"The political incidence test looks to whether the offence is "part of and incidental to a political struggle". Initially, it did not concern itself with the motives of the offender" from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_offence_exception
When the Trump said what he said he basically implied that this was part and incidental to a political struggle. I agree with OP, and bet her Lawyer's will enjoy his words.
They were angry because they were administering networks remotely and all of a sudden were not able to as their access was disabled as well.
Imagine you are an incompetent IT doing work remotely and you can't access it anymore. So you have your client login locally to enable that feature again and they read that message to you. Now your client knows you are incompetent too. And then when the client refuses to enable access from outside the network you actually have to leave your desk to do the work. Or find a new customer as you have now been replaced.
The quote from Musk and the graph both reference accident reductions with Autosteer. Neither call it Autopilot.
Tesla offers, per their manual:
Autopilot Tech Package: • Traffic-Aware Cruise Control • Autosteer • Auto Lane Change • Autopark • Auto High Beam
Why is Musk and the graph specifically referencing Autosteer? I never trust data fully when specific and unexpected words are used. The omission of the word Autopilot implies......
"Tesla cars have gone 320 million miles per fatality, much better than the 86 million miles for the average car. These figures don't necessarily settle the debate. That NHTSA figure doesn't break down the severity of crashes -- it's possible that Autopilot prevents relatively minor crashes but is less effective at preventing the most serious crashes."
I find the skewed submitter's view of "minor crashes" a bit odd.
The comparison is for fatalities per mile. I'd have a hard time expecting that there would be a substantial percentage of accidents with fatalities being very high. That's not to say that there aren't issues here....and it might just be semantics.....but I hope human life has enough of a value so as to not consider a fatal accident as minor.
You have never bought a ticket to an event or movie you saw advertised online? Or an event that popped up on your facebook feed because a friend was going?
You have never craved and eventually bought fast food after seeing an ad? Or bought something in a store that was only familiar to you through an ad? You didn't expect to buy that Cider or brand of Beer.....but you saw the ad and had awareness....and hey, why not?
Many advertisers advertise to brand. Not expecting you will impulse buy. You have never seen an ad for a car or TV or new device that looked cool and you eventually bought? You never thought a product was "cool" because you liked there ads?
Going forward I'll need to post all my personal ads on Trump's Twitter Feed. If everyone joined me he'd need to face liability, block us all, or shut it down. If only it were that easy.
But off net content bears additional charges to an ISP then on-net costs. There are reasons that most ISP's - the same ones who provide cable TV - host netflix servers on-site.
The issue is that every ISP could arguably use this as an advantage against any competing business and that would suppress competition.
Also works well for Rapists (she can't jump from a car that won't unlock) or UBER drivers who want to overcharge. I didn't read the article, but I can't imagine this would be legal in most countries/states....
The money is clearly owed by Volkswagen owners. Just like the owners of any other brand of car with high emissions paid. The Mayor is simply saying that since Volkswagen owners were deceived by Volkswagen, and government monitoring devices were cheated, all knowingly by Volkswagen, then Volkswagen should be responsible for paying the fees.
Changing the subject to how much they should charge does not make your original argument "Except that's not how bandwidth works. You don't consume bandwidth. This is why it doesn't make sense" right. If you don't want to back up your point, then why bother replying?
So when their is saturation in the network it's not from bandwidth consumption? You ISP or phone provider can't fix this by spending their money and splitting nodes, etc.? Your 10/100 NIC had to be upgraded at cost to you. Your 2.4 had to be upgraded at cost to you. But your ISP does not need to spend money to upgrade to provide more bandwidth?
There is more than that. Hotels also charge taxes (federal/provincial and local) on each room and about 3% of the 16% tax goes to support tourism. As rental properties aren't taxable, but rooms rentals are, this is a 16% advantage an Airbnb rental has. And pretty good chance most people who rent via Airbnb aren't paying income tax on that either.
In Victoria BC, the city is trying to make all renters register and pay taxes the same as any hotel and there is outrage amongst renters. Many don't want to have to collect and remit the same taxes those they compete with must.....
Who posted this interesting? Shaw do not allow mail servers on dynamic IP's. This is for obvious reasons. Spamhaus treat dynamic IP's the same way. Unless you are using your own mail server you will not be affected by Shaw or Spamhaus's policy that the parent is talking about. Anyone running their own mail server should be using a static IP address.
