Making unsupported accusations to damage a competitor's reputation is almost a text book case of slander and libel. If you think that is the goal and that they have succeeded, we may end up watching this in court anyways and not in the way you initially suggested.
They should have did it through a proxy that formed it in a question like, isn't this a violation of the GPL?
You are completely confused then. If the cop forgot to do something that resulted in there not being evidence, there is no evidence. If there is doubt in the claim that this was on purpose because it would exonerate the defendant, it will not be admitted that no evidence was taken of that nature.
I really think we might be arguing the same point. Except it will be the evidence or the claim about the evidence that is thrown out, not the case. It happens all the time. The cop forgets to write the date on the citation, the judge doesn't care. The cop transposed the social security numbers on the arrest affidavit the night you got locked up. It doesn't change the fact that he saw you smashing a ball bat over the top of someone's head or that you got arrested and jailed. It doesn't mean the case will be thrown out over a clerical error- unless that error somehow violates a protected right (e.g. didn't get a warrant, mistakes cause the wrong person to be arrested, the cop assaulted you until you confessed) .
So you 3 ended up arguing about the semantics of affect and effect. You are all doing just as good a job as the guys in congress (you know the guys who decide what the budget will really be). Squabbling about dumb crap and doing nothing.
Actually, there is nothing I can do. This is because I'm not in congress and for some reason people like you seem to know it all. But for those who don't, being able to identify the problem does mean we cannot contribute to the fix.
This is what needs to happen. Serious reductions in all 3 'sacred cows' (upwards of 30-40% in each). Serious reductions in discretionary spending. Closing of major loop holes in our tax system (throw it out and start over is my recommendation). Then a serious talk about how much to raise taxes by (back of the envelope I would say at least 3-5% for everyone). Any of those happen by themselves and we are pissing into the wind. All of it must happen or the deficit will not be fixed. We have a income and spending problem. The debt that is outstanding is starting to approach the half of the levels as one of the 3 sacred cows.
Actually, loopholes in the tax code is good. It's the one way congress can encourage tax payers to act in certain ways. Sometimes they are called subsidies. Also, the biggest thing that would fix the deficit would be to increase the GDP by means other then unaccounted for inflation- not raising taxes or slashing programs. Those things need to happen too, but they will never have the same impact of having everyone employes and businesses thriving. In fact, if the war spending was never put on budget like it shouldn't have been, we could have maintained surpluses from 2000 all the way until today if the GDP had grown by 4% better then it did and not drop with the recession. The easiest way to do that is with cheap energy. We have never had a period of economic growth more then the rate of inflation without cheap energy. Of course that's not politically beneficial to those wanting us to use less energy because of global warming.
Very few in our gov actually seem to give a crap about it. Other than to use it as a way to attack the 'other team'.
I think a lot of them care a lot actually. They just care about other things more and some of them got dropped on their head as a baby and have some weird ideas about how things work. But that's what you get when you have presidents and congressmen who have never received a paycheck in their adult life from any entity other then government or lobbying group, or dividends from a family fortune.
Deficit causes debt but debt doesn't cause deficit.
If you do not have enough to cover the bill for spending that year, it causes debt. If you have debt, it does not cause you to not have enough to cover the years spending.
I think that is because there already is a large sentiment for what they are looking at before they decide to open a comment or purpose a rule change. In this case, more so then probably most other government commenting periods, they are looking to confirm their reasons.
I know the FCC does listen to complaints too. Several years ago, I had a problem with a telemarketer that I told to take me off their list. The operator said, they had a right to call me because I signed up for something they sponsored making it a preexisting business relationship and consensual by law. I told them I was revoking that and they needed to take me off the list and any other lists they had me associated with and not to call me back. They said they didn't have to follow the do not call list, I replied with you have to follow my communications. Then the operator replied with a no I don't and it turned into an argument with me saying I would never purchase anything they advertised so it was a waste of their resources. I got several calls back and pretty much held the same or similar conversation with them. I went to the FCC website filled out a report form, included the times and dates, what I said. I got one more call from them in which I hung up then they all stopped. It took about a week after filing the complaint with the FCC for the problem to simply vanish on my end.
You are correct. However, the law also says it is not spam when you have requested the information by having a business relationship with the advertiser. Of course the FCC rules indicate that the advertiser has to show written authorization or consent to do so.
But that isn't all that hard to do. All those sign up sheets for drawings and so on usually contain some fine print about being able to contact the number with advertisements and so on. If any of the local Papa John's pizza joints had "win a pizza party" fill this out things happening, the consumer may have given consent without realizing it. It further goes that if you list your wireless phone number as your home phone number, you could have consented to a business relationship insomuch as you have authorized their use of your cell number under the same rules as the home number.
