關於 licensing意思 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

🌻
美國聯準會（Fed）在美東時間22日下午2時（台灣23日凌晨2時）宣布利率維持在趨近零的水準，但暗示升息可能會比預期來得快一些，同時也大幅下修今年的經濟展望。

https://udn.com/news/story/6811/5764746

🌻Adobe(ADBE)電話會議內容讀後感

ADBE前兩天發表財報了.

這次ADBE在財報後下跌, 主要是兩個原因(如下). 不過個人覺得是瑕不掩瑜:
1. 因為之前已經漲了不少(投資人期望太高)
2. 因為Digital Marketing這部分的業務受到季節性的影響, 所以表現不是很突出(沒有比預期高出很多)
a. net new Digital Media ARR (3% beat vs guide, vs 15% beat in 2Q21 vs 35% beat in 3Q20).
b. 有分析師在問(“Maybe just -- can we double-click on the seasonality commentary in the quarter? Because if we look at the beat versus guidance on net new digital media ARR, it looks, at the same time you had the weakest beat, but then the strongest guide in the last three years, which kind of speaks to and confirm some of those seasonality comments that you made.)
i. 高層對此的回答是, 主要是疫情後, 加上正值夏季, 大家的日子回復到正常&放假外出, 所以這部分的業務有受到影響(I think going into the quarter, we had expected that the consumer with a little bit more return to normalcy as what's happening in the environment.)
ii. 高層又說了一些話, 不過重點就是他不認為這是甚麼大事”So, net-net, I would say that the growth prospects for that particular business and the growth drivers remain intact. But again, very much in line. And this is what we feel good about the insights that we're getting on the business.”
iii. 也提到, Q4通常會是digital marketing業務的旺季(表現會不俗的意思)

另外, 覺得這次令我印象深刻的是, 當高層與分析師提到這些事情:
• 常在一些公司的電話會議中提到omnichannel這個字(疫情後, 更明顯了). 這次高層也有提到. ADBE可說是omnichannel概念股:
o “I mean, a big part of that is more and more companies are thirdly doing the multi-channel omnichannel, whatever they want to call it. And I think that's only going to continue to be a driver of our Digital Experience Solutions. Because today that stable stakes and so we just look at it and say whether you're shopping in-store over they are shopping online. You need a solution that treats you like a customer that we know of.”
• 網路上影片(video)的興起, 以及串流影音, 有提高了Adobe的營收天花板(用句分析師的術語, 就是TAM (total addressable market) expansion.
• 當使用者製作了越來越多的內容, 內容管理(content management)的能力就越顯重要, 內容上的流程管理(workflow)也越顯重要. Adobe的產品能夠幫內容製作者解決這樣的問題.
• 而Adobe各產品間的相容性, 標準化, 整合能力, 是它的競爭優勢之一:
o And one of the things we did really well is what we called our named user deployment and how, you know, when we have these enterprise licensing agreements, we offer enterprises the ability to download and distribute within the companies. And the more we do training and evangelism of the products, that leads to adoption. So, I would say there's an element of standardization, there's an element of more content.

而最近ADBE有個新聞, 引起了我的注意, 就是它即將在自己的平台上, 提供付款服務(payment service). 根據之前研究SHOP的經驗, 這有可能會對股價造成一定的漲幅:
On Sept. 15, Adobe announced that it will add payment services to its e-commerce platform this year to help merchants accept credit cards and other ways of paying. The move will deepen Adobe's rivalry with e-commerce firm Shopify (SHOP).
For the service, Adobe has partnered with PayPal (PYPL), which will process a variety of payment types, including credit and debit cards as well as PayPal's own payment and buy-now-pay-later offerings.
https://www.investors.com/news/technology/adbe-stock-adobe-beats-fiscal-q3-targets/

接下來該怎麼辦? 對於基本面良好的公司如ADBE, 我能說的就是buy the dip(逢低買進)了. 供參.

