Microsoft would pay them at a loss just to capture the market. And with Bing being the default web browser search in Windows, they would be. Of course mostly only France and some fringe groups in other countries would find it useful and not replace the Bing search with something more capable. But I doubt it would be much different outside of France then the number or people who already do not bother changing their search preferences until some install injects "internet search helper 1.5" or "coupon search" or something.
They are. They are putting belief before evidence, and thst *is* ignorance. It is willful ignorance.
No more then your inability to spell that is ignorance thus willful ignorance. They are attaching motivation to the claims, not ignoring them or putting believe before them, And when someone religious says something is "the work of the devil or somesuch", they particularly pay attention to it.
The whole faith thing is nothing but that: willfull ignorance of simple, obvious facts. It gets especially bizarre when something really bad happens, and all gather around their god to be thankful and are convinced that He is with them. When its obvious that nothing of the sort is even remotely plausible.
Lol.. No it is not. Faith is the belief that there is something more at work then the obvious. Some faith attribute it to a God, some attributes it to an idea like Karma.
You make some unsupported assumptions here too. "When its obvious that nothing of the sort is even remotely plausible" why isn't it? You cannot use science to claim something supernatural and unseen isn't true. You can't just inject your own faith and claim it trumps someone else' faith therefore faith doesn't exist. That would be a logic loop from hell. What evidence do you have to support this claim? Oh, I bet you are going to say reason, but you cannot explain any reason within the bounds you have set without becoming what you decry. It's most likely only due to your disdain for what you do not understand- which also places you in the same boat.
Religion is a cognitive disorder.
Actually, it seems as if your entire line of logic here is a cognitive disorder. There definitely is a spot of cognitive dissidence in with it. Your premise is wrong, your conclusions are wrong, your process is wrong. In short, you are wrong.
Your right, Google is making money off the content. They are using your work in the process. It's sort of like a taxi driver putting a sign on his cab saying he will take people to your out of the way poetry readings and not waving the cab fair. Maybe he puts a few lines of your poetry on the sign to catch the eye of your fans too.
Does he owe you money? Or is bringing customers to your venue enough?
Couldn't Google or other search engines opt into placing a pay wall themselves for searches on french news sites?
I mean they could offer the results as a paid service to comply with French law, do the banner as you mentioned, and just pass the costs onto the searcher for that specific information.
I'm not the original poster, but I can offer why he might have posted anon. It has little or nothing to do with being ashamed.
It is because this is Slashdot and if you post anything opposing the current geopolitical views, trolls will come around with sock puppet accounts or whatever and mass down mod all your posts ruining your karma and in some situations, restricting your ability to even post in reply to replies to the post. This is true in discussions about politics as well as religion or evolution verses science verses creation.
I understand that slashdot is working on a system to halt that practice. But it is not currently in place. If people want to participate in the discussions, a lot of them go AC for topics like this in order to protect their posting abilities and karma for other topics. And please note, I think this happens on both sides of the issues. I'm not sure it is a one side needs to bury the other side or anything of the sort, it is more like retaliation for making a strong argument that goes against someone's principles and beliefs.
So why does god get a free pass to come from nothing?
God doesn't get a free pass to come from nothing. He comes from outside nature and the laws we understand and are bound to. God is supernatural- therefore not confined to the bounds of science. That is something science cannot permit because it is contrary to the same laws it insists governs all of our reality. People, especially of religious faith, find it hypocritical to saw science proved this happened and not a God because of the laws of nature except at this one point where we seem to ignore them altogether for a special occasion to get us going. Remember, it is science the doesn't allow the supernatural, not the religions revolving around the supernatural.
This is also why it is pointless to use Science to exclude God or Religion to exclude Science. They simply are not the same things and are not governed by the same rules. For all we know, everything science discovers and knows can be a direct result of any supernatural act from God (or a god) and for all we know, there could be no God at all. This is one of the fundamental reasons to why religion and the existence of a God is a personal conviction even when shared by many. You cannot use the confines of natural laws to disprove a supernatural being. The most you can say is that a supernatural being is not needed until the point when it is.
