If I say something that you respond to by choosing not to do business with me, that is a consequence of my speech. It is perfectly acceptable for you to do so, but it is nevertheless a consequence for me of my speech.
The person who first uttered the "offensive" speech will still experience this as a consequence of their speech. By your argument, an agent of the government choosing to shoot me because they do not like what I say is not an infringement of my freedom of speech.
The problem is that if they do not defend the trademark and resolve this issue (which a look at the article suggests both groups are committed to finding an amicable resolution to this) companies could use the logo to imply that software and/or devices that bear no resemblance to being open as defined by these groups is open in the way defined by these groups.
A person can lie and that is protected speech. However, a person cannot commit fraud by telling someone that they will provide them with a service and then no provide that service. In this case, Rogers was offering the service of being "more reliable and suffering fewer dropped calls" than their competition. They failed to deliver this service. That means they were committing fraud. In this case the government is calling that fraud "deceptive advertising".
You know I am pretty sure the one who wants to take from the common people and give to the tax collectors and other government officials is Obama, not Romney. Robin Hood took from tax collectors and other government officials and gave to the common people. The only reason that it was accurate to say that Robin Hood "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" was because if you were not a government official, you were not rich, you were poor. Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the taxpayer because taxes were too high.
The only permissible 'consequence' against 'offensive' speech should be nothing more than a counter statement.
I would disagree. It is perfectly acceptable for people to choose to not associate with or do business with people whose speech they find offensive. So, one consequence of "offensive" speech is that some people will choose not to do business with you. Carbonite has discovered this effect. They publicly stated that they were choosing to not do business with someone who said something they found offensive about someone who supported the same political positions as their CEO (even though they continue to do business with someone who shares those political positions who said the same sort of offensive remarks about someone who opposes those political positions). They discovered that more people were offended by their statement than they expected and as a result their revenues have suffered significantly.
The only problem is that Richard Muller has never been a skeptic of AGW. The reason they get away with calling him a skeptic was because he said that AGW alarmists should not lie about the science in order to convince people (while saying that he was a firm believer in AGW).
Yes, and if you read that link you discover that he has been pushing this idea since 2006. So, while he has some good credentials to say that the sky is going to fall, he has been saying it for six years now. The sky hasn't fallen and the only sign that it might is the complaints of cellphone vendors, ISPs, and content producers whose profits have not risen as fast as they thought they would and/or would like them to.
Do you think they would still have a crap theocratic government if the US and GB had not overthrown their democratically elected government in 1953 and replaced it with their own dictator?
Then build this bio-reactor of which you speak and make a fortune. Or perhaps it is both harder/more expensive to do so than you think and managing cows is cheaper/easier than you think.
There is no real difference between all of those men. They all believe that government is the source of all good in society. Anyone who believes that the distinction between Hitler and Stalin is relevant is a fool. The only difference between them is the excuses they used to justify their evil.
Two measurable metric of the size of the Federal Government, number of federal regulations, number of pages of federal regulations. Both are muchup under Obama.
Bush was not a conservative.
Perhaps no left wing person in the U.S thinks that Hitler was left-wing, but that is because they want to have the discussion on the basis of the European discussion. They want the discussion to be about how the government uses its power They do not want the discussion to be about whether the government should have that power in the first place. However, those on the right in the U.S. see no appreciable difference between Stalin and Hitler. Both thought the government should have power over everything. The fact of the matter is those on the right in the U.S. see no appreciable difference between any two European politicians.
The first problem is that it depends on your definition of "right wing". Since most Europeans define Adolf Hitler and Mussolini as being on the right wing (although not necessarily saying that anyone on the right wing is sympathetic to those two) and Stalin as being on the left wing, by European definitions Obama is right wing. The problem is that European definitions of "right" and "left" in politics are not particularly relevant in U.S. politics. The divide in European politics is over how government power should be exercised. The divide in U.S. politics is over how much power the government should exercise. The way U.S. politics defines "right" and "left", Adolf Hitler and Mussolini were as far "left" as Stalin.
