I thought mandrake/mandriva was pretty much dead for the casual consumer. Is this a spin off or something? Their home page reads a lot like inside baseball where you need to know about the game before understanding the talk about it so I got fed up looking there for more info.
I'm not so sure where the now comes from. This has been true since Snowden walked away with unknown amounts of data and left the NSA scratching their heads wondering how it happened.
It would have to be conspicuous enough that it would be obvious to a prosecutor, judge, or whoever else enters the mix.
They can likely flash a warning on the console screen when this mode is active that would achieve that goal. Maybe even have a click through beforr it starts without much effort eiyh a firmware update.
Actually, the US Constitution deals with this in a round about way. Article 1 section 10 deals with the south leaving the union. However, there is no defined exit from the union so unless all parties agreed, there really is no way to exit it. You should note that while butt hurt over the deal, the north essentially allowed the south to exist until war broke out (fort Sumter) by South Carolina attacking a fort. The US constitution set the rules on this also so it isn't as all outside the constitution as you might think.
As I said, The US existed as a small federal government with the states maintaining most of the powers until mid 1930s with FDR. That is why there is a constitutional amendment (13th, 14th, and 15th) instead of a federal law after the civil war. History simply does not support your view.
Actually, you can use a charitiable non-profit to promote a for-profit business. It cannot be the point of the charity though. But there are many charitable for profit businesses that exist for the sole purpose of funding charities and the charities promote them.
What you are likely referring to is that you cannot use a charity to benefit yourself. And that is exactly what the charges sound like.
Sigh.. Is this what they are teaching in schools nowadays?
That's why we have the Constitution, with a strong central government, and necessary byproduct of a strong central government is a federal government that takes over most lawmaking from the states, leading to the situation the states' rights advocates now complain about.
Wrong- so completely wrong it isn't funny. That's ok, it isn't your fault though. The constitution was supposed to be a stronger government than the articles of confederation made but it was never intended to take over most lawmaking for the states. For the first 100 or so years of this country, it didn't even pretend to do that. It wasn't until 1933 or so when FDR had a constitutional showdown with the supreme court and the court lost so they expanded the interstate commerce clause to pretty much include everything.
You have to remember, the original 13 colonies became 13 countries joined by the articles of confederation. The problem with the weakness was that the articles were mainly platitudes of how they should act and nothing really binding them to act in certain ways. This also left challenges because one country could become friends with another who was violent towards another confederate country. So a constitutional convention was held and the countries, or states as the name is interchangeable, surrendered some sovereignty to a federal government who was supposed to be head of state (remember, the state department deals with foreign affairs not states which is the department of interior) and deal with a few other things to make the union work. The constitution was originally intended to grant the federal government specific powers- not construct some all inclusive, all powerful, tyrannical entity they just fought to be rid of. Article 1 section 8 grants congress powers to do certain things and nothing more. Section 9 even attempts to restrict congress's interpretation of those powers. The 9th and 10th amendments were intended to make that clear.
Further constitutional amendments gave congress additional powers and you can see this where those amendments specifically say congress shall have the power to enforce this or some language to the same extent. The 19th amendment has "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.", the 14th amendment has "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Those amendments didn't include this language simply because they felt like it, it served a purpose and that was to extend article 1 section 8.
You can't have it both ways: you can't have a strong central government that allows strong states' rights. It's one or the other.
Actually, you can and we did for better than 125 years.
So I propose keeping the strong central government, but breaking up the country into ~5 new nations, each with its own strong federal government, and independent from each other. People from Alabama and Mississippi aren't going to bitch a lot about laws passed by the federal government of Dixie since there's not much disagreement between those states, but when you give a voice to totally different states like Oregon and New York, no one can agree on anything.This is somewhat insane unless you completely misunderstand the constitutional role of the federal government. It's easy to ignore that with all they are doing and trying to do but you completely miss the state's rights arguments and a good portion of the history under which this country existed.
Sub prime loans have always been made to poor people. They just stretch the payments out 5 or more years, jack the interest up, and you end up paying for the car 3 or 4 times over. They advertise all the time, no credit bad credit, no problem.
