Life expectancy is not really a good marker for health or well-being of different populations. This is especially true with cultural differences as large as there are between the US and Cuba. One population will always have factors that can't be accounted for by the other. For instance, deaths from traveling more miles (accidents) or recreational activities, drug abuse and so one can greatly skew the life expectancy of one place and has little to do with health or the quality of care.
Its not that much further to get supplies from central and south America. Opening trade with Cuba will only serve to have Cuba exploited by American businesses and little more.
As for "love thy neighbor", I don't think that means anything in this context. You can love you neighbor and still not do business with them.
Actually, it would be the first place they would go. If they belived their views were correct and the science showed it, you couldn't reject it easily.
If it is anything like megaupload, the differences on the first tier and free account will be the download links. You get a faster download and the people you give the links to does not have to wait for a specific server or be limited in speed because of public servers being overloaded.
This is probably only valuable if you are hosting files for work or something and need a quick way to disseminate them outside the building. Most smaller companies who are not into web services do not have a lot of extra upstream bandwidth.
And I don't agree with it necessarily being a bad thing unless its the only approach taken. As a layer, it increases the effectiveness of other security.
Greed can be good. And no, it doesn't make sense under any doctrine you could imagine. Once a sale is made, unless there is a problem with the product, the seller is done with the transaction.
I mean seriously, make them promise it will be open to all and if ever patented, an unrestricted license will be issued for commercial and private use including derivative uses (cams and other equipment) as long as it is a standard. At least for the implementation of the standard itself. Of course MS can copyright it's own products built off it.
Actually all standards should be this way so there can't be any submarine patents or anything involved.
They have lowered their prices in the last couple of years then. I just checked and it was $287 for the same route with no sleeper time. Add that to it and you start to see a big difference. Before when I checked, it was like $1700. Actually, once the return trip is added and a sleeper both ways, it's $2200 this time.
If France doesn't charge enough to cover their costs, they really isn't anyone's problem but theirs. You see, google and Youtube or yahoo or any other company does not broadcast using the bandwidth up hoping someone will catch the stream and be happy. They sit there and answer requests for services like searches or movies or clips or the news and so on by the end user of the ISP in France.
To hear it their way, it would be like me ordering a pizza and you, the pizza shop owner, expecting the company that made the cheese to pay for half the pizza because you do not charge enough to your customers. Does that really make sense?
There is nothing wrong if you tell me "but not at 5pm". The problem is that ISPs are not telling people to expect something else at 5pm.
This is about what is being said verses the reality of what is happening. Do you see commercials saying get X internet and enjoy speeds up to 40mbps except for between 5 and 6 pm? When signing up for your 40mbps connection, did they tell you there will be times they purposely limit the speeds to something lower for whatever reason or no reason state at all? If the answer to either is yes, no problem at all. If the answer to both are no, then they misled the customer in what they provide.
And note, there is a difference between network congestion, attacks, segments of the route out of their control, and them purposely limiting the connection speed to lower then represented when enticing you to purchase their service. People can not use the internet service, outside networks can be routed around or fixed, but if the ISP limits the connection, nothing except for the ISP removing those limits will allow those speeds. When the ISP says you can get X speeds without stating their control of the network at lower speeds to ensure the integrity of it, when they do so, they are purposely not delivering up to whatever speed.
Even if it is "up to" a set speed, that ends if the ISP throttles the connection.
Look at it this way, if I ask you to work for me and I say you can pick to widgets for your own each time you work a day for compensation but only put one widget out for you to chose from, and I honoring my agreement? Of course not, and if the ISP purposely restricts the bandwidth to 3 mbps instead of the 40mbps, they are purposely not offering the extra 37 mbps so there can be no up to anything at that point in time. If network congestion and servers on the other end cause the restriction, it would be a true meaning because if not for actions outside the ISP's control, you could still get up to 40mbps.
