Wow, thats not how things are around here. My stats seem to indicate that most Wiccans are 14 to 16 year old girls. Their percentage body fat varies pretty much around the norm. Some of them are very *hot*, but totally jailbait. By the time they are of age, most are no longer Wiccan.
You have to ask, "which government". The federal goverment tax rate is not nearly what Exon's profit margin was (8.5%, 11.68 Billion profit on 138 Billion revenue). State tax varies, so including state tax with federal tax does get you into the same ballpark.
The concept that courts should declare "illegal statutes" void goes back 200 years prior to Marbury vs. Madison. Are you suggesting throwing out everything to start over? If not the Court, then what body would you establish to provide the needed check? You do admit that review (be it Judicial, or another body) is right, proper, and necessary?
Well the interesting thing, I think, is that as well as lower level need starvation leading to revolution (which seems obvious), at least once in history a group successfully revolted because of a sense of starvation of higher order needs. I think this is unusual. But the fact that it occurred (at least) once is noteworthy.
I suspect that phone access is considered a right, since if you can't afford a phone one will provided you. Driving isn't a right, though, but rather a privilege (or so they said over and over in my HS's driver's ed class...)
Wouldn't this be more like, you have lakeside property, and you decide you want to open a business, but you only want "a certain type of customer." So you set up rules that proscribe customers who aren't on your list. Do you have an obligation to serve, or can you reserve the right to refuse anyone? Can you reserve the right to refuse all blacks?
And they can't "impose whatever rules they feel like." If they tried to say that during peak hours, women and and specific ethnic groups had to stay offline to preserve bandwidth for white males, they'd be crucified. So obviously it isn't "whatever rules they feel like." And obviously it shouldn't be "whatever rules they feel like."
In terms of what constitutes legal and allowable limitations to service, look to an expert, not me. But is certainly isn't "whatever".
Not exactly sure what you mean by 3-4 year qualified. Here in California, if you want to teach Math or Physics, say, then the teaching credential takes 2 years, after you get your BS in the subject matter you want to teach. Time to get credentialed = 4 years (for BS) + 2 years (credential) = 6 years of education.
Vocational school gives you required credits for entering a University, true. But in what field? Do you have the necessary maths to start Engineering or Physics or Chemistry? Nope. Could you start right in with Technology course work? Yep.
So the thing is, if you start a vocational track in the USA, you can go to college, yes. And take the vocational track at college. What is weird to me is how many colleges are offering vocational (trade school) degrees.
But how many classes do you take during the regular school year (5?), and how many can you take during the summer(1? at most2?) Best case scenario, if you start a track, and realize after the first year that you are in the wrong area, then it would take 2 1/2 summers to makeup the missed work. Enough time, barely, to fall behind a year and still catch up in time to graduate early. But if you don't "fall behind", then what about prerequisites? Do you jump right in as though you had the previous years material under you belt? Isn't that...crazy?
Actually, if you've been taking shop math, and suddenly want to take HS Physics and Chemistry, you'll be told to first fulfill the math prerequisites, and that shop math doesn't count as anything towards said prereqs, So you start taking real math. Guess what, since you didn't start early enough, you'll be graduated and out of high school before you qualify to be excepted into the HS Physics or HS Chem class.
Also note, if you wait until you get to college and decide now you want to get accepted into an engineering program, the curriculum starts with Math 101, which is calc. You'll discover you need 4 years of (real, not shop) HS math (which can actually be done in two years at a college accelerated level) before you can even *begin* the engineering program.
Sometimes its politics, and you can wave a magic wand and make it go away. Preparing for serious endeavors is not merely politics, though, and you can't just "skate" taking easy bullshit classes for most of your life and suddenly say, "OK, enough, today I enroll in Med School."
Hell yes! And its about time! And before you mod me 'funny', think about it. If ever we were to declare a justifiable war (as in, war/social program), what could be more justifiable than a "War on Ignorance"?