The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, the "infrastructure of the nation" that businesses rely on is built by local and state government, not the federal government. Obama was arguing for expanding government and increasing taxes, yet the infrastructure he is pointing to in order to justify that is only a fraction of the federal budget. So, if you want to base your argument for taxes on the benefits he claims that government provides to those who are successful, we should actually be cutting government spending and taxes.
The other problem with his argument is, those other hard working, clever people have access to the same infrastructure as the one's who do make it. What is the difference between those who do make it and those who do not? I would argue the difference is something to do with the individuals and therefore his argument is pointless, because the key ingredient in those successful businesses is the person to whom Obama is saying, "you didn't build that."
NO, it is what he said, which is consistent with his actions. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Tell me how this translation is not what he meant. "If you have a business, you don't get credit for your hard work. Somebody else built the roads and bridges and other things that your business relies on. Therefore, you should be grateful that the government allows you to keep some of the money you make because you don't deserve that money any more than anyone else."
While I absolutely agree with that statement, I am pretty confident that you think it is the other side from the one I do. The Republican interpretation of Obama's "you didn't build that" is consistent with Obama's record. That is, Obama has shown a consistent pattern of considering all money as legitimately the government's and that people should be grateful that the government lets them keep some of it.
Fact-checking a suggested solution is impossible. What would result from the solution is a matter of opinion, not of fact. If she said, "We should do this about the problem, because when a similar solution was tried over here, such and such positive result happened." You could fact check whether or not "such and such positive result" actually happened. On the other hand if she said, "We should do this about the problem, because I believe this is the best approach to the problem," there is nothing to fact check, except whether or not the problem is a real problem.
The fact of the matter is that politicians and political groups have spent years pushing solutions to problems that are fictitious and demanding those that don't like their proposed solution come up with an alternate solution. Some of those fictitious problems are no harder to fact check than Sarah Palin's 1/7 of families in the U.S. on food stamps.
Yes, but the topic of conversation right now is about accepting the greater of two evils (U.N. control over the Internet). Coming up with a governance solution that is better than the current one (more or less--and more less--U.S. control over the Internet) would be great. When someone suggests such an idea we can talk about it.
If there is support for most of the provisions of the bill, why did they then not pass those provisions by themselves? No, they put those provisions that they thought they could convince the majority of voters to support in with provisions that they knew the majority would always oppose in the hope that people would support it for the parts they liked. It didn't work out that way because they have been doing this sort of thing for long enough that people finally caught on. People want the whole thing tossed and then the different provisions voted on on their own merits, not as some sort of "take it or leave it" proposition. The voters response to that approach is, "Well, in that case, we will leave it."
I got a new job recently. My boss gave me a company Iphone so I could keep aware of my email when out of the office and stay on the phone while I talk to vendor tech support without having to worry about discovering I needed to look at a piece of equipment in another office in mid conversation. Now that I have an Iphone, I understand the hype even less than I did before. It's a phone that let's you check your email. The times I have used it to check something on the Internet it has been a waste of time (either the print was too small or I had to keep scrolling). I will admit that it is easier to text on than my personal phone, but since, except for this job, I rarely text (most texts end up taking longer than it would take me to actually talk to the person), that really isn't worth all that much.
I think you sort of hit on a good point, although it was not one you were particularly making. If anybody knows what people want it is Google. Why? Because people go to Google several times every day asking them how to find it. It is just a matter of time until Android tablets more closely match what people want out of a tablet than the Ipad does, especially now that Apple no longer has Steve Jobs reality distortion field.
It really is not that marvelous. After all, it is amazing how few dead people have sexual preferences. And considering that homosexuals in most other countries are only about 2% of the population, it really does not take all that many more dead people since there are so many other types of people that the Iranian government does not want living in Iran either.
Slashdot Mirror
He did not say that the farmers in California should not irrigate their farms. He said that they should not receive taxpayer subsidized irrigation.
If I say something that you respond to by choosing not to do business with me, that is a consequence of my speech. It is perfectly acceptable for you to do so, but it is nevertheless a consequence for me of my speech.
