Free Republic

Dude, I didn’t just randomly ping you. I answered the specific question you asked. And I stand by my original comment — it’s idiotic to pretend that who Perry supported 23 years ago is what sent you over the edge. I won’t waste my tine on you any more.

Unfortunately, some or many states (not sure how many) have claimed that red light camera citations are a civil matter, on the idiot notion that they are dealing with property (the car) and not a person (the driver).

I don't like Perry for a number of reasons. New business taxes, Trans-Texas Corridor, selective when it comes to being anti-big government, HPV vaccines, etc. None of which involves something 23 years ago.

Now.Go.Away.

Didn’t say I supported Perry. Just showing how weak-arsed your argument was. Seriously, his support for a Democrat two decades ago did it for you? And if anything, what Reagan did was worse. FDR was never a conservative Democrat, and Reagan was a die-hard conservative when he signed amnesty.

In case you missed it, I was mocking your post, mostly the stupidity of relying on who someone supported for President 23 years ago.

And Reagan did support FDR, the father of much of the social-engineering nanny-state garbage we are having to deal with today.

I am personally not happy with any of the current crop of Republican candidates.

The Al Gore FDR support back then plus his recent support of Comprehensive Immigration Reform Immigration Reform and Control Act decides it for me. It's "no" for Perry Reagan.

they don’t have a clue about things 750 million light years away, not a clue.

Don't worry, you're only 6 orders of magnitude off the actual distance. Or is it 7? Not sure.

And unless I’m mistaken, those are Aggies, baby!

From the CDC:
As of February 14, 2011, there have been 51 VAERS reports of death among females who have received Gardasil. Thirty two of these reports have been confirmed and 19 remain unconfirmed due to no identifiable patient information in the report such as a name and contact information to confirm the report. A death report is confirmed (verified) after a medical doctor reviews the report and any associated records. In the 32 reports confirmed, there was no unusual pattern or clustering to the deaths that would suggest that they were caused by the vaccine and some reports indicated a cause of death unrelated to vaccination.

Looks to me like there is no reliable evidence of any deaths linked directly to the vaccine. More like the "vaccines cause autism" kind of junk to me.

If you don't file within that year, you lose your place in line, as it were.
I believe (but am not sure) that if you publish your idea in any sort of public record, you lose your rights immediately. I could be wrong about that; publication may just start the one-year clock.

It's not that you lose your place in line. It's that you are barred from ever getting a patent. And publication starts the one-year clock but doesn't cause an immediate loss of patent rights in the US. It does cause an immediate loss of patent rights in most other countries.

Disney’s;
“It’s a small world, after all. It’s a small world after all.It’s a small world, after all. It’s a small world after all.It’s a small world, after all. It’s a small world after all.It’s a small world, after all. It’s a small world after all.It’s a small world, after all. It’s a small world after all.

I'd surrender just reading this.

Once you decide an idea is worth pursuing, the crucial first step is to protect your idea by establishing date of invention. The US Patent Office then permits you 12 months to develop your idea before filing an applications so long as during that period between formal disclosure and patent filing, you can show that you were diligent in developing your invention.

You are confused. The law says that if you publicly disclose an invention, sell it, or offer it for sale, you have 12 months to file a patent application. If you don't, you are barred from getting a patent.

This has nothing to do with first to file or first to invent. You could conceive of an invention, reduce it to practice, and file 15 months later and still "win" in a first to invent system.

Have you read that in the legislation?

First to file doesn't mean first to steal. You need to be an inventor to get a patent. You can't take someone else's idea and file it as your own. You couldn't before, and you can't now.

As for the merits of whether this hurts individual inventors, that wasn't my point. I was responding to someone who said this allows theft, which it doesn't.

So, they just legalized theft!

No they didn't. If you tell me about your invention and I file a patent application on it, I lose since I didn't invent anything. But if you and I independently invent something and I file first, I win.

Well... Amazon knows full-well that I am being hounded for the taxes.... They need to change their pricing and business model to be a responsible citizen.

Amazon has no duty to collect sales taxes. End of story. It's no different than any other on-line or brick and mortar retailer -- they pay sales taxes in locations where they have a physical presence.

Pretty slimey as a business model. Why should local mom and pop cover the high life at Amazon?

It's called the law. If you don't have a physical presence, you don't collect sales taxes.

Black Houston democrats. Next question...

People don't have the right to protest any way and anywhere they want. The law limits protest in lots of ways.

So in what ways did the WBC idiots violate the law regarding when and where they could protest. If they violated the law, they would have been arrested, right?

The people they hurt should be allowed to sue.

Is it true in this case that the person suing (the Marine's father) didn't know the protesters were there until he saw it on the news that night, well after the funeral services were over? If that's the case, these idiots never interrupted his son's funeral, and he was allowed to bury his son in peace. It also means that the "harm" he suffered would have been the same regardless of whether these jerks were protesting at the funeral, at the local Marine recruiting station, or any other place.

So your answer is YES...
lol...
Lemme tell ya something tex...If you're the homeowner and you do this, you're leaving yourself wide open to massive, punitive liability.
Only a *foolish homeowner* would do this in today's litigious society

Don't even try to pretend that you started this thread to warn people of the dangers of hiring uninsured workers. You started this thread to criticize a proposed Texas law that would exempt homeowners from jailtime and fines for hiring someone who turned out to be illegal. Since E-Verify is not generally available to homeowners, that makes sense. And my homeowner's insurance protects me just fine. But by all means, keep calling me foolish. Just let me know when you figure out what business license is needed to mow lawns.

Holy crap.
Please read the thread.
THIS is what the poster said “Has it occurred to anyone that this exception is intended to protect homeowners that don’t have the resources to check out a potential employee?
Have you ever tried to use E-Verify? It’s not a simple task even to get started, before you check out a single employee.”
Get it. The guy WAS too lazy to use E-Verify.

I read the thread. I suggest you might try it, too. justlurking didn't say he could access E-Verify. He said that it wasn't a simple task to get started on E-Verify before you could check anyone out. I could tell the same thing, since I bothered looking into what it took to register with E-Verify.