The argument is that this looks an awful lot like Congress saying that you can be taxed on the water that you use on your lawn, but not the water you drink. It's the same water, how could you tell either way?
Well I do think its rational that a legislature could look to the use of a product rather than the means the product utilizes to effect that use. For example, in your analogy, wouldn't it make sense for a legislature to say "clean, cheap drinking water is a right...let's put as few restrictions on water put to that use as we can". Another example might be the fact that in a lot of places trucks have to pay more tolls than cars.
You looking at this the wrong way, this isn't about rational laws, this is about states seeing a decline in revenue due to people giving up their (taxed)landlines for VOIP(currently untaxed). So to keep the state coffers full, we slip in an exemption for VOIP so states can keep collecting money on phone service.
Ummm...if that's the goal, then how is that law not "rational"? Seems a pretty rational way of approaching things.
Are those the same thousands of climatologists that were proping up the Ozone Hole issue? Give a lab enough money to find the results you want, and they'll find a way to get them.
Ummm, there is a hole in the ozone layer. You can tell, because you fly a plane up there and measure how much ozone there is.
And the idea that labs come up with the results for "the money" is hilarious. Any climatologist would make a lot more money by shilling for the oil companies. The fact that they continue to live on low salaries and research budgets, rather than sell out their expertise for more money, is just further evidence that what they're saying is correct.
If someone spends 10 minutes researching the issue, instead of eating the cornbread and drinking the kool-aid, we'd have a lot of people asking questions that need to be asked.
Hmmmm, let's see the teams:
Believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature:Thousands of highly trained climatologists who have spent their entire professional careers researching the subject.
Don't believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature: You, who have no training and have apparently spent 10 minutes researching the issue.
Eh, her lawyers might have been able to successfully argue that she shouldn't be on the stand, and if she was the plaintiff was not allowed to ask her whether she actually did these things. Fifth Amendment protection extends to civil cases.
Couldn't Linux companies sue MS claiming that Balmer's statements are harming their business, especially in light of the fact that MS refuses to identify these patents?
In a lot of jurisdictions there's a civil claim for "tortious interference with business relationships", which I think this may fall under.
But even the second way runs into a point where you can't make the other side spend more money. If you're paying $10 million a year for a legal team, they're going to be able to handle just about anything that gets thrown at them. Just because someone is spending $30 million a year to go against you doesn't mean they have three times the legal clout. I mean, theoretically you could have 50 attorneys working 12 hours a day to write frivolous motions to file in court, but the nature of the system means that one judge (or magistrate) will have to read all of them, and I guarantee you he or she won't be happy with you for doing that.
Additionally, in a lot of cases you can get attorneys fees at the end (and in Red Hat's case, there are a few civil claims they can launch against MS that might get them damages). The simple fact is Red Hat has enough cash reserves to bring the lawsuit to an end.
That doesn't matter. MS has much more money that Redhat and is able to sue them to oblivion even without proof.
Red Hat has enough money to protect itself. A good legal team costs a ridiculous amount of money, but at some point the cost will plateau. Throwing more money at them doesn't get you "better" legal representation.
Exactly, and a good german hotdog absolutely shits all over any american hotdog. Bratwurst, Kranksi, Thurringer, Bockwurst.. When all the americans do, is use a bland version of a vienna. (and German Mustard has so much more flavour than American Mustard.
Bland? Have you tried American hot dogs? I don't mean the generic supermarket bland beef/pork kind, I mean a real one. It's always amazing how Europeans consistently compare the best of their food with the worst of American food.
There's no such thing as an "American mustard". There are a huge selection of different kinds of mustards here, including the German kind.
Did you guess the shit ones ? They were Hamburgers and Hot Dog "Sausages", cusine which is in fact Americas outstanding contribution to the world.
A well-prepared hamburger or hot dog can be quite good. They just don't know how to prepare them where you are.
I mean, pick any pub in the US that has a full-service kitchen, and order a hamburger. You'll usually get a decent-sized, properly cooked (a little pink inside), seasoned hamburger. Do the same in the US and you'll get a charred, golfball-sized lump of meat hidden inside a roll. Casual dining places in England just don't put any effort into what they make. They don't care.
