You just don't understand. Nagin and Landreaux are Democrats. That means that their intentions were good and that is what is important results don't matter, just intentions.
Bush is a Republican that means that he is evil. His intentions were obviously evil. Results only matter when they demonstrate that his intentions were evil. If the results of his actions are good, they can and should be ignored./s
Money was allocated to build levee's before Katrina, but local politicians (state and city) decided that they had "more important" things to do with it (read give the money to companies run by their cronies). Since Katrina, at least one of the projects to improve flood control around New Orleans was held up in courts over environmental issues.
All of the "contracts" that I have entered into that contained clauses that said that the other party could change the terms and conditions when they wanted to, also allowed me to cancel without penalty if and when that happened.
Usually, they send you letter explaining in detail the changes they are making (in full legalese) and then somewhere on page three or four list how to cancel your contract with them. I have always found that it appears to be very simple and easy to cancel the contract when they make these changes. I have never tried to cancel one of these contracts because they were always for something that at that time was more valuable to me than the changes were annoying (none of the ones I have received actually increased my costs).
My understanding is that it needs to be signed by your Prez first and he won't.
Treaties that are not signed by the President can't be ratified by the Senate. In the U.S., the President has the authority to enter into treaties "with the advice and consent of the Senate". In practice this means that the President signs a treaty and then the Senate ratifies it.
According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003, the treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on September 30, 2006. So while the treaty was not reciprocal from January 1, 2004 until it was ratified on September 30, 2006, it is now.
Burkitt's document (probably) was the other original copy which was sent up the chain of command. Burkitt then could not offer provenance because he promised to protect his source who had stolen it (also illegally, but in the greater scheme of things a far less heinous crime than that of the Bushists covering their deserter's tracks so he could become an illegitimate president). If the source did not steal this copy, we would NEVER HAVE SEEN IT AT ALL.
Remember, witnesses who saw the original say that (whether forgery or not) the Burkitt document TELLS THE TRUTH.
An analysis of Burkitt's document demonstrates that it could not have been created until at least a decade after the original document that it claimed to be a copy of. There were several elements of the document that demonstrate this, including the font used.
Re:Install accountability, and this will get fixed
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 1
.
Today, there is no real recourse for you if institutions sell lies about you, or give your private data away to all takers.
If you suffer harm from lies that an institution "sells" about you, you can sue them for libel and/or slander depending on who you are and what they said.
Re:Any criticism of America must be lefty claptrap
on
Zero Day Threat
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What makes it "claptrap" is that the areas mentioned are all areas where there is government intervention all out of proportion with the risk, oftentimes applied in a manner where and examination of the risk factors involved indicate that the intervention does not significantly mitigate the risk.
Take for example drunk driving deaths, studies indicate that most fatal accidents involving alcohol involve people who have repeatedly been convicted of DUI. What is the response? Lower the legal limit for blood alcohol content.
Which only means that it is always false advertising to claim that all parts of the internet are in a particular device. I suspect there are things that are more basically "parts of the Internet" than flash and java that the iphone doesn't access.
Repeat after me, ALL taxes come from the consumer. There is no such thing as a "corporate" tax. They just apply whatever taxes they have to pay to the cost of their goods.
In response to a tax, a corporation can raise its prices, it can cut its dividends, or it can slow its investment in expansion. In a functioning market, the corporations that raises prices will lose business and the ones that cut its dividends or expansion will gain business.
If corporate taxes cause prices to go up, that's a symptom of market failure.
You are wrong, if the market is functioning, the business is already operating at the lowest amount of profit that is sustainable. In a properly functioning market, if the government increases the business' taxes, the business must raise prices or go out of business.
If a business can absorb an increase in corporate taxes without increasing what it charges consumers it is evidence of an inefficient market.
You make a good point. What is also missed is that the original poster only lists the taxes that Exxon pays on its revenue, that $27.9 billion doesn't include the taxes that Exxon collects as taxes. The federal and state gasoline taxes are never listed in Exxon's "revenue" numbers. I don't have the numbers for those at the moment, but the taxes on the petroleum products sold by Exxon are significantly greater than Exxon's profit.