All this could have been sorted out with complaints to the FCC. A favorable ruling by the FCC would have given a slam dunk case to anyone wanting to seek the compensation. I suspect that the lawsuit, timing, and the publicity has more to do with the founder's claims that they will have to raise prices and cut employee hours to comply with the Obamacare regulations. It is strikingly coincidental that it came about just now- right after he released his statement. Perhaps they can get Papa john's to close down and fire everyone at their less profitable stores or something by this.
effect: verb (used with object) 10. to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.
I used it right. With both uses as a verb to show it is proper one way but not the other.
Fuhrman lost his job because he was a racists accused of planting evidence and had a history of violent behavior towards blacks..lol
He actually retired too, he wasn't fired.
Also, the problem with his testimony wasn't that something that existed didn't, it was that something did exist and shouldn't. Planted evidence is not the same as destroyed or missing evidence or failing to do something properly.
I think you got the who needs evidence switched. They didn't release any evidence it wasn't because they never accused anyone or anything. It's the onus on the accuser to prove the cause.
If I take a drink, or breathe, or sell something, those are actions. If I don't take a drink, or don't breathe, or don't sell, then I've chosen not to take an action. I know the English language muddles this up a bit, but when an alcoholic "stops drinking", that's not actually an action. It may involve making a choice, it may involve willpower, but "not pouring a drink" is not an "action" the way I've been using the word (and the way the legal system uses the word in this context). By this usage "keeping profits normal" is continuing to act - you're going to keep selling something, right? And "hoarding" what they already own is not acting, it's essentially the same situation you'd have if they'd left the area before the storm.Normal . conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural. 2. serving to establish a standard.
All the examples you cited went against what is normal. It is taking action of some sort. Read what was said again and this time pay attention please.
Keeping your profits as normal is not doing anything, raising them to take advantage of the victims of an emergency so you can preserve hoarding is doing something.
Because in a free society everything is presumed to be legal. If we're going to disrupt lives even more and spend money on courts and prisons because of a law you suggest, you're the one who has to make the case.
So then you were just talking shit when you said
You're willing to make those assumptions, but I want supporting evidence (since I want a solid case to be made before declaring something to be criminal).
Now your comment about a free society, you are correct in that everything is presumed to be legal, until there is a law making it illegal. This law exists in 38 states. It's not my law, it is the reality you live in. It is in place because other people believe the same as me. I have made the case because I understand what they do.
Actually, they could get around the third party part simply by distributing the source with the binary to their customers. It doesn't say you have to make it available to a third party, it says you have to do one of the two options.
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
Crazy talk? Whether it is crazy or not doesn't change the fact that very few people at home have to worry about HIPPA, SOX, and SEC regulatory measures, lost profits from systems being down, lawsuits from intrusions that gain access to customer data, lost revenue from secretes like bid proposals or designs, launch dates for products, legal strategies, and a skew of other issues most corporations have to worry about.
Now I know some consumers run windows servers, but do you really think they are representative of the bunch?
The officer failing to do something that doesn't infringe a protected right doesn't mean the case didn't happen. I doubt the courts would concur with your assessment.
Unless you have some sort of proof the evidence was destroyed, it wouldn't be destruction or anything over whatever the officer or technical representatives would claim. This is common today in trial where for whatever reason other then intentionally destroying evidence, a video that could have or likely should have been available isn't. And it is also common that someone would claim the video could vindicate them too.
You might want to read them again. All of the things on the left are actions that cause harm and are often illegal, while the ones on the right are not actions and are almost never illegal, and that includes the subject at hand - "not selling at a low price". I really don't know how to make the distinction more explicit.That's probably because you line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense. Keeping profit margins normal would be doing nothing. Raising them to gouge the victims of an emergency would be the action. Raising prices is not gouging, trying to get windfall profits is. If it costs more, then charge more. If it costs more only because it is needed to cope with an emergency and someone is going to take more then normal profits, it is gouging. I think you are confused on several fronts here.
The justification for this should be clear from the first example - "Slaughtering children is different than not donating your bottom dollar to charity." If not acting to save someone can in all cases be considered a crime, then we are all guilty. That's why outside of a certain limited set of situations (parents and their children, guards and their prisoners, doctors and their patients, in some areas calling 911 for an ambulance or reporting violent crimes) refraining from acting is almost never a crime, even if it seems heartless. You expect the possibility of legal problems if you steal a candy bar from a major business, even if the loss is trivial to them, but do you expect jail time for not giving a homeless man your coat, even if it kills him? I don't think so.
