I would like that very much.... I suppose the suits would have to be of concern to PJ though.
I'm just saying.... I have no idea if PJ has any interest in Sony's suits.
They're a lot less important to the OSS community, anyways.
It's probably tough to find suits to cover that info will be available upon, that the whole OSS / Linux community cares a great deal about, that are likely to be fought to the bitter end like SCO was.
SCO went on for a long time.... I suspect most suits would be settled much earlier; with terms sealed from the public eye as condition of settlement
Your use of the word "generally" means that it isn't always given out. What should those patients do?
I use the word 'generally' only because it is possible the pharmacist could fail to perform their duties properly.
If the patient does not receive the pertinent information, then FDA regulations are being violated.
The FDA publishes the information as well, and the patient could visit the proper government website on their own; or google search the medicine, and find things like the Slashdot article.
(a)Highlights of prescribing information . The following information must appear in all prescription drug labeling:
[...]
(10)Warnings and precautions . A concise summary of the most clinically significant information required under paragraph (c)(6) of this section, with any appropriate subheadings, including information that would affect decisions about whether to prescribe a drug, recommendations for patient monitoring that are critical to safe use of the drug, and measures that can be taken to prevent or mitigate harm. [...]
(11)Adverse reactions . (i) A list of the most frequently occurring adverse reactions, as described in paragraph (c)(7) of this section, along with the criteria used to determine inclusion (e.g., incidence rate). Adverse reactions important for other reasons (e.g., because they are serious or frequently lead to discontinuation or dosage adjustment) must not be repeated under this heading in Highlights if they are included elsewhere in Highlights (e.g., Warnings and Precautions, Contraindications).
Merck has reportedly been tipped off numerous times by patients and doctors over the past 10 years and has not acted. Moreover, the drug has shipped in Europe with a persistent sexual side effects warning since 2008 due to pressure from regulators there.
Well a "tip" is not a study and persistent != permanent. Patients can report things all the time.... just because they became impotent does not mean Merck's drug likely caused or is suspected of causing the impotence. Hair loss is expected to be strongly correlated with impotence as it is, because hair loss tends to come with age, and impotence tends to come with age.
Merck could probably ignore those 'tips' with no negligence on their part.
And I sure hope the researchers who conducted this study controlled for age, otherwise.... it's possible Merck might ultimately be able to scientifically show the Boston Researchers were wrong.
Hint: Just because one study says something, doesn't mean that thing is true.
Correlating Merck's drug to permanent erectile dysfunction in one study in no way proves that Merck's drug was the cause.
Right, and in this case the patients weren't warned of the risk of irreversible impotence, only reversible impotence that was supposed to go away after they stopped taking the drug. They weren't in any position to weigh up the real risks and benefits, and have every right to sue the pharmaceutical company for that.
No, they don't have every right to sue the pharma company.
Unless they can prove also that the pharmaceutical company knew about the problem and intentionally hid the information.
If you read the description label and it lists impotence as a side effect, temporary or otherwise, you don't take that drug,
unless you are happy to be permanently impotent.
You don't take a drug, unless you read all the side effects and are willing to accept the risk you may temporarily or permanently have one or more of those side effects; even if the effect in the study was believed to be temporary.
All drugs have both known risks and unknown risks.
Risks that could not be fully discovered by the studies involved in FDA approval.
You're still better off than going out in nature and ingesting random plant parts, or going to a medicine man and getting some random concoction as a cure, that will invariably contain something such as Peryote
Just because they're older/don't want to be raising children, doesn't mean they are not sexually active (eg recreational sex)
The drug's linked to erectile dysfunction and loss of libido.
If the user specifically accepts that is a side effect after being properly informed, then fine.
Otherwise, yes, they should be contemplating some action against the person who recommended the drug and wrote them the prescription
without warning.
Although in all fairness.... they cannot claim innocence. They should have read the drug's information sheet as generally provided by the pharmacist.
Just because you think you know what the drug is, and you talked with your doctor about it, does not relieve you of reading the information sheet about the drug, including its side effects, and usage instructions (such as what drugs _not_ to take at the same time).
Every drug has to be a miracle cure, with no ill effects or risks (discovered or undiscovered)
Or someone's going to get sued.