You are looking at up to $3.60 per gallon in L.A right now per gasbuddy.com.
California, per the link you provided charges $0.48 per gallon tax PLUS 7.5% state sales tax plus 2% local tax in many areas. "May include" does not mean "does include".
http://www.caltax.org/research/calrank.html
The state tax portion adds $0.27 to the tax and the 2% another $0.07 for a total tax of between $0.75 and $0.82 in California.
Per you link which shows most States with no sales tax to be added and taxes of under $0.30 per gallon, you are validating the grandparents claim that the tax is $0.50/gallon higher....
He was born in Brazil and lived there until he was 9. He has not lived in the US since 2010. He renounced his citizenship in September 2011 long before the IPO was announced, although I am sure he knew the direction.
He is still a Brazillian citizen. If he has to pay US taxes based upon his citizenship wouldn't he also need to pay Brazillian taxes based upon his citizenship as well?
I am not off by a quarter. I linked and pulled my data from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html which is Apples 4th quarter report. So if the data is incorrect, it is Apple data that is incorrect. And I doubt that.
Additionally, I never discussed Apple's net income. "Apples quarterly profit from their last quarter was just over $6 billion " Apple profit is $6 billion, again from the same report. Profit is not equal to net income.
All my math came from legally filed financial reports.
You still do not comment on the math. Per Samsungs financials they had $3 billion profit from handset sales. Apple had $6 billion in profits (total not just iPhone). So unless Apple loses money on everything but handset sales Apple cannot have an 85% share of the profits. Assuming 100% of Apple profit were from iPhone between Samsung and Apple alone that would be $9 billion profit with Samsung pulling in 33% of the profits.
You do realize that Apple makes more than just smartphones, don't you?
You quote the same one article that I was replying too.
And from the article I linked to discussing the Samsung $5 billion: "“(While) 60-70 per cent of (Samsung’s) profit came from handset sales this quarter,... with memory chip prices rising, chips will play a big part in second quarter profits,” said Kim Sung-in, a chip industry analyst at Kiwoom Securities."
So $3 billion alone from handset sales this quarter. How much of Apples $6 billion is from handset sales?
Apple don't say. But they do say "The Company sold 17.07 million iPhones in the quarter. Apple sold 11.12 million iPads during the quarter. The Company sold 4.89 million Macs during the quarter. Apple sold 6.62 million iPods." So less then 50% of the devices sold by Apple were handsets.
Per your article, Samsung = 15% and per my link they made $3 billion. That would mean that Apple made $17 billion on iPhone sales and lost enough money on everything else to bring them down to the $6 billion profit.
Is it self defence if I am breaking into someone's else home, they grab a knife and "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life? Clearly no. The homeowner has the right to defend themselves from the instigator.
Is it self defence if I stalk someone walking down the road and they "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life? Or let's ask it backwards. If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I am followed and stalked by another are they allowed to kill me when I defend myself? EVEN if Zimmerman found himself defending himself he should still be investigated as evidence indicates that he is defending himself from an event he initiated.
Trayvon, per mobile conversation with his girlfriend:
""He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'
She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me""
Florida stalking law arguably shows that Trayvon was being stalked. Easily as arguable as the "stand your ground" arguement. And that would mean that he was killed by someone in the commision of a crime.
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person."
They didn't give it away for free. They were paid with exposure.
Toyota (or any advertiser) pays dearly for that same exposure.
Today the Final Four games are on TV. Each of these athletes works for free and for exposure and hopes that they benefit directly from that exposure. It might be the knowledge the scholarship provided them, or it might be an NBA draft day paycheck followed by a healthy career. Ask Michael Phelps how much he was paid to attend swim meets before he found a way to monetize his career.
Nobody owes these people anything and this lawsuit was folly.
Slashdot Mirror
US policy on Extraditing people.
"The political incidence test looks to whether the offence is "part of and incidental to a political struggle". Initially, it did not concern itself with the motives of the offender" from Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_offence_exception
When the Trump said what he said he basically implied that this was part and incidental to a political struggle. I agree with OP, and bet her Lawyer's will enjoy his words.
They were angry because they were administering networks remotely and all of a sudden were not able to as their access was disabled as well.
Imagine you are an incompetent IT doing work remotely and you can't access it anymore. So you have your client login locally to enable that feature again and they read that message to you. Now your client knows you are incompetent too. And then when the client refuses to enable access from outside the network you actually have to leave your desk to do the work. Or find a new customer as you have now been replaced.
