Zow

Wtf

I'm not that well versed in IP law, but I'm not so sure it's as simple as the bold. I believe there's still some protections afforded to an identifiable individual's or group's image and likeness. But, again though, whether something is lawful doesn't always mean it should be done. For example, I can lawfully cheat on my wife but that doesn't mean she shouldn't have hurt feeling because of it, shouldn't ask me to stop, etc.

I just don't see it as that complicated. If an immutable group of people - especially one with a relatively fresh/recent history of being discriminated against (e.g. slavery, were conquered, etc.) - asks that its name not be used then change it. If the group doesn't request it, then use away at your own discretion. I think this especially applies when 1) the name user isn't a member of or otherwise associated with the group; and 2) and identifiable head/leader of the group is clear. I have a buddy who vehemently disagrees with this "PC culture" and the "wussification of America" that he

I have two that are tied: 6 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6W5Zcgt8kA Hey Dad, wanna have a catch?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_wnD6jxREU

Yeah I have the F-Series.

I'd probably lean towards the ones whose ancestors had their land essentially stolen/taken by force and some of their women and children were sexually trafficked. But hey, I get it - it's super cool to drive a SUV with "Cherokee" written on it!

Yeah that was amazing.

Haha well in this particular instance the particular city where this occurred has an ordinance that permits candidates to put up campaign signs in certain places around the city (I believe the ordinance also required them to take them down by a certain point or be subject to a fine). So, here, there is a pretty clear expectation of privacy/that they won't be stolen. Further, there were some extranneous factors at play that I cannot get into here that probably made the state's case stronger. Suffice it to say I think you're in the clear.

Generally, yes, there is a lot of leeway to the parties (state and defendant). Very commonly things like "no alcohol," "no contact with person X," "must obtain a high school diploma or GED," "must take medications as prescribed," "donation to charity X" etc. are found in plea agreements whereas they may be terms a sentencing judge likely wouldn't or can't impose after sentencing. The question really turns though on whether the term is actually enforceable. In thinking of some of the more out-of-the-box or unique terms I've seen in pleas I have encountered a few were found to be unenforce

I'm always down. Most days I have a few minutes here and there and chess fills it nicely.

What makes you say the bold - especially re: Arizona?

So good.

Yeah that makes sense. Well, it was a good attack. Just a bit of a blunder I suppose not seeing what I was doing with the bishop.

Yeah you had a nice attack there built up. I will first say that I’ve spent the last few days playing in a golf tournament so I didn’t play much of our match sober, but my memory is I knew I had to take out your knight to permit my king a safe square. So, I thought by taking your knight with my bishop you’d take back with a pawn, but I could safely maneuver my king to relative safety but would be down at least my H pawn. But then you took the pawn first allowing me to both move my bishop to safety with the double benefit of buffering the king. Then you essentially semi-hung your queen in the s

I beat fat guy. I lost to chocolate boy.