and in this specific case, the guy has the option of not telling the complete story to avoid the legal/financial ruin. The court order only prohibited them from publishing discovered codes, not the methods and processes used to find them or showing it has been done.
Umm.. That is exactly what they said they might do. The part about complaining that the location isn't as attractive with the tax in place is a threat (hollow or not) to move it or build it somewhere else that doesn't have the tax. Yes, the Federal Government has taken the concept of off shoring and embraced it.
Except in this case, the NSA (and most companies for that matter) doesn't have to move it off shore, they can simply move it (or in this case, build it in) to another state that doesn't have the costs. Utah doesn't have to compete with China, they have to compete with Ohio, Kentucky, and every other state in the US. It's why Alabama, Ohio, Kentucky, and some states other then Michigan (Detroit), has seen a huge investment by the automakers over the last 20-30 years while traditional strongholds get passed over in a lost of cases.
Now, with or without the tax, Utah has to determine if they are in a better position with or without the data center located there. In this case, they determined they are better off with it, even without the tax revenue and made an appropriate response. They have determined the benefits outweigh the alternative of no data center and that is the prerogative of the Utah government.
I do not think you understand the article you linked. There was no regulations ignored according to it.
There was international standards, industry best practices and studies performed by the utility company that was ignored. That is a big difference as they are not regulation until such time as a regulating autority makes them so. In the end, they did exactly as I said and balanced the risk and didn't implement or retrofit with the international standards available before the disaster.. It was the same thought process as determining that your car doesn't need a parachute installed from the factory in case you drive off a cliff but with different metrics. In this case, hindsight can show they were wrong in making those decisions, how many times have you driven off a cliff so we know if we are wrong about the parachute concept?
Sigh, as with anything else in life, you have to take the chances and determine is they are worth the costs. Take a car for example, we have the technology to ensure almost no one ever gets injured in an accident and that almost no accidents ever happen. Look at NASCAR where they roll the vehicles at 200+ MPH and smash into concrete walls and walk away. Now imagine that safety limited to 10 miles per hour in your every day driver. See, it doesn't make sense to increase the costs of the vehicle or slow the performance just because a life threatening injury could happen in an accident.
Take that example and figure the likeliness of something like Fukishima ever happening. You had an earthquake and Tsunami of large size. How often does that happen? How often will it happen in the future.
Not only did the energy company decide not to spend the money, the regulatory agencies and governments decided they didn't need to spend the money. This is because they thought the scenario that happened was unlikely to happen during the lifetime of the plant or the costs of protection outweighed the gains from it. This is something done every single day and something that needs to be done or else you will be riding in cars that only go 10 mph and have to dawn a fire suit, crash helmet, and 5 point harness to go to the corner store for a load of bread.
Well, the kid has the luxury of practicing to be a member of the mile high club I guess.
I doubt the kid is that old. He was probably just born when the project started so it might be a few years before he is aware of that stuff. But hey, this is in France so who knows.
Even the federal government is looking at tax rates and making location decisions based around them. I suppose this makes a little sense to those who understand business and how they operate, but I bet it blows the mind of those who think it is a crime to subsidies business or that government can just print money and pay out the nose for their crap.
I find it completely humorous when chicken hearted idiots post replies as AC and instead of disputing what was said with some sort of brilliant insight or even correct information, instead post useless babel like you did. You mom would be so proud of you right now. Not because you had something profound and insightful to say, but because you amused me.
It's more accurate in it's results then the metal smithing most riffles receive. The original reason sights were changed from a fixed implement to adjustable was because the barrels are not identical and they can bend slightly over time with harsh use.
Nothing needs to be magic, just identical which is well within the scope of a good 3D printer
What makes you think every career politician puts their donors above the people?
Half the politicians represent another set of people with a different mindset then you. Why are you insisting that those politicians standing for their constituents or Harry Reed not disenfranchising them is somehow supporting the donors above the people?
Not everyone has the same mindset as you and even people with similar mindsets will have differing opinions, goals or objectives about some things. Harry Reed will not change the filibuster specifically because it will require him to violate senate rules to do so and a conservative senator will challenge everything that come from it in court- likely defeating the entire purpose of doing so. Instead, he gave concessions and received concessions from the other side and left it alone.
All the riffles and barrels would be identical so all you would have to do is sight them in and change the barrel design slightly or even the sights a bit to compensate in future models.
In manufacturing a regular metal barrel, the process allows near identical or similar results but not always the same. This minute diversion is eliminated with the precision of printing a barrel. Also, the point of sight attachments in regular firearms have some play as well. This is also eliminated with printing for the most part.