OFCOM ruled that channel4 was "unfair in its treatment of the IPCC and leading scientists..." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/ofcom.channel4?gusrc=rss&feed=media and "it was in breach of due impartiality...". It did not rule that the program had materially misled the audience. So, I'm sorry, the OFCOM ruling does not debunk "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
While scientists may not be "rich powerful men who can manipulate the media", many of the public voices for global warming alarmism are (not all persons who advocate for action against global warming are alarmists, but many of the most prominent one's are. for example, Al Gore).
That is partly because it is a lot more expensive to run cable of any kind where almost everything is paved over (streets, sidewalks, buildings, parking lots) versus an area where all you have to do is dig a trench, put your cable/conduit in, fill the trench back up.
Ok, yeah there are places where you have to dig up part of the street in the suburbs, but not for the whole length of cable you are putting in.
so if I sell something I didn't create and collect 100% of the profits I'm a criminal?, I guess I won't be able to sell any of my possessions then
Wow, I think you are having trouble with the term Profit. The only way that you can be selling your personal possessions for 100% profit is if you stole them.
Actually, he didn't say sell them for 100% profit, he said collect 100% of the profits. Since profit is the amount that the item is sold for after one deducts the costs, the OP is correct.
In most businesses, the business gets to keep 100% of the profits (except that what the government takes is often considered to come after profit is calculated), all other expenses are calculated before profit. There are some contracts that work differently.
You don't seem to be disagreeing with this application of the copyright laws, but with the length of the copyright term. I, also, think the length of copyright is too long.
If this was a case where the software in question was just published two years ago, would you still have a problem with any aspect of the case? If not, then you, also, see this as a proper application of copyright law. In this case it is not the application of the law that is wrong, but one aspect of the law itself.
It doesn't need to scale. Either the amount of revenue generated is enough to be worth the fee, no matter what the size of the company, or the work enters the public domain. I think the idea of a fee that must be paid to extend copyright beyond 7 years is a great idea. (I could easily see the logic in making it 14 instead of 7, but 28 is too long).
This law should be set to expire after a certain number of years, but when it does copyright should revert to 7 (or 14) years, except on IP that the paid for extension has not run out on.
Yes, the populace: not the richest 2% of the populace, but all of it. More specifically, we elect people who keep our interests in mind. Our interests are not in allowing the richest to accumulate ever-increasing wealth while wages flatline for the vast majority.
Do you really think a single person can be a hundred million times more worthy than another?
But Obama is not talking about doing anything about the richest accumulating ever increasing wealth. He is talking about raising the top level income tax. The richest people either pay minimal amounts of income tax or none at all. How much impact on their wealth do you think income tax has for the Duponts or the Rockefellers?
Does anyone else get the impression that Iran doesn't really want to fight anyone, they just want to get other country's goats?
Like first they had a nuclear program and Bush flipped shit, so now they are going into space to see how much more angry they can make him.
They don't want to fight anyone, they just want to kill infidels.
Of course, this is part of what drives the price of textbooks up. I used to manage a college bookstore. For every textbook returned, the bookstore has to sell two to break even. When a professor orders a textbook he doesn't use, the bookstore ends up having to return a lot of copies. I always pushed the professors to only order textbooks that would be of value to the students.
Well, look at his opponent's issues page and you'll find even less than that. According to vote smart, the incumbent has voted in line with the Kansas Association of School Boards only 10% of the time in 2006, despite his claims of supporting "Quality Education". It's hard to imagine Sean doing worse.
So, let's see if I understand your thinking. Our schools stink. This politician says he is for Quality Education, but he disagrees with the people who run our schools (which stink), therefor he must not really be for Quality Education.
As a general rule, if you think the schools need fixing, it is probably a good idea to vote for a politician who is not in the pocket of the School Boards. If you want to improve the schools, then, most of the time, you want to vote against the guy who is endorsed by the Association of School Boards or the Teachers' Unions. Both of these organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, neither organization has a particular interest in actually improving the schools.
Slashdot Mirror
The global-warming deniers are going to use it to track Al Gore from orbit, since he now casts a shadow that can be detected from space.
That would never work, Al Gore doesn't go anywhere that he can't use an internal combustion engine to get to.
And you have apparently are not up to date on the volcanic activity on the ocean floor in the Arctic.