Seems to me the deck's stacked against the drug companies... now...
Is it worth it to continue work on cancer curing drugs, when you're just going to get sued over them -- because they're less than 100%
effective, or because they make people look fat or reduce sexual performance and people hate looking fat and hate lower sexual performance?
If the treatment of the drug is important to you, you will take it, in exchange for the risks (both known and unknown risks).
If it's not you won't.
In a sane country, the drug companies would be safe from being sued unless there was actual misconduct on their part that you could prove, such as falsifying results of their study, or telling a known lie to the FDA in approval process, or in their advertising -- for example, representing a product as FDA approved if it was not actually approved.
critically important data to a special compression device my computer came with, called "/dev/null", and it still hasn't filled up.
Perhaps it hasn't filled up.... and the compression algorithm is extremely efficient.
But have you tried decompressing and reading back the data?
I find that the decompression is far less efficient -- it tends to take longer to decompress the data than it would take to go about trying to produce the data all over again.
I'm not sure what to make of this loon..... the quote that is taken from the video never says he'll have anything to do with bullets.
He may be in some mind-altered state where he thinks he's warning people of something, some sick joke, or using hyperbole --
in any of those cases it wouldn't be a crime.
I think he needs to get booked into a nice mental hospital, not a jail cell...
"receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations."...
"Leaders you will perish" and " I control your jets your missiles, I control everything."
In yet another video, Leboon seems to threaten Obama..... "Your punishment is coming, the swine, it will be severe, and you will beg for mercy to your god. It will be severe, you will know god's swine, god has warned you."
Noted he never said anything about the bullets being shot from a gun.
Someone actually threatening harm will actually make a statement that they would cause harm to happen....
otherwise, what they're doing is something different than sending a 'threat'
The only difference here is that you're no longer in control of the effective authorized_hosts file, Dropbox is. Yes, they should regenerate the key every time you change your password.
How would you feel as an Ubuntu developer if someone wrote a blog article declaring that Ubuntu is insecure by design, because the "passwd" command does not automatically delete any authorized_keys files for the target user, when the password is changed?
Wrong. You are in control of it. No Dropbox should not forcibly change the key (and force you to disconnect all your computers), just because you changed your login credentials.
However, I feel it could be beneficial for them to offer you a 'checkbox' enabling you to do so with a password change, as a convenience.
If you want to disconnect all your old systems, you can do so very easily through the web interface.
Accordingly, the original article states:
After some testing (modification of data within the config table, etc) it became clear that the Dropbox client uses only the host_id to authenticate. Here’s the problem: the config.db file is completely portable and is *not* tied to the system in any way. This means that if you gain access to a person’s config.db file (or just the host_id), you gain complete access to the person’s Dropbox until such time that the person removes the host from the list of linked devices via the Dropbox web interface.
I always assumed they were using an S3 backend, in which case it'd be the S3 public/secret key combination that wasn't being updated.
No. I believe they are using an S3 backend, but your computer doesn't touch it --- your computer talks to Dropbox's computers, and only Dropbox's computers have any S3 keys.
Otherwise, you would have to signup for an Amazon AWS account to use Dropbox, and that's not happening
Personally, I would be much happier if they did allow you to use your own S3 account... then you could download the software yourself (for a one-time-fee), and then pay only Amazon, and the only ongoing service is the storage, not a third-provider middleman like Dropbox that charges many more times a month than the equivalent cost for Amazon S3 services.
The OP is bullshit. If you can't bother yourself to read the docs and understand that you need to unlink a computer to disconnect it, then it's user error.
Just because Dropbox doesn't conform to someone's ID that a "change of password" should inconveniently force the user to manually go to each of their computers and set it up all over again, does not mean that Dropbox is insecure.
Now, if the computers you set Dropbox up on are in secure, that's a whole different story, and not Dropbox's fault.
.. SMS messages are not like standard data.. while the payload might be 160 bytes of text, the overhead and the delivery mechanism involved is much different than your average TCP session.
No... they're not like standard data. They're more like the overhead involved in connecting a phone call.
When was the last time you saw a mobile carrier charging you $0.10 or $0.20 per mobile-to-mobile call to connect the call?
