"I still don't understand the legal theory that says that foreign citizens operating entirely outside of the US can be held accountable to US law"
If a citizen of country X harms a citizen or entity of country Y while in territory Z, any of X, Y, and Z might have or claim jurisdiction. Who actually handles the case is usually determined by treaties, foremost extradition treaties. This is hardly unique to the US. Europe claims extraterritorial jurisdiction all the time as well.
The US/Europe distinction you're trying to make is probably invalid anyway, since a lot of the plaintiffs are probably partly European owned, and the underlying copyright laws were originally created based on pressure by European publishers. This isn't the US throwing it's weight around, it's the US operating according to international treaties based on long standing European practice and political pressures.
His choice may come down to bring tried in the US or being tried in Europe. It's not obvious which is better. In the US he may actually be able to strike a deal, in Europe, he might face a mandatory prison sentence depending on the circumstances.
Copyright law is governed by international treaties that are binding on every nation. European publishers were some of the biggest lobbyists for that, and European copyright law is draconian. Why do you blame Americans for that?
“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
You don't understand the "general welfare clause"; I suggest you look it up.
Even the Roberts court was able to figure out that the ACA was constitutional.
SCOTUS acted out of deference to legislators, not due to an expansive interpretation of the general welfare clause.
With more conservatives being appointed, I wouldn't count on this sort of thing happening as much in the future. Americans seem pretty tired of progressivism and expansive government.
You don't need to be an expert in everything, provided that you surround yourself with with sufficiently well-informed individuals and have the ability to aggregate their responses to arrive at a decision. Alternatively, you need the ability to sift through a deluge of content to the same end.
And that's why Trump asked Cook to give him advice: on the subjects that Cook is actually an expert on, which is large tech companies and the tech sector.
Cook has no expertise in climate change or immigration, nor is he surrounded by well-informed individuals on those subjects, nor does he spend his time aggregating information on those subjects. Cook is therefore unqualified in those areas both as an expert or as an aggregator of expert opinion.
If you have the right to make me pay for the Iraq war, which I didn't want, or the War on Drugs, which I didn't want, and many other things I didn't want, then why don't I (meaning a majority of voters) have the right to make you pay into a universal risk pool for health care?
Well, the practical answer is that the US Constitution makes defense and international treaties a federal responsibility, but not healthcare.
But people who actually favor liberty believe that no such right exists for any of these issues and that none of them are proper government functions.
Fuck you for thinking that people don't have a right to receive health care. Everybody should have a right to be treated when they are sick without being bankrupted in the process
What you are implicitly advocating is a system in which everybody can be as irresponsible as they want to be, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals can set prices as high as they want, and working folks have to pay no matter what.
Take obesity for example. In many states, Obamacare pays for all the statins, heart transplants, bypasses, dialysis, kidney transplants, bariatric surgery, psychological counseling, and other costly consequences of obesity. Oh, sure, rates get adjusted a little and cities pass soda taxes, but those are fig leaves that don't cover the cost and are evidently not a sufficient motivator. A sufficient motivator might be if people have to face what the actual cost of obesity is down the road: bankruptcy and/or early death. It's exactly the "society pays for everything no matter what" attitude that allows people to make bad choices in the first place.
So, "fuck you" not just for being a tool for the pharma and medical lobby, but also for advocating policies that make Americans sick. Everybody ought to have essential healthcare, but that costs less than a months worth of Obamacare premiums. What drives up the prices of medical care in the US is that government has created private monopolies that can set their own checks, and then we socialize the cost of bad choices and create moral hazards.
I feel a great responsibility as an American, as a CEO, to try to influence things in areas where we have a level of expertise. I've pushed hard on immigration. I've pushed on climate.
And what experience does Tim Cook have on these issues? He is a businessman billionaire who is simply parroting what people tell him; he has no first-hand experience with the effects of illegal immigration, and he has no background in science and likely couldn't explain climate models if his life depended on it.