So a little context on that might still turn it into false advertising unless the contract specifically says that the ISP can throttle the connection speed and the customer is made aware of it either in the advertising or before committing to the service..
Maybe this will work out in our favor. Perhaps it will lead me to forcing best buy to pay me for buying their products or something.
Sarcasm aside, I completely agree. Unless Google is using some sort of peering agreement and just going through their network, all the bandwidth and everything is already paid for by the customer who requests it. There is absolutely no reason to have it paid for twice.
That's strange, I was driving down the road and someone's empty beer case blew out of the back of his truck. It missed my car, but my friends car who was following me smelled like dog shit for a day or two.
I checked into Amtrak for a just so I can say I did train trip. I found it to be overly expensive. I could have rented a car and traveled the same distance, gotten a hotel and waited until the train's scheduled arival for less money. At the time, and I'm not sure what air prices are, I think I could have flown back and forth 3 times for the same price as a round trip ticket on Amtrak.
I decided to pass on the experience and go to Vegas instead. I figure if you are going to throw money away, you might as well have fun while doing it.
Congress can actually conduct a public hearing on the matter in which the results minus names of targets could become public information through means other then the FBI.
They can also do a private hearing if the subject is considered a matter of national security then release more of the information through leaks or bringing it up on the floor of congress.
So while you are right in that you go to court over an agency violating existing laws, you can still go to congress to get the answers you are looking for (provided congress is willing to take the matter up).
It would depend on how sadistic he is. He might get off on seeing the look of frustration and despair in strangers eyes. He might get a power trip from knowing there really isn't anything that could be done- sort of like why some criminals return to the scene of a crime to watch the cleanup.
Perhaps you could document this and provide examples? This isn't about killing oneself, it's about calling for the heads of government run amok while at the same time voiding yourself of any means of recourse.
It's like a car mechanic on crack who claims he does crack cocaine in order to work on more cars so he can make more money to buy more crack but sells his tools to purchase more crack. Pawn shops all around the country are full of tools from idiots who need to make a buck but sold off their ability to do so in their trade for a short term satisfaction.
I'm sorry the sarcasm slipped by you. I guess my tags got eaten by the system. It has to do with begging the government to disarm you while at the same time becoming increasingly outraged at their actions.
Red October was when a Russian sub from a book right?
And exactly how do you expect them to man up and kill them themselves? They already voluntarily submitted to gun control legislation in the hopes some might eventually get passed.
Seriously, I'm betting most of the people yelling for the prosecutors heads are the same people yelling for the government to take the guns and keep us safe. If there was ever a wake up moment,.... oh well... I guess I should stop
No, no you didn't. What you did was failed to appreciate the difference in context.
The context was completely the same and appropriate as you being convinced of something does not mean there is proof of it nor does it mean the evidence when viewed as evidence says anything close to what you believe or want to think is true. Note, what is true or not is independent of what the evidence shows. That is what is important when punishing someone- what the evidence shows, not what you want to believe.
Your next example does a perfect job of illustrating that because we have RICO laws to deal with gangsters but don't use them on corporate officers even when it is clearly appropriate. One rule for the black / latino / italian guy directing his employees to do illegal stuff and another for the white one because the white one hides behind a 'corporation'. Equal justice my arse.
lol.. How ignorant are you? The RICO laws are changes to normal laws. They are used all the time on corporations and other entities. The most important one is where an organization gets declared as a criminal gang in which a judge decides that the majority of their activities is either illegal or in the pursuit of illegal activities. This brings a whole slew of other laws into effect and you will likely not find a corporation that is declared a criminal gang or criminal organization.
As for not having responsibility. Corporations need to make collectively and individually acting ethically a priority.
I don't disagree with this. In fact, it is part of the fiduciary obligations assigned within a corporation and is actionable by share holders should there be proof of intentional unethical acting.