Oh right... they don't... because it costs less than $0.01 per call to do that; you could make 100 calls in a day, and they probably won't care.
Now calls you make to subscribers of other telephone companies, meaning the provider of the person you called gets to collect the few-cents per-call fee for terminating the call (Carrier Access Billing), might be a problem.
I wouldn't claim an individual SMS messages is as cheap for the carrier as an IP packet.
It may have more parity with the cost of transmitting an e-mail message through a mail server.
"15 million SMS to one mobile" is totally unrealistic -- it would hurt the MSC just in the same manner as it would
hurt a mail server if a user suddenly sent 15 million e-mails..... I believe the term for that is called spamming
So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?
GWB brought us full body scans, cavity searches, and no liquids allowed on planes.
BHO put the National Broadband Plan in the stimulus.
GWB sent billions overseas for Iraq.
Not to be outdone, BHO burned trillions at home
GWB brought us a $1.3 trillion tax cut against a surplus.
Not to be outdone, BHO brought us a stimulus with $1 Trillion/year extra in spending against a massive deficit.
GWB increased the GDP 2.5%
Not to be outdone, BHO decreased the GDP 3%, and is still trying as hard as possible to reduce it further.
GWB increased funding for the NSF
BHO ended federal loan subsidies for students, and turned GWB's checks to the education programs into NSF checks.
GWB championed No Child Left Behind
BHO is in the process of aborting the No child left behind (and already providing Federal funding for abortions through the Health Care Act)
GWB brought us the Medicare drug program.
BHO castrated Medicare, by defunding Medicare Advantage programs.
GWB tried to save social security.
BHO quietly tried to destroy social security and is succeeding -- through overspending, due to social security's nature of exclusively investing by buying the government's debt at low interest rates, while the treasury notes are all set to lose so much value interest rates will be at 50% or higher before end of BHO's term.
GWB protected us from the Kyoto protocol by not signing it. GWB tried to introduce the Clear Skies act, and carbon credits to the clean air act, to help reduce emissions.
BHO signed the START treaty, protecting us from ever proceeding with the missile defense projects. BHO will get the carbon credits act passed, it's only a matter of time; the repubs want to cut spending, and BHO can use that as a bargaining chip to get his carbon credits act, again outdoing GWB.
GWB promised us to reduce foreign oil dependance by reducing fossil fuel usage, and promoting alternate fuels.
BHO reduced foreign oil dependance by through economic policy assuring we will have >$10/gallon gas within a year.
GWB committed $2 billion to an international fund for promoting clean energy.
BHO brought us a stimulus with tens of billions for credits to support clean energy.
GWB banned creation/destruction of embryos for use of stem cell research.
Not to be outdone, BHO annulled GWB's ban and vowed to come up with his own rules,
probably something about only using stem cells in environmentally-friendly non-profitable ways.
GWB pushed for allowing illegal immigrants to work freely in the US and pushed for expansion of guest worker programs.
BHO sponsored an Immigration reform act; no doubt he still has plenty of time left in his presidency to still outdo GWB and complete the full amnesty, legalization, tax forgiveness, and the provision of entitlement programs and other special perks for all the illegals (such as a stipend
to compensate the illegals for all their troubles and hassles with border agents, esp. related to injuries, past attempts, time and energy,
pain and suffering, etc).
GWB saw Katrina, a horrible natural disaster, and his administration did a job with it that was perceived as horrible and became widely mocked.
BHO saw the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill occur, and skillfully, in his efforts to outdo GWB managed to handle matters even worse than GWB,
raising to an entirely new level of incompetence.
GWB adopted policies of supporting stronger economic relationships with Latin America, and other regions of the world.
BHO not to be outdone, visited all the countries of the world and personally apologized for "US Arrogance" and the US failing to share the wealth.
Hundreds of trillions are to be authorized to 'share the wealth'.
The US has a lot, and needs to pay its fair share, to help redistribute the wealth to those that need it, BHO did more to bring that a
If you read history.... last time states got together and tried to declare they had some rights, there was a civil war.
And the tyrannical central government in the north won that war.
Ever since then, states have been completely enslaved to the US gov't; as mere faint images of their former selves.
Any "rights" you see or think states have over the US gov't today, are quite illusory, because they were smashed with bullets and swords.
