Well, before you accuse everybody of being stupid...or not as smart as you are, go back and look at what you initially wrote.
You said "I saw this picture..."....well, everybody went to the picture, which had no accompanying text next to the picture, so, taking your exact words, "I saw this picture...", you gave the impression that you were basing your whole comment on the picture alone and not on any accompanying links to Saddam and his daughter. Most people, well, maybe not most, but at least I know there is more to the story with Saddam and his daughter...and his son-in-laws...but that is not the reference you directly made. You insinuated that you were basing your comments on the picture....which seems to be that you were implying that since he is a father, with a seemingly sweet daughter, all this humanizes him in a way to evoke sympathy, despite his past misdeeds... that is what most people inferred from your terse post.
Granted, you elaborated much, much more in your reply post... but sometimes in being too subtle or nuanced in trying to make a point, everything gets lost in the translation... since most reply posters did not "get it", that is not because they are not bright. It is just the original post, more than likely, did not fully convey the real point your were trying to make... your reply post makes much more sense with the added detail...
although, from you comment "America has already ironically outdone Saddam in terms of cruelty. Suddenly Uday and Qusay's torture rooms don't seem nearly as bad compared to the legally sanctioned torture by American operatives that is undoubtedly going on even as I type this."... sounds incorrect. Why not compare Saddam's cruetly to America's or what Uday and Qusay's did in their torture rooms and what allegely the American's have done, and then tell me if they are morally equivalent...
IF anything, the fact that there are Americans fighting for the rights of the detainees and challenging Bush's power, that alone demonstrates that the ideals of America are still intact. In Saddam's Iraq, challenging his authority would get you tortured and maybe killed... due process did not exist.
...just one point though, the original poster made the Hitler picture reference not because he was comparing Saddam to Hitler, but to show how absurd it was for the initial poster who linked to Saddam's picture and based on that picture with his daughter, intimated that he [the parent poster] felt sympathy for Saddam because...why?, because he looks like a caring father?, then based on this sympathy, he asserts that Saddam has suffered enough...blah!...the person in reponse linked to the "Hitler" baby picture, as a sarcastic retort to the idea of sympathy for a dictator based on a picture...hell, everybody looks cute and harmless as a baby or kid....or even hugging their daughter...
and yes, Slashdot posters can do better... Comparing Saddam to Hitler is sensible, but, agreed, Saddam is not exactly like Hitler, most despots and tyrants are not "like" Hitler...but there is definitely some overlap on their madness and murdering ways...
It's interesting that one of Bush's motivations for going to war with Iraq was retaliation for an assassination attempt against Bush's father
How about some proof instead of regurgitation? Even more odd, you make this claim and then start the next paragraph trying to offer an alternative to this claim? So, which is it?
As far as Saddam's "non-compliance", Bush's primary justification for going to war was based on UN Resolution 1441... now, the point you should be making is that Bush based Saddam's violation of 1441 on Intelligence that Iraq still had WMDs/was making WMDs, etc. As we know, dissenting opinions on what the intelligence was actually depicting were Ignored by Bush and the Neocons, perhaps based on the mistake of the "mirror effect" in dealing with Saddam...that being, Bush and Co thought Saddam would act as a rational leader would act if said rational leader's country was being threatened with invasion if he did not comply with some UN resolution... to Bush, Saddam not "coming clean" on his WMD's was his defiance and miscalculation... Bush never seemed to consider that Saddam never actually had WMD because he, Saddam, was trying to maintain the facade of "maybe" possessing WMD's, so that he would look powerful to his people and enemies in his region... instead of Saddam say "just kidding, I never really had WMDs, I only pretended because I wanted to look powerful to my enemies"
regardless, even though Bush & Co. were wrong, in my opinion, to go into Iraq, in the grand scheme of things, Bush and Saddam are not alike as you claim... Bush is not infallible, but he is far from a tyrant or mass murder... intent matters. As much as I dislike Bush and his policies, at the core, he does want peace and freedom for humanity in general...it is just he is misguided on the means to that end, or at the very least, inflexible
Bush's problem is he is like one of the Kings from Lord of Rings, with the Ring being power...once the whole US government became Republican controlled, they became all too consumed by the allure of power...and hence, to holding on to power by any means necessary...without some sort of checks and balances, there is nothing to give him a reality check... the Dems winning at least the House, would be a good thing for this country and the world in general...
"Lazy people on social programs", geez, I hope you are being sarcastic and do not honestly believe that "lazy people on social programs" are bogeymen for why we have to pay taxes...at most, Welfare, food stamps, housing assistance take up 8% of the budget, about 80 billion... see here table S-4, under Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (about half goes to education) and see this which breaks down the 2004 budget in a nice little pie chart...
I tire of hearing this "blame the poor" for taxes, when it is not the poor who are busting the budget... plus, the assumption that all poor people are lazy is absurd and groundless. Social programs help this country... it helps people that need it... granted, there those that probably are lazy, but those are few and far between...
If you want to bitch about taxes and be angry, why not take umbrage at the deductions for mortgages on 2nd homes and boats and cap the mortgage deduction, which cost the taxpayers some 70 billion a year, hell, I am all for eliminating the mortgage deduction all together. If home ownership is really THAT important and compelling as Bush pontificates in his "ownership society" babbling, then there does not need to be a mortgage deduction incentive... also, get rid of deductions for state and local taxes which cost taxpayers 50 Billion a year, which in addition to saving the taxpayers money, I figure this will make the Rep and Senators in high tax states more accountable to their constituents in cutting government spending since those constituents in high tax states will not be able to deduct their state taxes... hell, I would even get rid of the child tax credit...if you want kids, then pay for them yourself and not make the rest of us without kids subsidize those with, or those of us that waited until we were financially secure so that we could afford to take care of our kids before we had them... and for heavans sakes, lets not Jettison the estate tax, since it would cost about 90 billion a year if it was eliminated. As the estate tax stands today, it only affects some 2% of the population
Anyway, the whole point is to look else where when bitching about taxes... don't always blame the poor... there are plenty of more substantive ways to cut taxes than simply projecting one's anger on the poor.