So then, if ignorance is a defense, I suppose your logic works equally well if she had a Mac and then had gotten MS Software. Or if she was running MS WinXP, and she bought Mac software. So really Apple, MS, and all versions of Linux are to blame because of her ignoranance. Sorry, I have to laugh at the implications of such logic. Maybe you didn't think it through, but at least to me, it is obvious.
The word inspiration comes by way of the Latin and the King James
c.1303, "immediate influence of God or a god," especially that under which the holy books were written, from O.Fr. inspiration, from L.L. inspirationem (nom. inspiratio), from L. inspiratus, pp. of inspirare "inspire, inflame, blow into," from in-"in" + spirare "to breathe" (see spirit). Inspire in this sense is c.1340, from O.Fr. enspirer, from L. inspirare, a loan-transl. of Gk. pnein in the Bible. General sense of "influence or animate with an idea or purpose" is from 1390. Inspirational is 1839 as "influenced by inspiration;" 1884 as "tending to inspire."
found in 2 Tim 3.16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God [theopneustos], and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."
Theopneustos is rendered in the Vulgate with the Latin divinitus inspirata ("divinely breathed into"), but some modern English translations opt for "God-breathed" (NIV) or "breathed out by God" (ESV) and avoid inspiration altogether, since its connotation, unlike its Latin root, leans toward breathing in instead of breathing out.
The Church Fathers often referred to writings other than the documents that formed or would form the biblical canon as "inspired."
Hey Mr. Lawyer. Get over yourself. You are so sure that no mere genius could ever read a sentence and have something interesting to say about it. You are childish, and immature, and lacking in the social graces whereby good conversation can be both instructive and entertaining. Continue to make blanket statements regarding your supposed superior position, and denigrate me, but take a look in the mirror while you do so. An argument should stand on its own merits. Pretending otherwise while continually trumpeting and beating your chest is just too much. Too much testosterone. Too put it bluntly, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You failed to illuminate or educate, and you waste my time. Fuck you.
There you go again. Lets try this explicitly. In your posting, you allege statements but don't provide quotes. You allege occurrences, but are too lazy to list them. There can't hardly be a response, since there is no meat on the bones. You say over and over that I don't understand. It would be lame of me to parrot back your postings, but possible, due to the way you posted. In terms of challenging you, I regret it. But it was worth a try.
I don't think eye-candy relates to function. However, layout is more than eye-candy. Thus, design related to function, being more than eye-candy, shouldn't be admissible as trade dressing, yes? Or am I just completely off base here?
You don't list a single point, yet you judge it in your mind and then label it, without ascribing to the label that which it is alleged to reference. You are like unto a dangling pointer. It is interesting to note that while I was blockquoting quotes from the US Supreme Court, you prefer Wikipedia? Again, attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument is rude, and wrong. Likewise, your whole point seems to be, "I'm authoritative, and authority good. Bow to me now." That won't cut it. Sorry. I'm sure you can think, and have something to say, and are capable of adding to the discourse. I'm afraid that for the most part, you waste my time. Time is money. Gotta go. In terms of face-saving, I'd leave you with this thought: I'm actually serious. I'm not playing with you, I'm not shooting for karma points or audience reaction. I'm trying to have a conversation. Thats all. An exchange of ideas in reference to a current topic of interest. Thats really all.
You argue by authority. Thats a fallacy. You don't address the issues I raise except to say they are wrong. Thats rude, and not even making an argument. Its less than a fallacy. Your level of discourse is unbecoming. Sorry, but you lose by not even playing, let alone playing well with others. See, the problem is by making it personal, the argument itself (as much as there was one) is cast aside. This is a public forum, for public debate and entertainment. Flaming is sometimes entertaining, but it isn't debate. As a professional you could be lifting the standards here at slashdot. I implore you, do so.
Wrong: "Plaintiffs have put forth substantial evidence that Plaintiffs own copyrights to the code and graphic design of the website." Sorry. Just plain wrong.
At this point I've tried, but failed to connect with you. As I grow weary of your interspersed abuse, I bid you farewell. You made interesting points after you woke up sufficiently to be careful. You continue to make assumptions, however, which your training should prevent. Such is life. Good bye.
