The most ludicrous thing Sarah Palin said was to accuse Barack Obama of socialism and redistributing money. EXCUSE ME! Each Alaskan gets paid $3,200 a year by the state from funds SEIZED from the big, rich oil companies. That's socialism. And for every dollar that Alaskans pay in federal taxes, they get $1.68 back in federal funds. THAT'S redistribution of income.
We also handed $700 billion to the banks. McCain also wants to give tax cuts to the corporations, and bail out BANKS by buying bad mortgages off their hands at full price. (Sure, McCain said he was bailing out the taxpayer, but having the government take over a bad mortgage at full price obviously helps the banks.)
All fair taxes redistribute income. The only scheme that would not redistribute income would calculate the dollar value of government services a person consumes and then taxing them that amount. This is clearly non-functional because the poor consume more public services than the rich in terms of public transportation, public schools, libraries, and scholarships. The other scheme that is arguably non-redistributive would be to tax everyone the same DOLLAR amount. Again, this is a non-starter because homeless people just don't have money.
All other tax schemes will redistribute money from the rich to the poor in a dollar or in-kind calculation.
The BIG FUCKING THING people are missing is that America's debts are theirs. You can't say, "I'm an American" but then refuse to pay taxes because the money's yours but the taxes and debts are someone else's obligations. It's ridiculous. Sure, we've overspent, but that's our political process, our social contract, and Americans have to pay for it.
Don't tax the rich? Sure, we could try taxing the poor and middle class but I think that's not going to work. I make $200K a year and I save about $4,000 a month, minimum. I mean save as in money markets, CDs, stocks, bonds, cash, savings accounts, and a few gold Krugerrands. Giving me a tax cut would not increase my consumption at all. I would just save more money. Reducing the tax burden on a guy making $50K and trying to raise a family would be a much fairer thing to do, and better for our economy because he's far more likely to spend that money and drive the economy.
Terrorists in Iraq have also planted a bomb in the wheelchair of a mentally-retarded child. It's pretty fucking despicable shit they're doing over there. (And the turds who say, "oh, the Americans are making that shit up" look at Al Qaeda running around cutting people's heads off and then bragging about it. Do you think these people wouldn't use a child's wheelchair as a bomb platform?)
The weight of the shielding casket that would survive reentry on launch failure may be prohibitive. But I'd guess mostly environmentalists who don't want nukes going into outer space.
You can force Minefield not to check extensions for compatibility.
Type in "about:config" and create a new Boolean "extensions.checkCompatibility" and set it to false. Restart your browser. Now you can install all the extensions you want but they may not work!
Adblock, Flashblock, and Download StatusBar work just fine with Minefield 3.1 Beta 1.
Actually, it's a terrible job. There's a guy out there who has to look at all the child porn and verify that it is in fact child porn. There's also a guy out there who has to look at videos of brutal murders to try and figure out who did what. I'm sure these guys aren't too happy about their jobs but realize it's a necessary evil if you want to hunt down those who commit these crimes.
I know a guy who works for Google. His job is to look at porn all the time. He has to verify that SafeSearch has accurately censored out sexual images but leaves women in bikinis alone. You think it'd be a good job, but it actually has desensitized him to sex. He is now blase towards sex, much to the consternation of his gf.
If you listened to Obama's full answer to Joe the Plumber, you will see it's a great answer that any candidate can stand by. McCain/Palin and their politics of negativity and divisiveness require class warfare so they deliberately took a short part of that answer and ran with it. But the truth is that all taxes are redistributive. We don't tax people according to the level of government services they consume so it's clearly redistributive. I mean, Alaska gets more federal tax dollars than it pays, so it's actually one of the largest welfare states out there. You are spreading the wealth to those red states that take more in federal dollars than they give.
But as for Joe the Plumber, you will not see McCain or Palin giving such detailed and thorough answers extemporaneously to a voter with a dissident view. You just won't.
They create software that allows Windows apps to run on Linux. Totally awesome. And it's just as well if you don't visit their site, which is being thrashed pretty hard. I mean, if you don't know what CodeWeavers do, you probably don't need to download their software.
You are out of your mind. Joe asked Obama a question and then McCain's campaign involuntarily used Joe to promote themselves. During the nationally-televised debate McCain mentioned Joe the Plumber many times. Then idiots started searching their databases to find what they could about this guy.