I will make you a deal, you show me a company where an employee cannot be fired or downsized or have their contract renegotiated while being able to leave whenever they like after a reasonable notice period, who have never had a recorded instance of a constructive dismissal for the tenure of the current batch of executive officers and I will agree that the corporate officers of that company are not in part responsible for the rogue actions of their employees. Corporations agree to stop operating like gangs and I will start judging them like families and friends.
Hogwash. Firing someone, negotiating their contracts and so on is not an unethical act. Im some cases unethical acts aren't even illegal nor will they create civil liabilities. You have some concocted notion of things that do not reflect reality or any sane interpretations of it. Corporations act like employers, if you don't think that is right, find a different one to work for or start your own. Otherwise get a grip on reality.
There is no "Action" taken after the vote; the vote *Can be the action*.
A vote in and of itself cannot be the illegal action. If as you suggested, a computer program automatically does the action after the vote is tallied, then I would suggest the person running the program is the party you would be after. It's like bit torrent traffic, I can use it for legal activity and illegal activity, I can program a bot to run it for me too. I would be the one responsible for what the bot and the program does at my direction.
I guess the answer is you sue everyone involved in the vote. By participating (even if they voted no) they are effectively voting yes (by validating it) but, since you can cast doubt on their intention (they may have - by the vote - had the *intention* to stop the program, but due to its nature as being a vote, been unable to stop it!!)
It's not that complicated. Someone is allowing a program to run, a program that was created and installed and someone started. Someone owns the machines it is one, the internet connections and so on. They are the ones who should be looked at.
My brothers and sisters are not a corporation, I don't direct them, I have no authority over them. I'm talking about responsibility. If I run my family with a strong hierarchy and direct my brothers actions in a way which is likely to result in him doing something which harms others then you bet I'm responsible. If during the course of normal business activities your company creates a culture in which things like managing money for terrorist groups (as was the case with HSBC) occurs then yes, you are responsible.
Sure, that's what you say. Your brother was acting at your direction, not on his own. Proof, oh wait, I have no proof that you told them to do something, but I'm going to accuse you in the same way that you would accuse a corporation. See what I did there, I held you to the same assumptions you want to hold corporations to. If the evidence is not there, you cannot convict in a society that presumes innocence until proven guilty.
If a gangster doesn't directly manage the money or drug running or protection rackets does that make them not responsible for the actions of the organisation?
Actually, no it does not. That is why gangs are such a problem for law enforcement. The front people or the people you meet who are in the gangs, usually aren't involved in the illegal activities making it necessary for special laws like the RICO statutes and so on. This problem had plagued us forever too. It's why Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion and not anything relating to his gang's illegal activities.
All your examples have a theme in common, I'm not responsible for the actions of my friend and family. If your employee, acting within the incentives and controls you impose on them commits a crime and you neglect to keep records of it and benefit from it (directly or indirectly) then you are responsible. Do you have an example where you can direct another's actions then disavow yourself of the consequences in an area you have direct responsibility for?
Your not responsible for your employees actions either, if they act independently. The corporation might be liable but no one who did not act will be. They certainly won't be held personally liable. But if they did participate by either directing the act or by ignoring it happening, they could be held personally liable.
My comments were about how stupid your idea of punishing someone in a corporation who did not participate in an act that is either criminal or civilly liable. You cannot disavow responsibility for an act you participated in, the best you can do is manipulate the evidence to hide your involvement. This is typically what happens when the CEO says do X where X is illegal, the peons who do it say Mr. Zen told us to do it but there is no proof it ever happened. Often there isn't even a paper trail if an authority can look. We do not arbitrarily punish someone for acts they did not participate in and we do need evidence to show they participated. Without that, justice will never be served.
ehh.. the way the government works in this day and age, we will likely see something happening with it before any of that gets addressed in any meaningful ways.
As a though experiment, lets vote to break into the white house and paint it pink with purple stripes. Now supposing the vote passes and we democratically agree to do this, does it automatically happen without anyone taking any further steps? Of course not, no matter how we organize ourselves, whether it be a corporation or political party, or even a club of geeks, it takes the actions of a specific person in order to make it happen.