Besides which, a) both hamburger and hot dogs are of German descent, and b) there's plenty of other types of American food that have been exported to other countries. Go into a Mexican restaurant and chances are a substantial portion of the dishes actually arose north of the border.
These days, linux is playing a catch-up game with the UI and its going to be a slow game, but i really dont think its a game MS can win in the long run given their lack on innovation.
But they have won it in the long term. Linux is 15 years old. 15. In computer development time that's an eon. Linux has been around for half the lifetime of personal computers in general, and it still hasn't taken off. Now I've been using linux off and on for about 11 of those years, and while I really do like it, it's lost a lot of the huge lead it had over MS in stability, and performance. It still beats out Windows of course on those fronts, and like you said it even fell behind on UI, but even the advantages it has aren't that huge nowadays.
And honestly, about the innovation part, has linux really been that innovative? It's a clone of a 1970s-era operating system, and most of the "cool" aspects of modern linux were first done somewhere else.
Economy: taxes raises - At least Kennedy recognized that tax cuts increase Treasury coffers while simultaneously strengthen the economy - we have been at record low unemployment rates.
Yet the economy was the strongest it's been in decades under the last democrat president we had.
they speak out of both sides of their mouth; condemning the troops' work why 'claiming' to support them - this is only because of the lessons of how the Baby Boomer generation treated the troops during Vietnam - read: Clinton, Kerry, and their ilk
So when the right wing was criticizing the decision to put U.S. troops in Kosovo and Somalia, they were really criticizing "the troops"? That's fantastic reasoning, so every time you criticize the decision to put U.S. troops somewhere, you're really attacking the troops? And I think it's hilarious you're criticizing the baby boomers and Kerry about how they "treated the troops", considering the baby boomers in general and Kerry specifically were over there fighting the war.
Downsizing: in the 1990's Clinton significantly reduced the size of our standing military, which leads me into the following:
Wow, no one can be that clueless. The cold war had just ended, of course he downsized the size of our standing military. Only a complete lunatic would have done anything else.
Politics and Party: because they lust after Power they will put their Party first - Bill Clinton was a convicted felon, told lies like Scotter Libby, but the Democrats of the then sitting Senate would not stand up for truth, justice, and morality and follow through on the impeachment that had begun in the House of Representatives
Do you know how I can tell you're a nutjob? The way you put Inappropriate Capitalization throughout your Rant.
Oh, and the conspiracy theory talk, like Bill Clinton being a convicted felon.
They won't really fight for what you believe in. You and your values are the last thing on their minds. So, they play to what they believe the middle of the road of America which doesn't believe they way you do (nor I on the whole). So, they continue to fight for the P's: Power and Party via Politics - because playing to the moderates, unlike you and I, is their means of getting into the White House...I'm just glad they won't win.
I think it's sad how you focus on the party rather than actually look at the individuals and make a reasoned, critical analysis of them. You've just been brainwashed by the cable opinion channels, and don't have the strength of will to think for yourself.
Then you do not fall into the mentioned category, and so your comment is a non-sequitur.
I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
My statement was in response to the following sentence of your post: But if you really do not think honesty is important, go ahead and vote for any of the others.
The implication being that only someone who didn't care about honesty would refuse to vote for Ron Paul.
Slashdot Mirror
he'd have laws enstated that would be so draconian that it would keep those who are the best allies for conservation out.
How? The President doesn't enact laws.
The argument is that this looks an awful lot like Congress saying that you can be taxed on the water that you use on your lawn, but not the water you drink. It's the same water, how could you tell either way?
Well I do think its rational that a legislature could look to the use of a product rather than the means the product utilizes to effect that use. For example, in your analogy, wouldn't it make sense for a legislature to say "clean, cheap drinking water is a right...let's put as few restrictions on water put to that use as we can". Another example might be the fact that in a lot of places trucks have to pay more tolls than cars.