Comparing the two is really like comparing apples to oranges when trying to decide if pecan pie is good.
I find it interesting that anything challenging the preconceived notions of some in regards to evolution makes anyone a troll when the topic under discussion is completely contrived.
Claiming any statement- philosophy, religion, scientific theory, or what be it, as being the result of anyone or anything, good or evil, does not in any way automagicly indicate something completely unrelated like ignorance or competency. Equating the two is nothing more then a pair of rose colored glasses attempting to see the world the way they have personally justified it through their religion or ideology.
It's like saying "oh, your a scientist, you must be atheist" or "oh, you believe in God, you must be anti-science". Both statements are false because nothing concerning the first requires the second. It is all a fallacy some people need as a crutch to put their ideological thoughts in order. It is because they are insecure in their own beliefs and require this fallacy to maintain order within their own minds.
Every time you hear a religious person complain that Darwin's theories are the work of the devil or somesuch, then they are saying that ignorance is good.
Lol.. No they are not. Are you that insecure that you have to make shit up about one instance and apply that to everything everywhere?
Here is the problem though. Torrent does not equal pirating methods. And even if it did, the fact that the copyright owner gave permission to copy and download or distribute the copy, removes any and all aspects of pirating unless they open the issue with a feature story on pirates in the south pacific.
IT didn't teach the telecoms anything other then if they cooperate with the government they wouldn't be nickel and dime'd to death by lawsuits if the government fucks up.
Your statement is completely baseless and revolves around a paranoid fallacy that exists only under your tin foil hat.
The bankruptcy is because of the lack of income during and after the illness not the visit. The ER will allow you to make payments. Do you think someone gets a heart transplant then goes back to work the next day?
The ER will treat you (like a deadbeat) and make you comfortable while you die.
No they will not. Not any more then if you had insurance. Federal law says they need to stabilize you and stop you from deteriorating. That is quite a bit more then making you comfortable and watching you die.. I know for a fact that the ER in my area will actually make you better if possible without regard of payment because the only chance of being paid for the services is to get you back to work.
What are you talking about? the Telecom immunity only extends to government ordered activities concerning the TSP and FISA monitoring issued without warrants between a certain time period.
Anything the telecoms do outside of those specific instances is fair game to go after them and they are not immune from anything. Perhaps what you think is against the law isn't actually so? Maybe there was another immunity law that I'm not aware of, it so please cite it.
Actually, its imbedded because the Obama care's mandate that everyone buy insurance was based on the claim that the poor go to the emergency room and that's picked up by the taxpayer. And it actually is picked up for the most part. Look up HCAP and Medicaid.
Make fossil fuels more expensive, just do not cry when businesses jump ship for lower costs elsewhere and jobs are exported to cheaper domains. Jsut don't cry when it starts costing you more for everything because it costs more to make it. Just don't cry when you don't get a raise because your company is trying to cope with increased energy costs before moving offshore.
Right now, external costs are paid for by cheaper prices in products. If you don't want that in your area, move or wait for your jobs to move. But you will never have a booming economy with high energy costs unless other costs are cut significantly to offset it. Alternative energy cannot compete and in a global environment, transporting things 12000 miles and learning to speak Chinese might be a more attractive option then paying the difference.
I mean, to the extent that this is about Obama's general competence, is this really the best example that conservatives can come up with - an obscure technical disagreement regarding the differences between an "act of terror" and a "terrorist attack"?
Actually, if you read the transcript, unless you are some die hard Obama supporter dedicated to believing anything if it supports your predrawn conclusions, you cannot come away from it thinking that anything said was calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama was speaking about 9/11 2001 and other terrorist attacks when he made that comment and Crowley has even corrected herself saying that Obama did not call the attacks an act of terror, just that he used the term during his speech. Crowley even corrected herself right after the debate saying "I think actually, you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong word. " So she says that Romney was correct but Romney used the wrong words.
But this isn't itself a complete showing of Obama's incompetence, it's one more of several things done incompetently by the administration and the dems in general. If Obama actually thought this was an act of terror, then why did he and his administration go around for 2 weeks after claiming it was about a damn movie clip posted on youtube and then have to backtrack after everyone in the world was saying WTF are you smoking?
