"The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience"
They said that there are limits to when those words can be broadcast, not that they can't be broadcast at all. I think I have read that after 10 PM it is possible to broadcast those words without fear of FCC sanction, but if someone has a reference to clarify that I'd appreciate it.
You're the one who thinks spending pennies for labor while making fistfulls of money is somehow bad, and somehow makes the products less American.
"Can't argue with what you said, but because it's not an argument,"
You're right, it's a farce, and an obvious attempt to find something to dig the US over.
Let me let you in on something. If I own a company, and you WORK for me, what you make FOR MY COMPANY doesn't magically become yours. Yet you think it does, but I'm the one who is "ignorant"...
Get over your US hatred guy (and don't bother denying it) it makes you post nonsense.
"Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations, restraints, and reparations on Finland vis-à-vis the Soviet Union as well as further Finnish territorial concessions (cf. the Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940). Finland ceded most of Finnish Karelia, Salla, and Pechenga, which amounted to 10% of its land area, 20% of industrial capacity and 400,000 evacuees, mainly women and children."
Yeah you didn't bend over and take it...
Did you at least get a reach-around with that deal?
"As any historical archive will indicate, the U.S. not only joined the war relatively late in the game, but also suffered the relatively few military casualties:"
None of which has anything to do with the fact that Europe would have been conquered had we not intervened, late, early, or otherwise. Using casualty numbers is an arbitrary and essentially meaningless statistic, which you like because it allows you to deny much of the US importance.
"So if we look at who paid a higher price for Europe's freedom, I'd say that we need to be a lot more grateful to Russia."
And yet, you weren't Do you think that's an accident? Also, you conveniently overlook who footed the bill for rebuilding.
If you were trying to make an legitimate argument here, you failed completely.
"His computer is not American, it probably comes from China (or at least most of its parts) American Software - well it depends, I'm not sure if 100% components of his software were written by American citizens."
I'm sorry but no, this line of reasoning completely fails regardless of how many times you try it.
"Sure, you fought against Hitler, but was it decisive? I don't know"
Then you're an exceedingly poor student of history.
"About how Soviet attacked Finland, and the 10-to-1 kill ratio."
I have. What's your point, that an army that is equipped and trained to fight on their home turf can beat a larger, less well equipped, less well trained army? You are aware that happened several times long before WW2, aren't you?
"Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, and England ganged up on them."
Fixed that for you.
And lastly, are you aware of how ignorant your post makes you appear? I sincerely hope for your sake you're just trolling because if you genuinely believe what you wrote, your teachers owe you an apology.
"The decision to close Russia's largest military outpost abroad was announced in October by President Putin who said it was too expensive to maintain."
That came from YOUR link. How are you arguing this point when the link YOU posted states the same thing I said?
"USA supports the concept that the Great Alexander and Aristotelis, the founder of logic, were...Slavic."
Do you realize why one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other? What is wrong with your mental process that makes "naming a location" equivalent to "redefining the ancestry of a group of people"?
"If I was so off the mark with my reply to your post, would you mind being a dear and, oh, I don't know, elaborating on where you think I went wrong, rather than simply saying "YOU IDIOT YOU MISSED MY POINT"."
No, I don't think I will. You're an imbecile, why would I waste more time on you? If you plan to make moronic assumptions then make ridiculous assertions based on those assumptions, you're clearly not someone I have a desire to have a dialog with.
And I didn't read the rest of that post, I'm fairly certain it wasn't worth my time either.
And as an aside, you're wrong about everything you've said.
I don't think anyone with real knowledge of the situation believes this was disarmament for any reason other than cost. Russia simply couldn't afford them anymore.
"More importantly, if this had been a private notification it would have been a simple dispute, but it's gone public and this woman's life is likely to be affected by it"
It was private until she took it public.
Then you said
"So I'm all for this woman going public,"
This makes no sense. The only reason this wasn't a "simple dispute" is because SHE made it that way. Yet you go on to argue it was Myspace's fault somehow. That is wrong.
I'm puzzled by your clear inability to form a coherent post.
"I'm on the woman's side. MySpace screwed up by labelling someone an offender (of whatever type) without due process"
That's NOT what happened. I'm beginning to see the problem.
"Accusing someone of ANY crime is not something that should be done lightly, because it will ALWAYS damage the target's life."
They didn't ACCUSE her of anything beyond being on a list. That is not a crime. You see they DID NOT say she was a criminal, they said her name appeared in a database. That is not a fine distinction, so I fail to see why you can't grasp it.
