The patent was on the business practice previously called "put it on my tab".
But all that is more proof that what should be banned is the ability to patent a process or business plan. Patent objects, or the plans to build them. Not software, not math, not genes, unless you invent a machine that does something with them. If you can tell someone the result (one click) and the rest of the process is easily guessable, it's obvious. Much like "sweat of the brow" doesn't determine copyrighability, just thinking up something new isn't sufficient for a patent.
Now all we need to do is convince the patent office of this simple truth.
Adultry isn't just married infidelity. Sex outside marriage is adultry (not just being married and having sex with a non-spouse, but having any sex with someone you aren't married to, regardless of your and their marriage status) in many of "those places". Being raped is not a defense for adultry. So yes, being raped can be a capital crime. That's not a myth. That's the law.
And that something could have been NDA allowed. "It's over." Given the smile on the face when told, and being told it's over, she may have guessed which way it was decided. What's in the NDA? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it's breached?
We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement, nor what was told to the daughter, it's possible that it wasn't breached, and we'll never have enough information to determine it. Yes, the daughter coud always sabotage it by saying things she guesses, correct or otherwise, but now that she knows the trouble it causes, I think it is more likely she won't talk, not less.
Rape isn't comperable between countries. As Assange found out, consentual sex in sweeden can be "rape" and as such, the defintions are not uniform. And reported rapes are low in Saudi Arabia, where being raped is a capital crime. Some places encourage reported rapes, others discourage it, and the definition not being uniform leads to an inability to reliably compare rape statistics between countries.
better is to coach her into a plausible story. "we didn't tell you any of the details. We told you that the matter was over, and we now had money to go to Europe. That you inferred that we won was not from us telling you that we won. If you mess this one up, we'll cut up your passport and you'll never go."
Reading the exact wording, it's quite possible that the daughter just guessed, and that isn't a breach of the agreement, is it? Perhaps there was more detail in other posts not in TFA, but she didn't reveal the amount of the win or anything else that wasn't previously known before the agreement, other than she was now allowed to go to Europe on family money. If they can keep her quiet through another trial, it's impossible to prove that the agreement was breached.
A good lawyer can word it to a manner where they didn't actually tell her. She knew before the settlement. The post didn't reveal any specifics. Is it really a breach of the confidentiality to tell your family member "that unplesantness is over. You may go to Europe now." And let them draw their own conclusions? That, and any brat bragging about such things, milking money from her parents and such, probably doesn't deserve the trip.
But in 2024, they don't get 1.5M in cash in their pocket.
Funny how you attack others for assuming you'd never borrow against equity, while you make the same assumptions, so long as they support your assertions. If someone owned a 1.5M house free and clear, they'd be able to borrow against it to get that 1.5M in 48 hours, or less if a HELOC was already in place.
The community is paying A&M for access to "Texas A&M facilities", not specifically Kyle field, and nothing in the wording I read indicated anyone expected to be able to use Kyle field to anything, just make use of the MSC and other "facilities" as a convention center.
I do not receive them. I get my regular statements and open everything sent to me. You are wrong. Unless you quote the law, I'll have to presume you are making it up.
No, you don't. I've had multiple 401(k) with multiple companies, John Hancock currently, and none have ever sent me a proxy. I got plenty of proxies from Compushare when I directly held stocks, but never from any pension fund. Voting for directly held shares is exactly as easy as you describe, and voting for mutual funds is easier, as you have no vote.
Most investors (by dollar, not number of investors) are corporations - Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, etc. "JP" invests plenty of my money, and is the owner of record for it.
Momma doesn't get to vote her shares. The 401(k) company does. She's an "owner" but not in the sense of this discussion of voting for policy and suing for losses.
My residence says "30 years". My investment properties say "interest only" and aren't getting paid off unless the market changes drastically. The interest is tax deductible. The taxes are tax deductible. The improvements are tax deductible. The 2014-450 property will be 2014-550 by the time 2024 comes. And it will have cost me nothing out of my pocket. If inflation increases, my property will increase even faster (property holding at about 3% above inflation at the worst, and improving from there, aside from minor variations), and when inflation increases my personal expenses, it'll also earn increased rental income, for a good return and good cashflow, regardless of the economy, so long as people need land, and that'll only change if the apocalypse comes.
I'll cash out in a longer term that I'll remember you. My plans are for retirement. I'll cash out when I retire (likely one to 5 years before, to lock into lower return, but less volatile investments with cashflow over growth). But no, I don't churn investments just to realize intermediate returns. I churn them when I can do something better with the funds. So I'm aiming to cash out in 15 years or so.
Slashdot Mirror
The patent was on the business practice previously called "put it on my tab".
But all that is more proof that what should be banned is the ability to patent a process or business plan. Patent objects, or the plans to build them. Not software, not math, not genes, unless you invent a machine that does something with them. If you can tell someone the result (one click) and the rest of the process is easily guessable, it's obvious. Much like "sweat of the brow" doesn't determine copyrighability, just thinking up something new isn't sufficient for a patent.