And, to the extent that this is about safety of embassy personnel, is this really such a burning issue for conservatives? I mean, do conservatives really lay awake at night thinking "All those children of single mothers can starve for all I care. But, oh my deary me, I do hope our embassy personnel are safe?"
Yes, this is a burning issue for conservatives. When the administration is asleep at the wheel, worrying more about themselves then who they are over, and this oversight ends up getting US citizens representing the US killed, it is a serious problem. It's like the driver of a bus being asked to pull over because a rider is having a heart attack and the bus driver keeps on going ignoring the passenger's plea's because he wants to listen to the radio and keep on schedule so he won't have to work overtime.
We have an embassy in a wore torn area that we know has elements of Al Qeada present and a weak but trying government, we denied the embassy extra security when they asked for it, we ignored the lack of stability in the area and the presence of known terrorist organizations who have issues with the US specifically on the anniversary of 9/11, and the result was 4 US citizens killed. And then afterwards, the Vice President doesn't even know they asked for extra security, doesn't even know the details of what happened, while the administration went around calling it an angry mob formed around a nothing video clip found on youtube and apologizing for our first amendment. Then in an attempt to not appear to be a fool, the president of the United States, tries to appear like he was on top of the situation by claiming a technicality in which he used the word terror but not calling the attacks terrorist attacks.
Had this been Bush, not only would there have been calls for impeachment, I would have supported impeaching him.
I guess I'm just a heartless liberal but even if I was convinced that electing Romney over Obama would save the lives of a few embassy personnel every year, it wouldn't really affect my decision at all.
It is actually about more then saving lives of a few people that the US asked to go into dangerous areas to further the goals of the US. It is a pattern of things. Nacy Pelosi- we won't know whats in the law until we pass the law. WTF is tha
Not to seem like I'm sticking up for their IT guy ( i have no clue who he is or his competence levels), but I've seen some off the shelf wireless routers that tend to reset themselves if subject to multiple power outages or surges. These are the consumer grade devices which I think shouldn't be used in a business environment but I've been over ruled many times in that thought process because of the costs associated with more robust and reliable business centric solutions.
So just keep in mind that the default could actually be the problem they were having problems with. I mean the encryption keys and everything could have been reset to a default out of the box experience because of something else that caused them to not have access or problems accessing it.
People are not forced into bankruptcy from ER visits. It is the medical bills on top of not being able to work for an extended period of time that places them into bankruptcy. Even having insurance often doesn't stop that. The one thing that devastates households more then anything is going from 2 incomes to 1 income unexpectedly because of an emergency.
For the poor, ER visits are free or reduced in costs. HCAP, medicaid, and other programs that have existed for a long period of time to cover most if not all expenses created by ER visits and hospital stays. If the visit is serious enough, the hospital itself will work to find ways to get you onto medicaid if you aren't already on it because it means they will get paid.
Or he took someone else who was injured to the emergency room and had to wait on them to be treated.
In my area, if you show to the ER on your own, you do not get any pain medications and sometimes the pain it too much to drive on your own. There are simple processes a regular doctor would send you to the ER for in the first place like stitching up a cut or getting an MRI or Xrays for an ankle injury does not effect your ability to use a laptop even if you are there for yourself.
There are plenty of reasons to why someone would be at the ER other then for what you claim. Perhaps you should ask instead if insisting that all that you know is all that can be true.
Sigh.. Are you saying that Canada doesn't have the capability to export it's own oil? Are you saying that somehow oil companies in the US can make money by buying Canadian oil at market prices and selling it again at market prices after transporting it 4000 miles instead of 1600 or so to a Canadian port?
It goes to ports because we have some refineries at ports. It really is that simple. If any of it is sold and shipped out, it would only be because it is being switched with much lighter sweet crude that doesn't cost as much to refine given US environmental laws. We have been doing that for decades by the way, selling US oil to Japan and China that doesn't have as oppressive environmental regulations as the US does in order to buy lighter crude that doesn't cost as much to refine into US products.
