All of those things are correct except the last part.
The US has the authority, as a sovereign nation, to require whatever of corporations constituted within its jurisdiction. When a corporation is subject to multiple, contradictory jurisdictions, it then must choose a course of action and accept the consequences of that action. Not all consequences are pretty.
No, its operations are subject to both jurisdictions.
There have been certain countries with no laws against bribery. US companies operating in those jurisdictions were still absolutely required to abide by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This is why multinational operations are so complex. They must abide by multiple sets of rules at the same time. Some of those conflict. This is not a new development.
So yes, while there are many, many contradictory regulations that do not need to be abided by in certain circumstances, there are also many which do. Examples of those which can be ignored safely, as you noted, do nothing to invalidate the existence of examples which cannot be safely ignored.
A US court can, however, tell a US corporation whether it can seek to enforce an injunction granted in another jurisdiction.
The court isn't telling Germany to do or not do anything. They're telling Motorola that they cannot seek to have the injunction enforced because of an ongoing lawsuit over whether Motorola acted improperly regarding the fees they requested for the standards-essential patent(s) at issue.
I think this level of understanding of foreign policy matters in countries like Pakistan exceeds most of the staff of both the Defense and State Depts.
I'm pretty sure there's a bacon cult gaining power in the US. Now that they've sucked the brains out of enough people, they can control the country by controlling the bacon supply.
Maybe it's larger than that. Has irrational preoccupation with bacon spread to other parts of the world too?
Pressure on water supplies is one of the largest issues facing agriculture pretty much everywhere.
There are regularly water conflicts in the US involving agricultural land, because there isn't enough to go around.
There is only a limited amount that can be done by planning, and then only in the most massive reservoirs. If there are multi-year rainfall problems, even they can't plan their way out of problems.
You don't have water access problems because residential water users have priority access. Farmers are up there on the list, but when it comes down to the limited supply in the Southwest, in bad years all the water goes to residential users and other users who are on the critical list. Farmers aren't on that list.
The easiest fix is simply to remove the dimmer switches. It's not difficult, doesn't require a permit, and once the house is built nobody will question it (not even if you later sell it).
A box of 10 high quality standard switches is something like $12 (YMMV, it's a big country), the simplest of wiring knowledge, and maybe a couple hours of time (if you have a bunch to replace).
If you're in a location where they really are actually required by law, it's a circumstance where it is impossible to be caught for it. They probably wouldn't even do anything if you called up your local code enforcement office, told them your name and address, and told them what you were doing.
Not in my neck of the woods. The tiered pricing structure of electricity in the Northwest means a lower load decreases your bill by preventing you from jumping up into higher payment blocks (based on consumed KWh/month).
My bill would be lower and nobody else's bill would go up, so it really is as close to "free" as you can get. Contrary to popular belief, it is in most utilities' economic interest to cut the amount of power they sell, up to the point of equilibrium with what they generate. Most utilities generate less than they sell, requiring them to participate in wholesale markets. That adds a huge layer of expense and complexity to their operations.
The only people hurt by increased efficiency are massive interstate electricity wholesalers and natural gas/coal suppliers, not utility companies (unless they're one of a very few which are one and the same).
In SupportLand, saying "there are no link lights" is usually equivalent to saying "there are no link lights illuminated."
That's the vague part.
You have to consider that neither Support personnel nor the customers they're supporting speak English, even if it's their native language. English can be incredibly ambiguous even if used quite conscientiously.
I was going based on earlier reading I had done regarding oxycodone binding. Based on a bit of looking that appears to be in dispute.
The rest stands. While they are related, they do not follow the same primary metabolic pathways, and they (and certain metabolites) cross the blood-brain barrier at different stages during metabolism. They also have large variances depending on the method of administration.
The comparison I was responding to was akin to saying a lion is a big leopard with a different skin. It's more fiction than truth except in the most generalized sense.
In relation to addiction, yes, the semantics is fairly important. There is an incredible amount of misinformation spread as a result of conflating "addiction" with "dependency." And yes, it was clear to me from your second post that you meant only the physical effects.
