. It is generally known as a right of first refusal.
Last refusal, since Microsoft can match the final offer.
First refusal is different, usually meaning if Nvidia wanted to sell, they had to entertain a good-faith offer from Microsoft, and decide yes or no before opening up the bidding.
I'm tired of the old "Come on now, it's for your own good." line being trotted out time after time as our rights are constantly eroded
These rules have been in place for 50+ years. In spite of continuing attempts to push them back, they haven't eroded at all in that time.
I never once said "for your own good". I said that some times verbal communication ought be considered to be a different class. Otherwise, say I have a gun (legal) in my hand (legal), and I say (according to you, anything I say should be legal) "give me your money or I will shoot you." I haven't broken the law in your eyes?
Or "I'm a police officer, and you're under arrest for suspicion of murder." I then handcuff your prooffered hands and put you in a squad car lookalike. Also perfectly legal?
"Fire" is in those vein of the preceding two. Not everything you say ought be protected. Not because I give a shit about you. It's not a paternalistic law.
If the press and speech is completely free then such over the top statements would likely carry about as much weight as when the Weekley World News currently claims that a 3 headed baby is currently educated a frozen Hitler on how to regain power.
An excellent news source. I commend you on finding a source that says such over the top things yet can inform you of what's happening in the world.
Trust me - the teenagers will get bored with pulling the verbal fire alarm soon enough.
Really??? They still pull the ones attached to the walls all the fucking time. Yes, any random teenager gets bored, but see, there's new teenagers getting made every day.
Trust me, no government EVER subdugates a people immediately and proclaims "Do it cuz we say so - suck it bitches!!!!". No, it's always so called "common sense" measures "for your own good". A little here, a little there. I've had enough of it.
Well, I'm glad you've allowed your personal irritation with someone else's over-generalization that you can no longer be bothered to think anything through yourself. Which of course, ironically, results in you over-generalizing. After all, this isn't a statement about why what I said is incorrect, this is a statement about why you refuse to consider it at all.
The point is that by segregating types of speech into classes, and enacting rules on what class can be used when, you get the full gambit of emergency communications, news, satire, and red-light district obscenity.
Again, the claimed tort was committed in violation of treaties to which the US is a signitory. They aren't claiming US law is soverign over the world. They're claiming that treaties the US and India are signitories to give group A a right to sue group B. Note, it's not the US deciding to do this.
Either the members of Congress party should spend a fortune coming down to USA and defending themselves, or be declared guilty since they failed to show up to defend themselves.
It's a tort case, there's fault, but not guilt.
So yes, apparently you can be prosecuted in US courts for smoking weed in Amsterdam if someone actually bothers to file a case.
Please look up torts vs. criminal charges. Also, please look up how the AFTA does not apply US law to apply overseas, but allows people to sue in the US over treaty violations.
Should any other government do the same to USA for say the Waco massacre of innocents? Or say sue the USA army for Guantanamo bay or Al Gharaib abuses? And if they did, will USA government accept such prosecution as legitimate?
The US government was sued and did lose over some of the Gitmo issues.
Need to convert one of them to USB though so I can use it with my laptop...that would be beautiful.
Be careful. The old model Ms draw a lot more power than the typical USB keyboard. Not that a USB bus cannot provide that much power, but you might have to be careful which ports you use and/or use an external hub.
Before you go red with rage, this is exactly what USA usually does.
No, it's not. It's an embarassingly bad understanding of a common practice.
People from outside the US can sue a company/person in US courts if that company/person is a US entity/citizen, even for acts committed overseas... if they are part of the laws that apply even off US soil. So, you can be prosecuted for bribing Kenyan officials to give you access to minerals. You cannot be prosecuted for smoking weed in Amsterdam.
I have never, in 15 years of being on the web, have typed into that bar and WANTED it to do a search. I have a permanent search box... NEXT TO the URL bar. That I love.
I really just want to overload the protocol. google://SEARCH should search google, etc. Let me configure my pseudo-protocols and I'm happy.
But I guess I am expecting too much for people to RTFM.