🌻The Facebook Files
一個星期前, WSJ上面有個關於FB的大篇幅調查報導. 有興趣的可以看看.
The Facebook Files
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-facebook-files-11631713039

這篇文章挺長, 也沒有看到華爾街中文版本的完整翻譯, 不過可以看看這篇:
https://on.wsj.com/2ZmFimp

"《華爾街日報》的相關調查顯示，這家社交媒體巨頭心知肚明，其平台會傷害用戶，而且是以該公司常常完全了解的方式造成傷害。目前，全球近半數人口都是Facebook旗下平台的用戶。其中一些證據尤其令人不安：據《華爾街日報》報導，Facebook的內部研究顯示，在報告稱有過自殺念頭的青少年中當中，有13%的英國用戶和6%的美國用戶把這種念頭歸結於Instagram。"

另一篇相關新聞:
https://www.thenewslens.com/article/156683

"《華爾街日報》於13日揭露Facebook的XCheck系統，也就是內部系統中的VIP名單，數百萬名人、政治人物與記者等知名公眾人物都在特別的一份「白名單」之內。"

"這些「貴賓」在社群上發布的內容可以躲過一般的審查系統，即使發布明顯的不當內容，也不會立即被刪除。《衛報》報導，Facebook的獨立監督委員會表示，在閱讀該篇報導後，決定要審查XCheck系統，並要求Facebook對其進行報告與解釋。"

🌻我喜歡的Apple TV影集, "Ted Lasso", 是這次艾美獎的大贏家, 很多主要演員都得獎了.

很高興這兩年, 因為有這部戲的陪伴, 讓我撐過了疫情, 家人離世, 以及一些烏煙瘴氣的事情.

前幾天看演員的得獎影片, 一位娛樂記者問得獎的男配角(也是編劇之一)說, 你覺得這部片的核心思想是甚麼. 他說, be curious, not judgemental.

就像得獎的女演員在劇中一開始是很鴨霸很壞心的球隊主人, 但這樣做是因為被前夫傷透了心, 所以想要弄垮離婚後分到的財產(也是前夫的最愛--球隊); 外表看起來永遠陽光燦爛做啦啦隊的男主角, 在青少年時父親自殺, 造成了他心裡永遠的痛&障礙(讓他在球賽時, 會有突發恐懼症).

我們每個人其實都有很多面, 很多個故事. 尤其在社群, 大家都是萍水相逢, 對彼此的了解都是非常片面的; 而有時候在社群裡, 看到有人會因為只看到一個面向, 就去下斷語. 這其實是人之常情很難避免, 所以我們需要常用第二層思考去提醒自己. 社群裡需要更多的同理心.

“Be curious, not judgmental” – Walt Whitman(惠特曼)(美國詩人)

Picture來源:
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/09/apples-global-hit-comedy-series-ted-lasso-sweeps-the-2021-primetime-emmy-awards-scoring-history-making-win-for-outstanding-comedy-series/

ultra vires

【回覆選舉主任的追問】（Please scroll down for English version）

（選舉主任於11月28日下午四點的追問： https://goo.gl/unqfuP ）

我們剛才已經回覆選舉主任，內容如下。感謝法夢成員黃先生協助，大家可參考他的文章：

村代表唔係《基本法》第104條所列既公職喎！
https://bit.ly/2AuHXKD

全文：

「
袁先生:
就你於 2018 年 11 月 28 日來函，現謹覆如下:

█(一)鄉郊代表選舉主任無權提出與確保提名有效無關的問題

1. 我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。謹闡釋如 下‥

2. 《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條規定，「除非提名某人為鄉郊地 區的選舉的候選人的提名表格載有或附有一項由該人簽署的聲明，示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區，否則該人不得 獲有效提名。」

《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條則規定，為了「令[選 舉]主任信納 ... 提名是有效的」，「選舉主任可要求獲提名為候選人的人提供提名表格沒有涵蓋而該主任認為需要的資料」。

3. 區慶祥法官在「陳浩天案」處理過《立法會條例》及 《選舉管 理委員會(選舉程序)(立法會)規例》下的類似條文。即使退一萬步，假設區慶祥在該案中所陳述的法律屬正確(即選舉主任擁有調查候選人 政治信念的權力，而這並無違反人權)，「陳浩天案」中有關立法會選 舉的邏輯，亦不可能同樣適用於鄉郊代表選舉。