You looking at this the wrong way, this isn't about rational laws, this is about states seeing a decline in revenue due to people giving up their (taxed)landlines for VOIP(currently untaxed). So to keep the state coffers full, we slip in an exemption for VOIP so states can keep collecting money on phone service.
Ummm...if that's the goal, then how is that law not "rational"? Seems a pretty rational way of approaching things.
Are those the same thousands of climatologists that were proping up the Ozone Hole issue? Give a lab enough money to find the results you want, and they'll find a way to get them.
Ummm, there is a hole in the ozone layer. You can tell, because you fly a plane up there and measure how much ozone there is.
And the idea that labs come up with the results for "the money" is hilarious. Any climatologist would make a lot more money by shilling for the oil companies. The fact that they continue to live on low salaries and research budgets, rather than sell out their expertise for more money, is just further evidence that what they're saying is correct.
If someone spends 10 minutes researching the issue, instead of eating the cornbread and drinking the kool-aid, we'd have a lot of people asking questions that need to be asked.
Hmmmm, let's see the teams:
Believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature:Thousands of highly trained climatologists who have spent their entire professional careers researching the subject.
Don't believe humanity's activities have increased global temperature: You, who have no training and have apparently spent 10 minutes researching the issue.
Who to believe, who to believe...
Slashdot's threading broke down, as it tends to do in large threads. There is no way for me to see which you were replying to.
Alright I'm not sure what you are talking about. I thought you were referring to the RIAA trial that's the subject of the article.
On what grounds though?
I'm trying to work up the passion to be outraged here, but it's kind of hard to care. This kind of thing happens all the time.
She had to lie.
Eh, her lawyers might have been able to successfully argue that she shouldn't be on the stand, and if she was the plaintiff was not allowed to ask her whether she actually did these things. Fifth Amendment protection extends to civil cases.
Pulling the "INFO" fuse in my GMC Sierra renders OnStar entirely inert.
Did your Sierra sing "Daisy, Daisy" as you did it?
I really hope I'm not in the DMV when time ends.
Couldn't Linux companies sue MS claiming that Balmer's statements are harming their business, especially in light of the fact that MS refuses to identify these patents?
In a lot of jurisdictions there's a civil claim for "tortious interference with business relationships", which I think this may fall under.
But even the second way runs into a point where you can't make the other side spend more money. If you're paying $10 million a year for a legal team, they're going to be able to handle just about anything that gets thrown at them. Just because someone is spending $30 million a year to go against you doesn't mean they have three times the legal clout. I mean, theoretically you could have 50 attorneys working 12 hours a day to write frivolous motions to file in court, but the nature of the system means that one judge (or magistrate) will have to read all of them, and I guarantee you he or she won't be happy with you for doing that.
Additionally, in a lot of cases you can get attorneys fees at the end (and in Red Hat's case, there are a few civil claims they can launch against MS that might get them damages). The simple fact is Red Hat has enough cash reserves to bring the lawsuit to an end.
That doesn't matter. MS has much more money that Redhat and is able to sue them to oblivion even without proof.
Red Hat has enough money to protect itself. A good legal team costs a ridiculous amount of money, but at some point the cost will plateau. Throwing more money at them doesn't get you "better" legal representation.
Exactly, and a good german hotdog absolutely shits all over any american hotdog. Bratwurst, Kranksi, Thurringer, Bockwurst.. When all the americans do, is use a bland version of a vienna. (and German Mustard has so much more flavour than American Mustard.
Bland? Have you tried American hot dogs? I don't mean the generic supermarket bland beef/pork kind, I mean a real one. It's always amazing how Europeans consistently compare the best of their food with the worst of American food.
There's no such thing as an "American mustard". There are a huge selection of different kinds of mustards here, including the German kind.
Do the same in the US and you'll get a charred, golfball-sized lump of meat hidden inside a roll.
Obviously, that should have read "do the same in England."
Did you guess the shit ones ? They were Hamburgers and Hot Dog "Sausages", cusine which is in fact Americas outstanding contribution to the world.
A well-prepared hamburger or hot dog can be quite good. They just don't know how to prepare them where you are.
