This is a Canadian law firm. The NSA is supposed to be weakening their security so they have data to trade with Canada's 4 letter agencies for data on Americans. This way everyone can legally spy without breaking those pesky Constitution things.
If you pick option B you'll be out of business unless there is a very large demand for your widgets. While you're tying up your capital in expanding your factory, your competition is lowering their prices as they only need half the workers to make widgets so you're out competed. As the workers have less money on average the price of widgets has to come down. Now with more workers out of work something has to be done. There is no longer a new world to send them to so we're left with the historic choices of jailing them or employing them in the military machine. America has been dong both with 1% of adults cycling through prison, which on the one hand creates jobs in law enforcement, building and running prisons etc and on the other hand creates a pool of very cheap captive labour, which once again lowers average wages. As a bonus America has kept the medieval concept of a class of people called felons who can no longer find good work and are taken out of the labuor market. The military machine also employs lots of people, whether making weapons, being in the military, or supporting the military in other ways. Sometimes this results in something like the British Empire, made possible by all those people who were unemployed by automation. Sometimes it results in massive wars which results in large scale broken windows to employ people. This is great if like America you weather the war with few casualties and very little infrastructure damage. Now we're getting to the point where massive war may not be survivable but yet we have America spending massive amounts of money on their war machine to keep the economy going. China with millions of people in the army to keep them busy, as well as an expanding weapons industry. Russia expanding its military for much the same reasons. Sadly history shows that very large militaries are usually put to use as it works so well to employ people.
How can you call it a democratic process when the electoral districts are drawn by political hacks to ensure their party wins. As long as politicians don't have to worry about losing, why pay attention to the electorate? Seems that you Americans need to fix your democracy, probably through Constitutional amendments though unluckily your Constitution seems to have been designed to be broken. (Most Americans seem to agree that Congress can pass laws limiting speech as long as it is certain speech and your courts agree as one example).
And it was a battle between the elected House of Commons who wanted to have copyright as eternal (the book publishers at this time invented the fiction that it was for the authours) and the unelected House of Lords who didn't and eventually won out with the 14+14 year compromise for "The Advancement of Learning" as the original copyright act included in its title. This is a good example of the problems with (representative) democracy.
Don't forget The Jungle Book, which they published about one day (I'm only slightly exaggerating) after it entered the public domain to avoid paying the estate of Kipling (or whoever owned the rights.)
It was after the French Revolution that the term "reign of terror" was invented, lot of guillotining. The Russian revolution ended up with Lenin and then Stalin in charge, hard to say if that was an improvement but most say not. Cuba probably was for the average Cuban but the Americans sure think it was a step backwards, once again not clear cut.
Has there ever been a case of the people raising up and over throwing a repressive government and improved things? I don't mean successful wars of independence where a colony or such successfully seceded but where the people without much help from the army overthrew the government? The only ones I can think of ended up as bad or worse then where they started from. Seems that massive demonstrations, general strikes, and at the worse the army mutinying has had a much better rate of success. The army is much less likely to shoot on peaceful demonstrators, especially if they agree with the protest, then shoot on people shooting at them. Recent examples include most of the ex-Soviet block and various Arab springs. Failures include the French revolution and the Russian revolution. Violent revolution usually seems to see a strong man end up on top as dictator along with a reign of terror to purge all the undesirables.
We're talking about "The Brick" where their total business model involves taking advantage of stupid people who can't do math, don't understand interest and don't read the fine print on the contract. Considering they've been using this business model for at least 20 years and are still in business I doubt that more pissed off potential customers would faze them.
The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and probably wouldn't burn. Might work for a boat though I hate to think about engineering an internal combustion engine to operate at those temperatures.
Sorta the same in BC. The government forced BC Hydro to buy power from uneconomical sources owned by campaign contributors for much more then it was worth. Then they cut taxes and made up the budget shortfall from Hydro (and ICBC) and did this year after year so they could claim lowest taxes around. This accelerated when it looked like they were going to lose the election. After winning they announced huge hydro rate increases and then cut it down to slightly less huge increases spread over a few years.