I was simply noting that, in my experience, the usage of the term "hooked" has universally dealt with the psychological side (addiction), rather than the physical side (dependency).
The distinction may seem to be pedantry to you; I don't feel the same. My post was not intended as a slight, but was intended to highlight the problem with confusing two very distinct aspects of drug use. You may know exactly what you meant, but I've encountered many others who have approached the discussion the same way and come away with the opposite conclusion. My post may not have any worth to you, but if it has worth to others who may have been confused it has served its purpose.
From what I've read, the incidence of psychological addiction developing in people who take opiates for chronic pain is actually quite a lot lower than for those who take them for acute pain (post-op, injury, whatever). Unfortunately I cannot remember where I saw the reference to such studies, so anyone interested might wish to dig in that direction.
Fortunately, cancer pain has so far been relatively insulated from the crackdowns in other areas. I know I'd be non-functional from pain without opiate-based pain management.
I feel for you. 31st Sept, 2007 myself, but sadly no hope of ever getting my guts re-attached. On the plus side, that means I have never had to worry about constipation problems. Opiates have actually made my ileostomy more manageable.
One thing I would mention: if you have the option of switching to fentanyl patches, for the love of $deity do not do so. They are fantastic unless you ever have reason to stop using them, and then they're a nightmare. If you think oxycodone withdrawal was bad, it doesn't touch fentanyl withdrawal (actually, taking oxycodone doesn't touch fentanyl withdrawal symptoms, either). I ended up on cetuximab therapy, which caused serious skin problems. That means the fentanyl patches release far faster than they're supposed to, so you spend a day in a fog, a day feeling fine, and a day in withdrawal. Rinse and repeat.
That's probably because, if you think computer industry battles are bad, the scorched earth tactics used against a pharma company who tried that would probably end up in the implosion of the pharma industry and/or a complete patent system overhaul. Nobody wants either. Nobody with money, anyway.
Addiction is psychological. Dependency is physical.
Most people use the term "hooked" to indicate a psychological desire to consume the substance because they enjoy the feeling.
If you're taking smaller doses so you aren't miserable from physical withdrawal but couldn't care less about how they make you feel otherwise, you were not ever "hooked" according to the parlance common in every portion of the US I've ever lived in (so everywhere but the southwest and Great Plains states).
If you had read both links, you'd realize two things:
1) Oxycodone operates on different receptors than morphine does, the latter being what heroin converts into metabolically (giving a clue the two are not chemically interchangeable).
2) The article never says oxycodone is heroin; it says an addict switched from oxycodone to heroin.
Your entire comment applies much more aptly to you than to the person at which it was directed.
As I said, acceptable for a specific implementation, not the concept in general of sensing events using an accelerometer..
This in particular has merit because it deals with a method which ordinarily would be considered abuse under the terms of most warranties. Seems like a lot of people want to overlook that incredibly salient point.
That only works if the economy is driven by the middle 80% (of whatever metric you're referring to, as it's not clear if it's wealth, education, economic performance...). Whether it's true or not, the article suggests the economy is driven by the top 25% of performers, so it's more important (according to them) to cut off the bottom 75% of numbers as irrelevant.
I'd be more likely to believe it's economic performance, regardless of wealth or education. For whatever reason, and the article is certainly right about this part: the US attracts and retains talent at a higher rate than any other country. If the US did not do that, the US would be unlikely to be the economic superpower it is. As long as the US can continue to do that, again for whatever reason, it will remain at, or near, the top of the world economy for as long as it can continue to attract and retain top talent from other countries. I'd say as long as immigrants with the talent and drive to put themselves on the positive side of that wealth inequality can do so, the US will have an easier time attracting them.
I'm normally pretty anti-MS and anti-patent, but this isn't actually a bad idea if they've developed a method to do this safely. While there is obviously the analogy to silencing alarm clocks by hitting them or throwing them, it's generally not advisable and will usually void your warranty. There is a clock which was designed specifically to be silenced by throwing it against a wall, and it would not surprise me to see that patented.
Now, if it's the entire concept of "hitting the phone to silence it," I would see that as being overly broad. If it's about a particular method of doing so safely, then I'm all for it being patentable.