I also think you should have added that those who criticize the US nuclear bombing of Japan to end WWII are also looking at what happened during 1945 through the lens of 2006... they seem to forget context... the same goes for those that like to criticize the Sodom & Gomorrah bombing campaigns against Germany... odd that people who criticize war tactics and strategy seem to always forget the horrors the Japanese inflicted upon the Chinese, Koreans, the Phillipinos, etc...or what the Germans did to the Jews, Gypsies, Polish, etc... or the fact that almost 55 million people were killed in WWII... so all this second guessing on nuking Japan to end WWII is nonsense...
Regardless of who "owns" the internet, US, UN, does not matter and will not affect whether a Plaintiff can file a case in US Federal Courts. As long as the person filing the claim, provides some reason why they believe jurisdiction is proper with some reasonable case law/cites to back this up...then the case can be filed. Now, whether jurisdiction really is proper, that requires the opposing party to contest that. This is the adversarial nature of the US judicial system. It probably differs from Germany law or not...
So, contrary to your rant, who "owns" the internet in your case will not matter one iota...
Additionally, your "getting the fucking US our of our networks" statement makes zero sense... the US does not own whatever the physican network is in Germany, Russia, Thailand, etc... nor does the US control or own the ISPs that provide you service or the company that Hosts your server... in essence, the US controls nothing about your network in Germany or any of the ancillary parts that allow you to do whatever it is you do in Germany with your website.
Matter of fact, the US has nothing to do with German law and the way it polices internet law within its borders...
From what I understand, it is able policy, that the control the US has concerns setting policies with respect to domain names, root servers, IP allocation,etc...
I assume your comment is more flamebait than anything else... by your logic, an individual living in China/Iran has the same freedoms as those in the U.S.? I am not so certain where you get "expansionistic" from or if you even know what it means...but it certainly does not apply to the US. Granted, the US military is currently in Iraq, Almost all of the US citizens want the troops home and the overall goal is to get out as soon as possible... and the US is not even the largest ARMs dealer in the world anymore, that honor goes to Russia... I am not quite certain were you get militaristic from...
biggest impediment to world peace? how is that so?
I'll correct myself...for conspiracy nutcases, no evidence will EVER change your mind... already, you set some arbitrary standard that somebody has to create some "collapsing model" of a 110 story building, built in the early seventies and have a fully fueled commercial airliner crash into in at a certain height and then see if it actually collapses... that is the only evidence that you claim would change your mind... but then you assert that you are surprised that because noone has taken the million dollar prize then this proves that the buildings did not collapse as reported by the government investigation... you are basing your whole conspiracy theory on the premise that if someone cannot, or has not, created a model, then a conspiracy demolition brought it down... of course, no government report would convince you because conspiracist dismiss anything from the government as biased... and anybody else that comes out with any evidence that exposes any conspiracy theories as wrong... then your response is that people like that must either be blackmailed into supporting the government's theory or they are in on it...
Hell, I still see nutcase conspiracist that still think the Oklahoma bombing was the work of the government... despite the fact that McVeigh admitted to it
The problem with nutcase conspiracy theorists like you..is that no amount of evidence will EVER convince you otherwise...EVER. You will always try to come up with an excuse to any fact or evidence. Popular Mechanics is one source of information that does a good job of debunking this whole conspiracy nonsense. People like for some reason have a problem with believing that terrible events happen. Debunking sources such as Popular Mechanics aside, the perpetrators, Al Qaeda, has even admitted to it and the rest of the Middle East accepts that it was the work of said organization. I don't really know what else to say to conspiracy nuts...they will never ever believe otherwise.
Actually, the judge is a federal district judge, which I think is in the Northern District of Illinois in the Seven Circuit. He is pretty far up the judicial food chain, at least on the trial level. Any order that comes out of his court is enforceable in all the US. Granted, not in foreign countries, but make no mistake, that with a judgment against the defendant, there are other ways to make a defendant, even in a foreign country comply or at least attempt to comply with the judgment. I don't know that much about international law, but there are trade treaties, trade courts, etc., that can be used to settle issues between foreign Plaintiffs and Defendants...
He is not out of his legal fees...he can and I am sure he will submit to the court a motion for attorney's fees. Almost certain too that the court will grant them. See Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure....so, the RIAA will pay
reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal trials...not civil...For libel it may be preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence...or something like that...but both are much lower standards than reasonable doubt...
YouTube has just signed how many agreements with major content providers
Of course, you are making a huge assumption that the agreements give YouTube a certain amount of protection from copyright violation liability. But we do not know the terms of those agreements and certainly, the media companies are only going to allow Google/YouTube to put up on the site limited and specific content and said media companies are not going to forgo any right to sue for copyright violations of other content that is not suppose to be up there. Especially if there appears to be an effect on the bottom line.
Actually, you do not understand jurisdiction or US law at all. A defendant can challenge in US federal court whether the court has proper jurisdiction. Merely challenging jurisdiction does not automatically mean that jurisdiction is established. Spamhaus in this case received horrible legal advice. First, by failing to even show up and at least challenge jurisdiction, they cannot appeal the default judgment on its merits later on. Although, they can still challenge jurisdiction on appeal, if they lose that, then the judgment still stands.