The requirement is that the "eyecandy" can not have function. If said eyecandy "will, in fact, affect the functionality", then it is disqualified. Thus, by your own arguement, insofar as you are right regarding the functionality of web design, it can't be trade dress. Only pure eyecandy need apply!
Oh, sorry for two posts, but I almost forgot: you are now intermixing owning copyright with owning a trademark. IP is confusing enough, huh? There is no IP like 127.0.0.0, although everyone has there own.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, thats not how things are around here. My stats seem to indicate that most Wiccans are 14 to 16 year old girls. Their percentage body fat varies pretty much around the norm. Some of them are very *hot*, but totally jailbait. By the time they are of age, most are no longer Wiccan.
You have to ask, "which government". The federal goverment tax rate is not nearly what Exon's profit margin was (8.5%, 11.68 Billion profit on 138 Billion revenue). State tax varies, so including state tax with federal tax does get you into the same ballpark.
The concept that courts should declare "illegal statutes" void goes back 200 years prior to Marbury vs. Madison. Are you suggesting throwing out everything to start over? If not the Court, then what body would you establish to provide the needed check? You do admit that review (be it Judicial, or another body) is right, proper, and necessary?
Well the interesting thing, I think, is that as well as lower level need starvation leading to revolution (which seems obvious), at least once in history a group successfully revolted because of a sense of starvation of higher order needs. I think this is unusual. But the fact that it occurred (at least) once is noteworthy.
I suspect that phone access is considered a right, since if you can't afford a phone one will provided you. Driving isn't a right, though, but rather a privilege (or so they said over and over in my HS's driver's ed class...)
Wouldn't this be more like, you have lakeside property, and you decide you want to open a business, but you only want "a certain type of customer." So you set up rules that proscribe customers who aren't on your list. Do you have an obligation to serve, or can you reserve the right to refuse anyone? Can you reserve the right to refuse all blacks?
And they can't "impose whatever rules they feel like." If they tried to say that during peak hours, women and and specific ethnic groups had to stay offline to preserve bandwidth for white males, they'd be crucified. So obviously it isn't "whatever rules they feel like." And obviously it shouldn't be "whatever rules they feel like."
In terms of what constitutes legal and allowable limitations to service, look to an expert, not me. But is certainly isn't "whatever".
Not exactly sure what you mean by 3-4 year qualified. Here in California, if you want to teach Math or Physics, say, then the teaching credential takes 2 years, after you get your BS in the subject matter you want to teach. Time to get credentialed = 4 years (for BS) + 2 years (credential) = 6 years of education.
Vocational school gives you required credits for entering a University, true. But in what field? Do you have the necessary maths to start Engineering or Physics or Chemistry? Nope. Could you start right in with Technology course work? Yep.
So the thing is, if you start a vocational track in the USA, you can go to college, yes. And take the vocational track at college. What is weird to me is how many colleges are offering vocational (trade school) degrees.
But how many classes do you take during the regular school year (5?), and how many can you take during the summer(1? at most2?) Best case scenario, if you start a track, and realize after the first year that you are in the wrong area, then it would take 2 1/2 summers to makeup the missed work. Enough time, barely, to fall behind a year and still catch up in time to graduate early. But if you don't "fall behind", then what about prerequisites? Do you jump right in as though you had the previous years material under you belt? Isn't that...crazy?
Actually, if you've been taking shop math, and suddenly want to take HS Physics and Chemistry, you'll be told to first fulfill the math prerequisites, and that shop math doesn't count as anything towards said prereqs, So you start taking real math. Guess what, since you didn't start early enough, you'll be graduated and out of high school before you qualify to be excepted into the HS Physics or HS Chem class.
Also note, if you wait until you get to college and decide now you want to get accepted into an engineering program, the curriculum starts with Math 101, which is calc. You'll discover you need 4 years of (real, not shop) HS math (which can actually be done in two years at a college accelerated level) before you can even *begin* the engineering program.