In practical terms it is made up of a subset of your neighbors who have very specific prejudices and cause very specific types of subsets of the problems you listed.
No, they do not broadly do the same sort of stupid things which any given set of other people do generally. They do very specific stupid things, and use violence in very particular stupid ways (and in ways which are not stupid, don't get me wrong).
And yes, I agree with your analysis of rarity. The focus of the other side sometimes gets lost behind the truth of that, and that is the problems being magnified many times over as each of those more-rare events occur. Once you get to the "national crazy" level, all those areas everyone stopped paying attention to in the name of expediency during the good times end up being the majority of the rope used to hang the people who die as a result. There's certainly middle ground, but then nobody gets elected anymore talking about that because the nation is currently full of crazy, though not yet murder-your-neighbor-because-he's-xxx-party crazy.
As for Trayvon Martin, most of the people I'm aware of who ignored it didn't do so because the asshole who shot him was a gun guy. They ignored it because the racial arguments were as moronic as the reasons being trotted out to defend the shooter, and anyone getting involved in the argument on either side looked like an asshole by association. In general, I think the people involved in both sides (at least the loudest) by-and-large were assholes.
A pedophiles thoughts are no different than anyone elses sexual thoughts.
Not at the most fundamental level, no, which is why methods by which the translation of any other type of sexual thought into action can be mitigated are equally applicable to pedophilia. There is evidence to suggest that pornography can do so. So long as it is created without actually harming children (CG, manga, whatever) the potential for it to prevent even one of those crossovers from thought to action means it deserves to be more thoroughly researched rather than being swept under the rug (the latter being the basic assertion of the poster to which I was responding).
It could come to nothing, but the issue should be researched, not unilaterally declared off-limits because certain people have decided that certain things are unassailable fact "just because."
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, to all of the above.
The question then comes whether they ignore the order and face the consequences in the jurisdiction whose judicial system they are ignoring.
Welcome to the world of operating in multiple national jurisdictions.
All of those things are correct except the last part.
The US has the authority, as a sovereign nation, to require whatever of corporations constituted within its jurisdiction. When a corporation is subject to multiple, contradictory jurisdictions, it then must choose a course of action and accept the consequences of that action. Not all consequences are pretty.
No, its operations are subject to both jurisdictions.
There have been certain countries with no laws against bribery. US companies operating in those jurisdictions were still absolutely required to abide by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This is why multinational operations are so complex. They must abide by multiple sets of rules at the same time. Some of those conflict. This is not a new development.
So yes, while there are many, many contradictory regulations that do not need to be abided by in certain circumstances, there are also many which do. Examples of those which can be ignored safely, as you noted, do nothing to invalidate the existence of examples which cannot be safely ignored.
A US court can, however, tell a US corporation whether it can seek to enforce an injunction granted in another jurisdiction.
The court isn't telling Germany to do or not do anything. They're telling Motorola that they cannot seek to have the injunction enforced because of an ongoing lawsuit over whether Motorola acted improperly regarding the fees they requested for the standards-essential patent(s) at issue.
Doh, posting to undo moderation.
I think this level of understanding of foreign policy matters in countries like Pakistan exceeds most of the staff of both the Defense and State Depts.
I'm pretty sure there's a bacon cult gaining power in the US. Now that they've sucked the brains out of enough people, they can control the country by controlling the bacon supply.
Maybe it's larger than that. Has irrational preoccupation with bacon spread to other parts of the world too?
Pressure on water supplies is one of the largest issues facing agriculture pretty much everywhere.
There are regularly water conflicts in the US involving agricultural land, because there isn't enough to go around.
There is only a limited amount that can be done by planning, and then only in the most massive reservoirs. If there are multi-year rainfall problems, even they can't plan their way out of problems.
You don't have water access problems because residential water users have priority access. Farmers are up there on the list, but when it comes down to the limited supply in the Southwest, in bad years all the water goes to residential users and other users who are on the critical list. Farmers aren't on that list.
The easiest fix is simply to remove the dimmer switches. It's not difficult, doesn't require a permit, and once the house is built nobody will question it (not even if you later sell it).
