On the face of it, Anonymous Coward's objection would seem to contradict my previous statement, however upon further review this is not the case.
The reality is that there is no such thing as hormone treated beef (we don't inject slaughtered cuts of meat with hormones, but the cows themselves during growth). The US was able to prove that the finished product, that is to say, cuts of beef, show no inherent difference to beef from untreated cows, i.e. they are the same product. And thus banning US beef amounted to an unfair trading practice.
Secondly, the EU didn't ban beef from hormone-treated cows from everywhere, but simply banned all *US* beef altogether, even if the cows were raised more organically than average Euro-beef.
The EU has essentially admitted that they can't ban US beef under WTO rules, but is seeking to negotiate a deal with the US which would keep beef from hormone-treated cows out of the EU market.
The WTO does not claim to impose or dismiss national controls over its populace--it only seeks to maintain a level playing field between countries--that you cannot place burdens on foreign competitors in order to protect the companies in your own country from foreign competition.
The bill banning US citizens from using *all* net gambling sites does not violate WTO rules, as it treats all countries' sites equally.
There's a problem here--what is the correct metric for memory usage of a single process?
Is it only private core (non-device) memory, since "those libraries would be loaded anyways..."?
Or how about private core memory plus the portion of shared libraries being utilized, i.e. P + Li/Ni for all shared libraries 1..i where Li is the size of library i, and Ni is the number of processes currently sharing Li?
My point is that the assumption that an Arab in the state of Israel is necessarily Palestinian is a sign of ignorance.
No, your point is a sign of Zionist nomenclature. Just because Zionists call Palestinians who were never ethnically cleansed as "Israeli Arabs" doesn't make them any less Palestinian. Note that this is of current Zionist usage. Previously Zionists claimed no Palestinians existed, and prior to that, that Jews native to Palestine were the only Palestinians.
Costco has to be one of the most stress free places to shop
Sure, if you can even get to the parking lot past all the people idling their cars in line for an hour to save 3 cents a gallon on gas. Then the product you want only comes in a 50 gal. drum. Then you take your jumbo cart to the check out line of death (from starvation). Finally there's the legal body cavity search at the exit (legal because you agreed to it in your membership contract).
At least at Best Buy or Fry's I can simply say "No!" and stride past the door nazis when they request to check my bag and receipt.
No doubt the information you supply, such as home address and telephone number, will be used by Best Buy's advertising department for direct marketing.
That's why my email address is bestbuyspam@...com, and my phone number is 415-611-1234. (Most computer systems are programmed to recognize that 611 is not a valid prefix.)
[T]he problem with this line of thinking is that all content providers would have to boycott this. If Google simply says "F U!", MSN and Yahoo could see that as a chance to grab all those customers and cough up the money.
Well, Google doesn't have to actually block the service completely--just present a note on the homepage, and/or certain pages, explaining why the consumer is getting poor service, etc.
In the end the dot com companies will not care. The cost of business goes up, so what? That cost will simply get passed to the consumer. Notice how last year all the laws were passed to bar cities and local governments from providing internet access? Now you see the consequences of that. Increased costs to the consumer.
I question your economic theory. Most dotcoms exist because they fare well in economic competition with pre-internet businesses. A line "shakedown" would indeed hurt them, but not their old-world competitors.
If I was Google, and BellSouth tried to extort money from me, I would simply shut down access to Google from BellSouth, replacing it with a page saying why, and giving BellSouth CEO's home phone number.
I'm sure BellSouth recognizes the leverage the larger content providers have, and thus will be going after less established ones.
Also, content providers aren't paying BellSouth to use their lines??!?! Well BellSouth isn't paying the content providers for their content!!!
A friend of mine refuses to get a Safeway "club card" because he doesn't want his purchases tracked, resulting in him paying $5-$10 extra per visit--now that's conviction!
The funny thing is, he pays by credit card, meaning that they already know who he is!
I suggested he could enter my phone number into the keypad (thereby associating all his data with me, as well as providing me with free airline miles), but he demurred...
The basis for the second ammendment was to allow states to form defensive militias, not to act as a threat to government. May I suggest you take a gander at the Federalist Papers?
Secondly, the constitution predates the War of 1812.
"Our [Danish] government felt forced to propose this law change"
So the Danish law was changed by Danes, then? Democratically elected ones? [See my comment to the whining Australian above]
Did you ever consider that your own Statsminister is scapegoating the US in the same way you are?
Finally, if your last comment about the US falling behind holds true, then they could still bully Denmark as the Danes are falling farther behind the US... Ever compared unemployment rates? (The total unemployment rate, not the one Mr. Rasmussen's Social Democrats are trying to make you believe)
The purpose of the armed populace is as a deterrent.
No it wasn't. The purpose was to defend the colonist from Indians (nowadays called "Native Americans"). The British didn't want the colonies to be self-reliant in defense, and thus dependent upon the crown for their protection, so they banned weapons and locally-formed defensively militias in various ways.
This is the reason behind the second ammendment of the US constitution--not some sort of assumed purpose to government abuses.
Pardon my American ignorance, but, isn't Australia a democracy? If you don't like the laws enacted by your own democratically elected leaders, then elect news ones!
C02 released from burning biodiesel was already in the Earth's carbon cycle. It's like if you were to burn a tree; you're not introducing any new C02 into the Earth's system.
The C02 released from fossil fuels was not previously part of the carbon cycle. It was stored away underground as oil or coal.
It seems to me that to have a positive effect on CO2 emissions, your act needs to not only lessen the amount of CO2 being released from otherwise permanently stored materials (oil, coal, natural gas), but it also mustn't prevent the natural storage of carbon into the earth. I.e. you have to look at both the IN-effect as well as the OUT-effect.
