Yeah, no. This is about as "Free Market" as it gets. The lawyers for both sides set their rates before going in.
pay off those who were never harmed.
Go fuck yourself and your "I get to decide who was harmed" bullshit.
I didn't decide who was harmed, the court decided who had been harmed. The people who got paid off were the LAWYERS on both sides of the case and some nonprofits who had ABSOfuckingLUTELY nothing to do with the case. The LAWYERS were not harmed by the defendant. Their CLIENTS were, but the LAWYERS got all the fucking MONEY. That is not how any system that was designed to do JUSTICE would work.
And that's why they call it a LEGAL system and not a JUSTICE system. Very little justice is done. But the LEGAL professionals always get paid.
The official summary says this pertains to the protection of government intelligence information and the measures that are necessary to protect it. This is not about protecting movies from file sharers. The intelligence community is not thinking about movies. They're thinking about espionage.
If the point of the trial is to determine guilt and punishment, that should be a job for criminal court. Civil courts exist to compensate those harmed, not just their lawyers.
I'd like to see reform of the system to dictate a maximum payout to plaintiff's lawyers of less than 25% of the amount awarded to plaintiffs.
The legal system is anything but a free market. This is a big payout scheme for lawyers, using public authority as a lever to make a bad-acting company pay off those who were never harmed.
It looks like a corrupt judge to me. How much of the $600k found it's way back to his pocket?
Yeah, many people probably do feel some fear when they see people in foreign dress. And most of them know better than to say so on fucking television.
Especially if their job is to present an ostensibly neutral and unbiased analysis of the news and foreign affairs.
From that point on, every time Juan Williams opened his mouth and was critical of any person who might have been Muslim or even dressed in what might be regarded as Muslim garb he was opening NPR to a charge that they were biased against Muslims. How do you report the news under that kind of cloud? You can't.
The best thing they could do was fire him and cut their losses. Juan Williams can be replaced. Their reputation for neutrality and fair reporting would have been much harder to replace.
If you work in an organization that continues to behave in an indefensible, sometimes illegal way and do nothing to stop the evil behavior you are part of the problem.
You should either quit or collect enough evidence to send some of you co-wankers to prison.
Espionage is something that international law will never allow and that every country does, has always done and will always do.
If you're thinking "Oh, those nasty Americans" you are incredibly naive. The Chinese, Israelis, British, Russians and everybody else who thinks they might be able to get your information are already in there, or trying like hell to make it so.
That is, if they happen to think that you know anything worth stealing. For most people, this means that they're not being watched, because most people don't have a fucking clue about anything, must less the secrets that governments try to conceal from one another.
If they want to get one in the hands of every child in countries like China and Brazil, their price point is at least 4X too high. It has to be scaled back.
I answered that in the post to which you are replying. It would really be nice if before posting, you would have the courtesy to READ the post you're replying to.
Houses and food for yourself and your family are not BUSINESS expenses. They're LIVING expenses. They are not related to your producing income because people who don't work still have to eat and live in a home of some kind.
We're going from commercial fishery to aquaculture because demand for (preferred species) of fish has exceeded the ocean's natural capacity to supply it. We now have restrictions on fishing that would have been unthinkable 40 years ago.
And they mostly ARE taxed the same way. Net income is taxed and it's computed as gross income minus the expenses of generating that income. This is true for corporations, private business activities, investments and wages.
The reason it seems like you don't get to deduct anything when you work for wages is that almost all of the costs of generating the income are borne by your employer: they provide the property, equipment and raw materials you use. (If you provide any of those you should be deducting them and your employer can't.)
Most of the distortions in the tax code are in the form of credits. They should be eliminated for everybody, along with all special deductions.
Simply stating that a resource is finite is no proof that we are about to run out of it. The ocean is finite, yet we are not in any danger of running out of sea water.
It's all a matter of what's cheapest. Oil is still pretty cheap. Natural gas and coal are still very cheap. So we get the majority of our energy from those sources.