Further, because they are selling to these types of people, if there is a repossession, they simply resell it at market value and charge any difference to the previous owner. They will likely already have made up the difference between interest and the down payment (if any) but now have a nice charge off to offset the tax liabilities.
I guess the big difference between this and what the mortgage lenders did is that those car companies tend to hold on to the sub prime loans instead of hiding them in swap packages and over valuing them on a sale to some other entity. BTW, sub prime loans is not necessarily a bad thing. Making a business model out of their collapses or failures certainly are.
So you find an oil slick and do more than just report that there is an oil slick. How big of a window are you opening up for the entity responsible to claim the evidence was planted by you or whomever with the kit and how much of a window for liability do you think is there when your low budget kit points to one entity who is innocent but suffers huge costs because of it?
They sell amateur detective kits relatively cheap too. Go to a murder scene and start investigating before the cops show up and you could very well open the window to letting the murderer go free as well as possible charges against yourself. You have to be careful with this stuff or unintended consequences could steam roll you quickly.
Yes, laws do have intent. But the intent is never used to prosecute anyone without the letter of law spelling it out. What the op suggested is to prosecute or fine someone for what they think the law should have said other than what is did say.
For instance, there is a law on the books in many areas that says direct payments for sex or soliciting them for sex is illegal. The intent is to stop prostitution. The intent comes into play when your girl or boyfriend says if you get me this tablet for our anniversary, I will do unmentionable things to you. That technically is a direct payment but the intent was never to include people within an established relationship. An example of what the op suggested- ignoring the letter of the law and instead imposing the intent which I think is a horrible idea is where a husband and wife own a company which one runs and one works to draw a pay check on paper but never shows up and the state claims it is prostitution because the salary is a direct payment for the sex they admitted to having.
And somehow you seem to think this hasn't been happening to other countries for years, and that it's different when it happens to you.
I'm not sure whatever gave you the idea that I think it hasn't been happening elsewhere. I simply do not care if it has or hasn't. There is nothing different when it happens to us. My comment wasn't about "woe is me" or they "took our jobs", it was about doing something about it instead of trashing the people who have attempted to in the past.
Numerous American firms have bought Canadian companies, signed contracts saying they'd keep the jobs, and then after a few years shut everything down and left.. leaving us with neither the jobs nor the ownership of the original business. And in several instances when the Canadian company was more profitable, but since they weren't American jobs they were expendable.
I think you will find this happens just as much to American companies. Did you miss the entire decade or two where everyone was bitching about their jobs going to Mexico because of NAFTA or being outsourced to India? This has somewhat died off a bit, but again, here we are with an American company who seen no advantage to staying in the US if it cannot import workers. That needs to be changed.
What it has done is allowed corporations to do what you describe for the last several decades, and the politicians who back them (or, are paid by them), hand over what they want.
That can only happen if it is more profitable for them. That means they either save on regulation compliance, taxes, labor, or material and fixed costs. Often it is a combination of all of them.
Capitalism as envisioned by a lot of people is basically a suicide pact, and as long as the people at the top get what they want, nothing will change.
I'm willing to be that you have never seen capitalism as envisions by those people. Certainly not with all the regulations and costs of compliance placing barriers to entry up all over the place. That is not to say there should be no regulation, but it should be as little as needed to be effective. You will notice that all those companies you decry had made a start before a lot of regulation came about. Microsoft even played illegal for a while breaking contracts and swiping other people's products in order to gain market share. But try to start a car company or another IBM and see what kind of hurdles come about. Try to start a simple construction company and in some places, you will be out 5-6 figures before the state even considered you legal.
The capitalism people envision also involves being able to compete with existing business when it only benefits those at the top. So if you are going to look at it and make a declaration, try being intellectually honest with us and look at all of it.
I think you need to drop the brainwashing you recieved and seriously think about this a bit more.
Here we are in a regulatory and tax climate such that a traditionally American company is willing to relocate to another country if we do not let enough foreigners in to work for them and your focus is on scolding the people wanting to cure the regulation and tax problems because they are evil in your mind.