Jurisdiction when it comes to the internet is murky...but the US courts have found jurisdiction to be proper after consideration of a number of factors (I do not have cites right now, but the Drudge v. Blumenthal case is a good example of jurisdictional issues). Don't forget about the recent arrest of online gambling CEOs in the US. Even though those sites are hosted in other countries, the US courts still had enough jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants...(although, I am certain there will be challenges to jurisdiction in any future trial)
So, anyway, merely challenging jurisdiction does not mean it has been established. Just because Spamhaus or any defendant for that matter in a civil case thinks that the case is frivolous and neglects to deny the complaint or defend themselves does not mean that such a case is frivolous. that is up for the court to decide. If one is stupid enough to think that because they think a case is frivolous and that they are not going to defend themselves is, for a lack of better words, stupid. A default judgment is v. bad as it is very hard to challenge on appeal.
Secondly, YouTube signed some nice contracts with the likes of CBS and two music labels.
I have seen this reference to "contracts" between youtube and others in a number of post as if these contracts solve all of the fundamental problems with YouTube and potential copyright infringement liability and weak revenue potential....however, not a person posting knows exactly what these contracts discuss or even if they relieve Youtube of any copyright liability from those specific companies. If anything, Youtube is hyping these contracts... first, in negoiations, who had the stronger bargaining position? more than likely, not Youtube, second, from what I read, the contracts have more to do with potential revenue sharing from future videos from those media companies and not anything that relieves Youtube of future copyright liability... the coporate powers that be would not irresponsibility throw out the baby with the bath water in these contracts and not give Youtube a "free pass" so to speak on the legal issues and said media companies' copyrights...
the whole point being, contracts, schmontracts, no matter who owns Youtube, obviously now that being Google, the media companies will still pursue any copyright violations vigorously against Google/Youtube if those companies start to feel that copyright violations are threatening and diluting their products.
On another note, some posters argue that Google/YouTube is protected by the Safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, however, no court has ruled as such and the issue is not that simple....don't forget, the whole premise of Youtube is to share videos...which sounds eerily a lot like Napster, Grokster, et al... sure, Google/YouTube has a lot of non-infringing content, but that is just one factor to consider....
okay, okay, fair enough...point taken...although, I really did not like "The French Connection"...I think because I perceived it to look like it was cheaply made, i.e. lots of bad editing, bad really fake blood and gunshot wounds, bad and annoying accompanying score...although, I'll have to see put "The Conversation" on the netflix list...now, I dunno how I could forget 2001...
anyway, back to your original point on the "summer blockbuster", me wonders, by the time that summer of 1975 came around, the oil embargo fears were receding, we were pretty much done with Vietnam, all that 60s protest shit had abated...that by this time, the populace itself was ready for brainless, but yet v. entertaining movies...also, I wonder, since Jaws was actually a movie with a summer setting, whether that added to its allure...and of course, after it obviously was a hit, did the marketing machine in Hollywood latch on to the "Summer Blockbuster" theme and ram it down the populace's thrat, hmmmm
Of course today, the movies that have made the most were released during the T-day to Christmas season...i.e. the LOTR series, Titanic, Passion of Le Christ (actually, this was Winter)...
"A Bridge Too Far" came out in 1977, so I do not think it proves your point.... A better crappy movie to point out is "A French Connection", which really sucked... of course, "Godfather I" came out in '72 and "Godfather II" came out in '74, both great movies, along with "Patton" which came out in '70... so, really, I don't think you have a point at all that movies were crappy and did not make money prior to 1975...
Futhermore, your theory ignores other things going on in the world, such as the oil embargo, the Vietnam War, Disco, and Watergate, that could have had an impact on movie going in the early seventies...but, by all means, the premise that movies prior to Jaws were crap, is simply not true...
Well, doesn't anybody else get them impression that this is blown out of proportion? Sure, the people Dunn hired perhaps did something illegal (they are innocent until proven guilty) and perhaps Dunn should have tried another strategy at finding out the leaker in the boardroom...
Granted, Dunn did not capriciously wake up one day and decide to employ the use of investigators and their questionable tactics. There was a major problem inside the Board of Directors at HP. A director was leaking confidential information, which is a huge no-no...
But the AG of Cali puts forth millions in resources to investigate and prosecute what essentially is an internal dispute between high powered business people (the Directors). If anything, I get the impression that the AG is doing this mainly for publicity and political points. Really, would his office ever put forth this much effort to help those were fucked by real identity theft and the subsequent destruction of one's credit? If joe-schmoo middle class hard worker had his identity stolen, at most, there would be a cursory investigation, if at all...much less any prosecution...and certainly very little help at restoring one's credit history and reputation back.
That is one reason I see a problem at all of the attention this whole incident is getting...for one, it does not rise to the level of other corporate scandals that actually had a quantifiable financial impact of the markets and on society (people), i.e. Enron. At best, Dunn was trying to prevent, albeit using questionable methods, directors of the HP board from violating the rule of confidentiality of what goes on in the Board. Any information that was obtained was on the communications history of the board members (and others)...sure, as said before, the methods used were questionable...but it seems to me that the real focus should be on those who do not have the procedures in place to prevent such methods, i.e. pretexting, from working in the first place, say, the phone companies...
and in the big picture...so the AG gets a few convictions, so what, just means Corporate excecutives will be very careful next time...but such a conviction would do nothing to help those who are affected most by identity theft, that being us, the common people....
Let Dunn get fired, fine her, fine the board, fine the investigators.... does anybody ever think this will go to trial? hell no... again, too bad the AG does not put forth this much effort in the area of identity theft that would actually do some real good....
Actually, I think you mean "Representative" and not "Senator"...Foley is not in the Senate. I am sure TDS made clear the background facts of said "sicko"...