It sure is, when the alternative is to use the another browser. I mean, you're asking me to learn something new... fine, I like learning. But that means using Chrome has gone from "install software and use" to "learn". It means instead of it being a low cost option, it's now competing with the learning I do to advance my hobbies/other skills. And frankly, Chrome doesn't offer enough to compete there.
US Courts deal with any crime in the United States. However, merely being outside the US territory doesn't totally removal all US control over US citizens. So US citizens (or corporations) can be sued for violating the (very small set of) laws that apply regards of locality to US citizens, in US courts.
Also, Egypt does not really have their own system. I mean, a revolution kinda took place. I mean you can have ex post facto laws or a kangaroo court to deal with the supports of the old regime, but...
Really? Can you tell me why? Seriously, give me an example of why any of those are bad... I'm really curious. Unless you just believe in the world's slipperiest slope, and even then I think you need some line... I mean I totally left out the times that use only speech to defraud, steal, etc.
You want people to have no recourse when someone spreads lies about them? Like, a newspaper could print on the front page that you were convicted of the worst crimes you can imagine, along with your social security number, spread it through the AP, and you're fine with that? How on earth would you plan on getting a job?
You think that anything merely said must be "speech" as opposed to unambiguous verbal communication. The point of reserving some words (like a shouted "Fire"), is that they allow communication without any ambiguity. So if a person happened to be holding a gun, looked at you and said "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you", that's freedom of speech? And if you hand him your wallet, that's just a generous donation on your part?
Lastly, please consider the benefits of the restrictions. This allows non-verbal things to be considered "speech". For instance, clothing. By saying some clothing is tantamount to yelling Fire (a policeman's uniform), we can set up emergency response scenarios much more efficently.
No shit. You do something (legally) if you want to and have the right to do so.
My point is your definition lends itself to easy contradictions, because rights are not prima facia non-exclusive. That is, I can easily make a case why two people have rights that cannot both be upheld. With a job:
I stand a better chance of getting a job if I tell you you are not allowed to get a job. If you don't have a right to get a job, that's legitimate (I'm not infringing on your rights). I can then back up that "you cannot get a job" somehow.
But, if you do have a right to get a job, then your getting a job automatically deprives someone (the second choice person) of getting a job.
Yes, that situation is ridiculous. My point is that it is ridiculous because of your one-line philosophy of right and wrong.
The second, more subtle point, concerns mutually exclusive uses of a common good. A river can become a pollutant dumping ground/dissipater through the oceans, or it can be a swimming hole. It cannot do both. Whose right to choose what the river can do wins. Bonus points if you address how I can dump pollutants upsteam, and keep people from swimming downstream.
actually, you should have a right to do anything so long as it doesn't trample those same rights afforded to your fellow citizens
First off, that's an assertion, not a fact. Secondly, it's a problematic. Let's say, as most people will agree, you have a right to get a job. Your getting of the job keeps me from getting that same job. Therefore, your right is interfering with my right. The job example is easily extended to the more murky: you want to dump toxic waste into a river, and I want to swim there.
These days it's used more and more as precedent to just keep eroding freedom of speech until its meaningless. A few years back someone in my state's legislature tried to outlaw PROFANITY citing that it has already been established that some speech is not protected (citing the "Fire!" bit).
For fucks sake. You believe in not changing the world to make it wholely kid-safe. The same has to apply to laws. Yes Virgina, sometimes more than a 3rd grade education is required.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that profanity is not legislatible (although obscenity is).
Fuck the fire in the theater example. If someone yells fire in a theater, calmly exit the building in an orderly fashion. Free speech should mean free speech with no asterisks beside it.
If you actually look at the limits placed on free speech, they're pretty reasonable. You can limit access to minors, but only if that doesn't pose an undue burden on adults. You can limit untrue statements that harm someone's reputation. You can limit things like yelling "Fire" that are designed to be emergency communications that require compliance before analysis. You can limit things that are "fighting words", words that lead immediately to violence (as opposed to the more common interpretation of offensive words.) And you can limit the obscene; note well however that something can only be obscene if it is devoid of any political, artistic, etc. value. So, prima facia, nothing you say about a politician can be obscene.
