Back i n 2k7 when Microsoft bought Aquantive they sold AdManager as a Linux, solaris and windows application for 2 years before the shut down the AdManager services.
Or maybe he thinks that when people post no proof of their claims, all data they have provided have been refuted by pretty much all sources, and the people post nothing to contradict those sources it probably is a scam.
You are way off base there. You have to separate the ocean data because its temperature changes MUCH slower then everything else, ask your neighborhood chemist about specific heat. The problem is that because of this it has a longer lasting effect then the ground or air temps, because it is going to retain that heat into the fall and winter months, keeping those temperatures higher.
Except it is not the network providers fault, is their shared customers fault. Wihout the ISPs consumers the ISP would not be seeing that data over their network. It is like blaming walmart for everyone trying to cram on a 2 lane high way to reach their store.
It is not remotely like that. You can form new things by blacksmiths, you are not limited by the art itself. In programming in a particular language you are 100% limited by the constructs of that language.
So you dont know if it was a man, woman, or machine but you definitively know she was working for IBM, even though she coved more things that had nothing to do with IBM..... I dont think the poster you responded to was the fool in this thread.
It may be because I am typically settling down around 8-10pm getting ready for bed, and dont read every post in a thread, I assume you dont either, boy would that require a lot of time. Having read it now I dont see anything that "tears it to shreds". Most of the posts that try to refute it talk about having progressive in their name, as if that was the only way they were targeted.
Actually I would not, I am not liberal, and dont blame things on the president without evidence that he/she was involved in it. I dont run crying foul at every little thing that happens negatively. Also I am not lying http://thinkprogress.org/polit....
His point is they are paying more in dividends then the debt itself, and that does not even take into consideration their on hand money.. It means it is their fault that they are in debt, not anything else.
Dude, the whole "did you read the decision" is nonsense, I read it, and it IS stupid. It showed that she lacked an understanding of the internet.. You dont seem to understand, this is not about "You must not make this content available to Canadians", her order, as she stated is remove it completely from the internet everywhere, regardless of if your business can block it only locally...
And that you dont realize that, and that you dont realize it is a FEMALE judge makes me come to the conclusion that you really did not read this all that thoroughly.
No, it is not. The correct answer from a judge is not, oh well I will just trample on the jurisdictions outside of my own. That shows a lack of understanding oh how the internet works.
But the judge was not smart enough to realize that she could have ruled that Google block access to the sites via Canadian IPs and stayed well within her jurisdiction.
False dilemma. Having 2 names has no bearing on this at all. The judge can require that it not be shown in Canada AT ALL, meaning having 2 websites accessible from Canadian locations would not matter, and therefore the law is not meaningless.
The opposite of all nations is not no nations, the opposite is less than all nations.
So, who decides which nations laws count and which nations laws don't? You're on thin ice there, my friend.
They follow the laws in each country when doing business in that country only, as it has been for ages..
the company still has to obey the laws in which it resides
Multinational corporations reside in dozens of countries. This simply moves the goalpost. Which laws do they have to respect? Can they pick? If so, we have the hwole tax haven mess all over again.
It does no such thing. see my statement above. They still have to obey the law, but only with regard to buisness in that country, otherwise you have competing laws/contrary and you have to shut down because of said laws. The only goal post moving here is by this judge
Following your logic all data in the internet would soon be scrubbed because all companies, including those repressive ones, would want data they do not like removed from the internet.
No, following my logic, if you're a judge and you have to decide if your judgement applies to a company or does not apply just because they're multinational, making it apply is the better choice between those two.
That is not what this ruling does, and you know it. The judge in Canada has jurisdiction in Canada, therefore her rulings only affect Canada. You can force them to block the content in Canada, but she cannot force it to be not shown elsewhere.
Shouldn't it be the "religious options" The same things you are quoting Muslims of having issues with Christians and other religious have as well... Book burnings anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
And that is the problem with something that by passes due process. You would get a whole lot less if you followed it then if you dont.
Back i n 2k7 when Microsoft bought Aquantive they sold AdManager as a Linux, solaris and windows application for 2 years before the shut down the AdManager services.
Or maybe he thinks that when people post no proof of their claims, all data they have provided have been refuted by pretty much all sources, and the people post nothing to contradict those sources it probably is a scam.