If you make biodiesel out of what would otherwise go to a landfill and be "permanently" stored there, you in the very least lessen the effect of not having to pump as much oil from the ground. If you, however, were to make biofuel by growing something on what would otherwise be barren ground, you would still not be taking C out of the ground, nor would you be holding back any that would otherwise be going into the ground.
If you burn a tree, you are indeed preventing the return of carbon into the ground, and thereby effectively introducing CO2 into the atmosphere.
Slashdot Mirror
... you're going to put us out of our jobs, I mean, who would we prosecute then??!?!"
It's very likely key revocation lists will be used to force consumers to purchase new equipment , paying new HDCP licensing fees, etc.
And no, our heroes don't need to be libertarians, just true Americans.
Time zones, dude, time zones...
So did any of these prior discussions come up with any useful results?
On the face of it, Anonymous Coward's objection would seem to contradict my previous statement, however upon further review this is not the case.
The reality is that there is no such thing as hormone treated beef (we don't inject slaughtered cuts of meat with hormones, but the cows themselves during growth). The US was able to prove that the finished product, that is to say, cuts of beef, show no inherent difference to beef from untreated cows, i.e. they are the same product. And thus banning US beef amounted to an unfair trading practice.
Secondly, the EU didn't ban beef from hormone-treated cows from everywhere, but simply banned all *US* beef altogether, even if the cows were raised more organically than average Euro-beef.
The EU has essentially admitted that they can't ban US beef under WTO rules, but is seeking to negotiate a deal with the US which would keep beef from hormone-treated cows out of the EU market.
The WTO does not claim to impose or dismiss national controls over its populace--it only seeks to maintain a level playing field between countries--that you cannot place burdens on foreign competitors in order to protect the companies in your own country from foreign competition.
The bill banning US citizens from using *all* net gambling sites does not violate WTO rules, as it treats all countries' sites equally.
... but since I've seen Mac on Intel, I'll believe anything...
Unless your tastes are mundane, AllOfMP3.com is not going to have more than 50-60% of those 300 cds...
There's a problem here--what is the correct metric for memory usage of a single process?
Is it only private core (non-device) memory, since "those libraries would be loaded anyways..."?
Or how about private core memory plus the portion of shared libraries being utilized, i.e. P + Li/Ni for all shared libraries 1..i where Li is the size of library i, and Ni is the number of processes currently sharing Li?
hopefully Hamas is kept out...
At least at Best Buy or Fry's I can simply say "No!" and stride past the door nazis when they request to check my bag and receipt.
... and that at the (surely bloated) North American rate!
If I was Google, and BellSouth tried to extort money from me, I would simply shut down access to Google from BellSouth, replacing it with a page saying why, and giving BellSouth CEO's home phone number.
I'm sure BellSouth recognizes the leverage the larger content providers have, and thus will be going after less established ones.
Also, content providers aren't paying BellSouth to use their lines??!?! Well BellSouth isn't paying the content providers for their content!!!
A friend of mine refuses to get a Safeway "club card" because he doesn't want his purchases tracked, resulting in him paying $5-$10 extra per visit--now that's conviction!
The funny thing is, he pays by credit card, meaning that they already know who he is!
I suggested he could enter my phone number into the keypad (thereby associating all his data with me, as well as providing me with free airline miles), but he demurred...
The basis for the second ammendment was to allow states to form defensive militias, not to act as a threat to government. May I suggest you take a gander at the Federalist Papers?
Secondly, the constitution predates the War of 1812.
"Our [Danish] government felt forced to propose this law change"
So the Danish law was changed by Danes, then? Democratically elected ones? [See my comment to the whining Australian above]
Did you ever consider that your own Statsminister is scapegoating the US in the same way you are?
Finally, if your last comment about the US falling behind holds true, then they could still bully Denmark as the Danes are falling farther behind the US... Ever compared unemployment rates? (The total unemployment rate, not the one Mr. Rasmussen's Social Democrats are trying to make you believe)
The purpose of the armed populace is as a deterrent.
No it wasn't. The purpose was to defend the colonist from Indians (nowadays called "Native Americans"). The British didn't want the colonies to be self-reliant in defense, and thus dependent upon the crown for their protection, so they banned weapons and locally-formed defensively militias in various ways.
This is the reason behind the second ammendment of the US constitution--not some sort of assumed purpose to government abuses.
Pardon my American ignorance, but, isn't Australia a democracy? If you don't like the laws enacted by your own democratically elected leaders, then elect news ones!
Sounds like a Danish problem to me--why blame the US? "Under the threat of a trade war" with an E.U. country? That happens every day...
C02 released from burning biodiesel was already in the Earth's carbon cycle. It's like if you were to burn a tree; you're not introducing any new C02 into the Earth's system.
The C02 released from fossil fuels was not previously part of the carbon cycle. It was stored away underground as oil or coal.
It seems to me that to have a positive effect on CO2 emissions, your act needs to not only lessen the amount of CO2 being released from otherwise permanently stored materials (oil, coal, natural gas), but it also mustn't prevent the natural storage of carbon into the earth. I.e. you have to look at both the IN-effect as well as the OUT-effect.
If you make biodiesel out of what would otherwise go to a landfill and be "permanently" stored there, you in the very least lessen the effect of not having to pump as much oil from the ground. If you, however, were to make biofuel by growing something on what would otherwise be barren ground, you would still not be taking C out of the ground, nor would you be holding back any that would otherwise be going into the ground.
If you burn a tree, you are indeed preventing the return of carbon into the ground, and thereby effectively introducing CO2 into the atmosphere.