This is much better than McCain/Palin, who suggests there are un-American parts of this country, or had someone fired because he refused to fire a guy who pissed Palin off. You're just a nut who's off his gourd.
I hope you looked at your own EULA to see if this would result in liability for you. Most EULAs are bulletproof but you don't want to be taken to court for deliberately sabotaging members of your web site--the harvesters, after all, did sign up and click on the EULA you propounded so they do have rights despite their violation of the TOS.
That's bullshit. Joe got himself in the public eye (mostly because McCain mentioned his name a hundred times during a nationally-televised debate) and people investigated. It isn't a huge liberal scheme to silence opposition. McCain mentioned Joe too much and someone just Googled this guy and found this info.
You are actually demonstrating OP's point about self-employed small businessmen being delusional in their fear of government oppression. An employer has to withhold half of your paycheck to pay the Social Security and Medicare taxes and pay the other half out of their own pockets. If you're self-employed, you have to pay the entire amount by yourself. In other words, you're no worse off than a person employed by another but now you've got it in your head that you're a martyr, better than everyone else.
Not to be an asshole, but if you tell the kids to download OpenOffice.org and somehow they don't succeed in that mission, they should be kept away from computers specifically and electrical devices in general. It's the digital equivalent of asking what's 911's phone number.
The new version is supposed to be an entirely new rewrite. Not to push it or anything, but I read an article where the Symantec executive admitted that their previous software was shit, and they were starting anew. You know what they say about admitting the problem to be the first step to fixing it.
I hope Symantec goes back to writing their nice, clean antiviral software. I remember the good old days of Symantec not sucking.
You are drawing a false dichotomy. Evidence contradicting the Miller hypothesis is not evidence in favor of creationism or "intelligent design." Miller did not show that you could manufacture life, especially if you believed that his experiment was flawed.
(1) The mail provider has to sign a contract swearing to secrecy, nondisclosure, and not reading your e-mail. Aside from the obvious implications of losing private e-mail, you might waive privilege if you are sending e-mail over non-secure lines. Also, if you have trade secrets that get pilfered, you might have to prove how much due diligence you spent in protecting its secrecy. If your e-mail provider didn't have an affirmative contractual duty to keep all data secure, you may be in a world of hurt even if there is no security breach.
(2) Backup. The provider has to go through disaster recovery plans and backup tests.
(3) Post-termination rights. After you end the program, the provider has to provide all the e-mail to you in a specified format as well as the necessary expertise and time to help you transition to the next platform. You don't want to be a victim of lock-in.
(4) Post-termination Rights Redux. If the provider goes bankrupt, make it clear that this is not a lease under the federal bankruptcy laws. If the provider files for bankruptcy protection, defaults on its corporate bonds, is delisted from the exchange, or otherwise becomes insolvent, you have the right to immediately terminate the contract and pull the data out.
The Federal Circuit only reversed summary judgment as to obviousness of CSIRO's patents. This means that Buffalo Tech. will have a chance to make its case on that issue alone. You see, based on the silence of the BT press release on the other issues against BT on summary judgment, I would have to conclude that the Federal Circuit upheld those.
I also have to add that the lawsuit is filed in the plaintiff-friendly (to put it softly) E.D. Texas.
You've answered your own question. Unreasonable searches and seizures on innocent people don't result in charges brought against the victim. It's always the criminals who get prosecuted and who need the protection of the Constitution. Also note that the First Amendment is almost always invoked by those we want to censor.
Give me free college just like the African Americans and Latinos and Single Moms and Sudanese and pretty much everyone who isn't a white male/female with no kids
If you were in such dire financial straights as you suggest, college would be free, heavily subsidized, or paid for by low-interest student loans if you applied to a state school, or if you earned a merit scholarship. This is the United States; no matter how racist your world view is (I'll bet you'll say you're not a racist, that you're just telling it the way it is, like how Jews really run the world economy), you aren't supposed to be given anything. So your problem isn't that welfare is wrong but that you're not getting any welfare.
More to the point, you probably just have bad spending habits. You can't spend $100 a month on your cell phone, $50 a month for cable internet, $50 a month for cable, $500 a month for private school for your toddler, $200 a month eating out, and not expect to have more than $200 in your bank account. Really.
The decision was issued by a federal judge, who is appointed for life. That's a pretty sweet gig and I doubt they would be swayed by only money, as the penalty for bribery is very severe.