You are way off base there. You have to separate the ocean data because its temperature changes MUCH slower then everything else, ask your neighborhood chemist about specific heat. The problem is that because of this it has a longer lasting effect then the ground or air temps, because it is going to retain that heat into the fall and winter months, keeping those temperatures higher.
That does not make the blame correct, especially if it was there when the town was small and it grew up around them.
Except it is not the network providers fault, is their shared customers fault. Wihout the ISPs consumers the ISP would not be seeing that data over their network. It is like blaming walmart for everyone trying to cram on a 2 lane high way to reach their store.
It is not remotely like that. You can form new things by blacksmiths, you are not limited by the art itself. In programming in a particular language you are 100% limited by the constructs of that language.
So you dont know if it was a man, woman, or machine but you definitively know she was working for IBM, even though she coved more things that had nothing to do with IBM..... I dont think the poster you responded to was the fool in this thread.
It may be because I am typically settling down around 8-10pm getting ready for bed, and dont read every post in a thread, I assume you dont either, boy would that require a lot of time. Having read it now I dont see anything that "tears it to shreds". Most of the posts that try to refute it talk about having progressive in their name, as if that was the only way they were targeted.
Actually I would not, I am not liberal, and dont blame things on the president without evidence that he/she was involved in it. I dont run crying foul at every little thing that happens negatively. Also I am not lying http://thinkprogress.org/polit....
I would love to see your citation for that. Even the most conservative web searches report more than that. http://thinkprogress.org/polit...
That does not say what you think it says. It also came out before they realized they targeted progressive groups just as often or more often.
That is not the situation he was talking about. He was saying their actions in questioning the groups.
Which law?
http://bgr.com/2014/06/16/spri...
Also where on their site does it say that it is 45 billion? I have looked and looked and I dont see it.
His point is they are paying more in dividends then the debt itself, and that does not even take into consideration their on hand money.. It means it is their fault that they are in debt, not anything else.
I would prefer local country based censorship then global censorship, YES.
Dude, the whole "did you read the decision" is nonsense, I read it, and it IS stupid. It showed that she lacked an understanding of the internet.. You dont seem to understand, this is not about "You must not make this content available to Canadians", her order, as she stated is remove it completely from the internet everywhere, regardless of if your business can block it only locally...
And that you dont realize that, and that you dont realize it is a FEMALE judge makes me come to the conclusion that you really did not read this all that thoroughly.
No, it is not. The correct answer from a judge is not, oh well I will just trample on the jurisdictions outside of my own. That shows a lack of understanding oh how the internet works.
But the judge was not smart enough to realize that she could have ruled that Google block access to the sites via Canadian IPs and stayed well within her jurisdiction.
False dilemma. Having 2 names has no bearing on this at all. The judge can require that it not be shown in Canada AT ALL, meaning having 2 websites accessible from Canadian locations would not matter, and therefore the law is not meaningless.
The opposite of all nations is not no nations, the opposite is less than all nations.
So, who decides which nations laws count and which nations laws don't? You're on thin ice there, my friend.
They follow the laws in each country when doing business in that country only, as it has been for ages..
the company still has to obey the laws in which it resides
Multinational corporations reside in dozens of countries. This simply moves the goalpost. Which laws do they have to respect? Can they pick? If so, we have the hwole tax haven mess all over again.
It does no such thing. see my statement above. They still have to obey the law, but only with regard to buisness in that country, otherwise you have competing laws/contrary and you have to shut down because of said laws. The only goal post moving here is by this judge
Following your logic all data in the internet would soon be scrubbed because all companies, including those repressive ones, would want data they do not like removed from the internet.
No, following my logic, if you're a judge and you have to decide if your judgement applies to a company or does not apply just because they're multinational, making it apply is the better choice between those two.
That is not what this ruling does, and you know it. The judge in Canada has jurisdiction in Canada, therefore her rulings only affect Canada. You can force them to block the content in Canada, but she cannot force it to be not shown elsewhere.
Shouldn't it be the "religious options" The same things you are quoting Muslims of having issues with Christians and other religious have as well... Book burnings anyone?
Better question, why would you use the beta?