Again, you are confused. Keeping your profits as normal is not doing anything, raising them to take advantage of the victims of an emergency so you can preserve hoarding is doing something. You have it completely backwards. You see, not raising your profit margins is not doing anything. Raising them is doing something.
You're willing to make those assumptions, but I want supporting evidence (since I want a solid case to be made before declaring something to be criminal).
Well, I can't prove something that didn't happen. Why don't you prove it did happen to support your assertions? I mean they are not going to report, no one died because there was no gouging. That is normal and expected as in not taking any action to degrade the situation. What they will report is that because no one gouged someone died or was seriously injured if anyone thought it was true. If someone was harmed seriously or killed because the supplies weren't there, there would be outrage at the response agencies and it would be completely news worthy.
Well, that is unless every single news agency is in some sort of conspiracy to hide it. I mean there could be this elaborate plan in place to protect the administration and every aid worker and all the residents, politicians, and news agencies are involved. But I find that much more unlikely then it just isn't happening the way you think it should.
Slaughtering children is different than not donating your bottom dollar to charity. Taking a man's coat is different than not selling them one. Assaulting someone is different than not stopping an assault. Driving drunk is different than not forcing someone into AA. Firing a gun is different than not taking the gun away. Stealing gas is different than not selling at a low price.
I'm not sure what your point is. I said thing you do and you list how things someone does not do. You are proving my point but then seem to get confused- at least you confused me on your attempt.
You seem to think that, given the choice between preventing one murder and saving two people from accidental death, that we should favor preventing the murder because someone will "have blood on their hands". I believe that we should attempt to prevent as many deaths as possible, regardless of the circumstances of those deaths or our feelings toward the people involved. Until one of us changes the other's mind I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.
Here is the problem. by locking the resources out of the reach of certain people because you want to increase your profit due to their emergency, you are essentially causing someone to be harmed where as there is only potential for that person to be harmed otherwise. To date, no one has demonstrated that anyone has went without or will run out. There are people who had to wait in lines forever and people stealing crap, but I've heard of no situations where anything necessary for survival has been used up with no chance of getting anything else in or anyone suffering anything other then hassle.
But with gouging, we know for certain someone would be priced out. We know for certain that someone would run out of the means to purchase the resources faster. It's simple math. It seems that in this situation, as been the case in every other emergency I can think of, saving the most lives is accomplished by preventing gouging.
The so called steam roll only happened after they were economically isolated and Europe refused to support the south due to fears of the US intervening in their own troubles between France and England.
Also, the big guns, they won't be used. This is because the north has lost it's will to fight a war that gets messy. As for the military, we didn't have a large standing army when the civil war broke out, but each and every state had and still does have, a well equipped guard that will remain with the states. The south were originally kicking our asses too.
I personally do not think the president would invade a seceded nation. Another might, Biden might utter the wrong words somewhere and cause it. But I doubt Obama would invade.
It's not funny, it's rather sad that it happened all to often.
While I'm not going to say all the cops out there are corrupt or abusive, I do know some who are and they brag about it quite a bit. I have had run ins with some too. You won't remember the cop that drives by on patrol, but you do remember the ones with a John Wayne syndrome that thinks because you are walking down the street, you are up to no good so a search it warranted and of you ask what the problem is, you are disrespecting their authority and deserve to be slammed around. Hell, I know of people who were charged for resisting arrest when there was no charge or arrest outside of the charge of resisting arrest.
Half the meth cookers I know couldn't tell you the difference between an endothermic and exothermic reaction. The that could, probably only know it because they watched the Mr Slave episode of south park where Mr Garrison was trying to be fired for being gay so he could sue the school. What's your point? I mean if they are your friends, you probably already knew they were idiots before injecting the front lawn cars and moonshine tasting like crap. It might be surprising to some, but when you talk to idiots, eventually, they will sound like an idiot.
Sounds like a good enough reason for me to call it a duck. Are you saying we have to do it your way or something? I mean seriously, the rest of the world hates the US because we follow tradition and remain true to our own culture? Pfft.....
Yeah, but what is the requirement for usage in those industries compared to being used as an energy source. I don't think it is even close to being the same. The last time I checked, only about 18% of a barrel of oil went to chemical feedstock and the rest ended up being used for energy related endeavors.