So the reality is that someone has to specifically do the act. If they are directed to do so by others in charge, those who directed them is usually in the same if not more trouble as the person who does the act. Think of it like a mob boss ordering a hit on an enemy, we might know Tommy "two guns" killed the enemy, but we might not be able to show he did it because bugs malone ordered him to do it. If we could, then bugs would be just as culpable.
In your voting scenario, someone will have to act, someone can be completely accountable for their actions. While it is true that if they are acting at the direction of someone else, that other person can be held accountable too, like you suggest, a secret ballot might make it impossible to determine who directed them- giving the appearance of escaping accountability but there will always be the person or persons who specifically acted in order to implement what was voted on. Those people will always be in the line of fire when it comes to liability or prosecution.
Slashdot Mirror
Life expectancy is not really a good marker for health or well-being of different populations. This is especially true with cultural differences as large as there are between the US and Cuba. One population will always have factors that can't be accounted for by the other. For instance, deaths from traveling more miles (accidents) or recreational activities, drug abuse and so one can greatly skew the life expectancy of one place and has little to do with health or the quality of care.
Its not that much further to get supplies from central and south America. Opening trade with Cuba will only serve to have Cuba exploited by American businesses and little more.
As for "love thy neighbor", I don't think that means anything in this context. You can love you neighbor and still not do business with them.
Actually, it would be the first place they would go. If they belived their views were correct and the science showed it, you couldn't reject it easily.
If it is anything like megaupload, the differences on the first tier and free account will be the download links. You get a faster download and the people you give the links to does not have to wait for a specific server or be limited in speed because of public servers being overloaded.
This is probably only valuable if you are hosting files for work or something and need a quick way to disseminate them outside the building. Most smaller companies who are not into web services do not have a lot of extra upstream bandwidth.
security by obscurity.
And I don't agree with it necessarily being a bad thing unless its the only approach taken. As a layer, it increases the effectiveness of other security.
Greed can be good. And no, it doesn't make sense under any doctrine you could imagine. Once a sale is made, unless there is a problem with the product, the seller is done with the transaction.
Get a prenump then.
I mean seriously, make them promise it will be open to all and if ever patented, an unrestricted license will be issued for commercial and private use including derivative uses (cams and other equipment) as long as it is a standard. At least for the implementation of the standard itself. Of course MS can copyright it's own products built off it.
Actually all standards should be this way so there can't be any submarine patents or anything involved.
They have lowered their prices in the last couple of years then. I just checked and it was $287 for the same route with no sleeper time. Add that to it and you start to see a big difference. Before when I checked, it was like $1700. Actually, once the return trip is added and a sleeper both ways, it's $2200 this time.
If France doesn't charge enough to cover their costs, they really isn't anyone's problem but theirs. You see, google and Youtube or yahoo or any other company does not broadcast using the bandwidth up hoping someone will catch the stream and be happy. They sit there and answer requests for services like searches or movies or clips or the news and so on by the end user of the ISP in France.
To hear it their way, it would be like me ordering a pizza and you, the pizza shop owner, expecting the company that made the cheese to pay for half the pizza because you do not charge enough to your customers. Does that really make sense?
There is nothing wrong if you tell me "but not at 5pm". The problem is that ISPs are not telling people to expect something else at 5pm.
This is about what is being said verses the reality of what is happening. Do you see commercials saying get X internet and enjoy speeds up to 40mbps except for between 5 and 6 pm? When signing up for your 40mbps connection, did they tell you there will be times they purposely limit the speeds to something lower for whatever reason or no reason state at all? If the answer to either is yes, no problem at all. If the answer to both are no, then they misled the customer in what they provide.