I think "dump" is misleading, as Volcker was fed chariman from 1979 until 1987, almost to the end of Reagan's second term...
anyway, Volcker started a change in policy where the federal reserve would be active in using its power to raise/lower interest rates to combat inflation and/or help the economy. This started under Carter's term. Regardless what lots and lots of Bush Loyalist misleadingly assert about Carter's presidency, if they ever bothered to check the facts/events that happened before, during, and after and analyze the whole picture of his presidency, they would conclude that his presidency was not bad at all, as far as the decisions and policies he either started, proposed, or corrected.
And no, Carter's supposed funding of the mujhadeen in Afganistan was not the "mistake" that gave us Osama...what really "gave" the world him is what the U.S. and other countries did after the Soviets left Afganistan, which is nothing...nothing was done to help rebuild the country, therefore it was left up to the various warlords to duke it out for internal control...thus giving us the Taliban, Osama, and more radical Islam...
I call bullshit on that... that has nothing to do with revisionism. Sure, gay marriage was/is illegal in 49 of the 50 states. Bush could have given a shit about the "status-quo"...he pushed the amendment for the sole reason that he knew, or at least Karl told him, that it would excite his base. If Bush is such a huge believer in small government, which we know he is not when it comes to social issues that excites his base, he would have let the states continue to sort the gay marriage issue out either through state courts or legislatures. No, instead, he fuel the, and yes, it is nothing else but, anti-gay fires in a not-so-subtle-yet-I-am-trying-to-be-subtle way. Our Constitutional amendments are not suppose to enshrine discrimination, which is exactly what the gay-marriage amendment would do...but that is besides the point. The Defense of Marriage Act was already in place to protect states from having to honor gay marriages from other states, yet there were no challenges on the horizon at that time to DOMA...and until such a case had declared DOMA unconstitutional, there was no need to push an anti-gay amendment...
but, yet, Bush did...as his evangelical base knows, there is no way to actually ban being gay or force gays into conversion therapy, so what better way to, for a lack of better words, keep them down, than to refuse to give gay relationships legitimacy, which is what civil unions would at least do. Hell, Bush's lack of even giving a civil union option, i.e. no marriage but civil unions, is even further evidence of his demonization of gays as a group. Bush could not and you cannot present any rational argument as to why gays do not deserve to have the same rights in regards to their relationships as straight couples...at the very least, civil unions. Bush never spoke of anything positive of gays during his campaign that did not have some sort of qualifier.
Yes, I agree, the gay movement probably should have not pushed for gay marriage just yet and instead have kept working the civil union aspect of their relationships and it probably did cause the Dems the Whitehouse. But don't try to bullshit me and claim that I am being revisionist and that Bush did not exploit this issue by demonizing gays. So no, the gays did not create this issue, Bush created the amendment issue and kept adding fuel to the fire on it.
I might agree with you on the trolling, but the AC does have a point, even though he tries to make it by making rather bold, over-the-top claims concerning the perception of "fundie" control of politics and in some regard, policies, in America, especially with respect to evolution and stem cells (on the scientific front) and other issues such as mandatory prayer in school, placing of the Ten Commandments in every government building, gay marriage (or just about anything to do with gay issues), whether hpv vaccination should be mandatory, sex-ed, AIDS education, etc...
Regardless of what Bush says he did, i.e. raising NASA's budget, but not actually providing the funding (same as his No Child Left Behind unfunded mandate)... the perception and point the Coward is making is that "fundies" do have a disproportionate amount of influence in regards to policies that affect the nation as a whole...
Don't forget, the only way Bush was re-elected was that he demonized a group (gays), the same way Hitler demonized the Jews, in order to get his "base" excited to get out and vote. Without the anti-gay amendments on the Ohio and other state ballots, the conventional wisdom is that Bush would have garnered much fewer votes from evangelicals, who really only came out to vote because of the gay issues...
anyway, the Coward poster was trying to make a roundabout point that the "fundies" have affected the funding of science in this nation quite a bit during the Bush administration (sorry, I cannot locate a cite, but from what I remember, early on in the Bush administration, a number of research grants were reviewed and some of the grants revoked. the common thread among the research projects were that they involved issues, i.e. sex research, that were contrary to certain religions' beliefs, mostly christian if I remember)...
Also, notice Coward said "religious fundamentalists" and not "religious followers"...he is differentiating between those who are christians, but yet do not try to foist their theology on the country as a whole and those who are christians who believe that the U.S. should follow "christian" principles in both society and law...hence, the fundamentalist tag...
and a sidenote, don't forget that in the movie "Contact" (yes, it was only a movie), that it was the "religious fundamentalists" who had the problem with intelligent life in the universe, viewing the possibility as a threat to their beliefs...and it was the fundies in that movie who sabotaged the first launch (yes, I know, the government eventually tried to bury the findings of the 2nd launch)...but regardless, does one think if this happened today that certain religious leaders would react differently?
to finish my rambling, Slashdotters in general are frustrated with the amount of power fundies have in society and our government today...just like Foxnews, O'Reilly, and the other members of that cabal who always proclaim that christrianity is under seige (i.e., that ridiculous war on Christmas crap they run every year)...Slashdotters feel the same way, but at least there is solid evidence, i.e. see the whole evolution and stem cell controversy, that fundies are exerting their undue influence...
one more note, Clinton is not a "bleeding heart liberal" as you so label him... if anything, he is a centrist. I know labelling him as such, as right-wing pundits like to label people pejorative terms so that whatever such people state or say is suppose to be per se discredited, makes him the boogey man for all that is wrong in the Bush administration...
Slashdot Mirror
Well, before you accuse everybody of being stupid...or not as smart as you are, go back and look at what you initially wrote.
... sounds incorrect. Why not compare Saddam's cruetly to America's or what Uday and Qusay's did in their torture rooms and what allegely the American's have done, and then tell me if they are morally equivalent...