Slashdot Mirror
Making unsupported accusations to damage a competitor's reputation is almost a text book case of slander and libel. If you think that is the goal and that they have succeeded, we may end up watching this in court anyways and not in the way you initially suggested.
They should have did it through a proxy that formed it in a question like, isn't this a violation of the GPL?
You are completely confused then. If the cop forgot to do something that resulted in there not being evidence, there is no evidence. If there is doubt in the claim that this was on purpose because it would exonerate the defendant, it will not be admitted that no evidence was taken of that nature.
I really think we might be arguing the same point. Except it will be the evidence or the claim about the evidence that is thrown out, not the case. It happens all the time. The cop forgets to write the date on the citation, the judge doesn't care. The cop transposed the social security numbers on the arrest affidavit the night you got locked up. It doesn't change the fact that he saw you smashing a ball bat over the top of someone's head or that you got arrested and jailed. It doesn't mean the case will be thrown out over a clerical error- unless that error somehow violates a protected right (e.g. didn't get a warrant, mistakes cause the wrong person to be arrested, the cop assaulted you until you confessed) .
Actually, there is nothing I can do. This is because I'm not in congress and for some reason people like you seem to know it all. But for those who don't, being able to identify the problem does mean we cannot contribute to the fix.
Actually, loopholes in the tax code is good. It's the one way congress can encourage tax payers to act in certain ways. Sometimes they are called subsidies. Also, the biggest thing that would fix the deficit would be to increase the GDP by means other then unaccounted for inflation- not raising taxes or slashing programs. Those things need to happen too, but they will never have the same impact of having everyone employes and businesses thriving. In fact, if the war spending was never put on budget like it shouldn't have been, we could have maintained surpluses from 2000 all the way until today if the GDP had grown by 4% better then it did and not drop with the recession. The easiest way to do that is with cheap energy. We have never had a period of economic growth more then the rate of inflation without cheap energy. Of course that's not politically beneficial to those wanting us to use less energy because of global warming.
I think a lot of them care a lot actually. They just care about other things more and some of them got dropped on their head as a baby and have some weird ideas about how things work. But that's what you get when you have presidents and congressmen who have never received a paycheck in their adult life from any entity other then government or lobbying group, or dividends from a family fortune.
Deficit causes debt but debt doesn't cause deficit.
If you do not have enough to cover the bill for spending that year, it causes debt. If you have debt, it does not cause you to not have enough to cover the years spending.
I think that is because there already is a large sentiment for what they are looking at before they decide to open a comment or purpose a rule change. In this case, more so then probably most other government commenting periods, they are looking to confirm their reasons.
I know the FCC does listen to complaints too. Several years ago, I had a problem with a telemarketer that I told to take me off their list. The operator said, they had a right to call me because I signed up for something they sponsored making it a preexisting business relationship and consensual by law. I told them I was revoking that and they needed to take me off the list and any other lists they had me associated with and not to call me back. They said they didn't have to follow the do not call list, I replied with you have to follow my communications. Then the operator replied with a no I don't and it turned into an argument with me saying I would never purchase anything they advertised so it was a waste of their resources. I got several calls back and pretty much held the same or similar conversation with them. I went to the FCC website filled out a report form, included the times and dates, what I said. I got one more call from them in which I hung up then they all stopped. It took about a week after filing the complaint with the FCC for the problem to simply vanish on my end.
You are correct. However, the law also says it is not spam when you have requested the information by having a business relationship with the advertiser. Of course the FCC rules indicate that the advertiser has to show written authorization or consent to do so.
But that isn't all that hard to do. All those sign up sheets for drawings and so on usually contain some fine print about being able to contact the number with advertisements and so on. If any of the local Papa John's pizza joints had "win a pizza party" fill this out things happening, the consumer may have given consent without realizing it. It further goes that if you list your wireless phone number as your home phone number, you could have consented to a business relationship insomuch as you have authorized their use of your cell number under the same rules as the home number.
All this could have been sorted out with complaints to the FCC. A favorable ruling by the FCC would have given a slam dunk case to anyone wanting to seek the compensation. I suspect that the lawsuit, timing, and the publicity has more to do with the founder's claims that they will have to raise prices and cut employee hours to comply with the Obamacare regulations. It is strikingly coincidental that it came about just now- right after he released his statement. Perhaps they can get Papa john's to close down and fire everyone at their less profitable stores or something by this.
effect:
verb (used with object)
10.
to produce as an effect; bring about; accomplish; make happen: The new machines finally effected the transition to computerized accounting last spring.
I used it right. With both uses as a verb to show it is proper one way but not the other.
I'm pretty sure you are confused.