Wow.. thats kind of like fucking a knothole in a fence and bitching that people on the other side saw your pecker. Wake up and look at the entire picture. Stop letting politics screw your vision.
Nah.. over seas and offshore have applied meanings in modern life that have nothing to do with obvious defined wording. Its like xeroxing your homework and never touching a xerox.
Iots a horible idea to attach a spirit to a law and attemp to enforce it. The problem is the spirit is interpretive and the law can essentially be changed with absolutely no legislative action. Just look at the debates around the second amendment, 4th amendment, and other things with legal powers or implications.
No company can secure themselves, or person for that matter without a law being spelled out. This is because a key tenent of freedom is the ability to act without permision unless a law bars that action. With all the laws and regulations, it might seem the opposite in todays life but that is the premise we are supposedly operating from.
You suffer the same problem i do- what was posted has nothing to do with being a conservative and cannot see how someone could imagine it did. It sounds more like third grade revenge logic if anything. But the illusions people maintain in order to support their own beliefs and ideologies will cloud reality i guess.
Not really a repost. The new part is the "presence" argument which takes it from being likened to canada wanting to regulate a store in Germany because a Canadian purchased something mail order once to a "you do not have legal authority" argument.
The previous argument was somewhat forefront in the other article discusion.
Corn can be used to create ethanol fuel. Is such corn "wasted" because it is not eaten?
The corn you eat makes crappy ethanol stock. What you want is called dent corn and it typically is not as sweat or as desirable to eat.
Food is eaten. Corn is a type of food that can/could be put to useful service in other ways. Your conclusion doesn't work.
Also, it reduces the use of valuable landfill space, thereby lowering the cost of trash disposal.
Not really, it more or less shifts the costs. There is the resale on the back end but it often gets used for backfill at construction sites due to some arbitrary rules for how much compost needs to exist the areas per year.
That's the way I eat them. Except I shred them instead of leaving them whole. Add a little yellow onion, some salt and peper and crumble the bacon over top.
Relsx a bit. Obama has little intention of doing much, this is mostly electioning. It was projected that the dems would lose the senate in about 6 weeks so he is politicing to energixe the dem base for turnout.
I would hope that was sarcasm. The states were originally independent countries joined by a confederacy and the Union or republic was created to act as a head of state facing foreign relations and a few other things outlined in the constitution. It was never intended to be this huge government can do anything organization and was never used in that way until FDR had a constitutional showdown with the supreme court and won.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought mandrake/mandriva was pretty much dead for the casual consumer. Is this a spin off or something? Their home page reads a lot like inside baseball where you need to know about the game before understanding the talk about it so I got fed up looking there for more info.
I'm not so sure where the now comes from. This has been true since Snowden walked away with unknown amounts of data and left the NSA scratching their heads wondering how it happened.
It would have to be conspicuous enough that it would be obvious to a prosecutor, judge, or whoever else enters the mix.
They can likely flash a warning on the console screen when this mode is active that would achieve that goal. Maybe even have a click through beforr it starts without much effort eiyh a firmware update.
In some states, all parties must be explicitly aware of the recording and consent to it.
The key here is explicit. However the driver is notified, it must be obvious and conspicuous so the sticker may need to be a lot more intrusive.
At this point i think they look at who is not on a list and watch them. It would likely be more efficient/effective.
Yeah... I'm going to have to surf porn for two whole hours tonight just to get those images out of my head before going to sleep.
Actually, the US Constitution deals with this in a round about way. Article 1 section 10 deals with the south leaving the union. However, there is no defined exit from the union so unless all parties agreed, there really is no way to exit it. You should note that while butt hurt over the deal, the north essentially allowed the south to exist until war broke out (fort Sumter) by South Carolina attacking a fort. The US constitution set the rules on this also so it isn't as all outside the constitution as you might think.
As I said, The US existed as a small federal government with the states maintaining most of the powers until mid 1930s with FDR. That is why there is a constitutional amendment (13th, 14th, and 15th) instead of a federal law after the civil war. History simply does not support your view.
Actually, you can use a charitiable non-profit to promote a for-profit business. It cannot be the point of the charity though. But there are many charitable for profit businesses that exist for the sole purpose of funding charities and the charities promote them.