You said "I saw this picture..."....well, everybody went to the picture, which had no accompanying text next to the picture, so, taking your exact words, "I saw this picture...", you gave the impression that you were basing your whole comment on the picture alone and not on any accompanying links to Saddam and his daughter. Most people, well, maybe not most, but at least I know there is more to the story with Saddam and his daughter...and his son-in-laws...but that is not the reference you directly made. You insinuated that you were basing your comments on the picture....which seems to be that you were implying that since he is a father, with a seemingly sweet daughter, all this humanizes him in a way to evoke sympathy, despite his past misdeeds... that is what most people inferred from your terse post.
Granted, you elaborated much, much more in your reply post... but sometimes in being too subtle or nuanced in trying to make a point, everything gets lost in the translation... since most reply posters did not "get it", that is not because they are not bright. It is just the original post, more than likely, did not fully convey the real point your were trying to make... your reply post makes much more sense with the added detail...
although, from you comment "America has already ironically outdone Saddam in terms of cruelty. Suddenly Uday and Qusay's torture rooms don't seem nearly as bad compared to the legally sanctioned torture by American operatives that is undoubtedly going on even as I type this."
IF anything, the fact that there are Americans fighting for the rights of the detainees and challenging Bush's power, that alone demonstrates that the ideals of America are still intact. In Saddam's Iraq, challenging his authority would get you tortured and maybe killed... due process did not exist.
...just one point though, the original poster made the Hitler picture reference not because he was comparing Saddam to Hitler, but to show how absurd it was for the initial poster who linked to Saddam's picture and based on that picture with his daughter, intimated that he [the parent poster] felt sympathy for Saddam because...why?, because he looks like a caring father?, then based on this sympathy, he asserts that Saddam has suffered enough...blah!...the person in reponse linked to the "Hitler" baby picture, as a sarcastic retort to the idea of sympathy for a dictator based on a picture...hell, everybody looks cute and harmless as a baby or kid....or even hugging their daughter...
and yes, Slashdot posters can do better... Comparing Saddam to Hitler is sensible, but, agreed, Saddam is not exactly like Hitler, most despots and tyrants are not "like" Hitler...but there is definitely some overlap on their madness and murdering ways...
It's interesting that one of Bush's motivations for going to war with Iraq was retaliation for an assassination attempt against Bush's father
How about some proof instead of regurgitation? Even more odd, you make this claim and then start the next paragraph trying to offer an alternative to this claim? So, which is it?
As far as Saddam's "non-compliance", Bush's primary justification for going to war was based on UN Resolution 1441... now, the point you should be making is that Bush based Saddam's violation of 1441 on Intelligence that Iraq still had WMDs/was making WMDs, etc. As we know, dissenting opinions on what the intelligence was actually depicting were Ignored by Bush and the Neocons, perhaps based on the mistake of the "mirror effect" in dealing with Saddam...that being, Bush and Co thought Saddam would act as a rational leader would act if said rational leader's country was being threatened with invasion if he did not comply with some UN resolution... to Bush, Saddam not "coming clean" on his WMD's was his defiance and miscalculation... Bush never seemed to consider that Saddam never actually had WMD because he, Saddam, was trying to maintain the facade of "maybe" possessing WMD's, so that he would look powerful to his people and enemies in his region... instead of Saddam say "just kidding, I never really had WMDs, I only pretended because I wanted to look powerful to my enemies"
regardless, even though Bush & Co. were wrong, in my opinion, to go into Iraq, in the grand scheme of things, Bush and Saddam are not alike as you claim... Bush is not infallible, but he is far from a tyrant or mass murder... intent matters. As much as I dislike Bush and his policies, at the core, he does want peace and freedom for humanity in general...it is just he is misguided on the means to that end, or at the very least, inflexible
Bush's problem is he is like one of the Kings from Lord of Rings, with the Ring being power...once the whole US government became Republican controlled, they became all too consumed by the allure of power...and hence, to holding on to power by any means necessary...without some sort of checks and balances, there is nothing to give him a reality check... the Dems winning at least the House, would be a good thing for this country and the world in general...
" you cynical fucking asshole"
Your response is completely uncalled for...and obviously you did not get the point of the parent's post... what's up with the name calling?
"Lazy people on social programs", geez, I hope you are being sarcastic and do not honestly believe that "lazy people on social programs" are bogeymen for why we have to pay taxes...at most, Welfare, food stamps, housing assistance take up 8% of the budget, about 80 billion... see here table S-4, under Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (about half goes to education) and see this which breaks down the 2004 budget in a nice little pie chart...
I tire of hearing this "blame the poor" for taxes, when it is not the poor who are busting the budget... plus, the assumption that all poor people are lazy is absurd and groundless. Social programs help this country... it helps people that need it... granted, there those that probably are lazy, but those are few and far between...
If you want to bitch about taxes and be angry, why not take umbrage at the deductions for mortgages on 2nd homes and boats and cap the mortgage deduction, which cost the taxpayers some 70 billion a year, hell, I am all for eliminating the mortgage deduction all together. If home ownership is really THAT important and compelling as Bush pontificates in his "ownership society" babbling, then there does not need to be a mortgage deduction incentive... also, get rid of deductions for state and local taxes which cost taxpayers 50 Billion a year, which in addition to saving the taxpayers money, I figure this will make the Rep and Senators in high tax states more accountable to their constituents in cutting government spending since those constituents in high tax states will not be able to deduct their state taxes... hell, I would even get rid of the child tax credit...if you want kids, then pay for them yourself and not make the rest of us without kids subsidize those with, or those of us that waited until we were financially secure so that we could afford to take care of our kids before we had them... and for heavans sakes, lets not Jettison the estate tax, since it would cost about 90 billion a year if it was eliminated. As the estate tax stands today, it only affects some 2% of the population
Anyway, the whole point is to look else where when bitching about taxes... don't always blame the poor... there are plenty of more substantive ways to cut taxes than simply projecting one's anger on the poor.