You will be sure that barrel number 2 is exactly the same without any deviance's from barrel number 1 so adjusting the rear sight 1 millimeter to the left and 2 mils higher will be enough to ensure accuracy at a given range. You can practice and adjust manually for any other ranges needed.
In Ohio, guns other then certain handguns and shotguns are illegal to hunt with during deer season except muzzle loaders of a certain type or larger. (actually, I think it's a period of months- after a certain date they aren't allowed unless that just happens to be how the seasons pan out).
Well, eventually your mom will get tired of doing all your shopping and you will have to go to a store sometime.
I suppose you could find a woman to love who will wait on you hand and foot in this regard but don't hold you breath on it. Most mature women will send you to the store so they don't have to go- even when it's for feminine hygiene products that would make you blush if you were caught buying by your friends.
That sounds reasonable until the company starts paying app developers to sneak the code into their apps as part of the advertising that makes it free. You could be walking through a store and receive what appears to be a text message with the coupons or whatever and not know it was from the store's app doing this.
what some of these free apps require in the form of access is amazing. A flashlight app that wants to read the phone state, contact information and location information is absurd but they are out there. I downloaded a solitaire game and got confused to why it wanted to read my contacts info or protected storage areas. Most people probably don't even bother looking at what the app accesses or has the ability to access when they install them. I have something on my phone (app or setting) that seems to randomly turn the wifi on at times and can't figure out what it is. This is on a non-rooted droid phone too.
Of course this is nothing new. It reminds of the joke about someone walking into a bass pro shop and spending thousands of dollars outfitting himself to go fishing. When someone made a comment about how it was easy to get commission from someone looking to spend money, the sale associate replied he originally came looking for condoms but I said he knew he wasn't going to get laid, might as well just go fishing.
It doesn't matter if it is a contract or not. It is a promise by a legal representative in official discourse to another legal entity. All the T's will be crossed and I's dotted before any actual transfer happens.
As for not keeping promises. It's not the same here. Once the officials agree to it, the courts will be bound by it. In other situations, there is never anything to determine the negotiations or promises were not in good faith as to this, if we renig, then it will be obvious we negotiated with intent to deceive. That is something until now is only premised in people's minds- not in fact.
It would be legally binding in the same way that plea deals and disclosed immunity is binding. In other words, if the prosecution makes a deal, they will be bound by that deal in the same way that a person accused of selling drugs cannot be recharged for the same crime or punished for it after he was given immunity for everything if he gave up the his supplier or if his crime was plea bargained down to possession.
There is also the international relations aspect of it. If we went back on our promise, then other countries wouldn't trust us in any deals or diplomacy and that would set the US back way further then any disclosure of spying on other countries could.
Congress and the president wouldn't necessarily need to be involved. Prosecutors already have the powers and abilities to make concessions pertaining to prosecutions. This isn't a treaty or anything, it is a concession on the treatment and prosecution of a criminal suspect. Coming from the head of a department under the president, the support of the president is also automatically implied unless he dismisses holder in some way or publicly speaks against it.
Career politicians aren't necessarily the problem. It's politicians that put ideology and party above the people. This tends to be inherent in career politicians but not a requirement or a given.
Bullshit. The military spending Romney was wanting to increase was not part of the cost of the two wars. It was a base accounting as the minimum spent based on a percentage of the GDP.
Obama put the costs of the wars on budget so when they wound down, he could spend that money without the new spending being treated as new spending and having to be justified or paid for per rules of congress. Romney's plan was simple to have a set amount that couldn't be redirected into new spending without going through the normal process of paying for the spending somehow in the budgets.
In other words, all Romney's plan would do is force congress to justify spending (something the current rules mandate when increases of spending or new spending happens) instead of using what was being spent on the wars on something else. It seems to me that we are worse off in the long run because of Romney or his plan not being implemented.
In case that was too complicated which from what I am replying to makes me suspicious, it works this way. If congress wants to increase spending on science or STEM activities, currently it has to say we are taking from X or increasing taxes to increase spending on Y. With the wars off budget, that process stayed in place. With the wars on budget, then the emergency spending can be X where congress would say we are going to spend less money on the wars to increase funding for Y. So what was originally a temporary expenditure is now a permanent expenditure. Romney's plan would have only set limits to what could be taken from the military based on the amount of GDP any given year.
Your conclusions are wrought with ignorance or out right lies.
So you think it is more then fine for someone to ignore the entity with oversight just because you don't agree with them or think lowly of them?
