Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I'd be be pretty surprised by any registered patent attorney with implants.
S_A_M

Atticus, can i get a ruling? I'm interpreting this as smart women can't be hot.

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
Your guy had his first heart attack at age 37 and has been legally dead since 1978, and you pin the zombie label on our guy?

The guy, I might add, that W. Kristol is going around telling people will be replaced by McCain by the end of this convention.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The guy, I might add, that W. Kristol is going around telling people will be replaced by McCain by the end of this convention.

Yeah, like we're gonna believe the predictions of the neocons.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Atticus, can i get a ruling? I'm interpreting this as smart women can't be hot.

May be sexist, but backed up by sufficient anecdotal evidence. The last truly hot woman with a Degree in Science was probably that chick from "Knight Rider" --- and I'm told that shit was fictional anyway.

Maybe he's saying smart women are smart enough to know implants attract the wrong kind of person. Does Eva have straight-up 100% free range sweater meat? I think she's shooting for a higher caliber of man.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Um, yeah. Hence the "short-sightedness" comment.

I don't think you represent many software companies if you are taking that position. And I don't think you do much counseling or litigation of copyright cases, either. These start ups only have so much money to spend on lawyers. If it is better spent securing patent protection or dotting the i's and crossing the t's with an NDA to protect their trade secrets, it is not at all short-sighted. It is a business reality for them.

If they don't apply for a patent, they don't get one. If they don't maintain their trade secrets under an obligation of confidentiality, they lose their trade secrets. If they don't register for a copyright, all they lose is attorneys fees they still have copyrights. Now if the company doesn't have enough money for patents, NDAs, and copyright registration, which one would you give up? Assuming they have patentable inventions and trades secrets, the money is better spent on those because if you don't spend the money you either never get the patent or lose the trade secret. With a copyright, you have it regardless of registration. You can register when you need to assert it and all you are isking is attorney's fees. And that is only if you are talking civil actions. For criminal actions for pirated code, the DOJ pays the cost of prosecuting the offenders.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
May be sexist, but backed up by sufficient anecdotal evidence. The last truly hot woman with a Degree in Science was probably that chick from "Knight Rider" --- and I'm told that shit was fictional anyway.

That's true, huh. I can't think of any that would qualify, although I view it as a true lack of effort on the part of the smart chicks. What's wrong, honey, are you TOO GOOD for implants?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The guy, I might add, that W. Kristol is going around telling people will be replaced by McCain by the end of this convention.

Why would McCain want the job?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The last truly hot woman with a Degree in Science was probably that chick from "Knight Rider" --- and I'm told that shit was fictional anyway.
.

What about a Misfit of Science?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That's true, huh. I can't think of any that would qualify, although I view it as a true lack of effort on the part of the smart chicks. What's wrong, honey, are you TOO GOOD for implants?

I think that they think that it is catering to men's fantasies or conforming to a man's idea of what a woman should look like and they are against that.

I wouldn't have done it if I were doing it to cater to a man's fantasy. I did it so I liked the way I looked better. I like my titties. I am touching them now.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
I don't think you represent many software companies if you are taking that position. And I don't think you do much counseling or litigation of copyright cases, either. These start ups only have so much money to spend on lawyers. If it is better spent securing patent protection or dotting the i's and crossing the t's with an NDA to protect their trade secrets, it is not at all short-sighted. It is a business reality for them.

If they don't apply for a patent, they don't get one. If they don't maintain their trade secrets under an obligation of confidentiality, they lose their trade secrets. If they don't register for a copyright, all they lose is attorneys fees they still have copyrights. Now if the company doesn't have enough money for patents, NDAs, and copyright registration, which one would you give up? Assuming they have patentable inventions and trades secrets, the money is better spent on those because if you don't spend the money you either never get the patent or lose the trade secret. With a copyright, you have it regardless of registration. You can register when you need to assert it and all you are isking is attorney's fees. And that is only if you are talking civil actions. For criminal actions for pirated code, the DOJ pays the cost of prosecuting the offenders.

Beyond making assumptions about what you think my "position" is, you seem to assume that the legal costs in assisting a client with a copyright registration is either equivalent or comparable to trade secret counseling or patent protection.

Is this the point in the conversation where others tell you that yours is a fascinating point, and they'll be right back as soon as they freshen their drink?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Like the first time you think "ooo, cool minivan!"?

Not quite there yet, that's why we have an SUV.

S_A_M

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What about a Misfit of Science?

Courteney Cox was on "Misfits of Science" during the only year it aired: 1985.

Patricia McPherson played Bonnie Barstow through the year "Knight Rider" was cancelled: 1986. So I am technically correct --- the best kind of correct! Whew.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Yes, it's been an effective pincer movement, like the one that eventually permitted Rommel to break through the Maginot Line to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand and defeat the Australian-Hungary Empire.

If this doesn't get us Ty back, nothing will.

It took a second to get, but well done.

He(Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)llo

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
I think that they think that it is catering to men's fantasies or conforming to a man's idea of what a woman should look like and they are against that.

I wouldn't have done it if I were doing it to cater to a man's fantasy. I did it so I liked the way I looked better. I like my titties. I am touching them now.

I view it the same as dying grey hairs, and I can only hope that I am alive to see the day when they will be viewed this way.

Who'd of thunk I'd be a progressive?

[Gattigap]

And why haven't you quoted with pride the WSJ op-eds today?

For those of you claiming fidelity to the articles of conservatism, but holding one's nose and voting for Bush, The Conservative Establishment has a message for you: Stay Home!

The lesson of British history is that a second Bush term could be more damaging to the Republicans and more beneficial to the Democrats than a Bush defeat. If he secures re-election, President Bush can be relied upon to press on with a foreign policy based on pre-emptive military force, to ignore the impending fiscal crisis (on the Cheney principle that "deficits don't matter") and to pursue socially conservative objectives like the constitutional ban on gay marriage. Anyone who thinks this combination will serve to maintain Republican unity is dreaming; it will do the opposite. Meanwhile, the Dems will have another four years to figure out what the Labour Party finally figured out: It's the candidate, stupid. And when the 2008 Republican candidate goes head-to-head with the American Tony Blair, he will get wiped out.

You know that times are getting tough when the WSJ adopts a "burn the village to save it" philosophy.