Russia really needs to be put at ease about nuclear attack. We simply aren't going to do it. We develop advanced weaponry, but for all intents and purposes, these weapons are just stockpiled, never to be used.
Repeat after me: HI-RO-SHI-MA. See, that wasn't so hard. And now you know.
They'll simply stop investing money in big movies if there's no chance of payback.
That is fine with me. Bring back the small movies. Where can I sign up to hasten that process?
What government body, precisely, regulates your use of foul language?
That would be the FCC
well, it was published in 1943, so i think it fits the criteria of 'been around a while'.
Wow, you really have a sense of history, huh? My father has been around since 1942, I guess he's halfway on his way to being a classic according to your definition of 'a while'.
Let me try to be more explicit: what I meant was that a classic is something or someone who transcends their particular historic and cultural context, whom people from different generations and different cultures find equally relevant to their lives.
You can throw all the insults you want at me, but that will not change the fact that the top two results for "Betty Smith" are this and this. Neither of those pages is longer than your average omelette recipe. That is a staggering lack of interest in a "classic" author.
In one case, a 9-year-old girl accidentally shared her contact list in Gmail with a person who has a "sexually charged" username, the lawmakers said in the letter."
Oh, no, she superpoked DickCheney!
He changed the name to Fluff Buster Purity but also still markets it as F***B*** Purity, which is again a violation of Facebook's trademark, albeit a little more tenous
Tenuous is the understatement of the century. I am not a lawyer, but I find it hard to believe there is anything in trademark law that grants such broad rights (on any combination of two words with initials F and B). If it does, I guess Microsoft owns My Wiener.
How would you like to have and extra SIX THOUSAND dollars of disposable income every year?
I wouldn't like it at all, if the price is having no health care coverage.
True, it's horrendously expensive. But that money pays for research, and that research will allow people to stay alive or even get cured a lot cheaper later.
So, you are saying that the only people who should pay for cancer research are the ones unfortunate enough to get it? Nice.
Family's insurance pays the $100k bill and no lawyers are involved.
My landlord had a car accident and needed about $7,000 worth of physical therapy. The insurance company refused to pay that until the lawyers got involved. I seriously doubt they would even consider paying $100k without going to court first.
"I've seen it. It's rubbish." -- Marvin the Paranoid Android