The person who first uttered the "offensive" speech will still experience this as a consequence of their speech. By your argument, an agent of the government choosing to shoot me because they do not like what I say is not an infringement of my freedom of speech.
The problem is that if they do not defend the trademark and resolve this issue (which a look at the article suggests both groups are committed to finding an amicable resolution to this) companies could use the logo to imply that software and/or devices that bear no resemblance to being open as defined by these groups is open in the way defined by these groups.
A person can lie and that is protected speech. However, a person cannot commit fraud by telling someone that they will provide them with a service and then no provide that service. In this case, Rogers was offering the service of being "more reliable and suffering fewer dropped calls" than their competition. They failed to deliver this service. That means they were committing fraud. In this case the government is calling that fraud "deceptive advertising".
You know I am pretty sure the one who wants to take from the common people and give to the tax collectors and other government officials is Obama, not Romney. Robin Hood took from tax collectors and other government officials and gave to the common people. The only reason that it was accurate to say that Robin Hood "stole from the rich and gave to the poor" was because if you were not a government official, you were not rich, you were poor. Robin Hood stole from the government and gave to the taxpayer because taxes were too high.
The only permissible 'consequence' against 'offensive' speech should be nothing more than a counter statement.
I would disagree. It is perfectly acceptable for people to choose to not associate with or do business with people whose speech they find offensive. So, one consequence of "offensive" speech is that some people will choose not to do business with you. Carbonite has discovered this effect. They publicly stated that they were choosing to not do business with someone who said something they found offensive about someone who supported the same political positions as their CEO (even though they continue to do business with someone who shares those political positions who said the same sort of offensive remarks about someone who opposes those political positions). They discovered that more people were offended by their statement than they expected and as a result their revenues have suffered significantly.
The only problem is that Richard Muller has never been a skeptic of AGW. The reason they get away with calling him a skeptic was because he said that AGW alarmists should not lie about the science in order to convince people (while saying that he was a firm believer in AGW).
Yes, and if you read that link you discover that he has been pushing this idea since 2006. So, while he has some good credentials to say that the sky is going to fall, he has been saying it for six years now. The sky hasn't fallen and the only sign that it might is the complaints of cellphone vendors, ISPs, and content producers whose profits have not risen as fast as they thought they would and/or would like them to.
Perhaps we should fine a good shyster
Well, I suppose we could start with fines and see if they work.
Do you think they would still have a crap theocratic government if the US and GB had not overthrown their democratically elected government in 1953 and replaced it with their own dictator?
Yes.
I believe this article requires a reference to Betteridge's Law of Headlines and a "No".
I don't think that's true.
Then build this bio-reactor of which you speak and make a fortune. Or perhaps it is both harder/more expensive to do so than you think and managing cows is cheaper/easier than you think.
There is no real difference between all of those men. They all believe that government is the source of all good in society. Anyone who believes that the distinction between Hitler and Stalin is relevant is a fool. The only difference between them is the excuses they used to justify their evil.
Two measurable metric of the size of the Federal Government, number of federal regulations, number of pages of federal regulations. Both are muchup under Obama.
Bush was not a conservative.
Perhaps no left wing person in the U.S thinks that Hitler was left-wing, but that is because they want to have the discussion on the basis of the European discussion. They want the discussion to be about how the government uses its power They do not want the discussion to be about whether the government should have that power in the first place. However, those on the right in the U.S. see no appreciable difference between Stalin and Hitler. Both thought the government should have power over everything. The fact of the matter is those on the right in the U.S. see no appreciable difference between any two European politicians.
The first problem is that it depends on your definition of "right wing". Since most Europeans define Adolf Hitler and Mussolini as being on the right wing (although not necessarily saying that anyone on the right wing is sympathetic to those two) and Stalin as being on the left wing, by European definitions Obama is right wing. The problem is that European definitions of "right" and "left" in politics are not particularly relevant in U.S. politics. The divide in European politics is over how government power should be exercised. The divide in U.S. politics is over how much power the government should exercise. The way U.S. politics defines "right" and "left", Adolf Hitler and Mussolini were as far "left" as Stalin.