I also think you should have added that those who criticize the US nuclear bombing of Japan to end WWII are also looking at what happened during 1945 through the lens of 2006... they seem to forget context... the same goes for those that like to criticize the Sodom & Gomorrah bombing campaigns against Germany... odd that people who criticize war tactics and strategy seem to always forget the horrors the Japanese inflicted upon the Chinese, Koreans, the Phillipinos, etc...or what the Germans did to the Jews, Gypsies, Polish, etc... or the fact that almost 55 million people were killed in WWII... so all this second guessing on nuking Japan to end WWII is nonsense...
Regardless of who "owns" the internet, US, UN, does not matter and will not affect whether a Plaintiff can file a case in US Federal Courts. As long as the person filing the claim, provides some reason why they believe jurisdiction is proper with some reasonable case law/cites to back this up...then the case can be filed. Now, whether jurisdiction really is proper, that requires the opposing party to contest that. This is the adversarial nature of the US judicial system. It probably differs from Germany law or not...
So, contrary to your rant, who "owns" the internet in your case will not matter one iota...
Additionally, your "getting the fucking US our of our networks" statement makes zero sense... the US does not own whatever the physican network is in Germany, Russia, Thailand, etc... nor does the US control or own the ISPs that provide you service or the company that Hosts your server... in essence, the US controls nothing about your network in Germany or any of the ancillary parts that allow you to do whatever it is you do in Germany with your website.
Matter of fact, the US has nothing to do with German law and the way it polices internet law within its borders...
From what I understand, it is able policy, that the control the US has concerns setting policies with respect to domain names, root servers, IP allocation,etc...
I assume your comment is more flamebait than anything else... by your logic, an individual living in China/Iran has the same freedoms as those in the U.S.? I am not so certain where you get "expansionistic" from or if you even know what it means...but it certainly does not apply to the US. Granted, the US military is currently in Iraq, Almost all of the US citizens want the troops home and the overall goal is to get out as soon as possible... and the US is not even the largest ARMs dealer in the world anymore, that honor goes to Russia... I am not quite certain were you get militaristic from...
biggest impediment to world peace? how is that so?
I'll correct myself...for conspiracy nutcases, no evidence will EVER change your mind... already, you set some arbitrary standard that somebody has to create some "collapsing model" of a 110 story building, built in the early seventies and have a fully fueled commercial airliner crash into in at a certain height and then see if it actually collapses... that is the only evidence that you claim would change your mind... but then you assert that you are surprised that because noone has taken the million dollar prize then this proves that the buildings did not collapse as reported by the government investigation... you are basing your whole conspiracy theory on the premise that if someone cannot, or has not, created a model, then a conspiracy demolition brought it down... of course, no government report would convince you because conspiracist dismiss anything from the government as biased... and anybody else that comes out with any evidence that exposes any conspiracy theories as wrong... then your response is that people like that must either be blackmailed into supporting the government's theory or they are in on it...
Hell, I still see nutcase conspiracist that still think the Oklahoma bombing was the work of the government... despite the fact that McVeigh admitted to it
The problem with nutcase conspiracy theorists like you..is that no amount of evidence will EVER convince you otherwise...EVER. You will always try to come up with an excuse to any fact or evidence. Popular Mechanics is one source of information that does a good job of debunking this whole conspiracy nonsense. People like for some reason have a problem with believing that terrible events happen. Debunking sources such as Popular Mechanics aside, the perpetrators, Al Qaeda, has even admitted to it and the rest of the Middle East accepts that it was the work of said organization. I don't really know what else to say to conspiracy nuts...they will never ever believe otherwise.
Dude, what you describe sounds eerily exactly what the ePlus v. SAP patent infringement case is all about....damn!
h tml
see http://techdirt.com/articles/20050908/1059235_F.s
Actually, the judge is a federal district judge, which I think is in the Northern District of Illinois in the Seven Circuit. He is pretty far up the judicial food chain, at least on the trial level. Any order that comes out of his court is enforceable in all the US. Granted, not in foreign countries, but make no mistake, that with a judgment against the defendant, there are other ways to make a defendant, even in a foreign country comply or at least attempt to comply with the judgment. I don't know that much about international law, but there are trade treaties, trade courts, etc., that can be used to settle issues between foreign Plaintiffs and Defendants...
He is not out of his legal fees...he can and I am sure he will submit to the court a motion for attorney's fees. Almost certain too that the court will grant them. See Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure....so, the RIAA will pay
reasonable doubt is the standard for criminal trials...not civil...For libel it may be preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence...or something like that...but both are much lower standards than reasonable doubt...
YouTube has just signed how many agreements with major content providers
Of course, you are making a huge assumption that the agreements give YouTube a certain amount of protection from copyright violation liability. But we do not know the terms of those agreements and certainly, the media companies are only going to allow Google/YouTube to put up on the site limited and specific content and said media companies are not going to forgo any right to sue for copyright violations of other content that is not suppose to be up there. Especially if there appears to be an effect on the bottom line.
Actually, you do not understand jurisdiction or US law at all. A defendant can challenge in US federal court whether the court has proper jurisdiction. Merely challenging jurisdiction does not automatically mean that jurisdiction is established. Spamhaus in this case received horrible legal advice. First, by failing to even show up and at least challenge jurisdiction, they cannot appeal the default judgment on its merits later on. Although, they can still challenge jurisdiction on appeal, if they lose that, then the judgment still stands.