區慶祥法官考慮過他所認為的立法歷史後(包括籌委會 1996 及1997 年區生認為對立法會選舉方式具約束力的決定)，將《立法會條 例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條解讀為是為了執行《基本法》第 104 條而訂立， 所以裁定選舉主任在該條下有權調查候選人實質上是否真誠擁護《基 本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。

但鄉郊代表並非《基本法》第 104 條中列出的'high office holders of the HKSAR'(「陳浩天案」判詞第 42 段;即「行政長官、主要官員、行政會議成員、立法會議員、各級法院法官和其他司法人員」)。即使是人大常委會 2016 年 11 月 7 日通過對《基本法》第 104 條的解釋， 亦僅指「[第 104 條]規定的宣誓 ... 是參選或者出任該條所列公職的 法定要求和條件。」

4. 再者，立法會在訂立《村代表選舉條例》(2014 年改稱《鄉郊代表選舉條例》)時，完全並無如訂立《立法會條例》時般，考慮或 討論過當中第 24 條下有關聲明規定的內容，背後更無任何有約束力 的決定，要求村代表/鄉郊代表須擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共 和國香港特別行政區。

反而時任民政事務局局長何志平 2002 年在動議二讀《村代表選舉條例草案》時清晰地指出，「本條例草案的目的，是為村代表選舉 制定法律條文，以確保選舉公開、公平和公正，並符合《 香港人權法案條例》和《性別歧視條例》的要求」(2002 年 10 月 9 日立法會 會議過程正式紀錄頁 64)。

5. 無論如何，即使區慶祥法官亦須承認，任何有關的聲明規定， 必須從選舉、被選權等基本權利的背景下理解(「陳浩天案」判詞第 80 段)。在缺乏類似所謂立法歷史和《基本法》條文的支持下，實在 難以接受《村代表選舉條例》/《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條具有 跟《立法會條例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條一樣的效力(假設第 24 條本身是合 憲的話)。

法律上，選舉主任只可為了相關賦權條文的目的行使其法定權力:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting

Wade and Forsyth.

(亦可參考 Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

在這方面，《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條的目的，是確保提名屬有效。如果《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條在正確的理解 下，並無強制候選人實質上證明自己擁護《基本法》和保證效忠中華 人民共和國香港特別行政區，亦即提名的有效性，並不依賴候選人的 實質政治信念，《規例》第 7(3)條自然就不可能賦權選舉主任作出與 此有關的提問，否則他或她行事的目的，就是法律並無授權、亦無預 見(假設《立法會條例》具此效果)的政治審查，而非確保提名的有 效性。

故此，我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。

█(二)回應提問(a):你認為我沒有正面回答你的問題，我並不同意你的說法，因為你的問題帶着錯誤的假設。你的問題假設「自決前 途」只能為一個特定機制，因此才有所謂主張香港獨立是否其中一個 「選項」的錯誤設想。然而，正如我昨日的回覆所指，「我提倡或支 持推動《基本法》和政制的民主化改革，包括但不限於修改《基本法》 158 及 159 條，作為中共封殺真普選後，港人自決前途的目標」;與 此同時，我沒有主張「香港獨立」。

█(三)回應提問(b):你在今日的回信中指「並沒有要求你就其他人的行為或主張表達意見」，不過，提問(b)的意思正是要求任何人若 希望成為鄉郊代表選舉候選人，不單自己不可主張港獨，也要明確地 反對甚至禁止其他參選人有相關主張。我認為這個要求違反《基本法》 及《香港人權法案條例》對言論自由的保障，亦顯然超出《鄉郊代表 選舉條例》對參選人的要求。

請你儘快就我於 2018 年 11 月 22 日提交的提名表格、11 月 27 日的回覆及上述的答覆，決定我的提名是否有效。若你需要其他的補充資料，請以電郵聯絡我。我就你的查詢保留一切權利。

2018 年 11 月 28 日
二零一九年鄉郊一般選舉
元崗新村選舉參選人
朱凱廸
」

【Reply to More Questions from Returning Officer】

Mr. Yuen,

I hereby reply to your letter dated 28 November:

█(1) Returning Officer of Rural Representative Election has no power to make any inquiries not made with a view to ensuring the validity of nomination

1. I consider that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination. My reasons are as follows.

2. Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance provides that “[a] person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

On the other hand, section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation provides that, “in order [for the Returning Officer] to be satisfied … as to the validity of the nomination”, “[t]he Returning Officer may require a person who is nominated as a candidate to furnish such information which is not covered by the nomination form as that Officer considers necessary”.

