoy the gay-bashing chicken shack.
It is the term of art for testimonial evidence played at a trial, regardless of the media.
Isn't there a countersuit from Samsung?
You, a non-lawyer, would get your ass handed to you by Samsung's counsel.
The Witness isn't claiming rights to a patent, he's giving testimony that the technology Apple is claiming a patent over was already out there and known to the public. Patent law isn't just about "I was the first one to claim the exclusive right to a technology" its about invention. If someone else can show that you didn't invent it, that there is "prior art" your patent can be extinguished.
Many of apple's patents are questionable, but this and slide-to-unlock are particularly ripe for invalidation.
God, I wish that was true. Got some citations to caselaw? I could use them.
I think you're looking in the wrong payscale.
"According to a very good source responsible for domestic surveillance operations, an extremely serious al Qaeda terror plot has been uncovered targeting a financial institution, an entertainment centre and a government office building in Los Angeles. The same terrorist-surveillance team conducted pre-operational surveillance of all three sites. The group is currently under watch," he wrote.
Well then, now (a) I am supposed to believe an anonymous source -- which I won't -- so the "proof" of its effectiveness fails and (b) if the source is actually telling the truth - they just announced that they are watching an active Al Qaeda cell in L.A. So ... now they can go underground and try to lose the tail. If only there were other articles describing the details of the system . . . oh wait.
It sucks, but your professors will expect you to have a higher level of mathematical knowledge and design assignments that assume you know how to use advanced math. Generally, no, you can look up the forumlas and plug them in or use a package that does the math for you - but your prof may give you ambiguous assignments that you will not no how to solve unless you have the math chops.
That's part of the reason I'm a lawyer and not a programer. Money was also a factor.
First, these companies probably have catastrophic recovery plans in place. Amazon, in particular, is not know for just sitting around leaving its business blowing in the wind.
Second, the loss might slow down the internet, but unless the data hosted at these data centers was unique (which is unlikely) then the other data sites just pick up the slack. Again, that might be slower, but it wouldn't result in loss of data or "teh internet." That is to say, they will act like every other functional part of the internet, route around the damage and carry on.
Watch out for the next versions of Direct X etc. being Metro only, and traditional desktop apps crippled in terms of what they can access by comparison.
At that point the only way to get the best performance will be through being a Metro app, bought on the store, giving Metro apps a competitive edge. Microsoft would be unlikely to approve Steam as a Metro app in much the same way Apple would reject any app which acts as an alt app store.
At which point the Justice department steps in and kicks MS's balls into mid-jowl. Microsoft just got burned for this in Europe, and was almost broken up by Justice in the 90s. Maybe they want to test the line -- see what they can get away with today -- but the answer is probably "not much."
This dogma over the last two decades or so has led us right to the edge of record-setting long unemployment and poverty.
Its hard to unbundle the damage done by off-shoring and automation from the damage done by making markets more "efficient" by buying out and cutting down profitable companies to make them perform better.
Since we started cutting taxes on investment income and income over $1,000,000 there is less and less incentive to make long-term investments (which defer income, and thus taxation) in favor of short-term high-risk high-yield gambles that get taxed at 15-20%. In the 1950s, the owner of a corporation wouldn't take a $5,000,000 buyout for his company, because that single sale event would be taxed at an effective rate in the high 80-percentile -- thus encourage owners and innovators to retain control, to treat their company itself as the source of wealth through operation, rather than treating the company as a commodity to be liquidated as soon as that made economic sense.
Its been a long and brutal slide down to a 30% tax rate (easily avoidable down to 15% or lower) and the results speak for themselves. Tax policy and unemployment are inexorably linked.