I know what you mean, only 10 Celsius today in Canada, at least where I live, and now it has cooled down to 5C. Once again a green Christmas and warm winter, this after the extra dry warm autumn and record breaking dry late summer though temperatures never peaked like they do some years. Probably be another wet cool spring so we can laugh at the idea of global warming as 10% of the year was cooler and wetter then usual.
And if you were born before the '70's you'd remember how bad the pollution was and how some scientists wondered if global dimming might counter act the rising CO2 levels that by themselves would increase the greenhousing that keeps the Earth currently at habitable temperatures. Most people don't seem to realize the Earths average temperature would be close to minus 20 Celsius without the greenhouse gases warming the Earth.
Of course they lied to Congress but this thread is about lieing to the courts which the American agencies probably also do just as our government would lie about spying to Parliament. It is the job of the courts to stop the government, including their four letter agencies, from interfering with our constitutional rights and our Supreme Court has interpreted our right to unreasonable searches as a right to privacy. ps, it breaks the flow when you have your post split between the subject and body.
Much the same way that we, as a society, decided that we would rather see millions of those darker folks die from Malaria just so we can pretend to care about the birds that were not being harmed (as proven by the EPA study) by a certain pesticide.
Curious, what pesticide are you talking about? While some insecticides such as those that are arsenic based have been banned for everything it's hard to believe that ingesting lead arsenic wouldn't negatively impact birds (and people). Of course that was banned before the EPA existed. Then there are insecticides such as DDT that are banned for everything except using on malaria carrying mosquitoes. Of course DDT is pretty useless now as it was overused and mosquitoes have evolved resistance to it. Important thing about most pesticides, they should only be used sparingly to avoid resistance in the target population.
All property ownership is a government created monopoly. That land you think you own, it's held in fee simple, fee as in fief and is actually only an ownership interest in real property. It is limited by things like taxation and eminent domain. Perhaps other encumbrances such as having to allow AT&T an easement and access to it. Why should your government granted monopoly trump my freedom to roam? It's a more natural right and probably older. I'm talking straight property ownership, not occupying and using property which is an ancient right.
Of course Libertarians belief in rights. The list seems to be The right to property (the copyright supporters will use this to maximum affect). The right to do what you choose. The right to protect your rights through the courts. This leads to the only protections of rights being the ones where you can win in court. Easy if it is the right to life, much harder if it is the right to share others output. In the end Libertarianism is a system for the well off to repress the less well off.
Private industry will step forward and something like the Pinkerton Detective Agency will do the hunting. Being non-government they won't have to worry about pesky stuff like rights. Don't worry you can always sue them and may who has the best lawyer win.
Free speech is the big one. As long as the government is listening in on your conversations it puts a damper on speech, especially political speech. Want to run for office? It's much harder to win when the opposition can listen in on all your strategy sessions. The right to fundamental justice is another one. The prosecution listening in on client lawyer conversations gives the prosecution an unfair advantage.
The constitution can always be amended, eg extending the freedom of speech to electronic speech. While about it the constitution can also be amended to allow unconstitutional things like having an air force. Never did understand why America habitually breaks its constitution instead of amending it.
I exaggerate a bit, it is closer to 15 kms down the road. I'm about an hour (with really good traffic, doing 10% over the speed limit) outside of Vancouver in the mountains north of the valley.
You need to read some history, perhaps start with the Pinkerton Detective Agency. 150 odd years ago it was larger then the US army and mostly sold its services to private industry for various services including strike breaking which included shooting pregnant woman, putting people in cages for holding signs and such. Then industry discovered it was more cost effective to pay to get their guy elected so their guy could sick the police on whoever was disturbing their businesses.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a Canadian law firm. The NSA is supposed to be weakening their security so they have data to trade with Canada's 4 letter agencies for data on Americans. This way everyone can legally spy without breaking those pesky Constitution things.