3. In Chan Ho Tin v Lo Ying Ki Alan [2018] 2 HKLRD 7, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung (“Au J”) considered similar provisions in the Legislative Council Ordinance and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law as stated by Au J in that case were correct (namely that a Returning Officer has the power to inquire into the political beliefs of a candidate, without violating human rights), it is clear that the reasoning as applied in the case of Chan Ho Tin, which relates solely to Legislative Council elections, cannot be extended by analogy to Rural Representative Elections.

Having considered what he thought to be the legislative history (including two Resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996 and 1997 respectively which Au J believed to be binding), Au J interpreted section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance as having been enacted for the purpose of implementing Article 104 of the Basic Law, and decided on that basis that the Returning Officer had under that section the power to inquire whether a candidate, as a matter of substance, genuinely upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

The important distinction, however, is that rural representatives are not those “high office holders of the HKSAR” listed in Article 104 of the Basic Law (Chan Ho Tin at para 42; namely “the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary”). Even the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, in its Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law adopted on 7 November 2016, merely states that ‘the legal requirements and preconditions [contained in Article 104 are] for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.’

4. Further, unlike when enacting the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Legislative Council in enacting the Village Representative Election Ordinance (renamed in 2014 the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) never discussed nor gave any consideration whatsoever to the content of the requirement of declarations, still less to binding resolution of any sort which would compel Village Representatives (now Rural Representatives) to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

What the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Patrick Ho Chi-ping, did clearly pointed out, in moving the Second Reading of the Village Representative Election Bill in 2002, is that “[t]he purpose of the Bill is to bring Village Representative (VR) elections under a statutory framework in order to ensure that they are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner and that they are consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance” (Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings (9 October 2002) at p 90)

5. In any event, even Au J has had to concede that any relevant requirement of declarations “must be viewed against the involvement of the fundamental election right” (Chan Ho Tin at para 80). Here, in the absence of similar so-called legislative history or Basic Law provisions in support, it is difficult to accept that section 24 of the Village Representative Election Ordinance (now the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) is intended to have the same effect as section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (on the assumption that section 24 were not unconstitutional).

In law, the Returning Officer may only exercise her statutory powers for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'

- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting Wade and Forsyth.

(See also Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

In this regard, the object of section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation is to ensure that a candidate’s nomination is valid. If, properly construed, section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance does not have the effect of compelling candidates to prove, as a matter of substance, that they uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, then the validity of the nomination does not turn on the substantive political beliefs of the candidate. Section 7(3) of the Regulation, in turn, logically cannot have empowered the Returning Officer to make inquiries in this connection, for otherwise the Officer would be acting for the purpose of political screening, which is neither authorised nor envisaged by law (assuming that the Legislative Council Ordinance does, by contrast, have this effect), rather than of ensuring the validity of the nomination.

Accordingly, it is my considered view that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination.

█(2) In answer to question (a): you take the view that I have not directly answered your question, but I do not agree, because your said question carries mistaken assumptions. Your question assumes "self-determination" can only take the form of one designated mechanism, and hence the mistaken hypothesis on whether Hong Kong independence constitute an "option" for such mechanism. However, as stated in my reply yesterday, "I advocate or support moving for democratic reform of the Basic Law and the political system, including but not limited to amending articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, as a goal for the Hong Kong people in determining their own future after the Communist Party of China banned genuine universal suffrage"; at the same time, I do not advocate for "Hong Kong independence".

█(3) In answer to question (b): You stated in your reply today "did not require (me) to express opinion on other people's actions or propositions", but the meaning of question (b) is precisely a requirement on anyone, if they wish to become eligible as a candidate for Rural Representative elections, not only to not advocate for Hong Kong independence themselves, but must also clearly oppose or prohibit other nominees in having related propositions. I am of the view that this requirement violates the protections on freedom of speech under the Basic law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and clearly exceeds the requirements imposed by the Rural Representative Election Ordinance on persons nominated as a candidate.