First, an executive order cannot change law or create laws. They can only direct the executive branch in how they operate. Second, Congress can at any time, create law rescinding any executive order. The president is not above the law and cannot ignore an act of congress. Third, if the administration does ignore an act of congress, it can easily be impeached- just ask Andrew Jackson.
So congress can do shit. They can do a lot of shit, and with a third party president in office, they are not likely to be muddled down by party politics and buck the impeachment process or anything. They will have no problem coming together and overriding a veto either. Congress can and probably will have their way with the third party administration because there is no party support in congress.
It is doubtful that a jury would ever see the evidence. second, a judge wouldn't be seeing it outside of determining the legitimacy of it.
Ok, the logs being backed up. This is good and all if they get them before they are rotated out. I usually keep a 1 year backup, 6, 3 and 1 month backup, And a rotating 14 day backup. If their schedule is anything like mine, the events in question will likely not be on the 1 year or the 6 month, Maybe on the 3 or 1 month, definitely on the 14 day rotating, but then again, we have a group of hackers who without permission, accessed the servers, files and logs in question, did whatever they wanted to unauthorized, used them to identify someone specific, then went around bragging about it while naming a specific person that everyone should blame. Even If the time span is such that there is a gap of the incidents and the evidence and the backups don't show discrepancies or different dependencies, how do you know it wasn't done by the hackers?
Here is the problem, even the fact that evidence might have been illegally obtained, you still have a group of people who openly admit they illegally accessed a computer system or sets of systems, did whatever they wanted to do unsupervised, then placed blame for something on a specific person. Liken that to someone was murdered, someone finds the weapon and claims it was that person who killed them because they broke into the crime scene before the police got there and discovered the evidence. Now imagine this person refuses to come forward and testify to their integrity or the legitimacy of the evidence.
In any other situation, you would be able to find someone who would validate the evidence. In this situation, you have people purposely refusing to do so.
The pipeline in question will only bring oil into the US. It was halted by the administration suing over a few dead birds found near the existing parts of it. Nothing concrete has been determined to be caused by the pipeline but that doesn't stop them.
Not just the electoral system, but if ever elected, congress will just do whatever without regard to them. They will be forced to follow or look a fool for the most part. A third party will have no support for thier initiative or policies in congress and will end up being worse then Jimmy Carter when the dems in congress abandoned him.
Slashdot Mirror
Bing!
Microsoft would pay them at a loss just to capture the market. And with Bing being the default web browser search in Windows, they would be. Of course mostly only France and some fringe groups in other countries would find it useful and not replace the Bing search with something more capable. But I doubt it would be much different outside of France then the number or people who already do not bother changing their search preferences until some install injects "internet search helper 1.5" or "coupon search" or something.
No more then your inability to spell that is ignorance thus willful ignorance. They are attaching motivation to the claims, not ignoring them or putting believe before them, And when someone religious says something is "the work of the devil or somesuch", they particularly pay attention to it.
Lol.. No it is not. Faith is the belief that there is something more at work then the obvious. Some faith attribute it to a God, some attributes it to an idea like Karma.
You make some unsupported assumptions here too. "When its obvious that nothing of the sort is even remotely plausible" why isn't it? You cannot use science to claim something supernatural and unseen isn't true. You can't just inject your own faith and claim it trumps someone else' faith therefore faith doesn't exist. That would be a logic loop from hell. What evidence do you have to support this claim? Oh, I bet you are going to say reason, but you cannot explain any reason within the bounds you have set without becoming what you decry. It's most likely only due to your disdain for what you do not understand- which also places you in the same boat.
Actually, it seems as if your entire line of logic here is a cognitive disorder. There definitely is a spot of cognitive dissidence in with it. Your premise is wrong, your conclusions are wrong, your process is wrong. In short, you are wrong.
Your right, Google is making money off the content. They are using your work in the process. It's sort of like a taxi driver putting a sign on his cab saying he will take people to your out of the way poetry readings and not waving the cab fair. Maybe he puts a few lines of your poetry on the sign to catch the eye of your fans too.
Does he owe you money? Or is bringing customers to your venue enough?