It would be like arguing today that Britain has no right to continue laying these obscene taxes on us without representation......
the colonies having lost the revolution, and Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Edison, etc, executed as traitors, the lightbulb never invented,
and Nikola Tesla burned as a witch for trying to experiment with this "electricity" stuff... dark magic.
Actually, Use Tax is applicable to products purchased out of state when no sales tax was collected
Yes. States put those statutes on the books. Does not mean they are constitutional, however.
There is a problem if any state finds itself attempting to tax interstate commerce.
The constitution doesn't say "States may tax interstate commerce, as long as the tax is laid against the person who lives in the state"
If the tax is based on the number of dollars that were exchanged in interstate commerce than the state IS (illegally) attempting to tax the transaction.
If they were just laying a tax based on the 'fair market value' of using or storing an item in the state, without regard to the transaction, that would be a different matter entirely, but waiving the use tax for people who pay sales tax is prima facie that the 'use tax' is actually a commerce tax, prohibited by the US constitution.
And as long as Amazon keeps its presence out of those states, they'll keep winning - there's no way to enforce a judgement against them, even in a court ruled that the state had standing to sue them.
I suppose to enforce judgement, they could get a court order that Fedex, UPS, and the US Post Office redirect all parcels entering the state From Amazon to the courthouse.
Then the state could seize the goods, and auction them off in attempt to cover Amazon's "debt"
Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost. Besides, if they actively negotiate with these states they may find a solution acceptable to those states, that actually does not sting as bad as expected. And, anyways, many other e-tailers collect those taxes and still manage to prosper.
Corporations have to place their survival/earnings for shareholders first and foremost; their management is legally required to do so.
If the states were willing to negotiate, possibly they could come up with a fair tax rate such as 0.5% split between all states, that reflects e-tailers do not require use of their states' infrastructure to sell products, especially services (such as digital music, eBooks),
and shipping is already taxed through fuel and vehicle taxes.
None of the "other e-tailers" prospering are really comparable to Amazon.
You have companies like Dell that "make" their own products... you have companies like Apple that have physical stores,
and nobody can compete with them on price, because they have a unique product.
Most other "e-tailers" are not that successful.
The fact you can point to a few examples, does not mean there is any chance Amazon would even survive, doing what the states really want.
DDoS accomplishes nothing and makes those who support hacking consoles look like criminals. This is just more ammunition for Sony to use in court.
No. This is totally irrelevant to the case before the court, unless they can show involvement by the plaintiff.
The court does not and cannot legally weigh the "DDoS" occurring against Sony in any way, positive or negative.
Courts are only allowed to consider relevant matters such as the law/findings of law, and the facts of the case.
Even if the president got on public TV chastizing the PS3 hackers, the court could not consider that.
However... the DDoS is definitely illegal and barbaric.
That is not how Justice works in a civilized society.
If you are harmed by Sony's actions, then do the legal thing and take them to court,
or organize a boycott, protests, or other legal demonstrations against Sony.
DoS and hack attacks of any sort against Sony's network (without Sony's written permission) are illegal.
And Sony should vigorously pursue the criminals performing network attacks against them, regardless of the underlying motivation, the internet will be a better place if the cowardly vigilantes who don't respect the law, justice, or the civil process, are themselves brought to answer for the crimes.
Perhaps. But then Bing would implement their own version of autocomplete that simply filters out potentially libellous suggestions somehow and offer this as a feature not provided by Google in Italy.
At which point Google could do the same and still provide the warning Some of the autocomplete choices have been suppressed because....
However, if they did this only in Italy, they could be putting themselves at risk for action in other countries, as could bing.
If they want to be safe, and want to censor autocomplete results, then they will need to do so in any country they might be sued successfully; if there's a chance the plaintiff could point to "censorship of possibly libellious" suggestions in Italy as proof that Google could mitigate damage and did not.
One thing, at least "conceal/carry" isn't an issue for these people. You don't have to be worried about a naked man pulling a gun on you.
Nevertheless; I am sure they will still have to go through the full body scanner or enhanced pat-down at the airport.
Rules are rules.
Also.... they might not be wearing clothing about their body, but they have to have some way of carrying their personal belongings.. such as some bags, or something, so they can have their keys, money, and ID on them.....