Many people throughout history have judged themselves to be above the law because their cause is just. Most recently, we had a Hispanic person take the life of a young black male because he was just in protecting his own life. Often society doesn't view these things in the same perspective and you will find that when employees of the government ignore the oversight of the government, we do no have a government of the governed any more. If imposing a king and being relegated to peasants is your wish, you are along that path because the divine right of kings and the king can do no wrong is a premise the US constitution and the US political system was originally designed to break. The king can do no wrong is after all, exactly what you stated there, that holder is above the law as long as someone thinks he is just.
I had a short hospital stay (10 days) and needed blood drawn every 4 hours the first few days. They had to use a different spot each time too. I had a few who seemed that they couldn't stick a needle in a pin cushion if you put a magnet inside it. I remember asking one girl if she wanted me to give it a try after she missed 10 or so times. Then there was a few who would only need one shot and they had it.
I would give it a try too. If it was mounted on a moveable cart, it wouldn't be too different then how they already do it.
It's actually quite simple, almost all ships are tracked via satellite or radar when not in a channel or harbor. There is an authority somewhere depending on your location that knows so they just radio for confirmation to which one is accurate. Or they can pull the really old fashion tricks out and use a sexton or mark their position based on the stars.
It might require them to check more often to determine if they are deviating, but it shouldn't be too much of an issue unless they are piloting into a channel or port.
Waste without investigation: $? (You wouldn't know if NASA spent anything on it or not or how much if they did.)
Waste from investigation: $?? Because knowing that no NASA money was spent on the unauthorized project has value in and of itself. You cannot claim the investigation is waste or that all of it is.
No, he is stating the fact that most of the killing of the natives took place accidentally. It is the modern revisionist who calls the unintentional killing a genocide.
I don't go to youtube or some outrageous site to get information about my "buddies" when I can just hang around with them.
I sure bet there are a lot of people saying things on youtube, I doubt they are creationist or any of the people I know. The creationist I know say that evolution and the big bang was created by God so humans could understand their environment. But go figure, a creationist that thinks their god created something in the process of creating the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Being alive or not.
and in this specific case, the guy has the option of not telling the complete story to avoid the legal/financial ruin. The court order only prohibited them from publishing discovered codes, not the methods and processes used to find them or showing it has been done.
Umm.. That is exactly what they said they might do. The part about complaining that the location isn't as attractive with the tax in place is a threat (hollow or not) to move it or build it somewhere else that doesn't have the tax. Yes, the Federal Government has taken the concept of off shoring and embraced it.
Except in this case, the NSA (and most companies for that matter) doesn't have to move it off shore, they can simply move it (or in this case, build it in) to another state that doesn't have the costs. Utah doesn't have to compete with China, they have to compete with Ohio, Kentucky, and every other state in the US. It's why Alabama, Ohio, Kentucky, and some states other then Michigan (Detroit), has seen a huge investment by the automakers over the last 20-30 years while traditional strongholds get passed over in a lost of cases.
Now, with or without the tax, Utah has to determine if they are in a better position with or without the data center located there. In this case, they determined they are better off with it, even without the tax revenue and made an appropriate response. They have determined the benefits outweigh the alternative of no data center and that is the prerogative of the Utah government.
I do not think you understand the article you linked. There was no regulations ignored according to it.
There was international standards, industry best practices and studies performed by the utility company that was ignored. That is a big difference as they are not regulation until such time as a regulating autority makes them so. In the end, they did exactly as I said and balanced the risk and didn't implement or retrofit with the international standards available before the disaster.. It was the same thought process as determining that your car doesn't need a parachute installed from the factory in case you drive off a cliff but with different metrics. In this case, hindsight can show they were wrong in making those decisions, how many times have you driven off a cliff so we know if we are wrong about the parachute concept?
Sigh, as with anything else in life, you have to take the chances and determine is they are worth the costs. Take a car for example, we have the technology to ensure almost no one ever gets injured in an accident and that almost no accidents ever happen. Look at NASCAR where they roll the vehicles at 200+ MPH and smash into concrete walls and walk away. Now imagine that safety limited to 10 miles per hour in your every day driver. See, it doesn't make sense to increase the costs of the vehicle or slow the performance just because a life threatening injury could happen in an accident.
Take that example and figure the likeliness of something like Fukishima ever happening. You had an earthquake and Tsunami of large size. How often does that happen? How often will it happen in the future.
Not only did the energy company decide not to spend the money, the regulatory agencies and governments decided they didn't need to spend the money. This is because they thought the scenario that happened was unlikely to happen during the lifetime of the plant or the costs of protection outweighed the gains from it. This is something done every single day and something that needs to be done or else you will be riding in cars that only go 10 mph and have to dawn a fire suit, crash helmet, and 5 point harness to go to the corner store for a load of bread.