Couldn't Google or other search engines opt into placing a pay wall themselves for searches on french news sites?
I mean they could offer the results as a paid service to comply with French law, do the banner as you mentioned, and just pass the costs onto the searcher for that specific information.
You mean if we all run out and start buying french fries again, it won't help? Maybe I should stick to freedom fries. They taste a little better.
I'm not the original poster, but I can offer why he might have posted anon. It has little or nothing to do with being ashamed.
It is because this is Slashdot and if you post anything opposing the current geopolitical views, trolls will come around with sock puppet accounts or whatever and mass down mod all your posts ruining your karma and in some situations, restricting your ability to even post in reply to replies to the post. This is true in discussions about politics as well as religion or evolution verses science verses creation.
I understand that slashdot is working on a system to halt that practice. But it is not currently in place. If people want to participate in the discussions, a lot of them go AC for topics like this in order to protect their posting abilities and karma for other topics. And please note, I think this happens on both sides of the issues. I'm not sure it is a one side needs to bury the other side or anything of the sort, it is more like retaliation for making a strong argument that goes against someone's principles and beliefs.
God doesn't get a free pass to come from nothing. He comes from outside nature and the laws we understand and are bound to. God is supernatural- therefore not confined to the bounds of science. That is something science cannot permit because it is contrary to the same laws it insists governs all of our reality. People, especially of religious faith, find it hypocritical to saw science proved this happened and not a God because of the laws of nature except at this one point where we seem to ignore them altogether for a special occasion to get us going. Remember, it is science the doesn't allow the supernatural, not the religions revolving around the supernatural.
This is also why it is pointless to use Science to exclude God or Religion to exclude Science. They simply are not the same things and are not governed by the same rules. For all we know, everything science discovers and knows can be a direct result of any supernatural act from God (or a god) and for all we know, there could be no God at all. This is one of the fundamental reasons to why religion and the existence of a God is a personal conviction even when shared by many. You cannot use the confines of natural laws to disprove a supernatural being. The most you can say is that a supernatural being is not needed until the point when it is.
Comparing the two is really like comparing apples to oranges when trying to decide if pecan pie is good.
I find it interesting that anything challenging the preconceived notions of some in regards to evolution makes anyone a troll when the topic under discussion is completely contrived.
Claiming any statement- philosophy, religion, scientific theory, or what be it, as being the result of anyone or anything, good or evil, does not in any way automagicly indicate something completely unrelated like ignorance or competency. Equating the two is nothing more then a pair of rose colored glasses attempting to see the world the way they have personally justified it through their religion or ideology.
It's like saying "oh, your a scientist, you must be atheist" or "oh, you believe in God, you must be anti-science". Both statements are false because nothing concerning the first requires the second. It is all a fallacy some people need as a crutch to put their ideological thoughts in order. It is because they are insecure in their own beliefs and require this fallacy to maintain order within their own minds.
Lol.. No they are not. Are you that insecure that you have to make shit up about one instance and apply that to everything everywhere?
Here is the problem though. Torrent does not equal pirating methods. And even if it did, the fact that the copyright owner gave permission to copy and download or distribute the copy, removes any and all aspects of pirating unless they open the issue with a feature story on pirates in the south pacific.
IT didn't teach the telecoms anything other then if they cooperate with the government they wouldn't be nickel and dime'd to death by lawsuits if the government fucks up.
Your statement is completely baseless and revolves around a paranoid fallacy that exists only under your tin foil hat.
The bankruptcy is because of the lack of income during and after the illness not the visit. The ER will allow you to make payments. Do you think someone gets a heart transplant then goes back to work the next day?
No they will not. Not any more then if you had insurance. Federal law says they need to stabilize you and stop you from deteriorating. That is quite a bit more then making you comfortable and watching you die.. I know for a fact that the ER in my area will actually make you better if possible without regard of payment because the only chance of being paid for the services is to get you back to work.
What are you talking about? the Telecom immunity only extends to government ordered activities concerning the TSP and FISA monitoring issued without warrants between a certain time period.
