If you were paying attention you would notice that they are not making fun of nerd culture as distinct from not-nerd culture. The basis of the humorous situations typically turn out to be the kind of things that really happen to anyone: poor communication in relationships, one spouse making significantly more money than another, existential crises over career shifts, overbearing parents, etc. The closest they get to a distinct nerd situation is when the PhDs mock Wolowitz for only having a Master's degree.
There may be the meta-criticism that they are mocking nerds for not recognizing that their problems as problems anybody could have... then again *you* failed to recognize this as well.
The hard part on the prosecution side is proving that the accused took deliberate malicious action as opposed to just screwing up. Part of agreements like these is that accused now stipulates that the action was wrong and they will ensure that they don't repeat it. This means that the next time they do it---and you know they will--- the prosecution pulls out the accused's own stipulation as the evidence that they are deliberately doing something wrong, either a deliberate violation or a deliberate failure to check. I.e. they get the accused to prove the case.
If the "whole economy is planned on faked numbers of lazy workers", why was there no slack in the transportation system to move more product than planned so that the transportation workers could farm in *their* bonuses?
The possibility that multinational corporation which has split itself up for the purpose of playing different legal jurisdictions off each other has put itself in a position where the pieces create legal liability for other pieces does not necessarily invalidate any of those laws. It may be that they really are running an multinational scam and now they are caught.
Your strawman arguments are about actions that took place in a different country than where the law is from.
The real case in question is about actions that took place in the same country as where the relevant law applies. Information about those actions has been moved to another country, but the original party in the original jurisdiction still claims control.
You have assumed that the person(s) sent to Europe to retrieve the data aren't doing so by applying to the Irish authorities to get a warrant for said Irish authorities to seize the data without Microsoft's cooperation. The point in this case is that Microsoft USA has stipulated that the information exists and that Microsoft USA can access it from the USA.
The idea would be to move incriminating data ahead of time. The classic IT example of this is limited backup retention policies to make sure you don't accidentally keep evidence of something.
The judge is not claiming jurisdiction overseas. The judge is claiming jurisdiction over Microsoft USA, who has stipulated that the data in question exists and that they have access to it.
If you take people who believe that government doesn't work and put them in charge of a government and it doesn't work, you haven't proven that government doesn't work.
"Just because a lot of people didn't vote the way you think they should have isn't proof that they were coerced by people who disagree with you."
Just because someone is talking about manipulating the voters in a vote that did not go their way does not mean that they are citing merely that outcome as the sole evidence of the manipulation... especially in the comments on a article that is *specifically about the hard evidence of manipulation*.
"we found that the system is possible for short periods of time"
They state that their configuration is "stable for a few hundred years", and their graphs only extend to 400 years. The eclipse cycle in the story is 2049 years and has repeated enough times that people are starting to detect that it is fact repeating.
In reference to tidal forces from the Trey-Patru binary they state "(Though subsequent generations of the Kalgash people will face dangerous scenarios.)".
Their configuration actually has not been shown to be survivable for even one cycle.
The story depends on a) the cycle repeating enough times that people cans start to figure out that it is repeating b) sufficient conditions for life to evolve in the first place
So if you do not require that the cycle be permanently stable, then you require two different life-supporting configurations and a transition that can also support life.
"U.S. Secret Service they guard the president and for some mind boggling reason, investigate counterfeit currency. "
No, they investigate counterfeit currency and for an accidental reason guard the president. At the time that Congress requested a protection detail for the President, the Secret Service was the largest law enforcement agency at the federal level. The FBI had not yet been created.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were paying attention you would notice that they are not making fun of nerd culture as distinct from not-nerd culture. The basis of the humorous situations typically turn out to be the kind of things that really happen to anyone: poor communication in relationships, one spouse making significantly more money than another, existential crises over career shifts, overbearing parents, etc. The closest they get to a distinct nerd situation is when the PhDs mock Wolowitz for only having a Master's degree.