If you pick option B you'll be out of business unless there is a very large demand for your widgets. While you're tying up your capital in expanding your factory, your competition is lowering their prices as they only need half the workers to make widgets so you're out competed. As the workers have less money on average the price of widgets has to come down.
Now with more workers out of work something has to be done. There is no longer a new world to send them to so we're left with the historic choices of jailing them or employing them in the military machine. America has been dong both with 1% of adults cycling through prison, which on the one hand creates jobs in law enforcement, building and running prisons etc and on the other hand creates a pool of very cheap captive labour, which once again lowers average wages. As a bonus America has kept the medieval concept of a class of people called felons who can no longer find good work and are taken out of the labuor market.
The military machine also employs lots of people, whether making weapons, being in the military, or supporting the military in other ways.
Sometimes this results in something like the British Empire, made possible by all those people who were unemployed by automation. Sometimes it results in massive wars which results in large scale broken windows to employ people. This is great if like America you weather the war with few casualties and very little infrastructure damage.
Now we're getting to the point where massive war may not be survivable but yet we have America spending massive amounts of money on their war machine to keep the economy going. China with millions of people in the army to keep them busy, as well as an expanding weapons industry. Russia expanding its military for much the same reasons.
Sadly history shows that very large militaries are usually put to use as it works so well to employ people.
How can you call it a democratic process when the electoral districts are drawn by political hacks to ensure their party wins. As long as politicians don't have to worry about losing, why pay attention to the electorate?
Seems that you Americans need to fix your democracy, probably through Constitutional amendments though unluckily your Constitution seems to have been designed to be broken. (Most Americans seem to agree that Congress can pass laws limiting speech as long as it is certain speech and your courts agree as one example).
And it was a battle between the elected House of Commons who wanted to have copyright as eternal (the book publishers at this time invented the fiction that it was for the authours) and the unelected House of Lords who didn't and eventually won out with the 14+14 year compromise for "The Advancement of Learning" as the original copyright act included in its title. This is a good example of the problems with (representative) democracy.
Don't forget The Jungle Book, which they published about one day (I'm only slightly exaggerating) after it entered the public domain to avoid paying the estate of Kipling (or whoever owned the rights.)
Only if he is the UK and he quoted from the King James version. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_bible#Copyright_status
It was after the French Revolution that the term "reign of terror" was invented, lot of guillotining. The Russian revolution ended up with Lenin and then Stalin in charge, hard to say if that was an improvement but most say not. Cuba probably was for the average Cuban but the Americans sure think it was a step backwards, once again not clear cut.
Has there ever been a case of the people raising up and over throwing a repressive government and improved things? I don't mean successful wars of independence where a colony or such successfully seceded but where the people without much help from the army overthrew the government? The only ones I can think of ended up as bad or worse then where they started from.
Seems that massive demonstrations, general strikes, and at the worse the army mutinying has had a much better rate of success. The army is much less likely to shoot on peaceful demonstrators, especially if they agree with the protest, then shoot on people shooting at them.
Recent examples include most of the ex-Soviet block and various Arab springs. Failures include the French revolution and the Russian revolution. Violent revolution usually seems to see a strong man end up on top as dictator along with a reign of terror to purge all the undesirables.
We're talking about "The Brick" where their total business model involves taking advantage of stupid people who can't do math, don't understand interest and don't read the fine print on the contract. Considering they've been using this business model for at least 20 years and are still in business I doubt that more pissed off potential customers would faze them.
The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen and probably wouldn't burn. Might work for a boat though I hate to think about engineering an internal combustion engine to operate at those temperatures.
Sorta the same in BC. The government forced BC Hydro to buy power from uneconomical sources owned by campaign contributors for much more then it was worth. Then they cut taxes and made up the budget shortfall from Hydro (and ICBC) and did this year after year so they could claim lowest taxes around. This accelerated when it looked like they were going to lose the election. After winning they announced huge hydro rate increases and then cut it down to slightly less huge increases spread over a few years.