Ultimately it is clear why your post appears to be incoherent, you don't understand the situation and are making assumptions based on faulty information and your lack of mental faculties.
"What I find amazing is that you find anything to bitch about here since you seem like you'd be just as upset if the stations involved were immediately sacked, rather than allowed to function until the end of their run"
That's because you're stupid. Try to figure out what I really said, cause that wasn't anywhere near it.
"By the way, just thought you'd like to know the station did not incite the coup, it merely became its puppet,"
You're really stupid aren't you? How do you get so fired up about responding when you completely missed the point of my post?
"Am I to apologize for your lack of reading comprehension skills?"
No actually you should apologize for yours. You argued points I never made, and essentially, agreed with what I said, but wer too much of a moron to realize it.
Then you flamed me, while the whole time still being too stupid to realize you were making MY points FOR ME.
I suggest you re-read what I posted until you understand it. I expect to be waiting a long time.
"There is no democracy in the world that would allow a television station that participated in an illegal coup of a democratically elected leader to be on the air."
Hmm, that's funny because Venezuela's democracy did just that. It stayed on the air for FIVE YEARS before it was shut down.
If it was illegal, how come no one was prosecuted for it? How come the station was allowed to continue broadcasting even though they were apparently a direct threat?
It doesn't add up. If the station was as bad as those who are denouncing it claim, then it should have been closed down immediately. Why wasn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
You need a girlfriend buddy.
"In the UK fog lights are mandatory, in the US they are illegal."
That is simply wrong.
"The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience"
They said that there are limits to when those words can be broadcast, not that they can't be broadcast at all. I think I have read that after 10 PM it is possible to broadcast those words without fear of FCC sanction, but if someone has a reference to clarify that I'd appreciate it.
You're the one who thinks spending pennies for labor while making fistfulls of money is somehow bad, and somehow makes the products less American.
"Can't argue with what you said, but because it's not an argument,"
You're right, it's a farce, and an obvious attempt to find something to dig the US over.
Let me let you in on something. If I own a company, and you WORK for me, what you make FOR MY COMPANY doesn't magically become yours. Yet you think it does, but I'm the one who is "ignorant"...
Get over your US hatred guy (and don't bother denying it) it makes you post nonsense.
"Treaties signed in 1947 and 1948 with the Soviet Union included obligations, restraints, and reparations on Finland vis-à-vis the Soviet Union as well as further Finnish territorial concessions (cf. the Moscow Peace Treaty of 1940). Finland ceded most of Finnish Karelia, Salla, and Pechenga, which amounted to 10% of its land area, 20% of industrial capacity and 400,000 evacuees, mainly women and children."
Yeah you didn't bend over and take it...
Did you at least get a reach-around with that deal?
No, that is THE reason. How hard is it to admit you're wrong?
Because it makes so much sense to say "we can't afford them" as opposed to "for purposes of good will, we are closing them down".
One makes you look weak and inept, the other gains you international good will. Yet you think they CHOSE to look weak and inept. Sure buddy.
I knew you'd try that, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
"As any historical archive will indicate, the U.S. not only joined the war relatively late in the game, but also suffered the relatively few military casualties:"
None of which has anything to do with the fact that Europe would have been conquered had we not intervened, late, early, or otherwise. Using casualty numbers is an arbitrary and essentially meaningless statistic, which you like because it allows you to deny much of the US importance.
"So if we look at who paid a higher price for Europe's freedom, I'd say that we need to be a lot more grateful to Russia."
And yet, you weren't Do you think that's an accident? Also, you conveniently overlook who footed the bill for rebuilding.
If you were trying to make an legitimate argument here, you failed completely.
"His computer is not American, it probably comes from China (or at least most of its parts)
American Software - well it depends, I'm not sure if 100% components of his software were written by American citizens."
I'm sorry but no, this line of reasoning completely fails regardless of how many times you try it.
"Sure, you fought against Hitler, but was it decisive? I don't know"
Then you're an exceedingly poor student of history.
"About how Soviet attacked Finland, and the 10-to-1 kill ratio."
I have. What's your point, that an army that is equipped and trained to fight on their home turf can beat a larger, less well equipped, less well trained army? You are aware that happened several times long before WW2, aren't you?
"Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, and England ganged up on them."
Fixed that for you.
And lastly, are you aware of how ignorant your post makes you appear? I sincerely hope for your sake you're just trolling because if you genuinely believe what you wrote, your teachers owe you an apology.
"Russia announced last October that it was abandoning the base for financial reasons."