The fact of the matter is that, for the most part, the "infrastructure of the nation" that businesses rely on is built by local and state government, not the federal government. Obama was arguing for expanding government and increasing taxes, yet the infrastructure he is pointing to in order to justify that is only a fraction of the federal budget. So, if you want to base your argument for taxes on the benefits he claims that government provides to those who are successful, we should actually be cutting government spending and taxes.
The other problem with his argument is, those other hard working, clever people have access to the same infrastructure as the one's who do make it. What is the difference between those who do make it and those who do not? I would argue the difference is something to do with the individuals and therefore his argument is pointless, because the key ingredient in those successful businesses is the person to whom Obama is saying, "you didn't build that."
NO, it is what he said, which is consistent with his actions. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen." Tell me how this translation is not what he meant. "If you have a business, you don't get credit for your hard work. Somebody else built the roads and bridges and other things that your business relies on. Therefore, you should be grateful that the government allows you to keep some of the money you make because you don't deserve that money any more than anyone else."
Only one side will outright lie...
While I absolutely agree with that statement, I am pretty confident that you think it is the other side from the one I do. The Republican interpretation of Obama's "you didn't build that" is consistent with Obama's record. That is, Obama has shown a consistent pattern of considering all money as legitimately the government's and that people should be grateful that the government lets them keep some of it.
Fact-checking a suggested solution is impossible. What would result from the solution is a matter of opinion, not of fact. If she said, "We should do this about the problem, because when a similar solution was tried over here, such and such positive result happened." You could fact check whether or not "such and such positive result" actually happened. On the other hand if she said, "We should do this about the problem, because I believe this is the best approach to the problem," there is nothing to fact check, except whether or not the problem is a real problem.
The fact of the matter is that politicians and political groups have spent years pushing solutions to problems that are fictitious and demanding those that don't like their proposed solution come up with an alternate solution. Some of those fictitious problems are no harder to fact check than Sarah Palin's 1/7 of families in the U.S. on food stamps.
Yes, but the topic of conversation right now is about accepting the greater of two evils (U.N. control over the Internet). Coming up with a governance solution that is better than the current one (more or less--and more less--U.S. control over the Internet) would be great. When someone suggests such an idea we can talk about it.
If there is support for most of the provisions of the bill, why did they then not pass those provisions by themselves? No, they put those provisions that they thought they could convince the majority of voters to support in with provisions that they knew the majority would always oppose in the hope that people would support it for the parts they liked. It didn't work out that way because they have been doing this sort of thing for long enough that people finally caught on. People want the whole thing tossed and then the different provisions voted on on their own merits, not as some sort of "take it or leave it" proposition. The voters response to that approach is, "Well, in that case, we will leave it."
I got a new job recently. My boss gave me a company Iphone so I could keep aware of my email when out of the office and stay on the phone while I talk to vendor tech support without having to worry about discovering I needed to look at a piece of equipment in another office in mid conversation. Now that I have an Iphone, I understand the hype even less than I did before. It's a phone that let's you check your email. The times I have used it to check something on the Internet it has been a waste of time (either the print was too small or I had to keep scrolling). I will admit that it is easier to text on than my personal phone, but since, except for this job, I rarely text (most texts end up taking longer than it would take me to actually talk to the person), that really isn't worth all that much.
I think you sort of hit on a good point, although it was not one you were particularly making. If anybody knows what people want it is Google. Why? Because people go to Google several times every day asking them how to find it. It is just a matter of time until Android tablets more closely match what people want out of a tablet than the Ipad does, especially now that Apple no longer has Steve Jobs reality distortion field.
Iran has a larger population than the US...
Um, no they don't. They do not even have a larger population than the U.S. had at the time of the Manhattan Project.
It really is not that marvelous. After all, it is amazing how few dead people have sexual preferences. And considering that homosexuals in most other countries are only about 2% of the population, it really does not take all that many more dead people since there are so many other types of people that the Iranian government does not want living in Iran either.