What you are likely referring to is that you cannot use a charity to benefit yourself. And that is exactly what the charges sound like.
Sigh.. Is this what they are teaching in schools nowadays?
Wrong- so completely wrong it isn't funny. That's ok, it isn't your fault though. The constitution was supposed to be a stronger government than the articles of confederation made but it was never intended to take over most lawmaking for the states. For the first 100 or so years of this country, it didn't even pretend to do that. It wasn't until 1933 or so when FDR had a constitutional showdown with the supreme court and the court lost so they expanded the interstate commerce clause to pretty much include everything.
You have to remember, the original 13 colonies became 13 countries joined by the articles of confederation. The problem with the weakness was that the articles were mainly platitudes of how they should act and nothing really binding them to act in certain ways. This also left challenges because one country could become friends with another who was violent towards another confederate country. So a constitutional convention was held and the countries, or states as the name is interchangeable, surrendered some sovereignty to a federal government who was supposed to be head of state (remember, the state department deals with foreign affairs not states which is the department of interior) and deal with a few other things to make the union work. The constitution was originally intended to grant the federal government specific powers- not construct some all inclusive, all powerful, tyrannical entity they just fought to be rid of. Article 1 section 8 grants congress powers to do certain things and nothing more. Section 9 even attempts to restrict congress's interpretation of those powers. The 9th and 10th amendments were intended to make that clear.
Further constitutional amendments gave congress additional powers and you can see this where those amendments specifically say congress shall have the power to enforce this or some language to the same extent. The 19th amendment has "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.", the 14th amendment has "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Those amendments didn't include this language simply because they felt like it, it served a purpose and that was to extend article 1 section 8.
Actually, you can and we did for better than 125 years.
Sub prime loans have always been made to poor people. They just stretch the payments out 5 or more years, jack the interest up, and you end up paying for the car 3 or 4 times over. They advertise all the time, no credit bad credit, no problem.
Further, because they are selling to these types of people, if there is a repossession, they simply resell it at market value and charge any difference to the previous owner. They will likely already have made up the difference between interest and the down payment (if any) but now have a nice charge off to offset the tax liabilities.
I guess the big difference between this and what the mortgage lenders did is that those car companies tend to hold on to the sub prime loans instead of hiding them in swap packages and over valuing them on a sale to some other entity. BTW, sub prime loans is not necessarily a bad thing. Making a business model out of their collapses or failures certainly are.
So you find an oil slick and do more than just report that there is an oil slick. How big of a window are you opening up for the entity responsible to claim the evidence was planted by you or whomever with the kit and how much of a window for liability do you think is there when your low budget kit points to one entity who is innocent but suffers huge costs because of it?
They sell amateur detective kits relatively cheap too. Go to a murder scene and start investigating before the cops show up and you could very well open the window to letting the murderer go free as well as possible charges against yourself. You have to be careful with this stuff or unintended consequences could steam roll you quickly.
Yes, laws do have intent. But the intent is never used to prosecute anyone without the letter of law spelling it out. What the op suggested is to prosecute or fine someone for what they think the law should have said other than what is did say.
For instance, there is a law on the books in many areas that says direct payments for sex or soliciting them for sex is illegal. The intent is to stop prostitution. The intent comes into play when your girl or boyfriend says if you get me this tablet for our anniversary, I will do unmentionable things to you. That technically is a direct payment but the intent was never to include people within an established relationship. An example of what the op suggested- ignoring the letter of the law and instead imposing the intent which I think is a horrible idea is where a husband and wife own a company which one runs and one works to draw a pay check on paper but never shows up and the state claims it is prostitution because the salary is a direct payment for the sex they admitted to having.
I'm not sure whatever gave you the idea that I think it hasn't been happening elsewhere. I simply do not care if it has or hasn't. There is nothing different when it happens to us. My comment wasn't about "woe is me" or they "took our jobs", it was about doing something about it instead of trashing the people who have attempted to in the past.
I think you will find this happens just as much to American companies. Did you miss the entire decade or two where everyone was bitching about their jobs going to Mexico because of NAFTA or being outsourced to India? This has somewhat died off a bit, but again, here we are with an American company who seen no advantage to staying in the US if it cannot import workers. That needs to be changed.