Toronto is not the entire continent or even the entire country as the gp claimed.
Why was the Earth warmer then it is now? Especially as the Sun was cooler in the past.
I know what you mean, only 10 Celsius today in Canada, at least where I live, and now it has cooled down to 5C. Once again a green Christmas and warm winter, this after the extra dry warm autumn and record breaking dry late summer though temperatures never peaked like they do some years. Probably be another wet cool spring so we can laugh at the idea of global warming as 10% of the year was cooler and wetter then usual.
And if you were born before the '70's you'd remember how bad the pollution was and how some scientists wondered if global dimming might counter act the rising CO2 levels that by themselves would increase the greenhousing that keeps the Earth currently at habitable temperatures. Most people don't seem to realize the Earths average temperature would be close to minus 20 Celsius without the greenhouse gases warming the Earth.
Of course they lied to Congress but this thread is about lieing to the courts which the American agencies probably also do just as our government would lie about spying to Parliament.
It is the job of the courts to stop the government, including their four letter agencies, from interfering with our constitutional rights and our Supreme Court has interpreted our right to unreasonable searches as a right to privacy.
ps, it breaks the flow when you have your post split between the subject and body.
Much the same way that we, as a society, decided that we would rather see millions of those darker folks die from Malaria just so we can pretend to care about the birds that were not being harmed (as proven by the EPA study) by a certain pesticide.
Curious, what pesticide are you talking about? While some insecticides such as those that are arsenic based have been banned for everything it's hard to believe that ingesting lead arsenic wouldn't negatively impact birds (and people). Of course that was banned before the EPA existed.
Then there are insecticides such as DDT that are banned for everything except using on malaria carrying mosquitoes. Of course DDT is pretty useless now as it was overused and mosquitoes have evolved resistance to it. Important thing about most pesticides, they should only be used sparingly to avoid resistance in the target population.
All property ownership is a government created monopoly. That land you think you own, it's held in fee simple, fee as in fief and is actually only an ownership interest in real property. It is limited by things like taxation and eminent domain. Perhaps other encumbrances such as having to allow AT&T an easement and access to it.
Why should your government granted monopoly trump my freedom to roam? It's a more natural right and probably older. I'm talking straight property ownership, not occupying and using property which is an ancient right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
Of course Libertarians belief in rights. The list seems to be
The right to property (the copyright supporters will use this to maximum affect).
The right to do what you choose.
The right to protect your rights through the courts.
This leads to the only protections of rights being the ones where you can win in court. Easy if it is the right to life, much harder if it is the right to share others output. In the end Libertarianism is a system for the well off to repress the less well off.
Private industry will step forward and something like the Pinkerton Detective Agency will do the hunting. Being non-government they won't have to worry about pesky stuff like rights. Don't worry you can always sue them and may who has the best lawyer win.
Free speech is the big one. As long as the government is listening in on your conversations it puts a damper on speech, especially political speech. Want to run for office? It's much harder to win when the opposition can listen in on all your strategy sessions.
The right to fundamental justice is another one. The prosecution listening in on client lawyer conversations gives the prosecution an unfair advantage.
The constitution can always be amended, eg extending the freedom of speech to electronic speech. While about it the constitution can also be amended to allow unconstitutional things like having an air force.
Never did understand why America habitually breaks its constitution instead of amending it.
Canada had decades of moving west and living off the the land and we don't have the same weird gun culture that America has.
I exaggerate a bit, it is closer to 15 kms down the road. I'm about an hour (with really good traffic, doing 10% over the speed limit) outside of Vancouver in the mountains north of the valley.
You need to read some history, perhaps start with the Pinkerton Detective Agency. 150 odd years ago it was larger then the US army and mostly sold its services to private industry for various services including strike breaking which included shooting pregnant woman, putting people in cages for holding signs and such. Then industry discovered it was more cost effective to pay to get their guy elected so their guy could sick the police on whoever was disturbing their businesses.