Jurisdiction when it comes to the internet is murky...but the US courts have found jurisdiction to be proper after consideration of a number of factors (I do not have cites right now, but the Drudge v. Blumenthal case is a good example of jurisdictional issues). Don't forget about the recent arrest of online gambling CEOs in the US. Even though those sites are hosted in other countries, the US courts still had enough jurisdiction to issue arrest warrants...(although, I am certain there will be challenges to jurisdiction in any future trial)
So, anyway, merely challenging jurisdiction does not mean it has been established. Just because Spamhaus or any defendant for that matter in a civil case thinks that the case is frivolous and neglects to deny the complaint or defend themselves does not mean that such a case is frivolous. that is up for the court to decide. If one is stupid enough to think that because they think a case is frivolous and that they are not going to defend themselves is, for a lack of better words, stupid. A default judgment is v. bad as it is very hard to challenge on appeal.
Secondly, YouTube signed some nice contracts with the likes of CBS and two music labels.
I have seen this reference to "contracts" between youtube and others in a number of post as if these contracts solve all of the fundamental problems with YouTube and potential copyright infringement liability and weak revenue potential....however, not a person posting knows exactly what these contracts discuss or even if they relieve Youtube of any copyright liability from those specific companies. If anything, Youtube is hyping these contracts... first, in negoiations, who had the stronger bargaining position? more than likely, not Youtube, second, from what I read, the contracts have more to do with potential revenue sharing from future videos from those media companies and not anything that relieves Youtube of future copyright liability... the coporate powers that be would not irresponsibility throw out the baby with the bath water in these contracts and not give Youtube a "free pass" so to speak on the legal issues and said media companies' copyrights...
the whole point being, contracts, schmontracts, no matter who owns Youtube, obviously now that being Google, the media companies will still pursue any copyright violations vigorously against Google/Youtube if those companies start to feel that copyright violations are threatening and diluting their products.
On another note, some posters argue that Google/YouTube is protected by the Safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, however, no court has ruled as such and the issue is not that simple....don't forget, the whole premise of Youtube is to share videos...which sounds eerily a lot like Napster, Grokster, et al... sure, Google/YouTube has a lot of non-infringing content, but that is just one factor to consider....
okay, okay, fair enough...point taken...although, I really did not like "The French Connection"...I think because I perceived it to look like it was cheaply made, i.e. lots of bad editing, bad really fake blood and gunshot wounds, bad and annoying accompanying score...although, I'll have to see put "The Conversation" on the netflix list...now, I dunno how I could forget 2001...
anyway, back to your original point on the "summer blockbuster", me wonders, by the time that summer of 1975 came around, the oil embargo fears were receding, we were pretty much done with Vietnam, all that 60s protest shit had abated...that by this time, the populace itself was ready for brainless, but yet v. entertaining movies...also, I wonder, since Jaws was actually a movie with a summer setting, whether that added to its allure...and of course, after it obviously was a hit, did the marketing machine in Hollywood latch on to the "Summer Blockbuster" theme and ram it down the populace's thrat, hmmmm
Of course today, the movies that have made the most were released during the T-day to Christmas season...i.e. the LOTR series, Titanic, Passion of Le Christ (actually, this was Winter)...
"A Bridge Too Far" came out in 1977, so I do not think it proves your point.... A better crappy movie to point out is "A French Connection", which really sucked... of course, "Godfather I" came out in '72 and "Godfather II" came out in '74, both great movies, along with "Patton" which came out in '70... so, really, I don't think you have a point at all that movies were crappy and did not make money prior to 1975...
Futhermore, your theory ignores other things going on in the world, such as the oil embargo, the Vietnam War, Disco, and Watergate, that could have had an impact on movie going in the early seventies...but, by all means, the premise that movies prior to Jaws were crap, is simply not true...
Well, doesn't anybody else get them impression that this is blown out of proportion? Sure, the people Dunn hired perhaps did something illegal (they are innocent until proven guilty) and perhaps Dunn should have tried another strategy at finding out the leaker in the boardroom...
Granted, Dunn did not capriciously wake up one day and decide to employ the use of investigators and their questionable tactics. There was a major problem inside the Board of Directors at HP. A director was leaking confidential information, which is a huge no-no...
But the AG of Cali puts forth millions in resources to investigate and prosecute what essentially is an internal dispute between high powered business people (the Directors). If anything, I get the impression that the AG is doing this mainly for publicity and political points. Really, would his office ever put forth this much effort to help those were fucked by real identity theft and the subsequent destruction of one's credit? If joe-schmoo middle class hard worker had his identity stolen, at most, there would be a cursory investigation, if at all...much less any prosecution...and certainly very little help at restoring one's credit history and reputation back.
That is one reason I see a problem at all of the attention this whole incident is getting...for one, it does not rise to the level of other corporate scandals that actually had a quantifiable financial impact of the markets and on society (people), i.e. Enron. At best, Dunn was trying to prevent, albeit using questionable methods, directors of the HP board from violating the rule of confidentiality of what goes on in the Board. Any information that was obtained was on the communications history of the board members (and others)...sure, as said before, the methods used were questionable...but it seems to me that the real focus should be on those who do not have the procedures in place to prevent such methods, i.e. pretexting, from working in the first place, say, the phone companies...
and in the big picture...so the AG gets a few convictions, so what, just means Corporate excecutives will be very careful next time...but such a conviction would do nothing to help those who are affected most by identity theft, that being us, the common people....
Let Dunn get fired, fine her, fine the board, fine the investigators.... does anybody ever think this will go to trial? hell no... again, too bad the AG does not put forth this much effort in the area of identity theft that would actually do some real good....
harumph!
Actually, I think you mean "Representative" and not "Senator"...Foley is not in the Senate. I am sure TDS made clear the background facts of said "sicko"...