Fuhrman lost his job because he was a racists accused of planting evidence and had a history of violent behavior towards blacks..lol
He actually retired too, he wasn't fired.
Also, the problem with his testimony wasn't that something that existed didn't, it was that something did exist and shouldn't. Planted evidence is not the same as destroyed or missing evidence or failing to do something properly.
You should learn the different between debt and deficit. One effects the other but the other doesn't necessarily effect the one.
When you figure out how they are different, come back and we can talk.
oh, you got slapped down in mid flight did ya,. Oh well, I guess your point will remain a mystery to me.
I think you got the who needs evidence switched. They didn't release any evidence it wasn't because they never accused anyone or anything. It's the onus on the accuser to prove the cause.
It's not guilt until proven innocent.
perhaps you could explain it then.
Actually, they could get around the third party part simply by distributing the source with the binary to their customers. It doesn't say you have to make it available to a third party, it says you have to do one of the two options.
Crazy talk? Whether it is crazy or not doesn't change the fact that very few people at home have to worry about HIPPA, SOX, and SEC regulatory measures, lost profits from systems being down, lawsuits from intrusions that gain access to customer data, lost revenue from secretes like bid proposals or designs, launch dates for products, legal strategies, and a skew of other issues most corporations have to worry about.
Now I know some consumers run windows servers, but do you really think they are representative of the bunch?
Users would entail corporate and consumer groups of users. It was proper to distinguish between differing environments.
The officer failing to do something that doesn't infringe a protected right doesn't mean the case didn't happen. I doubt the courts would concur with your assessment.
Unless you have some sort of proof the evidence was destroyed, it wouldn't be destruction or anything over whatever the officer or technical representatives would claim. This is common today in trial where for whatever reason other then intentionally destroying evidence, a video that could have or likely should have been available isn't. And it is also common that someone would claim the video could vindicate them too.
I'm not sure what your point is. I said thing you do and you list how things someone does not do. You are proving my point but then seem to get confused- at least you confused me on your attempt.
Here is the problem. by locking the resources out of the reach of certain people because you want to increase your profit due to their emergency, you are essentially causing someone to be harmed where as there is only potential for that person to be harmed otherwise. To date, no one has demonstrated that anyone has went without or will run out. There are people who had to wait in lines forever and people stealing crap, but I've heard of no situations where anything necessary for survival has been used up with no chance of getting anything else in or anyone suffering anything other then hassle.
But with gouging, we know for certain someone would be priced out. We know for certain that someone would run out of the means to purchase the resources faster. It's simple math. It seems that in this situation, as been the case in every other emergency I can think of, saving the most lives is accomplished by preventing gouging.
The so called steam roll only happened after they were economically isolated and Europe refused to support the south due to fears of the US intervening in their own troubles between France and England.
Also, the big guns, they won't be used. This is because the north has lost it's will to fight a war that gets messy. As for the military, we didn't have a large standing army when the civil war broke out, but each and every state had and still does have, a well equipped guard that will remain with the states. The south were originally kicking our asses too.
I personally do not think the president would invade a seceded nation. Another might, Biden might utter the wrong words somewhere and cause it. But I doubt Obama would invade.
It's not funny, it's rather sad that it happened all to often.
While I'm not going to say all the cops out there are corrupt or abusive, I do know some who are and they brag about it quite a bit. I have had run ins with some too. You won't remember the cop that drives by on patrol, but you do remember the ones with a John Wayne syndrome that thinks because you are walking down the street, you are up to no good so a search it warranted and of you ask what the problem is, you are disrespecting their authority and deserve to be slammed around. Hell, I know of people who were charged for resisting arrest when there was no charge or arrest outside of the charge of resisting arrest.
Half the meth cookers I know couldn't tell you the difference between an endothermic and exothermic reaction. The that could, probably only know it because they watched the Mr Slave episode of south park where Mr Garrison was trying to be fired for being gay so he could sue the school. What's your point? I mean if they are your friends, you probably already knew they were idiots before injecting the front lawn cars and moonshine tasting like crap. It might be surprising to some, but when you talk to idiots, eventually, they will sound like an idiot.
Sounds like a good enough reason for me to call it a duck. Are you saying we have to do it your way or something? I mean seriously, the rest of the world hates the US because we follow tradition and remain true to our own culture? Pfft.....
Yeah, but what is the requirement for usage in those industries compared to being used as an energy source. I don't think it is even close to being the same. The last time I checked, only about 18% of a barrel of oil went to chemical feedstock and the rest ended up being used for energy related endeavors.