The long and the short of it is that the decision addressed the University's motion to quash the subpoena. The Judge granted the motion to quash, and allowed the plaintiff to file a more limited subpoena. There was no harm and no foul (aside from legal fees) from the overly-broad initial subpoena.
If there was a violation of law regarding private investigators, that's a matter for the state Attorney General to prosecute. A federal judge cannot enforce state law by himself in a lawsuit involving private individuals. Perhaps the state has an interest in not pursuing the claim that would be frustrated if a federal court asserted a state right (the prerogative to enforce its own laws) on the state's behalf.
You may be surprised to know that illegally-obtained evidence can be used in civil trials. The evidence can be admitted, and it's up to the defendants to file counterclaims for the violation of laws. That's when the state AG will get involved, hopefully, and make the RIAA machine responsible for its illegal investigators.
The decision was limited to a very narrow issue regarding a subpoena. RIAA made admissions that limited the scope of the subpoena. The judge found the reduced scope acceptable, so he dismissed the initial subpoena and invited RIAA to file a subpoena of proper scope.
The University is moving to quash the subpoena; it is not a party to the action. As such, I don't believe that it has standing to make a motion regarding the substance of the litigation itself. In short, the University is watching out for its own interests, but that's because the rules prevent it from watching out for the interests of others.
The title of the article discussed a motion to dismiss. The article itself was slashdotted, but a motion to dismiss only means that the lawsuit is allowed to continue. The holding only means that the complaint states a legally-cognizable cause of action, and does not address the substantive merits of the plaintiffs' (as it was a class action) case aside from that.
I would like to know if this was filed under the federal antitrust statutes or the California antitrust laws. If it is the former, than the decision would have national implications and Apple may lose significant amounts of money if it is found liable of anti-competitive conduct.
Moreover, if the contract between Apple and AT&T Mobile is ruled in violation of law, does AT&T owe Apple money anyway, or are they just going to sue each other? This will be fun to see.
It is entirely possible that the Slashdot editor thought that this was a real newsclip. Isn't that sadder than if they thought that this was funny to post?
Slashdot Mirror
The most ludicrous thing Sarah Palin said was to accuse Barack Obama of socialism and redistributing money. EXCUSE ME! Each Alaskan gets paid $3,200 a year by the state from funds SEIZED from the big, rich oil companies. That's socialism. And for every dollar that Alaskans pay in federal taxes, they get $1.68 back in federal funds. THAT'S redistribution of income.
We also handed $700 billion to the banks. McCain also wants to give tax cuts to the corporations, and bail out BANKS by buying bad mortgages off their hands at full price. (Sure, McCain said he was bailing out the taxpayer, but having the government take over a bad mortgage at full price obviously helps the banks.)
In short, they're all fucking communists.
All fair taxes redistribute income. The only scheme that would not redistribute income would calculate the dollar value of government services a person consumes and then taxing them that amount. This is clearly non-functional because the poor consume more public services than the rich in terms of public transportation, public schools, libraries, and scholarships. The other scheme that is arguably non-redistributive would be to tax everyone the same DOLLAR amount. Again, this is a non-starter because homeless people just don't have money.
All other tax schemes will redistribute money from the rich to the poor in a dollar or in-kind calculation.
The BIG FUCKING THING people are missing is that America's debts are theirs. You can't say, "I'm an American" but then refuse to pay taxes because the money's yours but the taxes and debts are someone else's obligations. It's ridiculous. Sure, we've overspent, but that's our political process, our social contract, and Americans have to pay for it.
Don't tax the rich? Sure, we could try taxing the poor and middle class but I think that's not going to work. I make $200K a year and I save about $4,000 a month, minimum. I mean save as in money markets, CDs, stocks, bonds, cash, savings accounts, and a few gold Krugerrands. Giving me a tax cut would not increase my consumption at all. I would just save more money. Reducing the tax burden on a guy making $50K and trying to raise a family would be a much fairer thing to do, and better for our economy because he's far more likely to spend that money and drive the economy.
Terrorists in Iraq have also planted a bomb in the wheelchair of a mentally-retarded child. It's pretty fucking despicable shit they're doing over there. (And the turds who say, "oh, the Americans are making that shit up" look at Al Qaeda running around cutting people's heads off and then bragging about it. Do you think these people wouldn't use a child's wheelchair as a bomb platform?)