That can only happen if it is more profitable for them. That means they either save on regulation compliance, taxes, labor, or material and fixed costs. Often it is a combination of all of them.
I'm willing to be that you have never seen capitalism as envisions by those people. Certainly not with all the regulations and costs of compliance placing barriers to entry up all over the place. That is not to say there should be no regulation, but it should be as little as needed to be effective. You will notice that all those companies you decry had made a start before a lot of regulation came about. Microsoft even played illegal for a while breaking contracts and swiping other people's products in order to gain market share. But try to start a car company or another IBM and see what kind of hurdles come about. Try to start a simple construction company and in some places, you will be out 5-6 figures before the state even considered you legal.
The capitalism people envision also involves being able to compete with existing business when it only benefits those at the top. So if you are going to look at it and make a declaration, try being intellectually honest with us and look at all of it.
I think you need to drop the brainwashing you recieved and seriously think about this a bit more.
Here we are in a regulatory and tax climate such that a traditionally American company is willing to relocate to another country if we do not let enough foreigners in to work for them and your focus is on scolding the people wanting to cure the regulation and tax problems because they are evil in your mind.
Wow.. thats kind of like fucking a knothole in a fence and bitching that people on the other side saw your pecker. Wake up and look at the entire picture. Stop letting politics screw your vision.
Nah.. over seas and offshore have applied meanings in modern life that have nothing to do with obvious defined wording. Its like xeroxing your homework and never touching a xerox.
Iots a horible idea to attach a spirit to a law and attemp to enforce it. The problem is the spirit is interpretive and the law can essentially be changed with absolutely no legislative action. Just look at the debates around the second amendment, 4th amendment, and other things with legal powers or implications.
No company can secure themselves, or person for that matter without a law being spelled out. This is because a key tenent of freedom is the ability to act without permision unless a law bars that action. With all the laws and regulations, it might seem the opposite in todays life but that is the premise we are supposedly operating from.
That was my point. Without google, its obvious. With google, its changed
I think you better check who posted that again.
You suffer the same problem i do- what was posted has nothing to do with being a conservative and cannot see how someone could imagine it did. It sounds more like third grade revenge logic if anything. But the illusions people maintain in order to support their own beliefs and ideologies will cloud reality i guess.
[Sic] that doesn't mean what you think it does. You certainly are failing to use it properly.
And yes, you have to explain this shit all the time because it makes absolutely no sense to anyone but yourself.
Anyways, using your craptastic logic, i suppose all those people bitching about stop and frisk or NSA spying are conservatives by default too.
Yes, your logic fails, you fail.
Not really a repost. The new part is the "presence" argument which takes it from being likened to canada wanting to regulate a store in Germany because a Canadian purchased something mail order once to a "you do not have legal authority" argument.
The previous argument was somewhat forefront in the other article discusion.
The corn you eat makes crappy ethanol stock. What you want is called dent corn and it typically is not as sweat or as desirable to eat.
Food is eaten. Corn is a type of food that can/could be put to useful service in other ways. Your conclusion doesn't work.
Not really, it more or less shifts the costs. There is the resale on the back end but it often gets used for backfill at construction sites due to some arbitrary rules for how much compost needs to exist the areas per year.
How so? Is it a sign of being a conservative if you try to piss off the people pissing you off?
I mean I do not get how you can draw the conclusion from a rant about the garbage man leaving the garbage at the curb.
That's the way I eat them. Except I shred them instead of leaving them whole. Add a little yellow onion, some salt and peper and crumble the bacon over top.
Relsx a bit. Obama has little intention of doing much, this is mostly electioning. It was projected that the dems would lose the senate in about 6 weeks so he is politicing to energixe the dem base for turnout.
I would hope that was sarcasm. The states were originally independent countries joined by a confederacy and the Union or republic was created to act as a head of state facing foreign relations and a few other things outlined in the constitution. It was never intended to be this huge government can do anything organization and was never used in that way until FDR had a constitutional showdown with the supreme court and won.