Well, it should mean something like "between the walls", but in context I've no idea...except that other people seem to be implying that it means you need to install a program to read the content of a web site. Truly a bad idea. So I guess that, say, Flash is an interstitial.
The filter would send the automated request of a clean version of the email.
Is it realy Germanic in origin? I thought it must certainly go further back than that considering that derivitives are common in Spanish, English, and German. I'm not sure about Italian. My suspicion is that the Lombards carried it into Spain, and they were hardly Germanic. (Of course, perhaps Ferdinand isn't really Fred, but I suspect that it is.) Various web sites list differing dirivations, but as many go back to Gothic roots as to Germanic, so my suspcion is that it goes to a common ancestral tongue. Do remember that dialects can change pronunciations, and small slips are to be expected rather than surprising.
I was wondering if, over time, his natural shell would underplate the artificial shell until it could just be allowed to weather away. Of course, this might well take awhile.
Actually, it doesn't cause far-sightedness OR near-sightedness. It causes inflexibility. If you tend to normally be far-sighted, this will make you unable to see closely. If you tend to be near-sighted (as I am) this will make you unable to focus at a distance.
FWIW, I still don't wear glasses to read, but I do wear them to use a computer. If I were to drive, I'd need a second pair to drive with. Inflexible. I do not find progressive lenses tolerable, I find them essentially useless. My main use of glasses is while using a computer. Progressive lenses would render much of the screen unreadable. (I know that's technically not true, and that one only sees clearly out of the foeva, but moving the entire head is a lot different from moving just the eye.)
Sorry about that unclosed tag. I hit submit when I was reaching for preview. And there's no way to edit after submission.
Quite possibly. The comment I was replying to implied that the local library might reasonably be expected to have a copy. I've heard this incorrect implication made often, and *that* was what I wished to disagree with. I also expect that I could find a copy in the local University law school (which might be easier to access). But it's still a significant barrier.
You don't need to make something impossible to access to effectively deny access. Just make it difficult enough. Then you can always claim that there really *is* access. (And have you actually read any of those laws. They have more subroutine calls [or, if you prefer, indirect jumps...that might be better as there is no return statement] than most programs.)
??? Only recourse??
What recourses you have depends on what services you consider essential, and I don't consider playing videos to be essential, and even consider it detrimental.
Most libraries that I have seen do not have a current copy of the state law. Granted, in my state that would fill several shelves from floor to ceiling. I've seen one copy of an abridged printing of the corporate law (not current at the time). It filled 4 bookshelves floor to ceiling.
What is being discussed here is not just the state law, but an annotated version, which is pretty much guaranteed to be considerably longer.
I'm sorry, the logic of that proposition eludes me. You must be assuming postulates that I am unaware of. (Not one's I reject, that wouldn't confuse me, but perhaps one I have never heard.)
Ok. So a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Because the courts appear to use the annotated version for making decisions...and if your crowdsourced annotated version was the same as the other annotated version it would violate copyright.
FWIW, if the courts use the annotated version to make decisions, IMNSOH opinion, it should be considered the effective law, and therefore not copyrightable.
You are talking about one part of religion, and considering it as if it were the whole. And the part that you are considering is the most dubious part.
I, personally, happen to be a sort of gnostic, though not a gnostic christian. It *is* possible to have direct experience of the holy, which one and easily interpret as superhuman, though I consider that a mistake. I feel the the "gods" are a subset of the Jungian archetypes. Do *NOT* make the mistake of thinking that this renders them ineffective. They are the shared substratum of (almost) all humans. And they act powerfully, though indirectly, in the physical world because of that. Their actions are normally invisible because we don't notice them, not because they aren't present. Without the gods no machine would be built, and no language would be possible. Normally we call the "gods" instinct, if we notice them, but that badly downplays how powerfully they act. We don't tend to notice them because they are almost universal among humans. We are more likely to notice their absence, which we give names to like "sociopath", or "autistic". The eruption of a god into a full encounter with consciousness is quite rare, and generally needs to be managed with great care. It can also be quite destructive, so one should usually avoid this. Of course, it's more destructive if you don't notice that it's happening, and also if you have a great deal of trust in them. Be warned: The gods make mistakes. We do not live in the environment that we evolved for, so even when they act in ways that would be appropriate in that environment, it may be mistaken...and they would even make mistakes in their evolved environment.
If you take it as a compliment, that's fine. But you *do* need to be aware of the full significance of that "symbol". You may find partial enlightenment at the nearest meat packing plant. (You'd find more in raising sheep, but that takes a lot longer.)
This depends extensively on the precise meaning you give to "religion". In my opinion a decent religion would not describe the events of the physical world, but only the relative moral values that should be assigned to them. This is not an "easy way out", because it's not a "way out" at all. It means that you don't assign moral values to events that are not part of social interactions. It also renders much of traditional religion at best irrelevant. And it means that theology is a proper subset of a union of sociology and psychology. Much of traditional religion can be seen as basically a social control mechanism...which is a description, not a value judgement. Promises and claims that are made which are unverifiable cannot be considered as a part of the universe considered by science, except in so far as those claims have physical results. Which is not a minor effect.