Now all we need to do is convince the patent office of this simple truth.
Don't they need a reason to deny it?
Adultry isn't just married infidelity. Sex outside marriage is adultry (not just being married and having sex with a non-spouse, but having any sex with someone you aren't married to, regardless of your and their marriage status) in many of "those places". Being raped is not a defense for adultry. So yes, being raped can be a capital crime. That's not a myth. That's the law.
So you know the NDA prevents them from saying that the matter was settled? Or did it pertain to the terms and naming the other party?
You appear to miss the point. She could have sabotaged the agreement by guessing. There's no "proof" (at least provided in TFA) the NDA was breached.
And that something could have been NDA allowed. "It's over." Given the smile on the face when told, and being told it's over, she may have guessed which way it was decided. What's in the NDA? If you don't know, how can you be so sure it's breached?
But is it disallowed to tell them before the settlement, when the agreement comes into effect?
We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement, nor what was told to the daughter, it's possible that it wasn't breached, and we'll never have enough information to determine it. Yes, the daughter coud always sabotage it by saying things she guesses, correct or otherwise, but now that she knows the trouble it causes, I think it is more likely she won't talk, not less.
Rape isn't comperable between countries. As Assange found out, consentual sex in sweeden can be "rape" and as such, the defintions are not uniform. And reported rapes are low in Saudi Arabia, where being raped is a capital crime. Some places encourage reported rapes, others discourage it, and the definition not being uniform leads to an inability to reliably compare rape statistics between countries.
better is to coach her into a plausible story. "we didn't tell you any of the details. We told you that the matter was over, and we now had money to go to Europe. That you inferred that we won was not from us telling you that we won. If you mess this one up, we'll cut up your passport and you'll never go."
Reading the exact wording, it's quite possible that the daughter just guessed, and that isn't a breach of the agreement, is it? Perhaps there was more detail in other posts not in TFA, but she didn't reveal the amount of the win or anything else that wasn't previously known before the agreement, other than she was now allowed to go to Europe on family money. If they can keep her quiet through another trial, it's impossible to prove that the agreement was breached.
A good lawyer can word it to a manner where they didn't actually tell her. She knew before the settlement. The post didn't reveal any specifics. Is it really a breach of the confidentiality to tell your family member "that unplesantness is over. You may go to Europe now." And let them draw their own conclusions? That, and any brat bragging about such things, milking money from her parents and such, probably doesn't deserve the trip.
They should have told her before the agreement was signed. "Once the agreement was signed, we did not tell anyone."
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Pick your dictionary. Do any not list it as a verb?
Disasters do happen between inspections from more sudden and rapid failures.
But in 2024, they don't get 1.5M in cash in their pocket.
Funny how you attack others for assuming you'd never borrow against equity, while you make the same assumptions, so long as they support your assertions. If someone owned a 1.5M house free and clear, they'd be able to borrow against it to get that 1.5M in 48 hours, or less if a HELOC was already in place.
The community is paying A&M for access to "Texas A&M facilities", not specifically Kyle field, and nothing in the wording I read indicated anyone expected to be able to use Kyle field to anything, just make use of the MSC and other "facilities" as a convention center.
I do not receive them. I get my regular statements and open everything sent to me. You are wrong. Unless you quote the law, I'll have to presume you are making it up.
No, you don't. I've had multiple 401(k) with multiple companies, John Hancock currently, and none have ever sent me a proxy. I got plenty of proxies from Compushare when I directly held stocks, but never from any pension fund. Voting for directly held shares is exactly as easy as you describe, and voting for mutual funds is easier, as you have no vote.
Most investors (by dollar, not number of investors) are corporations - Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, etc. "JP" invests plenty of my money, and is the owner of record for it.
Momma doesn't get to vote her shares. The 401(k) company does. She's an "owner" but not in the sense of this discussion of voting for policy and suing for losses.
My residence says "30 years". My investment properties say "interest only" and aren't getting paid off unless the market changes drastically. The interest is tax deductible. The taxes are tax deductible. The improvements are tax deductible. The 2014-450 property will be 2014-550 by the time 2024 comes. And it will have cost me nothing out of my pocket. If inflation increases, my property will increase even faster (property holding at about 3% above inflation at the worst, and improving from there, aside from minor variations), and when inflation increases my personal expenses, it'll also earn increased rental income, for a good return and good cashflow, regardless of the economy, so long as people need land, and that'll only change if the apocalypse comes.
Both are the same, especially when both are a hypothetical 10 year return on a house sold in 2024.
I'll cash out in a longer term that I'll remember you. My plans are for retirement. I'll cash out when I retire (likely one to 5 years before, to lock into lower return, but less volatile investments with cashflow over growth). But no, I don't churn investments just to realize intermediate returns. I churn them when I can do something better with the funds. So I'm aiming to cash out in 15 years or so.
Nobody said it was the only place to do that, but that it's taken as proof of having done it.
The AMA is the biggest accreditation nazi when it comes to this, but I've heard of other issues some places have faced.