Which restriction do you think should be undone?
Disclaimer, IANAL, yada yada. Mostly in case someone gets arrested for calling Obama/McConnell a butt pirate.
Yes, I know what you meant. Your point was quite clear.
That said, I disagree with what you meant (and said). I wasn't nitpicking your example. I was asserting that you are factually incorrect in asserting: "Fact is the jobs are out there". Because, there are none. And if 938,000+ people being unable to find work at McDonald's isn't a good enough datapoint, I'd like to know what you would consider evidence.
Let's put it a different way. 0.33% of the entire US population said to themselves about a month ago "I really want to work for McDonald's" Clearly these people wanted work. And 93.8+% of them got turned away. Do you really believe there are tons of openings for them to go into?
Hint, even if those were the only people searching for work in April, 2011 only 244,000 were able to get jobs.
So, at the very least, 756,000 people who wanted a job at McDonald's do not have a job. So, not overly picky/high salary people, unable to find work. That's something like 0.25% of the population. And that's making some grand assumptions that are pretty obviously false about everyone applying to work at McDonald's who was looking for work.
That's not even factoring in that they increased the number of job offers from 50,000 (expected) to 62,000 (actual). Do you think you did that because they were impressed with the raw talent? Or do you think they turned 1 full-time position into 2 part-time (or, more likely the ratio was 4 full-time : 5 part time ) to save money*?
*Employees who work part-time are cheaper per hour. So, 4*40 hrs a week is more than 5:32 hrs a week. And what a coincidence, that same 20% increase is about the increase in those actually employed vs. planned on being employed.
There's no "can't" get a job, there's ALWAYS McDonalds, Wal-Mart jobs and the like, if a student doesn't want to get one because they think they're better than that then tough fucking shit, they do without.
Umm... BULLSHIT. April 11th was McDonald's National Hiring Day. 62,000 people got hired (McDonald's had early said they would hire 50,000... but apparently turned full-time jobs into more part-time jobs.). Over 938,000 got turned away. That is, in April, more than one million people applied to work at McDonald's.
Or to put it a different way, jobs at McDonald's were harder to get in April than admissions to Harvard undergrad.
This entire disaster has been framed as a failure of nuclear power almost every time it comes up. People don't seem to say this was a failure of management or engineering in these discussions. Why do you suppose that is?
For the same reason that the collapse of the Soviet Union was seen as a collapse of communism and a refutation of a state-managed economy, not as the collapse of a poorly managed communist state.
Because if your argument requires completely ignoring what human beings actually do, as opposed to what they would do in your perfect world, your argument is shit and the theory you point is also shit.
See also: Ayn Rand, Marx, and almost every political ideology.
I'm guessing you could always pay some of the US officials that give you the reward to get you and your closest family out of the country
It's a bargaining culture right? $25 mil was our opening offer. I'm sure "a new identity for me and my family in America, a "mistaken" drone strike on my home filled with cadavers (to hide my emigration) and a plane to NYC where I'll get a block of fancy rooms for a month to acclimate myself and family" would have been thrown in the amount of time it would have taken to reach the President for approval.
Franz Ferdindad's assassination started WWI; Lincoln was assassinated after the Civil War had ended, and had the very direct result of putting Johnson in power, who supported punitive reconstruction policies in the South instead of Lincoln's forgive-and-forget mentality; Ghandi was assassinated after India was freed with the goal of marking a more antagonistic relationship with Pakistan (achieved); Hitler lived, which seems to make the point that failed assassination attempts don't matter, except it changed the entire balance of power in Germany...
Does your book claim that these consequences weren't important/didn't happen?
Meanwhile, I point to you to the assassination of Czar Nicholos II led to the Communist takeover of Russia, Batista's led to Castro's takeover of Cuba, Franco's death lead to a democracy in Spain. I mean, usually it is a single death that turns the tide of a battle.
Btw, when did thoughtcrime become worthy of capital punishment?