Cook is a decision maker in his company. But in government, the roles are that Trump is the decision maker and Cook is the expert adviser. It's Cook's duty to stick to those areas that he is an expert in, namely the business of running a high tech company. On all other areas, he should keep his inner Dunning-Kruger in check.
Truth is hard eh? You just use alt-facts (= lies) when it is convenient. Yes: GUN VIOLENCE is higher in the US than any other place not in an active civil war.
We aren't talking about whether it is high in absolute terms, we are talking about your claim that it has not dropped in the US.
You: Almost every place in the world has seen gun violence go down in the last 20-30 years. Almost... the USA is the exception as usual
Me: Not only has gun violence dropped sharply in the US over the last 20-30 years, it has dropped disproportionately more than in other countries, countries that often have introduced strict gun control during the same time.
Trumptard.
I'm afraid that has to be only an "honorary Trumptard" for now, though who knows what 2020 will bring. Feel free to call me other names, though, if it brings you some release. You might try calling me a "deplorable sexist self-hating faggot honky", perhaps? Just let it all out, I've probably heard it before.
You literally don't care whether the lawsuit has any merit
No, I literally don't care. I think corporate efforts at diversity are bullshit. Companies should focus on hiring the best people they can regardless of sex or skin color and on making the most money they can.
Sounds like it took quite a bit to convince you of that.
Claiming she was sexist against men doesn't seem borne out by the numbers. Or wait! Maybe she KNEW yahoo would be run into the ground and THAT'S WHY SHE KEPT 63% MEN AS HER EMPLOYEES!!!
The lawsuit alleges much worse misconduct than that; I suggest you read it. Whether the lawsuit has merit, I don't know and I don't care.
Based on her public statements, I certainly think Mayer is a bigot and a sexist, but then, like most men, I also think that the best way of dealing with bigots and sexists is to simply change jobs. That's probably why Yahoo has such a low percentage of male employees compared to the industry.
It says right at the bottom of the graph that their data is from the US Justice Department.
Yes, and it's from 2001-2011. Is that "the last 20-30 years"? In the US, the peak was in 1993, then it dropped until 2001 has been fairly stable since. The BBC tried to deceive its readers by choosing a time period that fit their political agenda.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you had a learning disability.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you are incapable of basic math.
Cryptoso's claim (any sock-puppet relation to you?) was that gun violence in the us "was up" in the US over the "last 20-30 years", when it is in fact very much down. I suggest you use Google to verify for yourself.
The BBC article is just the usual smug European leftist drivel about how horribly violent the US is and the false implication that European statism would be a fix.
Do you have some alternate facts I don't know about?
Looks like you already have all the alternative facts you need in order to spread your lies.
Almost every place in the world has seen gun violence go down in the last 20-30 years. Almost... the USA is the exception as usual
Not only has gun violence dropped sharply in the US over the last 20-30 years, it has dropped disproportionately more than in other countries, countries that often have introduced strict gun control during the same time.
Almost... the USA is the exception as usual (also exceptional in its ass-poor medical coverage and ass-idiot lack of common education as in "the earth is 6k years old, and evolution is 'just a theory', and we do not believe in global warming"). Not the land of the free but the LAND OF THE STUPID.
Feel free to believe whatever you want. Preferably stay away too.
The page you point to talks about campaigns on VK, a Russian social media site. And even then, the article just provides fact free assertions like "According to researchers, the typical clients of such services are interested in warping the way others perceive reality. These services are usually used for character assassination, swaying political trends, or creating fake celebrities."
So, you other than stating prominently that you are "concerned", you, in fact, also have no idea about how to stop Russia from spying on US politicians, other than to hold those politicians accountable for keeping protecting their own information or live with the consequences. In different words, you're all hot air.