Perhaps you can explain to me why you feel able to argue this point when BOTH of your links say I'm right?
"The decision to close Russia's largest military outpost abroad was announced in October by President Putin who said it was too expensive to maintain."
That came from YOUR link. How are you arguing this point when the link YOU posted states the same thing I said?
None of which has anything to do with the fact that the bases they closed in Cuba and Vietnam were shut down because they weren't cost effective.
"USA supports the concept that the Great Alexander and Aristotelis, the founder of logic, were ...Slavic."
Do you realize why one has nothing whatsoever to do with the other? What is wrong with your mental process that makes "naming a location" equivalent to "redefining the ancestry of a group of people"?
"If I was so off the mark with my reply to your post, would you mind being a dear and, oh, I don't know, elaborating on where you think I went wrong, rather than simply saying "YOU IDIOT YOU MISSED MY POINT"."
No, I don't think I will. You're an imbecile, why would I waste more time on you? If you plan to make moronic assumptions then make ridiculous assertions based on those assumptions, you're clearly not someone I have a desire to have a dialog with.
And I didn't read the rest of that post, I'm fairly certain it wasn't worth my time either.
And as an aside, you're wrong about everything you've said.
"So, with USA with a impeding economical crisis, can afford similar stuff?"
This sentence makes it clear you're not qualified to discuss this matter.
Nope, it was not. Even during the economic crisis.
"So, Russia did some real steps for disarmament."
I don't think anyone with real knowledge of the situation believes this was disarmament for any reason other than cost. Russia simply couldn't afford them anymore.
850 for a 5.1 receiver? Did you at least get some Vaseline when they bent you over?
How long ago did you buy it?
You said
"More importantly, if this had been a private notification it would have been a simple dispute, but it's gone public and this woman's life is likely to be affected by it"
It was private until she took it public.
Then you said
"So I'm all for this woman going public,"
This makes no sense. The only reason this wasn't a "simple dispute" is because SHE made it that way. Yet you go on to argue it was Myspace's fault somehow. That is wrong.
I'm puzzled by your clear inability to form a coherent post.
"I'm on the woman's side. MySpace screwed up by labelling someone an offender (of whatever type) without due process"
That's NOT what happened. I'm beginning to see the problem.
"Accusing someone of ANY crime is not something that should be done lightly, because it will ALWAYS damage the target's life."
They didn't ACCUSE her of anything beyond being on a list. That is not a crime. You see they DID NOT say she was a criminal, they said her name appeared in a database. That is not a fine distinction, so I fail to see why you can't grasp it.
Ultimately it is clear why your post appears to be incoherent, you don't understand the situation and are making assumptions based on faulty information and your lack of mental faculties.
"What I find amazing is that you find anything to bitch about here since you seem like you'd be just as upset if the stations involved were immediately sacked, rather than allowed to function until the end of their run"
That's because you're stupid. Try to figure out what I really said, cause that wasn't anywhere near it.
"By the way, just thought you'd like to know the station did not incite the coup, it merely became its puppet,"
You're really stupid aren't you? How do you get so fired up about responding when you completely missed the point of my post?
"Am I to apologize for your lack of reading comprehension skills?"
No actually you should apologize for yours. You argued points I never made, and essentially, agreed with what I said, but wer too much of a moron to realize it.
Then you flamed me, while the whole time still being too stupid to realize you were making MY points FOR ME.
I suggest you re-read what I posted until you understand it. I expect to be waiting a long time.
"The station wasn't shut down, its license was not renewed."
Stop pretending there's a difference.
"That is why it took five years before they effectively went off the air."
Which makes so much sense in light of the fact that they incited a coup. Let's wait five years, because they're incredibly dangerous...
Nothing you posted makes any sense, I'm upset at the time I wasted reading it.
"There is no democracy in the world that would allow a television station that participated in an illegal coup of a democratically elected leader to be on the air."
Hmm, that's funny because Venezuela's democracy did just that. It stayed on the air for FIVE YEARS before it was shut down.
If it was illegal, how come no one was prosecuted for it? How come the station was allowed to continue broadcasting even though they were apparently a direct threat?
It doesn't add up. If the station was as bad as those who are denouncing it claim, then it should have been closed down immediately. Why wasn't it?
"if those pictures were of their living space they would be up-in-arms the same way this woman is."
Why would I get upset about Google showing pictures of my blinds?
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.a spx?sku=A0741431&cs=19&c=us&l=en
That has 8GB and all of the features you list.