Why shouldn't thoughtcrime be punished? Usually, there are two reasons: We cannot know what thoughts you have, or those thoughts shouldn't be illegal.
But in this case, what people were saying was "...if you showed him [the kind of support/aid one renders to] a friend countryman, you need to die too". And I'm fine with that. Aid and abet, and you're guilty too.
Exactly. Which is why IP multicast is and forever will be dead in the water. With unicast I watch exactly what I want, when I want and it doesn't matter if we're watching 11 million different YouTube videos or one sports broadcast.
Sheesh, maybe you could have a local buffer of the multicast so you we can get efficencies that unicasts don't have?
As Netflix offers more TV programming, there may come a tipping point where you don't need Cable TV at all, you could just get all your programming from Netflix. THEN all you need is the broadband service + Netflix. Even though the broadband service might come from Comcast, you don't have to pay the exorbitant rates for the TV channels!
They'll just raise the rates on broadband, or cap the total bandwidth, or do first one, then the other (using Netflix as a justification on the rates increases, and then OMG downloaders on the bandwidth). Hell, AT&T is already trying to add limits.
Slashdot Mirror
Last refusal, since Microsoft can match the final offer.
First refusal is different, usually meaning if Nvidia wanted to sell, they had to entertain a good-faith offer from Microsoft, and decide yes or no before opening up the bidding.
These rules have been in place for 50+ years. In spite of continuing attempts to push them back, they haven't eroded at all in that time.
I never once said "for your own good". I said that some times verbal communication ought be considered to be a different class. Otherwise, say I have a gun (legal) in my hand (legal), and I say (according to you, anything I say should be legal) "give me your money or I will shoot you." I haven't broken the law in your eyes?
Or "I'm a police officer, and you're under arrest for suspicion of murder." I then handcuff your prooffered hands and put you in a squad car lookalike. Also perfectly legal?
"Fire" is in those vein of the preceding two. Not everything you say ought be protected. Not because I give a shit about you. It's not a paternalistic law.
An excellent news source. I commend you on finding a source that says such over the top things yet can inform you of what's happening in the world.
Really??? They still pull the ones attached to the walls all the fucking time. Yes, any random teenager gets bored, but see, there's new teenagers getting made every day.
Well, I'm glad you've allowed your personal irritation with someone else's over-generalization that you can no longer be bothered to think anything through yourself. Which of course, ironically, results in you over-generalizing. After all, this isn't a statement about why what I said is incorrect, this is a statement about why you refuse to consider it at all.
The point is that by segregating types of speech into classes, and enacting rules on what class can be used when, you get the full gambit of emergency communications, news, satire, and red-light district obscenity.
It's about zoning, for fucks sake.
Websites abroad got blocked due to trademark issues just because the owners wouldn't fly all the way to USA to defend themselves in court.
Yes, because trademark jurisdiction is handled by treaty.
Again, the claimed tort was committed in violation of treaties to which the US is a signitory. They aren't claiming US law is soverign over the world. They're claiming that treaties the US and India are signitories to give group A a right to sue group B. Note, it's not the US deciding to do this.
It's a tort case, there's fault, but not guilt.
Please look up torts vs. criminal charges. Also, please look up how the AFTA does not apply US law to apply overseas, but allows people to sue in the US over treaty violations.
The US government was sued and did lose over some of the Gitmo issues.
Be careful. The old model Ms draw a lot more power than the typical USB keyboard. Not that a USB bus cannot provide that much power, but you might have to be careful which ports you use and/or use an external hub.
No, it's not. It's an embarassingly bad understanding of a common practice.
People from outside the US can sue a company/person in US courts if that company/person is a US entity/citizen, even for acts committed overseas... if they are part of the laws that apply even off US soil. So, you can be prosecuted for bribing Kenyan officials to give you access to minerals. You cannot be prosecuted for smoking weed in Amsterdam.
IANAL, yada yada.
I really just want to overload the protocol. google://SEARCH should search google, etc. Let me configure my pseudo-protocols and I'm happy.
