You weren't correcting anyone or even responding to their points, so when you say "actually" as though you're correcting something, you look like an asshole who can't read.
"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."
No, I pointed out they engage in selective prosecution.
"Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims."
It does when the treaty requires China to police everyone, as this one does. If they only police one side, the treaty isn't being upheld by China. And MS can say so, and get away with it.
See now why you're wrong?
"So you were right about not having a (valid) point."
Thanks, but I already knew you didn't have a valid point, at least you're man enough to admit it.
"USA is the leading manufacturer in the world with a 2007 industrial output of US$2,696,880 millions. Main industries are petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining."
Please educate yourself, so you're not making claims like "At least for us Americans IP is the only thing we still produce DESPITE HAVING THE LARGEST MANUFACTURING OUTPUT OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD".
Although is it fun to repeatedly inform you people who like to pretend you know what you're talking about that you do not, in fact, have ANY idea WTF you are talking about and have just proven so.
"The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."
No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.
So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.
So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.
How is this insightful? He didn't even make a coherent point?
Are you saying MS doesn't give a shit about IP?
Why does that matter when they'reneither a sovereign nation nor a court of law, thereby making it impossible for their opinion to be interchangeable with the court of law of a sovereign nation?
Please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here.
It fascinates me that China thinks they can simultaneously not give a shit about IP in every day practice, yet still think a ruling like this will have credibility.
"The word "buried" must have made me biased. I think you might have a reading comprehension problem."
SO, keeping them in prison until they die of old age won't result in them being buried?
Oh, it will, And that's what a whole life tariff is.
God, you must be so embarrassed being wrong twice AND calling someone out for thier reading comprehension when it was your own lack of intelligence that caused you to say something stupid in the first place.
Your apology is accepted in advance.
I really do enjoy these moments, when an asshole like you gets shut the fuck up after shooting off his dicksucker, it's very satisfying to know not only that I'm right, but that you're completely wrong, and better yet, KNOW YOU ARE WRONG, hence your pathetic attempts to flame me.
"I know, most politicians won't go with it, but here it is: How increasing spending and paying for it with higher taxes and "user fees"? In particular, let's spend more money on roads and mass transit, education, policing, public safety, regulation of the financial system and providing fair access to decent health insurance."
Because, at the moment, politicians are stupid and wasteful with my money, and I get to refuse to give them more until they prove they can spend it wisely.
Why is it the same people who espouse more spending rarely if ever expect that spending to be efficient or effectively, intelligently used?
YOU: "More money will solve all these 'save the children problems' I care about"
PEOPLE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN YOU: "Why not improve efficiency first so we aren't wasting even more money than we are now? That will give us more money to spend on important projects, like the ones you think are important"
YOU: "More money will solve all these 'save the children problems' I care about, YOU CONSERVATIVES HATE OTHER HUMANS!!!"
PEOPLE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN YOU: "Yeah, no one really expected an intelligent response from you anyway, thanks for obliging".
To be clear, STOP ASKING FOR MORE MONEY UNTIL YOU FIRST INSIST ON MORE EFFICIENCY OR ACCOUNTABILITY, OR I WILL TREAT YOU LIKE THE THIEF YOU ARE.
No it isn't, and you cannot provide a law or citation proving otherwise.
Nor have you even provided a coherent attempt at an explanation as to why you think you're correct about something you've been repeatedly proven wrong about.
"there is no reason that they should be subsidized over local retailers."
Yes there is actually, Amazon doesn't use the facilities and services that said taxes go to pay for, which is the primary justification for collecting taxes from business in the first place.
As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out, it appears you don't have the slightest idea what the fuck you're talking about, and had already been proven wrong before you even posted.
Funny, you didn't even know enough about the subject on which you were arrogantly pontificating to know you were completely wrong before you even opened your mouth.
YES! We should certainly pay attention to what you say, you clearly try very hard to be accurate!
Slashdot Mirror
"Actually,"
Actually what?
You weren't correcting anyone or even responding to their points, so when you say "actually" as though you're correcting something, you look like an asshole who can't read.
"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."
No, I pointed out they engage in selective prosecution.
"Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims."
It does when the treaty requires China to police everyone, as this one does. If they only police one side, the treaty isn't being upheld by China. And MS can say so, and get away with it.
See now why you're wrong?
"So you were right about not having a (valid) point."
Thanks, but I already knew you didn't have a valid point, at least you're man enough to admit it.
Nope, you couldn't possibly be more wrong if you tried.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing
"USA is the leading manufacturer in the world with a 2007 industrial output of US$2,696,880 millions. Main industries are petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining."
Please educate yourself, so you're not making claims like "At least for us Americans IP is the only thing we still produce DESPITE HAVING THE LARGEST MANUFACTURING OUTPUT OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD".
Although is it fun to repeatedly inform you people who like to pretend you know what you're talking about that you do not, in fact, have ANY idea WTF you are talking about and have just proven so.