I think you meant to say "Exit polls showed Libertarians whinning"...*ducks*
I think "dump" is misleading, as Volcker was fed chariman from 1979 until 1987, almost to the end of Reagan's second term...
anyway, Volcker started a change in policy where the federal reserve would be active in using its power to raise/lower interest rates to combat inflation and/or help the economy. This started under Carter's term. Regardless what lots and lots of Bush Loyalist misleadingly assert about Carter's presidency, if they ever bothered to check the facts/events that happened before, during, and after and analyze the whole picture of his presidency, they would conclude that his presidency was not bad at all, as far as the decisions and policies he either started, proposed, or corrected.
And no, Carter's supposed funding of the mujhadeen in Afganistan was not the "mistake" that gave us Osama...what really "gave" the world him is what the U.S. and other countries did after the Soviets left Afganistan, which is nothing...nothing was done to help rebuild the country, therefore it was left up to the various warlords to duke it out for internal control...thus giving us the Taliban, Osama, and more radical Islam...
I call bullshit on that... that has nothing to do with revisionism. Sure, gay marriage was/is illegal in 49 of the 50 states. Bush could have given a shit about the "status-quo"...he pushed the amendment for the sole reason that he knew, or at least Karl told him, that it would excite his base. If Bush is such a huge believer in small government, which we know he is not when it comes to social issues that excites his base, he would have let the states continue to sort the gay marriage issue out either through state courts or legislatures. No, instead, he fuel the, and yes, it is nothing else but, anti-gay fires in a not-so-subtle-yet-I-am-trying-to-be-subtle way. Our Constitutional amendments are not suppose to enshrine discrimination, which is exactly what the gay-marriage amendment would do...but that is besides the point. The Defense of Marriage Act was already in place to protect states from having to honor gay marriages from other states, yet there were no challenges on the horizon at that time to DOMA...and until such a case had declared DOMA unconstitutional, there was no need to push an anti-gay amendment...
but, yet, Bush did...as his evangelical base knows, there is no way to actually ban being gay or force gays into conversion therapy, so what better way to, for a lack of better words, keep them down, than to refuse to give gay relationships legitimacy, which is what civil unions would at least do. Hell, Bush's lack of even giving a civil union option, i.e. no marriage but civil unions, is even further evidence of his demonization of gays as a group. Bush could not and you cannot present any rational argument as to why gays do not deserve to have the same rights in regards to their relationships as straight couples...at the very least, civil unions. Bush never spoke of anything positive of gays during his campaign that did not have some sort of qualifier.
Yes, I agree, the gay movement probably should have not pushed for gay marriage just yet and instead have kept working the civil union aspect of their relationships and it probably did cause the Dems the Whitehouse. But don't try to bullshit me and claim that I am being revisionist and that Bush did not exploit this issue by demonizing gays. So no, the gays did not create this issue, Bush created the amendment issue and kept adding fuel to the fire on it.
I might agree with you on the trolling, but the AC does have a point, even though he tries to make it by making rather bold, over-the-top claims concerning the perception of "fundie" control of politics and in some regard, policies, in America, especially with respect to evolution and stem cells (on the scientific front) and other issues such as mandatory prayer in school, placing of the Ten Commandments in every government building, gay marriage (or just about anything to do with gay issues), whether hpv vaccination should be mandatory, sex-ed, AIDS education, etc...
Regardless of what Bush says he did, i.e. raising NASA's budget, but not actually providing the funding (same as his No Child Left Behind unfunded mandate)... the perception and point the Coward is making is that "fundies" do have a disproportionate amount of influence in regards to policies that affect the nation as a whole...
Don't forget, the only way Bush was re-elected was that he demonized a group (gays), the same way Hitler demonized the Jews, in order to get his "base" excited to get out and vote. Without the anti-gay amendments on the Ohio and other state ballots, the conventional wisdom is that Bush would have garnered much fewer votes from evangelicals, who really only came out to vote because of the gay issues...
anyway, the Coward poster was trying to make a roundabout point that the "fundies" have affected the funding of science in this nation quite a bit during the Bush administration (sorry, I cannot locate a cite, but from what I remember, early on in the Bush administration, a number of research grants were reviewed and some of the grants revoked. the common thread among the research projects were that they involved issues, i.e. sex research, that were contrary to certain religions' beliefs, mostly christian if I remember)...
Also, notice Coward said "religious fundamentalists" and not "religious followers"...he is differentiating between those who are christians, but yet do not try to foist their theology on the country as a whole and those who are christians who believe that the U.S. should follow "christian" principles in both society and law...hence, the fundamentalist tag...
and a sidenote, don't forget that in the movie "Contact" (yes, it was only a movie), that it was the "religious fundamentalists" who had the problem with intelligent life in the universe, viewing the possibility as a threat to their beliefs...and it was the fundies in that movie who sabotaged the first launch (yes, I know, the government eventually tried to bury the findings of the 2nd launch)...but regardless, does one think if this happened today that certain religious leaders would react differently?
to finish my rambling, Slashdotters in general are frustrated with the amount of power fundies have in society and our government today...just like Foxnews, O'Reilly, and the other members of that cabal who always proclaim that christrianity is under seige (i.e., that ridiculous war on Christmas crap they run every year)...Slashdotters feel the same way, but at least there is solid evidence, i.e. see the whole evolution and stem cell controversy, that fundies are exerting their undue influence...
one more note, Clinton is not a "bleeding heart liberal" as you so label him... if anything, he is a centrist. I know labelling him as such, as right-wing pundits like to label people pejorative terms so that whatever such people state or say is suppose to be per se discredited, makes him the boogey man for all that is wrong in the Bush administration...