No doubt it would be easy to conceal a firearm in their ID/key/moneybag.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like that very much.... I suppose the suits would have to be of concern to PJ though. I'm just saying.... I have no idea if PJ has any interest in Sony's suits.
They're a lot less important to the OSS community, anyways.
It's probably tough to find suits to cover that info will be available upon, that the whole OSS / Linux community cares a great deal about, that are likely to be fought to the bitter end like SCO was.
SCO went on for a long time.... I suspect most suits would be settled much earlier; with terms sealed from the public eye as condition of settlement
Your use of the word "generally" means that it isn't always given out. What should those patients do?
I use the word 'generally' only because it is possible the pharmacist could fail to perform their duties properly. If the patient does not receive the pertinent information, then FDA regulations are being violated. The FDA publishes the information as well, and the patient could visit the proper government website on their own; or google search the medicine, and find things like the Slashdot article.
Specifically CFR21:
Merck has reportedly been tipped off numerous times by patients and doctors over the past 10 years and has not acted. Moreover, the drug has shipped in Europe with a persistent sexual side effects warning since 2008 due to pressure from regulators there.
Well a "tip" is not a study and persistent != permanent. Patients can report things all the time.... just because they became impotent does not mean Merck's drug likely caused or is suspected of causing the impotence. Hair loss is expected to be strongly correlated with impotence as it is, because hair loss tends to come with age, and impotence tends to come with age.
Merck could probably ignore those 'tips' with no negligence on their part.
And I sure hope the researchers who conducted this study controlled for age, otherwise.... it's possible Merck might ultimately be able to scientifically show the Boston Researchers were wrong.
Hint: Just because one study says something, doesn't mean that thing is true. Correlating Merck's drug to permanent erectile dysfunction in one study in no way proves that Merck's drug was the cause.
Right, and in this case the patients weren't warned of the risk of irreversible impotence, only reversible impotence that was supposed to go away after they stopped taking the drug. They weren't in any position to weigh up the real risks and benefits, and have every right to sue the pharmaceutical company for that.
No, they don't have every right to sue the pharma company. Unless they can prove also that the pharmaceutical company knew about the problem and intentionally hid the information.
If you read the description label and it lists impotence as a side effect, temporary or otherwise, you don't take that drug, unless you are happy to be permanently impotent.
You don't take a drug, unless you read all the side effects and are willing to accept the risk you may temporarily or permanently have one or more of those side effects; even if the effect in the study was believed to be temporary.
All drugs have both known risks and unknown risks. Risks that could not be fully discovered by the studies involved in FDA approval.
You're still better off than going out in nature and ingesting random plant parts, or going to a medicine man and getting some random concoction as a cure, that will invariably contain something such as Peryote
Whether a drug is worth the risk for the benefits should be up to the PATIENT, not some damned ambulance chaser!
+1
100% agreed.
Truly, there are waaaaay more old men with wood than pervs who want them. Though I suppose it's a boon to the sex workers.
Ahh..... think Merck's going to get a class action suit against them from sex workers over lost revenues?
Just because they're older/don't want to be raising children, doesn't mean they are not sexually active (eg recreational sex)
The drug's linked to erectile dysfunction and loss of libido. If the user specifically accepts that is a side effect after being properly informed, then fine.
Otherwise, yes, they should be contemplating some action against the person who recommended the drug and wrote them the prescription without warning.
Although in all fairness.... they cannot claim innocence. They should have read the drug's information sheet as generally provided by the pharmacist. Just because you think you know what the drug is, and you talked with your doctor about it, does not relieve you of reading the information sheet about the drug, including its side effects, and usage instructions (such as what drugs _not_ to take at the same time).
Every drug has to be a miracle cure, with no ill effects or risks (discovered or undiscovered)
Or someone's going to get sued.
Seems to me the deck's stacked against the drug companies... now...
Is it worth it to continue work on cancer curing drugs, when you're just going to get sued over them -- because they're less than 100% effective, or because they make people look fat or reduce sexual performance and people hate looking fat and hate lower sexual performance?
If the treatment of the drug is important to you, you will take it, in exchange for the risks (both known and unknown risks). If it's not you won't.