There may be the meta-criticism that they are mocking nerds for not recognizing that their problems as problems anybody could have... then again *you* failed to recognize this as well.
Clearly, ransoms are Veblen goods.
Labor actions are damned dirty communism, unless you are John Galt..
The hard part on the prosecution side is proving that the accused took deliberate malicious action as opposed to just screwing up. Part of agreements like these is that accused now stipulates that the action was wrong and they will ensure that they don't repeat it. This means that the next time they do it---and you know they will--- the prosecution pulls out the accused's own stipulation as the evidence that they are deliberately doing something wrong, either a deliberate violation or a deliberate failure to check. I.e. they get the accused to prove the case.
Blowing shit up is entirely unlike the Japanese plan described.
And the Japanese plan as described is entirely consistent with that treaty.
If the "whole economy is planned on faked numbers of lazy workers", why was there no slack in the transportation system to move more product than planned so that the transportation workers could farm in *their* bonuses?
"Seriously, America, you do not own the world."
But also the EU does not own the world.
The possibility that multinational corporation which has split itself up for the purpose of playing different legal jurisdictions off each other has put itself in a position where the pieces create legal liability for other pieces does not necessarily invalidate any of those laws. It may be that they really are running an multinational scam and now they are caught.
Your strawman arguments are about actions that took place in a different country than where the law is from.
The real case in question is about actions that took place in the same country as where the relevant law applies. Information about those actions has been moved to another country, but the original party in the original jurisdiction still claims control.
You have assumed that the person(s) sent to Europe to retrieve the data aren't doing so by applying to the Irish authorities to get a warrant for said Irish authorities to seize the data without Microsoft's cooperation.
The point in this case is that Microsoft USA has stipulated that the information exists and that Microsoft USA can access it from the USA.
The idea would be to move incriminating data ahead of time. The classic IT example of this is limited backup retention policies to make sure you don't accidentally keep evidence of something.
The judge is not claiming jurisdiction overseas. The judge is claiming jurisdiction over Microsoft USA, who has stipulated that the data in question exists and that they have access to it.
" In order to get approved for debt, you must have debt. "
" A scheme to make sure that you are constantly in debt"
A scheme to keep you in debt by not approving you for any debt?
If you take people who believe that government doesn't work and put them in charge of a government and it doesn't work, you haven't proven that government doesn't work.
On the other hand, you have touched the damned dirty communism, and now have cooties.
And the South shall rise again!
"Just because a lot of people didn't vote the way you think they should have isn't proof that they were coerced by people who disagree with you."
Just because someone is talking about manipulating the voters in a vote that did not go their way does not mean that they are citing merely that outcome as the sole evidence of the manipulation... especially in the comments on a article that is *specifically about the hard evidence of manipulation*.
"Why didn't Apple buy Bose?"
The day ain't over yet.
"we found that the system is possible for short periods of time"
They state that their configuration is "stable for a few hundred years", and their graphs only extend to 400 years. The eclipse cycle in the story is 2049 years and has repeated enough times that people are starting to detect that it is fact repeating.
In reference to tidal forces from the Trey-Patru binary they state "(Though subsequent generations of the Kalgash people will face dangerous scenarios.)".
Their configuration actually has not been shown to be survivable for even one cycle.
The story depends on
a) the cycle repeating enough times that people cans start to figure out that it is repeating
b) sufficient conditions for life to evolve in the first place
So if you do not require that the cycle be permanently stable, then you require two different life-supporting configurations and a transition that can also support life.
Where I went to school every student takes Home Ec.
Not only does the data not support your conclusions, it does not even support your premise.
You are right: it *is* a poor firewall for a man. Or a woman.
"U.S. Secret Service they guard the president and for some mind boggling reason, investigate counterfeit currency. "
No, they investigate counterfeit currency and for an accidental reason guard the president. At the time that Congress requested a protection detail for the President, the Secret Service was the largest law enforcement agency at the federal level. The FBI had not yet been created.
Since DHS doesn't deal with actual information, it is reasonable that they do not respond to Freedom of Information requests.