If God did indeed make the universe, then the universe itself is the ultimate testament to truth (whatever that is) - not a book - for the universe alone was authored by the hand of God. To deny it is to call God a liar.
Isn't that basically what some groups do? Specifically, I'm thinking about the groups that claim their god put fossils in the earth to trick us, but I'm sure there are others.
Absolutely no fighting over sharing.
Instead, you get fighting over little Timmy spending more than his fair share of the funds attached to the account. Or are you able to tie one account to multiple devices, while each device has its own wallet?
If you misconfigure your wireless access point and leave it open, does that mean that it should be legal for anybody to connect to your network and download all the files from your NAS without penalty? Including *those* pictures of you and ____ doing _____ to _____, and your tax returns from the past 5 years?
Yes. You wouldn't blame the recipients if, instead of a misconfigured wireless access point, it was your crazy ex who still had a key who was giving out free copies of those documents, would you?
In particular, if the door is unlocked, that doesn't mean you can walk into the building and take photocopies of everything you find there, then publish the documents.
This isn't an unlocked, unsupervised door to a building, this is your crazy ex who still has a valid key holding a garage sale while you are out of town. The people perusing the contents of your home looking for items to take/buy didn't know the crazy ex did not have the right to let them in.
unless the other side believes that it can win.
Or the other side doesn't care, and just wants to watch the world burn.
Every woman would simply say "I'm nice, I'm not going to abuse my position." And that leaves you...
to reply with "I wasn't talking about you."
And, if the reply is "that would never happen," or "that's so rate as to be inconsequential," then it's not you who is the sexist.
That kind of reply sounds more like it would be born of naivete than of sexism. In other words, it also is not the replier who is sexist.
But I guess it would depend on the tone that it was delivered in.
The issue isn't that Hasbro should have already trademarked "candy", it's that "candy" shouldn't be able to be trademarked at all.
Expressing surprise that Hasbro did not already have the trademark, is not the same thing as saying "I think the word 'candy' should be allowed to be trademarked". I agree that "candy" should not be trademarked, but I can also still express surprise that Hasbro had not already done it.
Get hold of portable property. -- Charles Dickens, "Great Expectations"