“one in every hundred Google searches that included the word ‘Obama’ also included ‘KKK’” or the n-word
And how is this "persuasive proof that America is full of racist and selfish people"? Clinton places an ad trying to tie Trump to the KKK and accusing him in August 2016. ThinkProgress, Mediaite, and other progressive sites publish articles like "Even the White Supremacists at Stormfront Say Hillary Won the Debate", of course, people are going to search for "stormfront" and "white supremacy".That's not an endorsement of white supremacy or Stormfront, it is an expression that most people don't know about these things: people search for things they don't know.
Oh, and just be aware: if you try to search Hillary Clinton's actual KKK connections (her mentor and close friend, Sen. Byrd was a KKK member and filibustered against the Civil Rights Act), or if you're trying to fact-check Clinton's bogus ads accusing people of racism, in fact, if you are trying to fact-check Stephens-Davidowitz himself, you will be using search terms that will cause Stephens-Davidowitz to accuse you of racism.
Of course, given the furious rate at which Stephens-Davidowitz must have typed those terms into Google and Google Trends for his "research", just think of how high Stephens-Davidowitz himself scores on his racism-o-meter!
The problem here is that Russia, who is an adversary of ours, decided to hack one of our main political party's computers, not with altruism as a goal but with the goal of finding dirt on a candidate they did not want elected
Again, you are misrepresenting history. Russia has been spying on US and European politicians since the end of WWII. They do it every election. The only thing that was different this time is that the DNC was so utterly inept that the Russians actually got something. Hillary deserved to lose simply for that level of incompetence.
not with altruism as a goal
Russia's goal is, and has been for half a century, to sow discord and obtain secrets. The only feasible way we've ever found for dealing with that is to carefully guard our secrets. Hillary and the DNC failed to do that, which is why she ended up in even more trouble than she already was in.
In fact, the reason for concern
Saying you are "concerned" is just empty virtue signaling, not a political position or an argument. Either you accept that countries spy on each other, or you have to make a practical, concrete proposal for how to deal with it within the bounds of the US Constitution. Give it a try.
Me: Europe has been engaging in an orgy of war, destruction, oppression, and genocide for centuries. And you're right that European elites financed the plundering and genocide of peoples around the world.
You: However Europe stopped doing all that after 1945, and the US never stopped... so what is your point?
Of course, the latter claim is bullshit too. Parts of Europe remained fascist for decades after WWII, other parts communist. After WWII, Europe still had colonies around the globe, a bloody religious conflict in Northern Ireland, and an actual genocide in Bosnia in 1995. The only Europeans that were reasonably well behaved were the Germans, but that was because they were split and occupied; the country was full of genuine ex-Nazis until the mid-80s and still has millions of communists and neo-Nazis. That is Europe for you: a political cesspool.
But if you want to find an example for genocide: Vietnam
The mess in Vietnam was caused by French colonialism and Russian expansionism; the US merely tried to contain the aftermath. And the idea that the US committed "genocide" in Vietnam is ludicrous. You must have been listening to old Pravda recordings.
If you want an example for plunder: central and south america, except Argentinia and Brazil.
South America was plundered by the Spanish; the US merely tried to contain the aftermath.
You seem not to get the point. Europe stopped after 1945.
Yes, we already agreed on that. It's no great moral achievement (after all, Europe was still full of Nazis, imperialists, colonialists, socialists, and communists post-1945, they didn't all get killed in WWII), it's simply that Europe didn't have a choice.
The USA did not.
Really? Where did the US "plunder" or commit "genocide" post-1945?
Not if Russia were doing a variety of other things to get Trump elected like say, hacking the DNC to get dirt on Hilary.... None of what you say matters here anyways because not one single thing undermines the fact that a US adversary hacked the DNC with the INTENT OF UNDERMINING ONE OF OUR CANDIDATES.
So, first let's be clear: apparently you agree that Russian speech on media and social media is legitimate, so all we are left with is the "hacking".