Well, the kid has the luxury of practicing to be a member of the mile high club I guess.
I doubt the kid is that old. He was probably just born when the project started so it might be a few years before he is aware of that stuff. But hey, this is in France so who knows.
Even the federal government is looking at tax rates and making location decisions based around them. I suppose this makes a little sense to those who understand business and how they operate, but I bet it blows the mind of those who think it is a crime to subsidies business or that government can just print money and pay out the nose for their crap.
I find it completely humorous when chicken hearted idiots post replies as AC and instead of disputing what was said with some sort of brilliant insight or even correct information, instead post useless babel like you did. You mom would be so proud of you right now. Not because you had something profound and insightful to say, but because you amused me.
It's more accurate in it's results then the metal smithing most riffles receive. The original reason sights were changed from a fixed implement to adjustable was because the barrels are not identical and they can bend slightly over time with harsh use.
Nothing needs to be magic, just identical which is well within the scope of a good 3D printer
What makes you think every career politician puts their donors above the people?
Half the politicians represent another set of people with a different mindset then you. Why are you insisting that those politicians standing for their constituents or Harry Reed not disenfranchising them is somehow supporting the donors above the people?
Not everyone has the same mindset as you and even people with similar mindsets will have differing opinions, goals or objectives about some things. Harry Reed will not change the filibuster specifically because it will require him to violate senate rules to do so and a conservative senator will challenge everything that come from it in court- likely defeating the entire purpose of doing so. Instead, he gave concessions and received concessions from the other side and left it alone.
All the riffles and barrels would be identical so all you would have to do is sight them in and change the barrel design slightly or even the sights a bit to compensate in future models.
In manufacturing a regular metal barrel, the process allows near identical or similar results but not always the same. This minute diversion is eliminated with the precision of printing a barrel. Also, the point of sight attachments in regular firearms have some play as well. This is also eliminated with printing for the most part.
You will be sure that barrel number 2 is exactly the same without any deviance's from barrel number 1 so adjusting the rear sight 1 millimeter to the left and 2 mils higher will be enough to ensure accuracy at a given range. You can practice and adjust manually for any other ranges needed.
It somewhat legal in Alaska. The Alaska hunting regs specifically say you can take caribou from a boat using a .22 rimfire in certain districts.
Page 21 I think.
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/regulations/wildliferegulations/pdfs/general.pdf
In Ohio, guns other then certain handguns and shotguns are illegal to hunt with during deer season except muzzle loaders of a certain type or larger. (actually, I think it's a period of months- after a certain date they aren't allowed unless that just happens to be how the seasons pan out).
Well, eventually your mom will get tired of doing all your shopping and you will have to go to a store sometime.
I suppose you could find a woman to love who will wait on you hand and foot in this regard but don't hold you breath on it. Most mature women will send you to the store so they don't have to go- even when it's for feminine hygiene products that would make you blush if you were caught buying by your friends.
That sounds reasonable until the company starts paying app developers to sneak the code into their apps as part of the advertising that makes it free. You could be walking through a store and receive what appears to be a text message with the coupons or whatever and not know it was from the store's app doing this.
what some of these free apps require in the form of access is amazing. A flashlight app that wants to read the phone state, contact information and location information is absurd but they are out there. I downloaded a solitaire game and got confused to why it wanted to read my contacts info or protected storage areas. Most people probably don't even bother looking at what the app accesses or has the ability to access when they install them. I have something on my phone (app or setting) that seems to randomly turn the wifi on at times and can't figure out what it is. This is on a non-rooted droid phone too.
Of course this is nothing new. It reminds of the joke about someone walking into a bass pro shop and spending thousands of dollars outfitting himself to go fishing. When someone made a comment about how it was easy to get commission from someone looking to spend money, the sale associate replied he originally came looking for condoms but I said he knew he wasn't going to get laid, might as well just go fishing.
It doesn't matter if it is a contract or not. It is a promise by a legal representative in official discourse to another legal entity. All the T's will be crossed and I's dotted before any actual transfer happens.
As for not keeping promises. It's not the same here. Once the officials agree to it, the courts will be bound by it. In other situations, there is never anything to determine the negotiations or promises were not in good faith as to this, if we renig, then it will be obvious we negotiated with intent to deceive. That is something until now is only premised in people's minds- not in fact.
Correction.
Because the government has far bigger and better weapons than the government allows private citizens to bear!