You just don't understand. Nagin and Landreaux are Democrats. That means that their intentions were good and that is what is important results don't matter, just intentions. /s
Bush is a Republican that means that he is evil. His intentions were obviously evil. Results only matter when they demonstrate that his intentions were evil. If the results of his actions are good, they can and should be ignored.
Money was allocated to build levee's before Katrina, but local politicians (state and city) decided that they had "more important" things to do with it (read give the money to companies run by their cronies). Since Katrina, at least one of the projects to improve flood control around New Orleans was held up in courts over environmental issues.
As the FTA mentions, these arbitration clauses are widely-used elsewhere. AT&T will appeal to federal court, and win.
No, they won't. This was a state case filed on the basis of the laws of Washington state. Federal courts have no jurisdiction.
All of the "contracts" that I have entered into that contained clauses that said that the other party could change the terms and conditions when they wanted to, also allowed me to cancel without penalty if and when that happened.
Usually, they send you letter explaining in detail the changes they are making (in full legalese) and then somewhere on page three or four list how to cancel your contract with them. I have always found that it appears to be very simple and easy to cancel the contract when they make these changes. I have never tried to cancel one of these contracts because they were always for something that at that time was more valuable to me than the changes were annoying (none of the ones I have received actually increased my costs).
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the U.S. Senate ratified this treaty on September 30, 2006
My understanding is that it needs to be signed by your Prez first and he won't.
Treaties that are not signed by the President can't be ratified by the Senate. In the U.S., the President has the authority to enter into treaties "with the advice and consent of the Senate". In practice this means that the President signs a treaty and then the Senate ratifies it.
According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003, the treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on September 30, 2006. So while the treaty was not reciprocal from January 1, 2004 until it was ratified on September 30, 2006, it is now.
Burkitt's document (probably) was the other original copy which was sent up the chain of command. Burkitt then could not offer provenance because he promised to protect his source who had stolen it (also illegally, but in the greater scheme of things a far less heinous crime than that of the Bushists covering their deserter's tracks so he could become an illegitimate president). If the source did not steal this copy, we would NEVER HAVE SEEN IT AT ALL.
Remember, witnesses who saw the original say that (whether forgery or not) the Burkitt document TELLS THE TRUTH.
An analysis of Burkitt's document demonstrates that it could not have been created until at least a decade after the original document that it claimed to be a copy of. There were several elements of the document that demonstrate this, including the font used.
.
Today, there is no real recourse for you if institutions sell lies about you, or give your private data away to all takers.
If you suffer harm from lies that an institution "sells" about you, you can sue them for libel and/or slander depending on who you are and what they said.
What makes it "claptrap" is that the areas mentioned are all areas where there is government intervention all out of proportion with the risk, oftentimes applied in a manner where and examination of the risk factors involved indicate that the intervention does not significantly mitigate the risk.
Take for example drunk driving deaths, studies indicate that most fatal accidents involving alcohol involve people who have repeatedly been convicted of DUI. What is the response? Lower the legal limit for blood alcohol content.
Which only means that it is always false advertising to claim that all parts of the internet are in a particular device. I suspect there are things that are more basically "parts of the Internet" than flash and java that the iphone doesn't access.
In response to a tax, a corporation can raise its prices, it can cut its dividends, or it can slow its investment in expansion. In a functioning market, the corporations that raises prices will lose business and the ones that cut its dividends or expansion will gain business.
If corporate taxes cause prices to go up, that's a symptom of market failure.
You are wrong, if the market is functioning, the business is already operating at the lowest amount of profit that is sustainable. In a properly functioning market, if the government increases the business' taxes, the business must raise prices or go out of business.
If a business can absorb an increase in corporate taxes without increasing what it charges consumers it is evidence of an inefficient market.
You make a good point. What is also missed is that the original poster only lists the taxes that Exxon pays on its revenue, that $27.9 billion doesn't include the taxes that Exxon collects as taxes. The federal and state gasoline taxes are never listed in Exxon's "revenue" numbers. I don't have the numbers for those at the moment, but the taxes on the petroleum products sold by Exxon are significantly greater than Exxon's profit.