The idea that "a US adversary hacked the DNC with the INTENT OF UNDERMINING ONE OF OUR CANDIDATES" is unsupported. Foreign intelligence agencies, just like high school kids, tabloid reporters, criminal gangs, and others, constantly try to "hack" the US government and US politicians; and, in fact, the DNC was not singled out, both the RNC and the DNC were "hacked" (it was actually a phishing attempt) around the same time by the same source. We have no idea whether these hackers would not also have released RNC data if they had gotten anything interesting, but they didn't. The reason this hurt Hillary was because her computer security was piss poor and because she had a lot of dirt on her.
I don't get any more upset about this then I get about Wikileaks. Sure, if you catch the leaker, enforce the law against them. But the fact that the information got leaked is, in the end, a good thing, whether it's Hillary's misadventures or US military misconduct, regardless of who leaked the information or what their motivation was.
Leaked some emails? Sure, let's just turn a blind eye to how they got them. I feel like you're being purposely naive here.
They probably got those E-mails by phishing, you know, the same way a good tabloid reporter would get them. You can slap someone's fingers for that if you can catch them, although I don't consider phishing to be a big deal. The information that was published was still truthful.
Sure, everything can be rewritten with a sed oneliner. However, none of this is going to be maintained very long, which is the true value of some critical programs.
There is zero evidence that Java is any easier to maintain than other safe, statically compiled languages.
Slashdot Mirror
"I still don't understand the legal theory that says that foreign citizens operating entirely outside of the US can be held accountable to US law"
If a citizen of country X harms a citizen or entity of country Y while in territory Z, any of X, Y, and Z might have or claim jurisdiction. Who actually handles the case is usually determined by treaties, foremost extradition treaties. This is hardly unique to the US. Europe claims extraterritorial jurisdiction all the time as well.
The US/Europe distinction you're trying to make is probably invalid anyway, since a lot of the plaintiffs are probably partly European owned, and the underlying copyright laws were originally created based on pressure by European publishers. This isn't the US throwing it's weight around, it's the US operating according to international treaties based on long standing European practice and political pressures.
His choice may come down to bring tried in the US or being tried in Europe. It's not obvious which is better. In the US he may actually be able to strike a deal, in Europe, he might face a mandatory prison sentence depending on the circumstances.
Copyright law is governed by international treaties that are binding on every nation. European publishers were some of the biggest lobbyists for that, and European copyright law is draconian. Why do you blame Americans for that?
First, copyright law was imposed on the world largely because Europeans wanted that, so don't blame US corporations for that.
Now, the guy violated laws that both the US and European nations agreed to by treaty; what exactly do you want to happen?
You don't understand the "general welfare clause"; I suggest you look it up.
SCOTUS acted out of deference to legislators, not due to an expansive interpretation of the general welfare clause.
With more conservatives being appointed, I wouldn't count on this sort of thing happening as much in the future. Americans seem pretty tired of progressivism and expansive government.
And that's why Trump asked Cook to give him advice: on the subjects that Cook is actually an expert on, which is large tech companies and the tech sector.
Cook has no expertise in climate change or immigration, nor is he surrounded by well-informed individuals on those subjects, nor does he spend his time aggregating information on those subjects. Cook is therefore unqualified in those areas both as an expert or as an aggregator of expert opinion.
Well, the practical answer is that the US Constitution makes defense and international treaties a federal responsibility, but not healthcare.
But people who actually favor liberty believe that no such right exists for any of these issues and that none of them are proper government functions.
What you are implicitly advocating is a system in which everybody can be as irresponsible as they want to be, pharmaceutical companies and hospitals can set prices as high as they want, and working folks have to pay no matter what.
Take obesity for example. In many states, Obamacare pays for all the statins, heart transplants, bypasses, dialysis, kidney transplants, bariatric surgery, psychological counseling, and other costly consequences of obesity. Oh, sure, rates get adjusted a little and cities pass soda taxes, but those are fig leaves that don't cover the cost and are evidently not a sufficient motivator. A sufficient motivator might be if people have to face what the actual cost of obesity is down the road: bankruptcy and/or early death. It's exactly the "society pays for everything no matter what" attitude that allows people to make bad choices in the first place.