The quote from Musk and the graph both reference accident reductions with Autosteer. Neither call it Autopilot.
Tesla offers, per their manual:
Autopilot Tech Package:
• Traffic-Aware Cruise Control
• Autosteer
• Auto Lane Change
• Autopark
• Auto High Beam
Why is Musk and the graph specifically referencing Autosteer? I never trust data fully when specific and unexpected words are used. The omission of the word Autopilot implies......
"Tesla cars have gone 320 million miles per fatality, much better than the 86 million miles for the average car. These figures don't necessarily settle the debate. That NHTSA figure doesn't break down the severity of crashes -- it's possible that Autopilot prevents relatively minor crashes but is less effective at preventing the most serious crashes."
I find the skewed submitter's view of "minor crashes" a bit odd.
The comparison is for fatalities per mile. I'd have a hard time expecting that there would be a substantial percentage of accidents with fatalities being very high.
That's not to say that there aren't issues here....and it might just be semantics.....but I hope human life has enough of a value so as to not consider a fatal accident as minor.
You have never bought a ticket to an event or movie you saw advertised online?
Or an event that popped up on your facebook feed because a friend was going?
You have never craved and eventually bought fast food after seeing an ad?
Or bought something in a store that was only familiar to you through an ad? You didn't expect to buy that Cider or brand of Beer.....but you saw the ad and had awareness....and hey, why not?
Many advertisers advertise to brand. Not expecting you will impulse buy.
You have never seen an ad for a car or TV or new device that looked cool and you eventually bought?
You never thought a product was "cool" because you liked there ads?
There is an old proverb:
There are 5 frogs on a log.
2 of them decide to jump into the water.
How many frogs remain on the log?
The answer is 5. As deciding to do something is not the same as doing something.
31% are ready to do it. But that 31% hasn't yet. What is holding them back?
Going forward I'll need to post all my personal ads on Trump's Twitter Feed. If everyone joined me he'd need to face liability, block us all, or shut it down. If only it were that easy.
Net Neutrality is a good thing. I am all for it.
But off net content bears additional charges to an ISP then on-net costs. There are reasons that most ISP's - the same ones who provide cable TV - host netflix servers on-site.
The issue is that every ISP could arguably use this as an advantage against any competing business and that would suppress competition.
$38,000,000,000 to the Israel government.
$300,000 to a group that promotes a two state solution.
Definitely biased against the Israel government.
Linking to Popehat. Read about this on Popehat long before it was even clear what they were doing.
https://popehat.com/2016/12/16/the-prenda-saga-goes-criminal-steele-and-hansmeier-indicted-on-federal-charges/
Also works well for Rapists (she can't jump from a car that won't unlock) or UBER drivers who want to overcharge. I didn't read the article, but I can't imagine this would be legal in most countries/states....
The money is clearly owed by Volkswagen owners. Just like the owners of any other brand of car with high emissions paid. The Mayor is simply saying that since Volkswagen owners were deceived by Volkswagen, and government monitoring devices were cheated, all knowingly by Volkswagen, then Volkswagen should be responsible for paying the fees.
"It is either being taken up or it's not" Basically the definition of consumed. Consume: verb: use up (a resource).
What is it that you are arguing again?
Changing the subject to how much they should charge does not make your original argument "Except that's not how bandwidth works. You don't consume bandwidth. This is why it doesn't make sense" right. If you don't want to back up your point, then why bother replying?
So when their is saturation in the network it's not from bandwidth consumption? You ISP or phone provider can't fix this by spending their money and splitting nodes, etc.?
Your 10/100 NIC had to be upgraded at cost to you.
Your 2.4 had to be upgraded at cost to you.
But your ISP does not need to spend money to upgrade to provide more bandwidth?
I find it funny they wait 2 month after a death to announce it (after large stock sales) but take 5 days to announce this. :)
There is more than that. Hotels also charge taxes (federal/provincial and local) on each room and about 3% of the 16% tax goes to support tourism. As rental properties aren't taxable, but rooms rentals are, this is a 16% advantage an Airbnb rental has. And pretty good chance most people who rent via Airbnb aren't paying income tax on that either.
In Victoria BC, the city is trying to make all renters register and pay taxes the same as any hotel and there is outrage amongst renters. Many don't want to have to collect and remit the same taxes those they compete with must.....