The weight of the shielding casket that would survive reentry on launch failure may be prohibitive. But I'd guess mostly environmentalists who don't want nukes going into outer space.
You can force Minefield not to check extensions for compatibility.
Type in "about:config" and create a new Boolean "extensions.checkCompatibility" and set it to false. Restart your browser. Now you can install all the extensions you want but they may not work!
Adblock, Flashblock, and Download StatusBar work just fine with Minefield 3.1 Beta 1.
Actually, it's a terrible job. There's a guy out there who has to look at all the child porn and verify that it is in fact child porn. There's also a guy out there who has to look at videos of brutal murders to try and figure out who did what. I'm sure these guys aren't too happy about their jobs but realize it's a necessary evil if you want to hunt down those who commit these crimes.
I know a guy who works for Google. His job is to look at porn all the time. He has to verify that SafeSearch has accurately censored out sexual images but leaves women in bikinis alone. You think it'd be a good job, but it actually has desensitized him to sex. He is now blase towards sex, much to the consternation of his gf.
Who cares why you're getting free Crossover, you're getting free Crossover! I can't wait to get my free Crossover!
If you listened to Obama's full answer to Joe the Plumber, you will see it's a great answer that any candidate can stand by. McCain/Palin and their politics of negativity and divisiveness require class warfare so they deliberately took a short part of that answer and ran with it. But the truth is that all taxes are redistributive. We don't tax people according to the level of government services they consume so it's clearly redistributive. I mean, Alaska gets more federal tax dollars than it pays, so it's actually one of the largest welfare states out there. You are spreading the wealth to those red states that take more in federal dollars than they give.
But as for Joe the Plumber, you will not see McCain or Palin giving such detailed and thorough answers extemporaneously to a voter with a dissident view. You just won't.
They create software that allows Windows apps to run on Linux. Totally awesome. And it's just as well if you don't visit their site, which is being thrashed pretty hard. I mean, if you don't know what CodeWeavers do, you probably don't need to download their software.
You are out of your mind. Joe asked Obama a question and then McCain's campaign involuntarily used Joe to promote themselves. During the nationally-televised debate McCain mentioned Joe the Plumber many times. Then idiots started searching their databases to find what they could about this guy.
This is much better than McCain/Palin, who suggests there are un-American parts of this country, or had someone fired because he refused to fire a guy who pissed Palin off. You're just a nut who's off his gourd.
I hope you looked at your own EULA to see if this would result in liability for you. Most EULAs are bulletproof but you don't want to be taken to court for deliberately sabotaging members of your web site--the harvesters, after all, did sign up and click on the EULA you propounded so they do have rights despite their violation of the TOS.
That's bullshit. Joe got himself in the public eye (mostly because McCain mentioned his name a hundred times during a nationally-televised debate) and people investigated. It isn't a huge liberal scheme to silence opposition. McCain mentioned Joe too much and someone just Googled this guy and found this info.
You are actually demonstrating OP's point about self-employed small businessmen being delusional in their fear of government oppression. An employer has to withhold half of your paycheck to pay the Social Security and Medicare taxes and pay the other half out of their own pockets. If you're self-employed, you have to pay the entire amount by yourself. In other words, you're no worse off than a person employed by another but now you've got it in your head that you're a martyr, better than everyone else.
Good job!
Not to be an asshole, but if you tell the kids to download OpenOffice.org and somehow they don't succeed in that mission, they should be kept away from computers specifically and electrical devices in general. It's the digital equivalent of asking what's 911's phone number.
The new version is supposed to be an entirely new rewrite. Not to push it or anything, but I read an article where the Symantec executive admitted that their previous software was shit, and they were starting anew. You know what they say about admitting the problem to be the first step to fixing it.
I hope Symantec goes back to writing their nice, clean antiviral software. I remember the good old days of Symantec not sucking.
You are drawing a false dichotomy. Evidence contradicting the Miller hypothesis is not evidence in favor of creationism or "intelligent design." Miller did not show that you could manufacture life, especially if you believed that his experiment was flawed.
Most Sprint customers don't know the half of how hypocritical and money-driven Sprint really is as a whole.
I strongly disagree with this statement. We know.
(1) The mail provider has to sign a contract swearing to secrecy, nondisclosure, and not reading your e-mail. Aside from the obvious implications of losing private e-mail, you might waive privilege if you are sending e-mail over non-secure lines. Also, if you have trade secrets that get pilfered, you might have to prove how much due diligence you spent in protecting its secrecy. If your e-mail provider didn't have an affirmative contractual duty to keep all data secure, you may be in a world of hurt even if there is no security breach.