So, "fuck you" not just for being a tool for the pharma and medical lobby, but also for advocating policies that make Americans sick. Everybody ought to have essential healthcare, but that costs less than a months worth of Obamacare premiums. What drives up the prices of medical care in the US is that government has created private monopolies that can set their own checks, and then we socialize the cost of bad choices and create moral hazards.
And what experience does Tim Cook have on these issues? He is a businessman billionaire who is simply parroting what people tell him; he has no first-hand experience with the effects of illegal immigration, and he has no background in science and likely couldn't explain climate models if his life depended on it.
Cook is a decision maker in his company. But in government, the roles are that Trump is the decision maker and Cook is the expert adviser. It's Cook's duty to stick to those areas that he is an expert in, namely the business of running a high tech company. On all other areas, he should keep his inner Dunning-Kruger in check.
We aren't talking about whether it is high in absolute terms, we are talking about your claim that it has not dropped in the US.
You: Almost every place in the world has seen gun violence go down in the last 20-30 years. Almost... the USA is the exception as usual
Me: Not only has gun violence dropped sharply in the US over the last 20-30 years, it has dropped disproportionately more than in other countries, countries that often have introduced strict gun control during the same time.
I'm afraid that has to be only an "honorary Trumptard" for now, though who knows what 2020 will bring. Feel free to call me other names, though, if it brings you some release. You might try calling me a "deplorable sexist self-hating faggot honky", perhaps? Just let it all out, I've probably heard it before.
No, I literally don't care. I think corporate efforts at diversity are bullshit. Companies should focus on hiring the best people they can regardless of sex or skin color and on making the most money they can.
No, not much at all; it's pretty obvious.
The lawsuit alleges much worse misconduct than that; I suggest you read it. Whether the lawsuit has merit, I don't know and I don't care.
Based on her public statements, I certainly think Mayer is a bigot and a sexist, but then, like most men, I also think that the best way of dealing with bigots and sexists is to simply change jobs. That's probably why Yahoo has such a low percentage of male employees compared to the industry.
Yes, and it's from 2001-2011. Is that "the last 20-30 years"? In the US, the peak was in 1993, then it dropped until 2001 has been fairly stable since. The BBC tried to deceive its readers by choosing a time period that fit their political agenda.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you are incapable of basic math.
Cryptoso's claim (any sock-puppet relation to you?) was that gun violence in the us "was up" in the US over the "last 20-30 years", when it is in fact very much down. I suggest you use Google to verify for yourself.
The BBC article is just the usual smug European leftist drivel about how horribly violent the US is and the false implication that European statism would be a fix.
Looks like you already have all the alternative facts you need in order to spread your lies.
Not only has gun violence dropped sharply in the US over the last 20-30 years, it has dropped disproportionately more than in other countries, countries that often have introduced strict gun control during the same time.
Feel free to believe whatever you want. Preferably stay away too.
Faster at what? Running a company into the ground? Firing male workers? Complaining of sexism?
The page you point to talks about campaigns on VK, a Russian social media site. And even then, the article just provides fact free assertions like "According to researchers, the typical clients of such services are interested in warping the way others perceive reality. These services are usually used for character assassination, swaying political trends, or creating fake celebrities."
Indeed, you can keep misrepresenting the facts as long as you want to, it doesn't change the facts.
And the facts are that Russia has been targeting US politicians for more than half a century. The only way this election was different is the extreme incompetence on the part of Democrats.
So, you other than stating prominently that you are "concerned", you, in fact, also have no idea about how to stop Russia from spying on US politicians, other than to hold those politicians accountable for keeping protecting their own information or live with the consequences. In different words, you're all hot air.
And how is this "persuasive proof that America is full of racist and selfish people"? Clinton places an ad trying to tie Trump to the KKK and accusing him in August 2016. ThinkProgress, Mediaite, and other progressive sites publish articles like "Even the White Supremacists at Stormfront Say Hillary Won the Debate", of course, people are going to search for "stormfront" and "white supremacy".That's not an endorsement of white supremacy or Stormfront, it is an expression that most people don't know about these things: people search for things they don't know.