The second amendment places no restrictions on the arms we have the rights to hold. The government and courts have done this.
It would be legally binding in the same way that plea deals and disclosed immunity is binding. In other words, if the prosecution makes a deal, they will be bound by that deal in the same way that a person accused of selling drugs cannot be recharged for the same crime or punished for it after he was given immunity for everything if he gave up the his supplier or if his crime was plea bargained down to possession.
There is also the international relations aspect of it. If we went back on our promise, then other countries wouldn't trust us in any deals or diplomacy and that would set the US back way further then any disclosure of spying on other countries could.
Congress and the president wouldn't necessarily need to be involved. Prosecutors already have the powers and abilities to make concessions pertaining to prosecutions. This isn't a treaty or anything, it is a concession on the treatment and prosecution of a criminal suspect. Coming from the head of a department under the president, the support of the president is also automatically implied unless he dismisses holder in some way or publicly speaks against it.
Career politicians aren't necessarily the problem. It's politicians that put ideology and party above the people. This tends to be inherent in career politicians but not a requirement or a given.
Bullshit. The military spending Romney was wanting to increase was not part of the cost of the two wars. It was a base accounting as the minimum spent based on a percentage of the GDP.
Obama put the costs of the wars on budget so when they wound down, he could spend that money without the new spending being treated as new spending and having to be justified or paid for per rules of congress. Romney's plan was simple to have a set amount that couldn't be redirected into new spending without going through the normal process of paying for the spending somehow in the budgets.
In other words, all Romney's plan would do is force congress to justify spending (something the current rules mandate when increases of spending or new spending happens) instead of using what was being spent on the wars on something else. It seems to me that we are worse off in the long run because of Romney or his plan not being implemented.
In case that was too complicated which from what I am replying to makes me suspicious, it works this way. If congress wants to increase spending on science or STEM activities, currently it has to say we are taking from X or increasing taxes to increase spending on Y. With the wars off budget, that process stayed in place. With the wars on budget, then the emergency spending can be X where congress would say we are going to spend less money on the wars to increase funding for Y. So what was originally a temporary expenditure is now a permanent expenditure. Romney's plan would have only set limits to what could be taken from the military based on the amount of GDP any given year.
Your conclusions are wrought with ignorance or out right lies.
So you think it is more then fine for someone to ignore the entity with oversight just because you don't agree with them or think lowly of them?
Many people throughout history have judged themselves to be above the law because their cause is just. Most recently, we had a Hispanic person take the life of a young black male because he was just in protecting his own life. Often society doesn't view these things in the same perspective and you will find that when employees of the government ignore the oversight of the government, we do no have a government of the governed any more. If imposing a king and being relegated to peasants is your wish, you are along that path because the divine right of kings and the king can do no wrong is a premise the US constitution and the US political system was originally designed to break. The king can do no wrong is after all, exactly what you stated there, that holder is above the law as long as someone thinks he is just.
I had a short hospital stay (10 days) and needed blood drawn every 4 hours the first few days. They had to use a different spot each time too. I had a few who seemed that they couldn't stick a needle in a pin cushion if you put a magnet inside it. I remember asking one girl if she wanted me to give it a try after she missed 10 or so times. Then there was a few who would only need one shot and they had it.
I would give it a try too. If it was mounted on a moveable cart, it wouldn't be too different then how they already do it.
It's actually quite simple, almost all ships are tracked via satellite or radar when not in a channel or harbor. There is an authority somewhere depending on your location that knows so they just radio for confirmation to which one is accurate. Or they can pull the really old fashion tricks out and use a sexton or mark their position based on the stars.
It might require them to check more often to determine if they are deviating, but it shouldn't be too much of an issue unless they are piloting into a channel or port.
Wrong,
Waste without investigation: $? (You wouldn't know if NASA spent anything on it or not or how much if they did.)
Waste from investigation: $?? Because knowing that no NASA money was spent on the unauthorized project has value in and of itself. You cannot claim the investigation is waste or that all of it is.
The set didn't cost anything?
I personally didn't car about the trek videos but I'm not going to delude myself into thinking it cost nothing above what was needed.
No, he is stating the fact that most of the killing of the natives took place accidentally. It is the modern revisionist who calls the unintentional killing a genocide.
Sigh, why do I feed the trolls.
I don't go to youtube or some outrageous site to get information about my "buddies" when I can just hang around with them.
I sure bet there are a lot of people saying things on youtube, I doubt they are creationist or any of the people I know. The creationist I know say that evolution and the big bang was created by God so humans could understand their environment. But go figure, a creationist that thinks their god created something in the process of creating the world.