And note, there is a difference between network congestion, attacks, segments of the route out of their control, and them purposely limiting the connection speed to lower then represented when enticing you to purchase their service. People can not use the internet service, outside networks can be routed around or fixed, but if the ISP limits the connection, nothing except for the ISP removing those limits will allow those speeds. When the ISP says you can get X speeds without stating their control of the network at lower speeds to ensure the integrity of it, when they do so, they are purposely not delivering up to whatever speed.
Even if it is "up to" a set speed, that ends if the ISP throttles the connection.
Look at it this way, if I ask you to work for me and I say you can pick to widgets for your own each time you work a day for compensation but only put one widget out for you to chose from, and I honoring my agreement? Of course not, and if the ISP purposely restricts the bandwidth to 3 mbps instead of the 40mbps, they are purposely not offering the extra 37 mbps so there can be no up to anything at that point in time. If network congestion and servers on the other end cause the restriction, it would be a true meaning because if not for actions outside the ISP's control, you could still get up to 40mbps.
So a little context on that might still turn it into false advertising unless the contract specifically says that the ISP can throttle the connection speed and the customer is made aware of it either in the advertising or before committing to the service..
Maybe this will work out in our favor. Perhaps it will lead me to forcing best buy to pay me for buying their products or something.
Sarcasm aside, I completely agree. Unless Google is using some sort of peering agreement and just going through their network, all the bandwidth and everything is already paid for by the customer who requests it. There is absolutely no reason to have it paid for twice.
All they have to do is offer a pricing tier and be honest in their advertising.
People will pay for more when they know what they are getting. Cell phone companies do it.
That's strange, I was driving down the road and someone's empty beer case blew out of the back of his truck. It missed my car, but my friends car who was following me smelled like dog shit for a day or two.
I checked into Amtrak for a just so I can say I did train trip. I found it to be overly expensive. I could have rented a car and traveled the same distance, gotten a hotel and waited until the train's scheduled arival for less money. At the time, and I'm not sure what air prices are, I think I could have flown back and forth 3 times for the same price as a round trip ticket on Amtrak.
I decided to pass on the experience and go to Vegas instead. I figure if you are going to throw money away, you might as well have fun while doing it.
Congress can actually conduct a public hearing on the matter in which the results minus names of targets could become public information through means other then the FBI.
They can also do a private hearing if the subject is considered a matter of national security then release more of the information through leaks or bringing it up on the floor of congress.
So while you are right in that you go to court over an agency violating existing laws, you can still go to congress to get the answers you are looking for (provided congress is willing to take the matter up).
It would depend on how sadistic he is. He might get off on seeing the look of frustration and despair in strangers eyes. He might get a power trip from knowing there really isn't anything that could be done- sort of like why some criminals return to the scene of a crime to watch the cleanup.
Perhaps you could document this and provide examples? This isn't about killing oneself, it's about calling for the heads of government run amok while at the same time voiding yourself of any means of recourse.
It's like a car mechanic on crack who claims he does crack cocaine in order to work on more cars so he can make more money to buy more crack but sells his tools to purchase more crack. Pawn shops all around the country are full of tools from idiots who need to make a buck but sold off their ability to do so in their trade for a short term satisfaction.
I'm sorry the sarcasm slipped by you. I guess my tags got eaten by the system. It has to do with begging the government to disarm you while at the same time becoming increasingly outraged at their actions.
Red October was when a Russian sub from a book right?
And exactly how do you expect them to man up and kill them themselves? They already voluntarily submitted to gun control legislation in the hopes some might eventually get passed.
Seriously, I'm betting most of the people yelling for the prosecutors heads are the same people yelling for the government to take the guns and keep us safe. If there was ever a wake up moment,.... oh well... I guess I should stop
The context was completely the same and appropriate as you being convinced of something does not mean there is proof of it nor does it mean the evidence when viewed as evidence says anything close to what you believe or want to think is true. Note, what is true or not is independent of what the evidence shows. That is what is important when punishing someone- what the evidence shows, not what you want to believe.
lol.. How ignorant are you? The RICO laws are changes to normal laws. They are used all the time on corporations and other entities. The most important one is where an organization gets declared as a criminal gang in which a judge decides that the majority of their activities is either illegal or in the pursuit of illegal activities. This brings a whole slew of other laws into effect and you will likely not find a corporation that is declared a criminal gang or criminal organization.