"It would depend."
No, it wouldn't.
The words "most places" make the statement wholly false.
"If you kick them to death after they're already down and disabled and there's a witness, you'll probably be charged with manslaughter"
No, you wouldn't.
No, it isn't.
As I suspect, you didn't actually have a point, you were just taking a cheap shot at MS.
Sad.
"The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."
No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.
So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.
So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.
"In most places, the would-be victim would then be up on a manslaughter charge"
No they wouldn't.
How is this insightful? He didn't even make a coherent point?
Are you saying MS doesn't give a shit about IP?
Why does that matter when they'reneither a sovereign nation nor a court of law, thereby making it impossible for their opinion to be interchangeable with the court of law of a sovereign nation?
Please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here.
I think pointing out the arbitrary nature of law enforcement is ALWAYS relevant to any issue regarding the law.
There's really no way to argue otherwise.
And I get troll.
For something that clearly isn't a troll.
You mods are fucking idiots.
It fascinates me that China thinks they can simultaneously not give a shit about IP in every day practice, yet still think a ruling like this will have credibility.
Lol @ you pathetically failing at your attempt to "whore" karma, it's not as easy as the whoring you do to pay your bills is it?
God, you're just so fucking pathetic.
"Says the person without a +1 karma bonus..."
Says the person without intelligent input...
"The word "buried" must have made me biased. I think you might have a reading comprehension problem."
SO, keeping them in prison until they die of old age won't result in them being buried?
Oh, it will, And that's what a whole life tariff is.
God, you must be so embarrassed being wrong twice AND calling someone out for thier reading comprehension when it was your own lack of intelligence that caused you to say something stupid in the first place.
Your apology is accepted in advance.
I really do enjoy these moments, when an asshole like you gets shut the fuck up after shooting off his dicksucker, it's very satisfying to know not only that I'm right, but that you're completely wrong, and better yet, KNOW YOU ARE WRONG, hence your pathetic attempts to flame me.
I love owning you.
"Yes! Amazon operates in the clouds! Why don't people understand this?"
Well, they don't operate LOCALLY, as OP was saying, and where they DO operate locally, they actually do collect taxes.
So, apart from being a sarcastic ponce who was totally wrong, what was your point?
Or did you not know that you were making a silly, meaningless point when you called me a "DUMBASS" thereby proving yourself one in the process?
Because, at the moment, politicians are stupid and wasteful with my money, and I get to refuse to give them more until they prove they can spend it wisely.
Why is it the same people who espouse more spending rarely if ever expect that spending to be efficient or effectively, intelligently used?
YOU: "More money will solve all these 'save the children problems' I care about"
PEOPLE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN YOU: "Why not improve efficiency first so we aren't wasting even more money than we are now? That will give us more money to spend on important projects, like the ones you think are important"
YOU: "More money will solve all these 'save the children problems' I care about, YOU CONSERVATIVES HATE OTHER HUMANS!!!"
PEOPLE MORE INTELLIGENT THAN YOU: "Yeah, no one really expected an intelligent response from you anyway, thanks for obliging".
To be clear, STOP ASKING FOR MORE MONEY UNTIL YOU FIRST INSIST ON MORE EFFICIENCY OR ACCOUNTABILITY, OR I WILL TREAT YOU LIKE THE THIEF YOU ARE.
"Yes it is"
No it isn't, and you cannot provide a law or citation proving otherwise.
Nor have you even provided a coherent attempt at an explanation as to why you think you're correct about something you've been repeatedly proven wrong about.
"there is no reason that they should be subsidized over local retailers."
Yes there is actually, Amazon doesn't use the facilities and services that said taxes go to pay for, which is the primary justification for collecting taxes from business in the first place.
As my esteemed colleague has already pointed out, it appears you don't have the slightest idea what the fuck you're talking about, and had already been proven wrong before you even posted.
Funny, you didn't even know enough about the subject on which you were arrogantly pontificating to know you were completely wrong before you even opened your mouth.
YES! We should certainly pay attention to what you say, you clearly try very hard to be accurate!
"That's still 'limited'"
Why is it so hard for people like you to admit you said something stupid?
And why do you think struggling against it like you have been in this thread does anything other than make you look worse?
But he meant whole life tariff.
Which the EU absolutely does do.
But you ASSUMED he meant the death penalty, which says a lot about your own ethnocentrism and egotism.
You will, of course, never admit you erred.
You do understand he meant "whole life sentence", right?
Oh, you didn't, you presumed he meant the death penalty because of your preconceived ideas.
OOPS!
"Texas" huh?
You should be very proud...
Luckily, you're not smart enough for people to care what you think.
Because people like you are stupid?
You kill once, you're a killer. It's patently fucking ridiculous to argue about tenses.
Of course you are, that's why this ridiculous censorship makes sense to you.