In a sane country, the drug companies would be safe from being sued unless there was actual misconduct on their part that you could prove, such as falsifying results of their study, or telling a known lie to the FDA in approval process, or in their advertising -- for example, representing a product as FDA approved if it was not actually approved.
critically important data to a special compression device my computer came with, called "/dev/null", and it still hasn't filled up.
Perhaps it hasn't filled up.... and the compression algorithm is extremely efficient. But have you tried decompressing and reading back the data?
I find that the decompression is far less efficient -- it tends to take longer to decompress the data than it would take to go about trying to produce the data all over again.
I'm not sure what to make of this loon..... the quote that is taken from the video never says he'll have anything to do with bullets. He may be in some mind-altered state where he thinks he's warning people of something, some sick joke, or using hyperbole -- in any of those cases it wouldn't be a crime. I think he needs to get booked into a nice mental hospital, not a jail cell...
"receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations." ...
"Leaders you will perish" and " I control your jets your missiles, I control everything."
.... "Your punishment is coming, the swine, it will be severe, and you will beg for mercy to your god. It will be severe, you will know god's swine, god has warned you."
In yet another video, Leboon seems to threaten Obama.
Noted he never said anything about the bullets being shot from a gun. Someone actually threatening harm will actually make a statement that they would cause harm to happen.... otherwise, what they're doing is something different than sending a 'threat'
The only difference here is that you're no longer in control of the effective authorized_hosts file, Dropbox is. Yes, they should regenerate the key every time you change your password.
How would you feel as an Ubuntu developer if someone wrote a blog article declaring that Ubuntu is insecure by design, because the "passwd" command does not automatically delete any authorized_keys files for the target user, when the password is changed?
Wrong. You are in control of it. No Dropbox should not forcibly change the key (and force you to disconnect all your computers), just because you changed your login credentials.
However, I feel it could be beneficial for them to offer you a 'checkbox' enabling you to do so with a password change, as a convenience.
If you want to disconnect all your old systems, you can do so very easily through the web interface.
Accordingly, the original article states:
I always assumed they were using an S3 backend, in which case it'd be the S3 public/secret key combination that wasn't being updated.
No. I believe they are using an S3 backend, but your computer doesn't touch it --- your computer talks to Dropbox's computers, and only Dropbox's computers have any S3 keys.
Otherwise, you would have to signup for an Amazon AWS account to use Dropbox, and that's not happening
Personally, I would be much happier if they did allow you to use your own S3 account... then you could download the software yourself (for a one-time-fee), and then pay only Amazon, and the only ongoing service is the storage, not a third-provider middleman like Dropbox that charges many more times a month than the equivalent cost for Amazon S3 services.
Login.
Go to https://www.dropbox.com/account#manage
Click 'unlink' computer.
The OP is bullshit. If you can't bother yourself to read the docs and understand that you need to unlink a computer to disconnect it, then it's user error.
Just because Dropbox doesn't conform to someone's ID that a "change of password" should inconveniently force the user to manually go to each of their computers and set it up all over again, does not mean that Dropbox is insecure.
Now, if the computers you set Dropbox up on are in secure, that's a whole different story, and not Dropbox's fault.
No... they're not like standard data. They're more like the overhead involved in connecting a phone call.
When was the last time you saw a mobile carrier charging you $0.10 or $0.20 per mobile-to-mobile call to connect the call? Oh right... they don't... because it costs less than $0.01 per call to do that; you could make 100 calls in a day, and they probably won't care. Now calls you make to subscribers of other telephone companies, meaning the provider of the person you called gets to collect the few-cents per-call fee for terminating the call (Carrier Access Billing), might be a problem.
I wouldn't claim an individual SMS messages is as cheap for the carrier as an IP packet.
It may have more parity with the cost of transmitting an e-mail message through a mail server.
"15 million SMS to one mobile" is totally unrealistic -- it would hurt the MSC just in the same manner as it would hurt a mail server if a user suddenly sent 15 million e-mails..... I believe the term for that is called spamming
So, exactly how is BHO "head and shoulders above GWB"?
GWB brought us full body scans, cavity searches, and no liquids allowed on planes.
BHO put the National Broadband Plan in the stimulus.
GWB sent billions overseas for Iraq.