Please confirm as soon as possible the validity of my nomination based on my nomination form submitted on 22 November 2018 and my replies to your questions dated 27 November 2018. Should you require other supplemental information, please contact me via email. I reserve all my rights in relation to your inquiry.

賴某只是「婚姻與家庭諮詢」實習過
並不是真的執業
現在出來寫「情緒」叫做「回歸正宗」真的也太敢

更別說什麼神妙的營養師

不然我所有醫學專科都實習過我也可以叫自己「內外婦兒急眼皮耳法復精病腫光科」囉！

【文青別鬼扯】 ---「宣稱人體有細胞壁的『營養師』說要告專業醫師」（4）
＞＞＞＞〈Sara姐姐算是『治療師』嗎？〉＜＜＜＜

事情有點複雜，但還是得上網尋求解答與澄清。

話說Sara姐姐的影響力真的超級大，連鬼王一位朋友也是她的信徒。這些日子以來，每天都跟鬼王不斷靠北，說他當初就是靠低碳飲食法成功瘦身的。一直講一直講一直講，還開一堆書單要鬼王參考，鬼王還真懷疑他被下蠱或是下降頭了。

今天關於Sara姐姐的「婚姻與家庭治療師」資格的討論（https://goo.gl/vxKPXO），這位彷彿被下蠱或下降頭的朋友表示，雖說Sara姐姐沒有執業執照，但在美國只要完成必要的課程與實習時數後，這個人就可以被稱為ＸＸ師。因此，只能說Sara姐姐沒能取得「婚姻與家庭治療師」的執業證照，但並不表示她不是「婚姻與家庭治療師」。

關於此部分，這位彷彿被下蠱或下降頭的朋友則引用網頁上的文字說明（http://goo.gl/Ju779Z）：

Once they've completed their education and clinical experience, aspiring marriage and family therapists can sit for their state's licensing exam.

這句話的意思，簡單來說就是「完成課業與臨床實習後，有抱負的婚姻與家庭治療師就能準備參加該州的執照考試」。而這句話似乎顯示，即使還沒參加考試，只要完成intern，仍舊可被稱為「治療師」（therapist）。

所以，現在的問題很簡單：Sara姐姐雖曾擁有「婚姻與家庭實習治療師」（Marriage & Family Therapist Intern）的證照，但在2010/08已經失效，而她又沒有正式可執業的證照，請問她到底能不能被稱為「治療師」？

這裡有很多專業的營養師、心理諮商師與醫師，有很多人也是跟Sara姐姐一樣喝過洋墨水的，可否煩請協助解答一下呢？

大家必定會問，這麼鬼打牆的爭辯為何要拿出來講？鬼王也很無奈。這位這位彷彿被下蠱或下降頭的朋友跟鬼王的交情不錯，而這幾天他一直為了Sara姐姐的事情一直Line鬼王，真的是奪命連環Line，鬼王已經瀕臨崩潰的境地，準備把食物金字塔倒著吃了。

官方網站:http://www.mec-markis.jp/fukuoka-momochi/
地址:〒810-8639 福岡県福岡市中央区地行浜2-2-1

訂閱眾點旅人Travelers頻道⬇︎
http://bit.ly/2QaY1vS
訂閱Tim哥頻道⬇︎
http://bit.ly/2MgPy4H
訂閱Tim嫂頻道⬇︎
http://bit.ly/2PEnHMZ
訂閱里帆不煩頻道⬇︎
http://bit.ly/2FNP59c
訂閱訂閱Jade Lin林瑋婕頻道⬇︎
http://bit.ly/2D2YK8O



#挑戰玩日本 #北九州 #寵物咖啡
*圖片內容截取自Google搜尋網站
**音樂與音效取自Youtube及Youtube音樂庫
Far Away by Declan DP https://soundcloud.com/declandp
Licensing Agreement 2.0 (READ) http://www.declandp.info/music-licensing
Music promoted by Audio Library https://youtu.be/iTSpmnHMVS4