I mean, pick any pub in the US that has a full-service kitchen, and order a hamburger. You'll usually get a decent-sized, properly cooked (a little pink inside), seasoned hamburger. Do the same in the US and you'll get a charred, golfball-sized lump of meat hidden inside a roll. Casual dining places in England just don't put any effort into what they make. They don't care.
Besides which, a) both hamburger and hot dogs are of German descent, and b) there's plenty of other types of American food that have been exported to other countries. Go into a Mexican restaurant and chances are a substantial portion of the dishes actually arose north of the border.
maybe this goes to show how the neurotic leaders of ages past came to such power.
Like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, or Woody Allen...
Then again, they were optimistic enough to install a parachute recovery system...
They definitely expected it to survive...come on people, we get enough PR spin from companies about their disasters, do we really need to do it here?
These days, linux is playing a catch-up game with the UI and its going to be a slow game, but i really dont think its a game MS can win in the long run given their lack on innovation.
But they have won it in the long term. Linux is 15 years old. 15. In computer development time that's an eon. Linux has been around for half the lifetime of personal computers in general, and it still hasn't taken off. Now I've been using linux off and on for about 11 of those years, and while I really do like it, it's lost a lot of the huge lead it had over MS in stability, and performance. It still beats out Windows of course on those fronts, and like you said it even fell behind on UI, but even the advantages it has aren't that huge nowadays.
And honestly, about the innovation part, has linux really been that innovative? It's a clone of a 1970s-era operating system, and most of the "cool" aspects of modern linux were first done somewhere else.
I'm just gonna post the following each time someone says its the year of desktop Linux:
So you're going to be posting it every year, huh?
Economy: taxes raises - At least Kennedy recognized that tax cuts increase Treasury coffers while simultaneously strengthen the economy - we have been at record low unemployment rates.
Yet the economy was the strongest it's been in decades under the last democrat president we had.
they speak out of both sides of their mouth; condemning the troops' work why 'claiming' to support them - this is only because of the lessons of how the Baby Boomer generation treated the troops during Vietnam - read: Clinton, Kerry, and their ilk
So when the right wing was criticizing the decision to put U.S. troops in Kosovo and Somalia, they were really criticizing "the troops"? That's fantastic reasoning, so every time you criticize the decision to put U.S. troops somewhere, you're really attacking the troops? And I think it's hilarious you're criticizing the baby boomers and Kerry about how they "treated the troops", considering the baby boomers in general and Kerry specifically were over there fighting the war.
Downsizing: in the 1990's Clinton significantly reduced the size of our standing military, which leads me into the following:
Wow, no one can be that clueless. The cold war had just ended, of course he downsized the size of our standing military. Only a complete lunatic would have done anything else.
Politics and Party: because they lust after Power they will put their Party first - Bill Clinton was a convicted felon, told lies like Scotter Libby, but the Democrats of the then sitting Senate would not stand up for truth, justice, and morality and follow through on the impeachment that had begun in the House of Representatives
Do you know how I can tell you're a nutjob? The way you put Inappropriate Capitalization throughout your Rant.
Oh, and the conspiracy theory talk, like Bill Clinton being a convicted felon.
They won't really fight for what you believe in. You and your values are the last thing on their minds. So, they play to what they believe the middle of the road of America which doesn't believe they way you do (nor I on the whole). So, they continue to fight for the P's: Power and Party via Politics - because playing to the moderates, unlike you and I, is their means of getting into the White House...I'm just glad they won't win.
I think it's sad how you focus on the party rather than actually look at the individuals and make a reasoned, critical analysis of them. You've just been brainwashed by the cable opinion channels, and don't have the strength of will to think for yourself.
"I don't have a problem with discrimination as long as I am not the one being discriminated against."
Or, to quote Bender, "This is the worst kind of discrimination! The kind against me."
Then you do not fall into the mentioned category, and so your comment is a non-sequitur.
I don't think that phrase means what you think it means.
My statement was in response to the following sentence of your post:
But if you really do not think honesty is important, go ahead and vote for any of the others.
The implication being that only someone who didn't care about honesty would refuse to vote for Ron Paul.