It sure is, when the alternative is to use the another browser. I mean, you're asking me to learn something new... fine, I like learning. But that means using Chrome has gone from "install software and use" to "learn". It means instead of it being a low cost option, it's now competing with the learning I do to advance my hobbies/other skills. And frankly, Chrome doesn't offer enough to compete there.
AOL actually added one, I thought.
Wrong in many ways.
US Courts deal with any crime in the United States. However, merely being outside the US territory doesn't totally removal all US control over US citizens. So US citizens (or corporations) can be sued for violating the (very small set of) laws that apply regards of locality to US citizens, in US courts.
Also, Egypt does not really have their own system. I mean, a revolution kinda took place. I mean you can have ex post facto laws or a kangaroo court to deal with the supports of the old regime, but...
Really? Can you tell me why? Seriously, give me an example of why any of those are bad... I'm really curious. Unless you just believe in the world's slipperiest slope, and even then I think you need some line... I mean I totally left out the times that use only speech to defraud, steal, etc.
You want people to have no recourse when someone spreads lies about them? Like, a newspaper could print on the front page that you were convicted of the worst crimes you can imagine, along with your social security number, spread it through the AP, and you're fine with that? How on earth would you plan on getting a job?
You think that anything merely said must be "speech" as opposed to unambiguous verbal communication. The point of reserving some words (like a shouted "Fire"), is that they allow communication without any ambiguity. So if a person happened to be holding a gun, looked at you and said "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you", that's freedom of speech? And if you hand him your wallet, that's just a generous donation on your part?
Lastly, please consider the benefits of the restrictions. This allows non-verbal things to be considered "speech". For instance, clothing. By saying some clothing is tantamount to yelling Fire (a policeman's uniform), we can set up emergency response scenarios much more efficently.
No shit. You do something (legally) if you want to and have the right to do so.
My point is your definition lends itself to easy contradictions, because rights are not prima facia non-exclusive. That is, I can easily make a case why two people have rights that cannot both be upheld. With a job:
I stand a better chance of getting a job if I tell you you are not allowed to get a job. If you don't have a right to get a job, that's legitimate (I'm not infringing on your rights). I can then back up that "you cannot get a job" somehow.
But, if you do have a right to get a job, then your getting a job automatically deprives someone (the second choice person) of getting a job.
Yes, that situation is ridiculous. My point is that it is ridiculous because of your one-line philosophy of right and wrong.
The second, more subtle point, concerns mutually exclusive uses of a common good. A river can become a pollutant dumping ground/dissipater through the oceans, or it can be a swimming hole. It cannot do both. Whose right to choose what the river can do wins. Bonus points if you address how I can dump pollutants upsteam, and keep people from swimming downstream.
First off, that's an assertion, not a fact. Secondly, it's a problematic. Let's say, as most people will agree, you have a right to get a job. Your getting of the job keeps me from getting that same job. Therefore, your right is interfering with my right. The job example is easily extended to the more murky: you want to dump toxic waste into a river, and I want to swim there.
For fucks sake. You believe in not changing the world to make it wholely kid-safe. The same has to apply to laws. Yes Virgina, sometimes more than a 3rd grade education is required.
The Supreme Court has already ruled that profanity is not legislatible (although obscenity is).
If you actually look at the limits placed on free speech, they're pretty reasonable. You can limit access to minors, but only if that doesn't pose an undue burden on adults. You can limit untrue statements that harm someone's reputation. You can limit things like yelling "Fire" that are designed to be emergency communications that require compliance before analysis. You can limit things that are "fighting words", words that lead immediately to violence (as opposed to the more common interpretation of offensive words.) And you can limit the obscene; note well however that something can only be obscene if it is devoid of any political, artistic, etc. value. So, prima facia, nothing you say about a politician can be obscene.
Which restriction do you think should be undone?
Disclaimer, IANAL, yada yada. Mostly in case someone gets arrested for calling Obama/McConnell a butt pirate.
Yes, I know what you meant. Your point was quite clear.
That said, I disagree with what you meant (and said). I wasn't nitpicking your example. I was asserting that you are factually incorrect in asserting: "Fact is the jobs are out there". Because, there are none. And if 938,000+ people being unable to find work at McDonald's isn't a good enough datapoint, I'd like to know what you would consider evidence.