OFCOM ruled that channel4 was "unfair in its treatment of the IPCC and leading scientists..." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/21/ofcom.channel4?gusrc=rss&feed=media and "it was in breach of due impartiality...". It did not rule that the program had materially misled the audience. So, I'm sorry, the OFCOM ruling does not debunk "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
While scientists may not be "rich powerful men who can manipulate the media", many of the public voices for global warming alarmism are (not all persons who advocate for action against global warming are alarmists, but many of the most prominent one's are. for example, Al Gore).
That is partly because it is a lot more expensive to run cable of any kind where almost everything is paved over (streets, sidewalks, buildings, parking lots) versus an area where all you have to do is dig a trench, put your cable/conduit in, fill the trench back up.
Ok, yeah there are places where you have to dig up part of the street in the suburbs, but not for the whole length of cable you are putting in.
so if I sell something I didn't create and collect 100% of the profits I'm a criminal?, I guess I won't be able to sell any of my possessions then
Wow, I think you are having trouble with the term Profit. The only way that you can be selling your personal possessions for 100% profit is if you stole them.
Actually, he didn't say sell them for 100% profit, he said collect 100% of the profits. Since profit is the amount that the item is sold for after one deducts the costs, the OP is correct.
In most businesses, the business gets to keep 100% of the profits (except that what the government takes is often considered to come after profit is calculated), all other expenses are calculated before profit. There are some contracts that work differently.
You don't seem to be disagreeing with this application of the copyright laws, but with the length of the copyright term. I, also, think the length of copyright is too long.
If this was a case where the software in question was just published two years ago, would you still have a problem with any aspect of the case? If not, then you, also, see this as a proper application of copyright law. In this case it is not the application of the law that is wrong, but one aspect of the law itself.
It doesn't need to scale. Either the amount of revenue generated is enough to be worth the fee, no matter what the size of the company, or the work enters the public domain. I think the idea of a fee that must be paid to extend copyright beyond 7 years is a great idea. (I could easily see the logic in making it 14 instead of 7, but 28 is too long).
This law should be set to expire after a certain number of years, but when it does copyright should revert to 7 (or 14) years, except on IP that the paid for extension has not run out on.
Yes, the populace: not the richest 2% of the populace, but all of it. More specifically, we elect people who keep our interests in mind. Our interests are not in allowing the richest to accumulate ever-increasing wealth while wages flatline for the vast majority.
Do you really think a single person can be a hundred million times more worthy than another?
But Obama is not talking about doing anything about the richest accumulating ever increasing wealth. He is talking about raising the top level income tax. The richest people either pay minimal amounts of income tax or none at all. How much impact on their wealth do you think income tax has for the Duponts or the Rockefellers?
Does anyone else get the impression that Iran doesn't really want to fight anyone, they just want to get other country's goats? Like first they had a nuclear program and Bush flipped shit, so now they are going into space to see how much more angry they can make him.
They don't want to fight anyone, they just want to kill infidels.
Wide use of these machines was adopted in the 2000 election: Winner=George Bush
Even more are used in the 2004 election: Winner=George Bush
Now they throw them out just in time for the 2008 election because George Bush might win again if they didn't.
No, wide use of these machines was implemented after the 2000 election.
Of course, this is part of what drives the price of textbooks up. I used to manage a college bookstore. For every textbook returned, the bookstore has to sell two to break even. When a professor orders a textbook he doesn't use, the bookstore ends up having to return a lot of copies. I always pushed the professors to only order textbooks that would be of value to the students.
Well, look at his opponent's issues page and you'll find even less than that. According to vote smart, the incumbent has voted in line with the Kansas Association of School Boards only 10% of the time in 2006, despite his claims of supporting "Quality Education". It's hard to imagine Sean doing worse.
So, let's see if I understand your thinking. Our schools stink. This politician says he is for Quality Education, but he disagrees with the people who run our schools (which stink), therefor he must not really be for Quality Education.
As a general rule, if you think the schools need fixing, it is probably a good idea to vote for a politician who is not in the pocket of the School Boards. If you want to improve the schools, then, most of the time, you want to vote against the guy who is endorsed by the Association of School Boards or the Teachers' Unions. Both of these organizations have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, neither organization has a particular interest in actually improving the schools.