A box of 10 high quality standard switches is something like $12 (YMMV, it's a big country), the simplest of wiring knowledge, and maybe a couple hours of time (if you have a bunch to replace).
If you're in a location where they really are actually required by law, it's a circumstance where it is impossible to be caught for it. They probably wouldn't even do anything if you called up your local code enforcement office, told them your name and address, and told them what you were doing.
Not in my neck of the woods. The tiered pricing structure of electricity in the Northwest means a lower load decreases your bill by preventing you from jumping up into higher payment blocks (based on consumed KWh/month).
My bill would be lower and nobody else's bill would go up, so it really is as close to "free" as you can get. Contrary to popular belief, it is in most utilities' economic interest to cut the amount of power they sell, up to the point of equilibrium with what they generate. Most utilities generate less than they sell, requiring them to participate in wholesale markets. That adds a huge layer of expense and complexity to their operations.
The only people hurt by increased efficiency are massive interstate electricity wholesalers and natural gas/coal suppliers, not utility companies (unless they're one of a very few which are one and the same).
In SupportLand, saying "there are no link lights" is usually equivalent to saying "there are no link lights illuminated."
That's the vague part.
You have to consider that neither Support personnel nor the customers they're supporting speak English, even if it's their native language. English can be incredibly ambiguous even if used quite conscientiously.
Yeah, I had someone disagree with that in a previous comment. I was going on something I had read quite a while ago, which appears to be in dispute.
I was going based on earlier reading I had done regarding oxycodone binding. Based on a bit of looking that appears to be in dispute.
The rest stands. While they are related, they do not follow the same primary metabolic pathways, and they (and certain metabolites) cross the blood-brain barrier at different stages during metabolism. They also have large variances depending on the method of administration.
The comparison I was responding to was akin to saying a lion is a big leopard with a different skin. It's more fiction than truth except in the most generalized sense.
In relation to addiction, yes, the semantics is fairly important. There is an incredible amount of misinformation spread as a result of conflating "addiction" with "dependency." And yes, it was clear to me from your second post that you meant only the physical effects.
I was simply noting that, in my experience, the usage of the term "hooked" has universally dealt with the psychological side (addiction), rather than the physical side (dependency).
The distinction may seem to be pedantry to you; I don't feel the same. My post was not intended as a slight, but was intended to highlight the problem with confusing two very distinct aspects of drug use. You may know exactly what you meant, but I've encountered many others who have approached the discussion the same way and come away with the opposite conclusion. My post may not have any worth to you, but if it has worth to others who may have been confused it has served its purpose.
Just a note: Oxycodone is a K-opioid, not a Mu-opioid.
From what I've read, the incidence of psychological addiction developing in people who take opiates for chronic pain is actually quite a lot lower than for those who take them for acute pain (post-op, injury, whatever). Unfortunately I cannot remember where I saw the reference to such studies, so anyone interested might wish to dig in that direction.
Fortunately, cancer pain has so far been relatively insulated from the crackdowns in other areas. I know I'd be non-functional from pain without opiate-based pain management.
I feel for you. 31st Sept, 2007 myself, but sadly no hope of ever getting my guts re-attached. On the plus side, that means I have never had to worry about constipation problems. Opiates have actually made my ileostomy more manageable.
One thing I would mention: if you have the option of switching to fentanyl patches, for the love of $deity do not do so. They are fantastic unless you ever have reason to stop using them, and then they're a nightmare. If you think oxycodone withdrawal was bad, it doesn't touch fentanyl withdrawal (actually, taking oxycodone doesn't touch fentanyl withdrawal symptoms, either). I ended up on cetuximab therapy, which caused serious skin problems. That means the fentanyl patches release far faster than they're supposed to, so you spend a day in a fog, a day feeling fine, and a day in withdrawal. Rinse and repeat.
Hope things work out for you. Good luck.
That's probably because, if you think computer industry battles are bad, the scorched earth tactics used against a pharma company who tried that would probably end up in the implosion of the pharma industry and/or a complete patent system overhaul. Nobody wants either. Nobody with money, anyway.