Who posted this interesting? Shaw do not allow mail servers on dynamic IP's. This is for obvious reasons. Spamhaus treat dynamic IP's the same way. Unless you are using your own mail server you will not be affected by Shaw or Spamhaus's policy that the parent is talking about.
Anyone running their own mail server should be using a static IP address.
You are looking at up to $3.60 per gallon in L.A right now per gasbuddy.com.
California, per the link you provided charges $0.48 per gallon tax PLUS 7.5% state sales tax plus 2% local tax in many areas. "May include" does not mean "does include".
http://www.caltax.org/research/calrank.html
The state tax portion adds $0.27 to the tax and the 2% another $0.07 for a total tax of between $0.75 and $0.82 in California.
Per you link which shows most States with no sales tax to be added and taxes of under $0.30 per gallon, you are validating the grandparents claim that the tax is $0.50/gallon higher....
Maybe there is a real reason.
He was born in Brazil and lived there until he was 9. He has not lived in the US since 2010. He renounced his citizenship in September 2011 long before the IPO was announced, although I am sure he knew the direction.
He is still a Brazillian citizen. If he has to pay US taxes based upon his citizenship wouldn't he also need to pay Brazillian taxes based upon his citizenship as well?
I am not off by a quarter. I linked and pulled my data from http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html which is Apples 4th quarter report. So if the data is incorrect, it is Apple data that is incorrect. And I doubt that.
Additionally, I never discussed Apple's net income. "Apples quarterly profit from their last quarter was just over $6 billion "
Apple profit is $6 billion, again from the same report. Profit is not equal to net income.
All my math came from legally filed financial reports.
You still do not comment on the math. Per Samsungs financials they had $3 billion profit from handset sales.
Apple had $6 billion in profits (total not just iPhone).
So unless Apple loses money on everything but handset sales Apple cannot have an 85% share of the profits. Assuming 100% of Apple profit were from iPhone between Samsung and Apple alone that would be $9 billion profit with Samsung pulling in 33% of the profits.
You do realize that Apple makes more than just smartphones, don't you?
... with memory chip prices rising, chips will play a big part in second quarter profits,” said Kim Sung-in, a chip industry analyst at Kiwoom Securities."
You quote the same one article that I was replying too.
And from the article I linked to discussing the Samsung $5 billion: "“(While) 60-70 per cent of (Samsung’s) profit came from handset sales this quarter,
So $3 billion alone from handset sales this quarter.
How much of Apples $6 billion is from handset sales?
Apple don't say. But they do say "The Company sold 17.07 million iPhones in the quarter. Apple sold 11.12 million iPads during the quarter. The Company sold 4.89 million Macs during the quarter. Apple sold 6.62 million iPods."
So less then 50% of the devices sold by Apple were handsets.
Per your article, Samsung = 15% and per my link they made $3 billion. That would mean that Apple made $17 billion on iPhone sales and lost enough money on everything else to bring them down to the $6 billion profit.
I don't believe your article is correct.
"Android manufacturers aren't exactly getting rich either..."
Samsung just posted $5 billion profit for their last quarter.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/samsung-posts-record-quarterly-profit/article2394031/
Apples quarterly profit from their last quarter was just over $6 billion.
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html
I agree.
Is it self defence if I am breaking into someone's else home, they grab a knife and "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Clearly no. The homeowner has the right to defend themselves from the instigator.
Is it self defence if I stalk someone walking down the road and they "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Or let's ask it backwards.
If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I am followed and stalked by another are they allowed to kill me when I defend myself?
EVEN if Zimmerman found himself defending himself he should still be investigated as evidence indicates that he is defending himself from an event he initiated.
Trayvon, per mobile conversation with his girlfriend:
""He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'
She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me""
Florida stalking law arguably shows that Trayvon was being stalked. Easily as arguable as the "stand your ground" arguement. And that would mean that he was killed by someone in the commision of a crime.
"FLORIDA
Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person."
They didn't give it away for free. They were paid with exposure.
Toyota (or any advertiser) pays dearly for that same exposure.
Today the Final Four games are on TV. Each of these athletes works for free and for exposure and hopes that they benefit directly from that exposure. It might be the knowledge the scholarship provided them, or it might be an NBA draft day paycheck followed by a healthy career. Ask Michael Phelps how much he was paid to attend swim meets before he found a way to monetize his career.
Nobody owes these people anything and this lawsuit was folly.