(2) Backup. The provider has to go through disaster recovery plans and backup tests.
(3) Post-termination rights. After you end the program, the provider has to provide all the e-mail to you in a specified format as well as the necessary expertise and time to help you transition to the next platform. You don't want to be a victim of lock-in.
(4) Post-termination Rights Redux. If the provider goes bankrupt, make it clear that this is not a lease under the federal bankruptcy laws. If the provider files for bankruptcy protection, defaults on its corporate bonds, is delisted from the exchange, or otherwise becomes insolvent, you have the right to immediately terminate the contract and pull the data out.
The Federal Circuit only reversed summary judgment as to obviousness of CSIRO's patents. This means that Buffalo Tech. will have a chance to make its case on that issue alone. You see, based on the silence of the BT press release on the other issues against BT on summary judgment, I would have to conclude that the Federal Circuit upheld those.
I also have to add that the lawsuit is filed in the plaintiff-friendly (to put it softly) E.D. Texas.
You've answered your own question. Unreasonable searches and seizures on innocent people don't result in charges brought against the victim. It's always the criminals who get prosecuted and who need the protection of the Constitution. Also note that the First Amendment is almost always invoked by those we want to censor.
Give me free college just like the African Americans and Latinos and Single Moms and Sudanese and pretty much everyone who isn't a white male/female with no kids
If you were in such dire financial straights as you suggest, college would be free, heavily subsidized, or paid for by low-interest student loans if you applied to a state school, or if you earned a merit scholarship. This is the United States; no matter how racist your world view is (I'll bet you'll say you're not a racist, that you're just telling it the way it is, like how Jews really run the world economy), you aren't supposed to be given anything. So your problem isn't that welfare is wrong but that you're not getting any welfare.
More to the point, you probably just have bad spending habits. You can't spend $100 a month on your cell phone, $50 a month for cable internet, $50 a month for cable, $500 a month for private school for your toddler, $200 a month eating out, and not expect to have more than $200 in your bank account. Really.
The decision was issued by a federal judge, who is appointed for life. That's a pretty sweet gig and I doubt they would be swayed by only money, as the penalty for bribery is very severe.
The long and the short of it is that the decision addressed the University's motion to quash the subpoena. The Judge granted the motion to quash, and allowed the plaintiff to file a more limited subpoena. There was no harm and no foul (aside from legal fees) from the overly-broad initial subpoena.
If there was a violation of law regarding private investigators, that's a matter for the state Attorney General to prosecute. A federal judge cannot enforce state law by himself in a lawsuit involving private individuals. Perhaps the state has an interest in not pursuing the claim that would be frustrated if a federal court asserted a state right (the prerogative to enforce its own laws) on the state's behalf.
You may be surprised to know that illegally-obtained evidence can be used in civil trials. The evidence can be admitted, and it's up to the defendants to file counterclaims for the violation of laws. That's when the state AG will get involved, hopefully, and make the RIAA machine responsible for its illegal investigators.
The decision was limited to a very narrow issue regarding a subpoena. RIAA made admissions that limited the scope of the subpoena. The judge found the reduced scope acceptable, so he dismissed the initial subpoena and invited RIAA to file a subpoena of proper scope.
The University is moving to quash the subpoena; it is not a party to the action. As such, I don't believe that it has standing to make a motion regarding the substance of the litigation itself. In short, the University is watching out for its own interests, but that's because the rules prevent it from watching out for the interests of others.
The title of the article discussed a motion to dismiss. The article itself was slashdotted, but a motion to dismiss only means that the lawsuit is allowed to continue. The holding only means that the complaint states a legally-cognizable cause of action, and does not address the substantive merits of the plaintiffs' (as it was a class action) case aside from that.
I would like to know if this was filed under the federal antitrust statutes or the California antitrust laws. If it is the former, than the decision would have national implications and Apple may lose significant amounts of money if it is found liable of anti-competitive conduct.
Moreover, if the contract between Apple and AT&T Mobile is ruled in violation of law, does AT&T owe Apple money anyway, or are they just going to sue each other? This will be fun to see.
It is entirely possible that the Slashdot editor thought that this was a real newsclip. Isn't that sadder than if they thought that this was funny to post?