Addiction is psychological. Dependency is physical.
Most people use the term "hooked" to indicate a psychological desire to consume the substance because they enjoy the feeling.
If you're taking smaller doses so you aren't miserable from physical withdrawal but couldn't care less about how they make you feel otherwise, you were not ever "hooked" according to the parlance common in every portion of the US I've ever lived in (so everywhere but the southwest and Great Plains states).
If you had read both links, you'd realize two things:
1) Oxycodone operates on different receptors than morphine does, the latter being what heroin converts into metabolically (giving a clue the two are not chemically interchangeable).
2) The article never says oxycodone is heroin; it says an addict switched from oxycodone to heroin.
Your entire comment applies much more aptly to you than to the person at which it was directed.
As I said, acceptable for a specific implementation, not the concept in general of sensing events using an accelerometer..
This in particular has merit because it deals with a method which ordinarily would be considered abuse under the terms of most warranties. Seems like a lot of people want to overlook that incredibly salient point.
That only works if the economy is driven by the middle 80% (of whatever metric you're referring to, as it's not clear if it's wealth, education, economic performance...). Whether it's true or not, the article suggests the economy is driven by the top 25% of performers, so it's more important (according to them) to cut off the bottom 75% of numbers as irrelevant.
I'd be more likely to believe it's economic performance, regardless of wealth or education. For whatever reason, and the article is certainly right about this part: the US attracts and retains talent at a higher rate than any other country. If the US did not do that, the US would be unlikely to be the economic superpower it is. As long as the US can continue to do that, again for whatever reason, it will remain at, or near, the top of the world economy for as long as it can continue to attract and retain top talent from other countries. I'd say as long as immigrants with the talent and drive to put themselves on the positive side of that wealth inequality can do so, the US will have an easier time attracting them.
I'm normally pretty anti-MS and anti-patent, but this isn't actually a bad idea if they've developed a method to do this safely. While there is obviously the analogy to silencing alarm clocks by hitting them or throwing them, it's generally not advisable and will usually void your warranty. There is a clock which was designed specifically to be silenced by throwing it against a wall, and it would not surprise me to see that patented.
Now, if it's the entire concept of "hitting the phone to silence it," I would see that as being overly broad. If it's about a particular method of doing so safely, then I'm all for it being patentable.
In practical terms it is made up of a subset of your neighbors who have very specific prejudices and cause very specific types of subsets of the problems you listed.
No, they do not broadly do the same sort of stupid things which any given set of other people do generally. They do very specific stupid things, and use violence in very particular stupid ways (and in ways which are not stupid, don't get me wrong).
And yes, I agree with your analysis of rarity. The focus of the other side sometimes gets lost behind the truth of that, and that is the problems being magnified many times over as each of those more-rare events occur. Once you get to the "national crazy" level, all those areas everyone stopped paying attention to in the name of expediency during the good times end up being the majority of the rope used to hang the people who die as a result. There's certainly middle ground, but then nobody gets elected anymore talking about that because the nation is currently full of crazy, though not yet murder-your-neighbor-because-he's-xxx-party crazy.
As for Trayvon Martin, most of the people I'm aware of who ignored it didn't do so because the asshole who shot him was a gun guy. They ignored it because the racial arguments were as moronic as the reasons being trotted out to defend the shooter, and anyone getting involved in the argument on either side looked like an asshole by association. In general, I think the people involved in both sides (at least the loudest) by-and-large were assholes.
A pedophiles thoughts are no different than anyone elses sexual thoughts.
Not at the most fundamental level, no, which is why methods by which the translation of any other type of sexual thought into action can be mitigated are equally applicable to pedophilia. There is evidence to suggest that pornography can do so. So long as it is created without actually harming children (CG, manga, whatever) the potential for it to prevent even one of those crossovers from thought to action means it deserves to be more thoroughly researched rather than being swept under the rug (the latter being the basic assertion of the poster to which I was responding).
It could come to nothing, but the issue should be researched, not unilaterally declared off-limits because certain people have decided that certain things are unassailable fact "just because."