The day will come, eventually, when the cheap-to-produce oil, gas and coal are used up and their cost will go above that of solar and wind power. When that day comes, solar, wind and nuclear will provide must of our energy, but we'll also be producing oil from shale and tar sands -- unfortunately a very dirty process.
And there will be more of us, so we may have to be using energy at a lower per-capita rate. That's all clear.
And as the number or people increases, the cost of land and food will go up. So the cost of children will go up and people will buy fewer of them. This seems to be a concept that people have a hard time getting their heads around. The cost of a child in a first-world country is many times the cost of a child in an impoverished country. That's why people in impoverished countries have more kids. If the cost of children were more equal, people in rich countries would have more children and people in India would have fewer. China succeeded in reducing its population growth rate by effectively raising the cost of children. Of course the measures the resorted to hid this fact, and it's unlikely that the Chinese government ever thought of it in those terms.
The difficulty with this recognition is that once you realize that poor African families are having too many children because raising children is too cheap in Africa is that it faces us with really hard choices. How do you raise the cost of having children for families in the poorest countries without causing worse problems than you started with?
Or just have the same taxes for corporations as you have for people. Tax their income, not their profit. Suddenly making it look like your company is loosing money will no longer be useful as a tax dodge.
If you taxed business revenue instead of profits, most businesses would be destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll send you a memo when I'm king.
Yeah, no. This is about as "Free Market" as it gets. The lawyers for both sides set their rates before going in.
pay off those who were never harmed.
Go fuck yourself and your "I get to decide who was harmed" bullshit.
I didn't decide who was harmed, the court decided who had been harmed. The people who got paid off were the LAWYERS on both sides of the case and some nonprofits who had ABSOfuckingLUTELY nothing to do with the case. The LAWYERS were not harmed by the defendant. Their CLIENTS were, but the LAWYERS got all the fucking MONEY. That is not how any system that was designed to do JUSTICE would work.
And that's why they call it a LEGAL system and not a JUSTICE system. Very little justice is done. But the LEGAL professionals always get paid.
Cry me a river. $600k is 300 times what these hardlyworking lawyers recovered for their plaintiffs.
Name me an industry where spending $600k in labor to produce $2k net is considered acceptable.
The official summary says this pertains to the protection of government intelligence information and the measures that are necessary to protect it. This is not about protecting movies from file sharers. The intelligence community is not thinking about movies. They're thinking about espionage.
My daughter applied for a job and they asked to see her Facebook page.
If the point of the trial is to determine guilt and punishment, that should be a job for criminal court. Civil courts exist to compensate those harmed, not just their lawyers.
I'd like to see reform of the system to dictate a maximum payout to plaintiff's lawyers of less than 25% of the amount awarded to plaintiffs.
The legal system is anything but a free market. This is a big payout scheme for lawyers, using public authority as a lever to make a bad-acting company pay off those who were never harmed.
It looks like a corrupt judge to me. How much of the $600k found it's way back to his pocket?
Drunken Sailor
Yeah, many people probably do feel some fear when they see people in foreign dress. And most of them know better than to say so on fucking television.
Especially if their job is to present an ostensibly neutral and unbiased analysis of the news and foreign affairs.
From that point on, every time Juan Williams opened his mouth and was critical of any person who might have been Muslim or even dressed in what might be regarded as Muslim garb he was opening NPR to a charge that they were biased against Muslims. How do you report the news under that kind of cloud? You can't.
The best thing they could do was fire him and cut their losses. Juan Williams can be replaced. Their reputation for neutrality and fair reporting would have been much harder to replace.
If you work in an organization that continues to behave in an indefensible, sometimes illegal way and do nothing to stop the evil behavior you are part of the problem.
You should either quit or collect enough evidence to send some of you co-wankers to prison.
Espionage is something that international law will never allow and that every country does, has always done and will always do.