Not to be outdone, BHO burned trillions at home
GWB brought us a $1.3 trillion tax cut against a surplus.
Not to be outdone, BHO brought us a stimulus with $1 Trillion/year extra in spending against a massive deficit.
GWB increased the GDP 2.5%
Not to be outdone, BHO decreased the GDP 3%, and is still trying as hard as possible to reduce it further.
GWB increased funding for the NSF
BHO ended federal loan subsidies for students, and turned GWB's checks to the education programs into NSF checks.
GWB championed No Child Left Behind
BHO is in the process of aborting the No child left behind (and already providing Federal funding for abortions through the Health Care Act)
GWB brought us the Medicare drug program.
BHO castrated Medicare, by defunding Medicare Advantage programs.
GWB tried to save social security.
BHO quietly tried to destroy social security and is succeeding -- through overspending, due to social security's nature of exclusively investing by buying the government's debt at low interest rates, while the treasury notes are all set to lose so much value interest rates will be at 50% or higher before end of BHO's term.
GWB protected us from the Kyoto protocol by not signing it. GWB tried to introduce the Clear Skies act, and carbon credits to the clean air act, to help reduce emissions.
BHO signed the START treaty, protecting us from ever proceeding with the missile defense projects. BHO will get the carbon credits act passed, it's only a matter of time; the repubs want to cut spending, and BHO can use that as a bargaining chip to get his carbon credits act, again outdoing GWB.
GWB promised us to reduce foreign oil dependance by reducing fossil fuel usage, and promoting alternate fuels.
BHO reduced foreign oil dependance by through economic policy assuring we will have >$10/gallon gas within a year.
GWB committed $2 billion to an international fund for promoting clean energy.
BHO brought us a stimulus with tens of billions for credits to support clean energy.
GWB banned creation/destruction of embryos for use of stem cell research.
Not to be outdone, BHO annulled GWB's ban and vowed to come up with his own rules, probably something about only using stem cells in environmentally-friendly non-profitable ways.
GWB pushed for allowing illegal immigrants to work freely in the US and pushed for expansion of guest worker programs.
BHO sponsored an Immigration reform act; no doubt he still has plenty of time left in his presidency to still outdo GWB and complete the full amnesty, legalization, tax forgiveness, and the provision of entitlement programs and other special perks for all the illegals (such as a stipend to compensate the illegals for all their troubles and hassles with border agents, esp. related to injuries, past attempts, time and energy, pain and suffering, etc).
GWB saw Katrina, a horrible natural disaster, and his administration did a job with it that was perceived as horrible and became widely mocked.
BHO saw the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill occur, and skillfully, in his efforts to outdo GWB managed to handle matters even worse than GWB, raising to an entirely new level of incompetence.
GWB adopted policies of supporting stronger economic relationships with Latin America, and other regions of the world.
BHO not to be outdone, visited all the countries of the world and personally apologized for "US Arrogance" and the US failing to share the wealth. Hundreds of trillions are to be authorized to 'share the wealth'.
The US has a lot, and needs to pay its fair share, to help redistribute the wealth to those that need it, BHO did more to bring that a
STATES RIIIIGHTS!!!!! Deeeeeerp!
If you read history.... last time states got together and tried to declare they had some rights, there was a civil war. And the tyrannical central government in the north won that war.
Ever since then, states have been completely enslaved to the US gov't; as mere faint images of their former selves. Any "rights" you see or think states have over the US gov't today, are quite illusory, because they were smashed with bullets and swords.
It would be like arguing today that Britain has no right to continue laying these obscene taxes on us without representation...... the colonies having lost the revolution, and Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Edison, etc, executed as traitors, the lightbulb never invented, and Nikola Tesla burned as a witch for trying to experiment with this "electricity" stuff... dark magic.
Actually, Use Tax is applicable to products purchased out of state when no sales tax was collected
Yes. States put those statutes on the books. Does not mean they are constitutional, however.
There is a problem if any state finds itself attempting to tax interstate commerce. The constitution doesn't say "States may tax interstate commerce, as long as the tax is laid against the person who lives in the state"
If the tax is based on the number of dollars that were exchanged in interstate commerce than the state IS (illegally) attempting to tax the transaction.