Sometimes its politics, and you can wave a magic wand and make it go away. Preparing for serious endeavors is not merely politics, though, and you can't just "skate" taking easy bullshit classes for most of your life and suddenly say, "OK, enough, today I enroll in Med School."
Shall we now declare a "War on Ignorance"?
Hell yes! And its about time! And before you mod me 'funny', think about it. If ever we were to declare a justifiable war (as in, war/social program), what could be more justifiable than a "War on Ignorance"?
So then, if ignorance is a defense, I suppose your logic works equally well if she had a Mac and then had gotten MS Software. Or if she was running MS WinXP, and she bought Mac software. So really Apple, MS, and all versions of Linux are to blame because of her ignoranance. Sorry, I have to laugh at the implications of such logic. Maybe you didn't think it through, but at least to me, it is obvious.
strange that quoting history correctly and in context gets you modded flamebait...
Hey Mr. Lawyer. Get over yourself. You are so sure that no mere genius could ever read a sentence and have something interesting to say about it. You are childish, and immature, and lacking in the social graces whereby good conversation can be both instructive and entertaining. Continue to make blanket statements regarding your supposed superior position, and denigrate me, but take a look in the mirror while you do so. An argument should stand on its own merits. Pretending otherwise while continually trumpeting and beating your chest is just too much. Too much testosterone. Too put it bluntly, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You failed to illuminate or educate, and you waste my time. Fuck you.
There you go again. Lets try this explicitly. In your posting, you allege statements but don't provide quotes. You allege occurrences, but are too lazy to list them. There can't hardly be a response, since there is no meat on the bones. You say over and over that I don't understand. It would be lame of me to parrot back your postings, but possible, due to the way you posted. In terms of challenging you, I regret it. But it was worth a try.
I don't think eye-candy relates to function. However, layout is more than eye-candy. Thus, design related to function, being more than eye-candy, shouldn't be admissible as trade dressing, yes? Or am I just completely off base here?
Agreed. And thank you.
You don't list a single point, yet you judge it in your mind and then label it, without ascribing to the label that which it is alleged to reference. You are like unto a dangling pointer. It is interesting to note that while I was blockquoting quotes from the US Supreme Court, you prefer Wikipedia? Again, attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument is rude, and wrong. Likewise, your whole point seems to be, "I'm authoritative, and authority good. Bow to me now." That won't cut it. Sorry. I'm sure you can think, and have something to say, and are capable of adding to the discourse. I'm afraid that for the most part, you waste my time. Time is money. Gotta go. In terms of face-saving, I'd leave you with this thought: I'm actually serious. I'm not playing with you, I'm not shooting for karma points or audience reaction. I'm trying to have a conversation. Thats all. An exchange of ideas in reference to a current topic of interest. Thats really all.
You argue by authority. Thats a fallacy. You don't address the issues I raise except to say they are wrong. Thats rude, and not even making an argument. Its less than a fallacy. Your level of discourse is unbecoming. Sorry, but you lose by not even playing, let alone playing well with others. See, the problem is by making it personal, the argument itself (as much as there was one) is cast aside. This is a public forum, for public debate and entertainment. Flaming is sometimes entertaining, but it isn't debate. As a professional you could be lifting the standards here at slashdot. I implore you, do so.
Wrong: "Plaintiffs have put forth substantial evidence that Plaintiffs own copyrights to the code and graphic design of the website." Sorry. Just plain wrong.
At this point I've tried, but failed to connect with you. As I grow weary of your interspersed abuse, I bid you farewell. You made interesting points after you woke up sufficiently to be careful. You continue to make assumptions, however, which your training should prevent. Such is life. Good bye.
:-)
Oh, and I do claim the high ground, here.
The requirement is that the "eyecandy" can not have function. If said eyecandy "will, in fact, affect the functionality", then it is disqualified. Thus, by your own arguement, insofar as you are right regarding the functionality of web design, it can't be trade dress. Only pure eyecandy need apply!
Oh, sorry for two posts, but I almost forgot: you are now intermixing owning copyright with owning a trademark. IP is confusing enough, huh? There is no IP like 127.0.0.0, although everyone has there own.