If you're thinking "Oh, those nasty Americans" you are incredibly naive. The Chinese, Israelis, British, Russians and everybody else who thinks they might be able to get your information are already in there, or trying like hell to make it so.
That is, if they happen to think that you know anything worth stealing. For most people, this means that they're not being watched, because most people don't have a fucking clue about anything, must less the secrets that governments try to conceal from one another.
Wording and subjects covered in history are subjects of controversy in America too.
Same with science. There's even controversy about MATH if you can believe that.
If they want to get one in the hands of every child in countries like China and Brazil, their price point is at least 4X too high. It has to be scaled back.
According to the story, they're going to be doing all kinds of stuff that, if they were doing it, would be Top Secret.
If it's Top Secret, by definition those who know can't tell the public about what they're doing.
Therefore, the authors don't know what they're saying to be true. Most likely, it isn't true.
I answered that in the post to which you are replying. It would really be nice if before posting, you would have the courtesy to READ the post you're replying to.
Houses and food for yourself and your family are not BUSINESS expenses. They're LIVING expenses. They are not related to your producing income because people who don't work still have to eat and live in a home of some kind.
But I could do it without HFCS.
We're going from commercial fishery to aquaculture because demand for (preferred species) of fish has exceeded the ocean's natural capacity to supply it. We now have restrictions on fishing that would have been unthinkable 40 years ago.
People don't get ruined by taxes.
And they mostly ARE taxed the same way. Net income is taxed and it's computed as gross income minus the expenses of generating that income. This is true for corporations, private business activities, investments and wages.
The reason it seems like you don't get to deduct anything when you work for wages is that almost all of the costs of generating the income are borne by your employer: they provide the property, equipment and raw materials you use. (If you provide any of those you should be deducting them and your employer can't.)
Most of the distortions in the tax code are in the form of credits. They should be eliminated for everybody, along with all special deductions.
Simply stating that a resource is finite is no proof that we are about to run out of it. The ocean is finite, yet we are not in any danger of running out of sea water.
Just fish.
It's all a matter of what's cheapest. Oil is still pretty cheap. Natural gas and coal are still very cheap. So we get the majority of our energy from those sources.
The day will come, eventually, when the cheap-to-produce oil, gas and coal are used up and their cost will go above that of solar and wind power. When that day comes, solar, wind and nuclear will provide must of our energy, but we'll also be producing oil from shale and tar sands -- unfortunately a very dirty process.
And there will be more of us, so we may have to be using energy at a lower per-capita rate. That's all clear.
And as the number or people increases, the cost of land and food will go up. So the cost of children will go up and people will buy fewer of them. This seems to be a concept that people have a hard time getting their heads around. The cost of a child in a first-world country is many times the cost of a child in an impoverished country. That's why people in impoverished countries have more kids. If the cost of children were more equal, people in rich countries would have more children and people in India would have fewer. China succeeded in reducing its population growth rate by effectively raising the cost of children.
Of course the measures the resorted to hid this fact, and it's unlikely that the Chinese government ever thought of it in those terms.
The difficulty with this recognition is that once you realize that poor African families are having too many children because raising children is too cheap in Africa is that it faces us with really hard choices. How do you raise the cost of having children for families in the poorest countries without causing worse problems than you started with?
Most of us plan to still be alive in 2030.
Medical science also has a strong incentive to make drugs and other treatments seem effective when the evidence doesn't sufficiently support that.
Or just have the same taxes for corporations as you have for people. Tax their income, not their profit. Suddenly making it look like your company is loosing money will no longer be useful as a tax dodge.
If you taxed business revenue instead of profits, most businesses would be destroyed.
There are laws against false advertisements. The novelty here is charging the medium rather than the ad's creator.
It would be like charging a radio station for airing an ad by a Ford dealer who claimed to have yhd best prices on new Chevy's.
Already been done:
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVvoJxmaoi8A&v=VvoJxmaoi8A&gl=US