Soxbadger

What about Nebraska! I expect they will be terrible with PSU.

No one will know what the Big 10 will be like until a few games into the regular season. I feel that Wisconsin is going to be weaker, but Jordan Taylor could prove me wrong. I think it could be a wide open year, and that any team could click and win it.

But those rules would do nothing more than just change the game. If I am a major company say Microsoft, I submit as thousands of patents hoping that I write one vague enough to some how say I patented twitter, etc. So it wont end patent lawsuits, except if you consider the big boys leveraging out every small competitor via threat of lawsuit. As for patents themselves, they are extremely difficult and something that Ive only been a part of 1 time. Drafting was ridiculously annoying and problematic to say the least. As for the proposed change, Im not a huge fan of a law that will significantly tip the scales in big businesses favor. But I can completely understand why big business is padding some pockets to make this change.

Coffee

New rules give advantages to large companies that can afford to patent first invent later. I would not agree with any change of the law that would take away invent first. Many inventors do not have the funds to actually patent/prototype their invention. They often have to go to major companies and have them sign nda's etc, how would that work with the new law? If I have a NDA with GM and then GM goes and patents my work, they are technically in breach of my agreement, but they also have the patent. I guess Id have to see more into it to see if there are going to be more protections for small inventors.

Because the Bulls are in the Central they may have the inside track on the 1 seed provided that they can take care of business against teams they should, and split against elite teams.

Everyone judges a book by its cover to some degree. And really if we are going to say that Nolan ripped off Duck Tales, we should get mad at Duck Tales for ripping off A Midsummers Night's Dream or the fact that Ariadne refers to the a Greek myth about Labyrinth. I think the visuals were unique, and I didnt see any Duck Tales imagery creating cities from nothing or having streets collapse on themselves. No idea is going to be unique, according to some there are only 6 or 7 different stories, and they have all been told in one variation or another.

Maybe if any of my posts were about the movies without seeing them, you would have a point. But when the point of my post is that "I didnt see a lot of the movies because they did not excite me", the entire point is that I didnt see the movies. In my first post I explicitly state which movies I saw, so that there was no confusion that my remarks were not about the actual film, but instead my perception of them. As I said, Ill see them all, just most of them did not make me so excited that I had to spend $10. I can just live with seeing them on the Netflix at $10 unlimited per month.

Its my opinion, I can say that Care Bears is the best movie of all time and that Citizen Kane wasnt worth the reel it was shot on. I dont read other peoples reviews, I try my best not to see a lot of trailers (generally include some sort of spoiler) and I go into every movie with only my own preconceived notions about whether it is going to be good or not. Some times I agree with experts, other times I dont. The only difference is that they get paid for something, that Im willing to give for free, my opinion.

I do plan on seeing them all. I just was saying that the fact most of them did not get me out to the movies, in my opinion, showed that it was a weaker year. May I retrospectively go back and change my mind? Sure. The only movie of the list that I have not seen that I wanted to was Black Swan.

I dont think whether the office was "closed" makes a difference. My office "closes" at 5pm, but Im frequently here later than that. if something were to happen to me while I was working the office closed argument would not fly. Now more to the point the argument would be "was she actually working" and that is an entirely different topic. I am not familiar with workers compensation, but I would be hard pressed to believe that an employee who is injured while driving to work can file for employees compensation. I would think that the employee actually has to be at work. No where does at work begin? Who knows. The other question would be does workers compensation have some sort of rule that excludes the "natural accumulation" defense. Generally you cant sue for slip and fall caused by ice/snow that was natural. I dont do any workers comp, but those are the questions Id ask.

Oh Steve come on, one of the strongest in the last 20 years? Personally I found last years nominations far better. And last 20 years, you do realize that the following movies came out in 1994. 1994: Forest Gump Pulp Fiction Shawshank Redemption That year also had a "King's Speech" it was called "The Madness of King George" Do you really think 1 of the movies we saw last night will be a Gump, Fiction or Shawshank?

Im sure I watch as much Sci-Fi as anyone, but you can say that nothing has been new to the table since Jewels Verne if you want. If you dont think Inception was unique that is your opinion. Sure have Blade Runner and a million other films taken on reality versus non-reality, but Inception took it in another direction. Im not sure that I ever argued for it to be the Best Picture, Im not sure if I would have argued for any of them to be.

You cant argue taste. And the point about an action sequence is why would I waste $10 on a movie about historical facts, when I can just learn about the historical facts? I mean sure every once in a while you will have a Schindler's List, but even that movies imagery had a point. I guess if the movie was about an individual overcoming obstacles Id rather not have it cloaked in a WWII period piece, but once again you cant argue taste. And I really dont think that I missed out, Ive gone through the lists of movies and most of them dont really excite me.

I liked Inception, but admittedly the only other nominee I saw was True Grit. When I think about Best Picture, I add into the category "uniqueness". The reason I never saw the King's Speech is because Ive already seen so many historical period pieces (especially about World War II) that I just would rather actually see the real history. Im sure that it was a very moving tale about a Monarch who had a speech impediment, but if you are going to get me to pay money at the theater to watch another WWII film, I better see at least 1 action sequence, otherwise Ill just go read about it on the internet. As soon as its available Ill catch it on Netflix, but in my opinion the only movie that I felt I needed to see in the theaters this year was Inception. Hate it or love it, at least it brought something different to the table. Overall I thought movies this year were meh, which would be evidenced by my lack of movie going.

Unless you can bat Dunn behind Dunn, Ozzie will never be able to maximize Dunn's RBI production. Batting Dunn 3 or 4 is really just a matter of preference. If he is the Sox best hitter, Id prefer he gets the most at bats.

Bulls just need to worry about winning games, because no matter what seed they have potentially tough match ups. If I were the Bulls the only seed Id be thinking about is the 1 seed.

So how could the NBA dunk contest not have been rigged after seeing the KIA commercial.

As to the whole filibuster/quorum debate, all is fair in love and war. Its fair when the Republicans do it, its fair when the Democrats do it. There are reasons why rules about quorum were created. And for most votes in Wisconsin, quorum is not required. Some of our founding fathers were extremely concerned about tyranny of the majority, and that cuts against both Democrats and Republicans. We are nation built on compromise, our entire govt structure is built on the idea of making people compromise. Disagree with the system all you want, but Republicans and Democrats are playing by the rules. Its up to the majority to figure out a way to convince the minority to agree. As this is the Republican thread I will only post neutral statements, I feel that is a fair compromise to me posting in this thread.

So rumor has it that Houston wouldnt deal Lee unless they got Asik (once again proving that Asik has value) and that Memphis didnt want to deal with the Bulls. Nothing the Bulls can do now but hope for a buyout and signing.

If the Bulls can stop having let downs at teams like Toronto there is no reason they cant get the 2 seed or better.

Miami's lack of inside presence is going to be their downfall. Every team is going to shoot bad, but if you can win on the glass get second chance points you can overcome a crappy offensive night. Bulls had 13 offensive rebounds to the Heats 6. Thats 7 more times the Bulls got a second chance and in a 4 point game, 7 extra possessions is an incredible advantage.

The Bulls shot pretty badly, especially from 3. If I were a Heat fan Id be pretty worried about the +14 rebound advantage the Bulls had. There is pretty good reason to believe that the Bulls and Heat will both shoot better next game, but not much to believe that the Heat will get a lot better on the boards.

The play the Bulls ran there, is the play they should have ran before. Its not hard to figure out that theyll collapse on Rose.

You dont deserve to win if you cant even understand simple execution at the end of the game. The Bulls gave the Heat a chance to win, wtf.