If they were just laying a tax based on the 'fair market value' of using or storing an item in the state, without regard to the transaction, that would be a different matter entirely, but waiving the use tax for people who pay sales tax is prima facie that the 'use tax' is actually a commerce tax, prohibited by the US constitution.
And as long as Amazon keeps its presence out of those states, they'll keep winning - there's no way to enforce a judgement against them, even in a court ruled that the state had standing to sue them.
I suppose to enforce judgement, they could get a court order that Fedex, UPS, and the US Post Office redirect all parcels entering the state From Amazon to the courthouse.
Then the state could seize the goods, and auction them off in attempt to cover Amazon's "debt"
Being "reputable" means not always placing your profit interests first and foremost. Besides, if they actively negotiate with these states they may find a solution acceptable to those states, that actually does not sting as bad as expected. And, anyways, many other e-tailers collect those taxes and still manage to prosper.
Corporations have to place their survival/earnings for shareholders first and foremost; their management is legally required to do so. If the states were willing to negotiate, possibly they could come up with a fair tax rate such as 0.5% split between all states, that reflects e-tailers do not require use of their states' infrastructure to sell products, especially services (such as digital music, eBooks), and shipping is already taxed through fuel and vehicle taxes.
None of the "other e-tailers" prospering are really comparable to Amazon.
You have companies like Dell that "make" their own products... you have companies like Apple that have physical stores, and nobody can compete with them on price, because they have a unique product.
Most other "e-tailers" are not that successful. The fact you can point to a few examples, does not mean there is any chance Amazon would even survive, doing what the states really want.
DDoS accomplishes nothing and makes those who support hacking consoles look like criminals. This is just more ammunition for Sony to use in court.
No. This is totally irrelevant to the case before the court, unless they can show involvement by the plaintiff. The court does not and cannot legally weigh the "DDoS" occurring against Sony in any way, positive or negative. Courts are only allowed to consider relevant matters such as the law/findings of law, and the facts of the case. Even if the president got on public TV chastizing the PS3 hackers, the court could not consider that.
However... the DDoS is definitely illegal and barbaric. That is not how Justice works in a civilized society.
If you are harmed by Sony's actions, then do the legal thing and take them to court, or organize a boycott, protests, or other legal demonstrations against Sony.
DoS and hack attacks of any sort against Sony's network (without Sony's written permission) are illegal. And Sony should vigorously pursue the criminals performing network attacks against them, regardless of the underlying motivation, the internet will be a better place if the cowardly vigilantes who don't respect the law, justice, or the civil process, are themselves brought to answer for the crimes.
Unless we figure out something that allows us to beat light speed even the nearest star is 4 years + away.
You know what they say... "If you can't beat them, join them"
There may be a closer star that has formed that you cannot see from earth right now, because its light has not yet reached earth <EG>
Perhaps. But then Bing would implement their own version of autocomplete that simply filters out potentially libellous suggestions somehow and offer this as a feature not provided by Google in Italy.
At which point Google could do the same and still provide the warning Some of the autocomplete choices have been suppressed because....
However, if they did this only in Italy, they could be putting themselves at risk for action in other countries, as could bing.
If they want to be safe, and want to censor autocomplete results, then they will need to do so in any country they might be sued successfully; if there's a chance the plaintiff could point to "censorship of possibly libellious" suggestions in Italy as proof that Google could mitigate damage and did not.
I'm positive I typed it... <paranoia>did slashdot eat part of my sentence? I wonder.... </paranoia>
Now if they would just get into areas politicians really care about... like patents for ways to expand bureaucracy/taxation/government spending.
Now, please excuse me, while I finish off the patent application for my new invention.
Method of reducing a national debt by printing additional currency, and tendering newly printed currency to debtors
One thing, at least "conceal/carry" isn't an issue for these people. You don't have to be worried about a naked man pulling a gun on you.
Nevertheless; I am sure they will still have to go through the full body scanner or enhanced pat-down at the airport. Rules are rules.
Also.... they might not be wearing clothing about their body, but they have to have some way of carrying their personal belongings.. such as some bags, or something, so they can have their keys, money, and ID on them.....
No doubt it would be easy to conceal a firearm in their ID/key/moneybag.