I don't disagree with this. In fact, it is part of the fiduciary obligations assigned within a corporation and is actionable by share holders should there be proof of intentional unethical acting.
Hogwash. Firing someone, negotiating their contracts and so on is not an unethical act. Im some cases unethical acts aren't even illegal nor will they create civil liabilities. You have some concocted notion of things that do not reflect reality or any sane interpretations of it. Corporations act like employers, if you don't think that is right, find a different one to work for or start your own. Otherwise get a grip on reality.
A vote in and of itself cannot be the illegal action. If as you suggested, a computer program automatically does the action after the vote is tallied, then I would suggest the person running the program is the party you would be after. It's like bit torrent traffic, I can use it for legal activity and illegal activity, I can program a bot to run it for me too. I would be the one responsible for what the bot and the program does at my direction.
It's not that complicated. Someone is allowing a program to run, a program that was created and installed and someone started. Someone owns the machines it is one, the internet connections and so on. They are the ones who should be looked at.
Sure, that's what you say. Your brother was acting at your direction, not on his own. Proof, oh wait, I have no proof that you told them to do something, but I'm going to accuse you in the same way that you would accuse a corporation. See what I did there, I held you to the same assumptions you want to hold corporations to. If the evidence is not there, you cannot convict in a society that presumes innocence until proven guilty.
Actually, no it does not. That is why gangs are such a problem for law enforcement. The front people or the people you meet who are in the gangs, usually aren't involved in the illegal activities making it necessary for special laws like the RICO statutes and so on. This problem had plagued us forever too. It's why Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion and not anything relating to his gang's illegal activities.
Your not responsible for your employees actions either, if they act independently. The corporation might be liable but no one who did not act will be. They certainly won't be held personally liable. But if they did participate by either directing the act or by ignoring it happening, they could be held personally liable.
My comments were about how stupid your idea of punishing someone in a corporation who did not participate in an act that is either criminal or civilly liable. You cannot disavow responsibility for an act you participated in, the best you can do is manipulate the evidence to hide your involvement. This is typically what happens when the CEO says do X where X is illegal, the peons who do it say Mr. Zen told us to do it but there is no proof it ever happened. Often there isn't even a paper trail if an authority can look. We do not arbitrarily punish someone for acts they did not participate in and we do need evidence to show they participated. Without that, justice will never be served.
ehh.. the way the government works in this day and age, we will likely see something happening with it before any of that gets addressed in any meaningful ways.
No, it doesn't work that way.
As a though experiment, lets vote to break into the white house and paint it pink with purple stripes. Now supposing the vote passes and we democratically agree to do this, does it automatically happen without anyone taking any further steps? Of course not, no matter how we organize ourselves, whether it be a corporation or political party, or even a club of geeks, it takes the actions of a specific person in order to make it happen.
So the reality is that someone has to specifically do the act. If they are directed to do so by others in charge, those who directed them is usually in the same if not more trouble as the person who does the act. Think of it like a mob boss ordering a hit on an enemy, we might know Tommy "two guns" killed the enemy, but we might not be able to show he did it because bugs malone ordered him to do it. If we could, then bugs would be just as culpable.
In your voting scenario, someone will have to act, someone can be completely accountable for their actions. While it is true that if they are acting at the direction of someone else, that other person can be held accountable too, like you suggest, a secret ballot might make it impossible to determine who directed them- giving the appearance of escaping accountability but there will always be the person or persons who specifically acted in order to implement what was voted on. Those people will always be in the line of fire when it comes to liability or prosecution.