Let's put it a different way. 0.33% of the entire US population said to themselves about a month ago "I really want to work for McDonald's" Clearly these people wanted work. And 93.8+% of them got turned away. Do you really believe there are tons of openings for them to go into?
Hint, even if those were the only people searching for work in April, 2011 only 244,000 were able to get jobs.
So, at the very least, 756,000 people who wanted a job at McDonald's do not have a job. So, not overly picky/high salary people, unable to find work. That's something like 0.25% of the population. And that's making some grand assumptions that are pretty obviously false about everyone applying to work at McDonald's who was looking for work.
That's not even factoring in that they increased the number of job offers from 50,000 (expected) to 62,000 (actual). Do you think you did that because they were impressed with the raw talent? Or do you think they turned 1 full-time position into 2 part-time (or, more likely the ratio was 4 full-time : 5 part time ) to save money*?
*Employees who work part-time are cheaper per hour. So, 4*40 hrs a week is more than 5:32 hrs a week. And what a coincidence, that same 20% increase is about the increase in those actually employed vs. planned on being employed.
Umm... BULLSHIT. April 11th was McDonald's National Hiring Day. 62,000 people got hired (McDonald's had early said they would hire 50,000... but apparently turned full-time jobs into more part-time jobs.). Over 938,000 got turned away. That is, in April, more than one million people applied to work at McDonald's.
Or to put it a different way, jobs at McDonald's were harder to get in April than admissions to Harvard undergrad.
Inflation in the US is less than 2 percent. Inflation in Europe is even less. Where do you live?
Inflation in the US is
In the past 30 years it caught at least 3 or 4 it publicized.
That's not that many, but unlike American security, how many have slipped through?
For the same reason that the collapse of the Soviet Union was seen as a collapse of communism and a refutation of a state-managed economy, not as the collapse of a poorly managed communist state.
Because if your argument requires completely ignoring what human beings actually do, as opposed to what they would do in your perfect world, your argument is shit and the theory you point is also shit.
See also: Ayn Rand, Marx, and almost every political ideology.
You clearly never had to get animal control to get rid of a (possibly) rabid raccoon. When it's gone forever, you celebrate.
It's a bargaining culture right? $25 mil was our opening offer. I'm sure "a new identity for me and my family in America, a "mistaken" drone strike on my home filled with cadavers (to hide my emigration) and a plane to NYC where I'll get a block of fancy rooms for a month to acclimate myself and family" would have been thrown in the amount of time it would have taken to reach the President for approval.
I'm so confused.
Franz Ferdindad's assassination started WWI; Lincoln was assassinated after the Civil War had ended, and had the very direct result of putting Johnson in power, who supported punitive reconstruction policies in the South instead of Lincoln's forgive-and-forget mentality; Ghandi was assassinated after India was freed with the goal of marking a more antagonistic relationship with Pakistan (achieved); Hitler lived, which seems to make the point that failed assassination attempts don't matter, except it changed the entire balance of power in Germany...
Does your book claim that these consequences weren't important/didn't happen?
Meanwhile, I point to you to the assassination of Czar Nicholos II led to the Communist takeover of Russia, Batista's led to Castro's takeover of Cuba, Franco's death lead to a democracy in Spain. I mean, usually it is a single death that turns the tide of a battle.
Why shouldn't thoughtcrime be punished? Usually, there are two reasons: We cannot know what thoughts you have, or those thoughts shouldn't be illegal.
But in this case, what people were saying was "...if you showed him [the kind of support/aid one renders to] a friend countryman, you need to die too". And I'm fine with that. Aid and abet, and you're guilty too.
Sheesh, maybe you could have a local buffer of the multicast so you we can get efficencies that unicasts don't have?
They'll just raise the rates on broadband, or cap the total bandwidth, or do first one, then the other (using Netflix as a justification on the rates increases, and then OMG downloaders on the bandwidth). Hell, AT&T is already trying to add limits.