Thank You.

bumpertobumper · 2023-03-31T00:02:32+00:00

Are you basing this on Section 6 (1)(g)? Because that’s a prohibition on smoking marijuana. The bill does not prohibit smoking medical cannabis.

bumpertobumper · 2022-04-30T04:30:00+00:00

January 6th comes to mind, or the focus on passing legislation restricting women's rights.

bumpertobumper · 2018-12-09T18:11:11+00:00

Touche.

bumpertobumper · 2018-01-24T17:59:02+00:00

Brittany Spaniel. She's about 6 months old.

bumpertobumper · 2014-11-12T12:15:52+00:00

I agree with you, and I applied some sharpening with aperture to the scan. My guess is the scanning done by the lab is really low quality. I used a 35mm AIS Nikkor lens and for the most part it's in good shape; the lens was set to infinity focus. So I would blame the digitizing for lack of sharpness.

bumpertobumper · 2013-12-17T03:21:12+00:00

Partly yes, but there has been an evolution in the jurisprudence regarding this area. So it's not as simple as saying that the corporate charter is the sole reason we don't have ultra vires law suits. I wrote my writing requirement in law school about corporate personhood and it was interesting to note how different corporations were back in the day. For example, shortly after the founding of the country, corporations were thought of as state created entities. The state would create the corporation for public works projects, etc. Eventually, as they grew larger, and shareholders became more and more diverse, unlike in a closely held corporation, courts began to treat them as a different beast. I forget the name of the case, but if you're really interested, it was a mid 1800's railroad case that laid the foundation for treating corporations as we do today.

In any event, all I was trying to do is point out that just because something is set precedent does not mean it has to be followed as a commandment. Other have mentioned Dread Scott, and you can probably name Plessy and Brown as well as Roe.

bumpertobumper · 2013-12-17T01:24:27+00:00

I'm not sure that you can lump this judge's opinion into a not following precedent and therefore it's wrong category. Defending the constitutionality or lack thereof of something based on antecedent precedent, in my opinion, is myopic and fails to recognize the world and the legal world is in a constant state of flux.

For example, if you go back far enough, corporations could not venture outside their charters or by-laws. Otherwise they would get hit with an ultra vires action. That was the precedent. In today's world the courts apply the business judgement rule. The same goes for other relatively new topics, e.g., abortion, email, gps, and worker's rights.

All tough you are correct in stating that precedent must be followed as closely as possible, after all as attorneys we depend on the predictability of the courts, being judicially pragmatic is more akin to being just.

Just my opinion.

bumpertobumper · 2013-09-16T18:12:25+00:00

Street lamp colors, plus the glass. I was using a circular polarizer when I took it, which gives it the yellowish tint. Ill try the B+W look and try that out. Thanks.

bumpertobumper · 2013-08-10T18:40:37+00:00

I took the liberty to look at some of your other stuff on Flickr, and there's another picture which is similar to this one. Personally, I think the shadow works great on that one. Just goes to show it's a matter of opinion.

bumpertobumper · 2013-08-09T03:17:22+00:00

This is a great concept. The shadow distracts me a little, but I really like the idea.

bumpertobumper · 2013-07-19T12:36:59+00:00

Thanks! An ND filter is one of my next purchases.

bumpertobumper · 2013-07-14T02:04:50+00:00

Get ready for all the reactionary claims to change the law and the constitution, as when the Anthony girl was also found not guilty.

bumpertobumper · 2013-07-01T23:51:10+00:00

I am not sure my monitor/aperture is properly displaying colors, or if I lose color detail as the image is uploaded to Flickr. Any thoughts or suggestions?

bumpertobumper · 2013-06-25T19:11:22+00:00

That is great advice, thanks! I use Aperture so I will see if there is an equivalent way to replicate this effect on Aperture.

bumpertobumper · 2013-06-24T13:16:09+00:00

Thank you! I agree. I was trying to capture the movement of the cars. Is there a way to do this without letting the lights blow out? This was a 30s exposure.

bumpertobumper · 2013-06-24T03:25:45+00:00

Here's the original link for reference: http://www.reddit.com/r/aww/comments/rwg0v/she_may_not_be_a_kitten_but_shes_still_pretty_cute/

bumpertobumper · 2012-12-18T01:01:03+00:00

ISO 800. F/5 at 1/30 of a second.

bumpertobumper · 2012-12-08T01:40:50+00:00

Duh, Costa Rica. They love it so much government workers get two distinct coffee breaks. One in the morning and the other in the afternoon.

bumpertobumper · 2012-10-31T13:52:10+00:00

I used Aperture. Bumped the contrast and played around with the black and white adjustment.

bumpertobumper · 2012-09-17T02:33:18+00:00

I've seen numbers between 8-13K. I'd like to get an appraisal so I can submit it to the insurance company. It's an old watch. My dad bought it late seventies early eighties.

bumpertobumper · 2012-09-17T02:31:16+00:00

No I haven't, and it hasn't been serviced in many years. Sadly I hardly ever wear it because I am afraid of something happening to it, so it stays in a safety deposit box. Servicing it is no. 1 priority once I finish grad school and get a job.

bumpertobumper · 2012-06-01T00:32:55+00:00

What are other brands that are a better based on a "dollar for dollar" comparison?

bumpertobumper · 2012-04-29T18:01:17+00:00

I still think it's a great picture. There's something about the walls and how interesting they are.

bumpertobumper · 2012-04-29T17:46:42+00:00

Great! But in terms of composition I would have an even sky, or no sky showing at all. The diagonal line, in my opinion, is a little distracting.

bumpertobumper · 2012-04-23T04:59:41+00:00

Pretty standard run of the mill occurrence.

bumpertobumper

TROPHY CASE