Oh, and just be aware: if you try to search Hillary Clinton's actual KKK connections (her mentor and close friend, Sen. Byrd was a KKK member and filibustered against the Civil Rights Act), or if you're trying to fact-check Clinton's bogus ads accusing people of racism, in fact, if you are trying to fact-check Stephens-Davidowitz himself, you will be using search terms that will cause Stephens-Davidowitz to accuse you of racism.
Of course, given the furious rate at which Stephens-Davidowitz must have typed those terms into Google and Google Trends for his "research", just think of how high Stephens-Davidowitz himself scores on his racism-o-meter!
Again, you are misrepresenting history. Russia has been spying on US and European politicians since the end of WWII. They do it every election. The only thing that was different this time is that the DNC was so utterly inept that the Russians actually got something. Hillary deserved to lose simply for that level of incompetence.
Russia's goal is, and has been for half a century, to sow discord and obtain secrets. The only feasible way we've ever found for dealing with that is to carefully guard our secrets. Hillary and the DNC failed to do that, which is why she ended up in even more trouble than she already was in.
Saying you are "concerned" is just empty virtue signaling, not a political position or an argument. Either you accept that countries spy on each other, or you have to make a practical, concrete proposal for how to deal with it within the bounds of the US Constitution. Give it a try.
Me: Europe has been engaging in an orgy of war, destruction, oppression, and genocide for centuries. And you're right that European elites financed the plundering and genocide of peoples around the world.
You: However Europe stopped doing all that after 1945, and the US never stopped ... so what is your point?
Of course, the latter claim is bullshit too. Parts of Europe remained fascist for decades after WWII, other parts communist. After WWII, Europe still had colonies around the globe, a bloody religious conflict in Northern Ireland, and an actual genocide in Bosnia in 1995. The only Europeans that were reasonably well behaved were the Germans, but that was because they were split and occupied; the country was full of genuine ex-Nazis until the mid-80s and still has millions of communists and neo-Nazis. That is Europe for you: a political cesspool.
The mess in Vietnam was caused by French colonialism and Russian expansionism; the US merely tried to contain the aftermath. And the idea that the US committed "genocide" in Vietnam is ludicrous. You must have been listening to old Pravda recordings.
South America was plundered by the Spanish; the US merely tried to contain the aftermath.
Yes, we already agreed on that. It's no great moral achievement (after all, Europe was still full of Nazis, imperialists, colonialists, socialists, and communists post-1945, they didn't all get killed in WWII), it's simply that Europe didn't have a choice.
Really? Where did the US "plunder" or commit "genocide" post-1945?
So, first let's be clear: apparently you agree that Russian speech on media and social media is legitimate, so all we are left with is the "hacking".
The idea that "a US adversary hacked the DNC with the INTENT OF UNDERMINING ONE OF OUR CANDIDATES" is unsupported. Foreign intelligence agencies, just like high school kids, tabloid reporters, criminal gangs, and others, constantly try to "hack" the US government and US politicians; and, in fact, the DNC was not singled out, both the RNC and the DNC were "hacked" (it was actually a phishing attempt) around the same time by the same source. We have no idea whether these hackers would not also have released RNC data if they had gotten anything interesting, but they didn't. The reason this hurt Hillary was because her computer security was piss poor and because she had a lot of dirt on her.
I don't get any more upset about this then I get about Wikileaks. Sure, if you catch the leaker, enforce the law against them. But the fact that the information got leaked is, in the end, a good thing, whether it's Hillary's misadventures or US military misconduct, regardless of who leaked the information or what their motivation was.
They probably got those E-mails by phishing, you know, the same way a good tabloid reporter would get them. You can slap someone's fingers for that if you can catch them, although I don't consider phishing to be a big deal. The information that was published was still truthful.
There is zero evidence that Java is any easier to maintain than other safe, statically compiled languages.