Anything the telecoms do outside of those specific instances is fair game to go after them and they are not immune from anything. Perhaps what you think is against the law isn't actually so? Maybe there was another immunity law that I'm not aware of, it so please cite it.
Actually, its imbedded because the Obama care's mandate that everyone buy insurance was based on the claim that the poor go to the emergency room and that's picked up by the taxpayer.
And it actually is picked up for the most part. Look up HCAP and Medicaid.
Make fossil fuels more expensive, just do not cry when businesses jump ship for lower costs elsewhere and jobs are exported to cheaper domains. Jsut don't cry when it starts costing you more for everything because it costs more to make it. Just don't cry when you don't get a raise because your company is trying to cope with increased energy costs before moving offshore.
Right now, external costs are paid for by cheaper prices in products. If you don't want that in your area, move or wait for your jobs to move. But you will never have a booming economy with high energy costs unless other costs are cut significantly to offset it. Alternative energy cannot compete and in a global environment, transporting things 12000 miles and learning to speak Chinese might be a more attractive option then paying the difference.
Actually, if you read the transcript, unless you are some die hard Obama supporter dedicated to believing anything if it supports your predrawn conclusions, you cannot come away from it thinking that anything said was calling the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama was speaking about 9/11 2001 and other terrorist attacks when he made that comment and Crowley has even corrected herself saying that Obama did not call the attacks an act of terror, just that he used the term during his speech. Crowley even corrected herself right after the debate saying "I think actually, you know, because right after that, I did turn to Romney and said you were totally correct but they spent two weeks telling us that this was about a tape and that there was this riot outside of the Benghazi consulate, which there wasn't. So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong word. " So she says that Romney was correct but Romney used the wrong words.
But this isn't itself a complete showing of Obama's incompetence, it's one more of several things done incompetently by the administration and the dems in general. If Obama actually thought this was an act of terror, then why did he and his administration go around for 2 weeks after claiming it was about a damn movie clip posted on youtube and then have to backtrack after everyone in the world was saying WTF are you smoking?
Yes, this is a burning issue for conservatives. When the administration is asleep at the wheel, worrying more about themselves then who they are over, and this oversight ends up getting US citizens representing the US killed, it is a serious problem. It's like the driver of a bus being asked to pull over because a rider is having a heart attack and the bus driver keeps on going ignoring the passenger's plea's because he wants to listen to the radio and keep on schedule so he won't have to work overtime.
We have an embassy in a wore torn area that we know has elements of Al Qeada present and a weak but trying government, we denied the embassy extra security when they asked for it, we ignored the lack of stability in the area and the presence of known terrorist organizations who have issues with the US specifically on the anniversary of 9/11, and the result was 4 US citizens killed. And then afterwards, the Vice President doesn't even know they asked for extra security, doesn't even know the details of what happened, while the administration went around calling it an angry mob formed around a nothing video clip found on youtube and apologizing for our first amendment. Then in an attempt to not appear to be a fool, the president of the United States, tries to appear like he was on top of the situation by claiming a technicality in which he used the word terror but not calling the attacks terrorist attacks.
Had this been Bush, not only would there have been calls for impeachment, I would have supported impeaching him.
It is actually about more then saving lives of a few people that the US asked to go into dangerous areas to further the goals of the US. It is a pattern of things. Nacy Pelosi- we won't know whats in the law until we pass the law. WTF is tha
Not to seem like I'm sticking up for their IT guy ( i have no clue who he is or his competence levels), but I've seen some off the shelf wireless routers that tend to reset themselves if subject to multiple power outages or surges. These are the consumer grade devices which I think shouldn't be used in a business environment but I've been over ruled many times in that thought process because of the costs associated with more robust and reliable business centric solutions.
So just keep in mind that the default could actually be the problem they were having problems with. I mean the encryption keys and everything could have been reset to a default out of the box experience because of something else that caused them to not have access or problems accessing it.
People are not forced into bankruptcy from ER visits. It is the medical bills on top of not being able to work for an extended period of time that places them into bankruptcy. Even having insurance often doesn't stop that. The one thing that devastates households more then anything is going from 2 incomes to 1 income unexpectedly because of an emergency.
For the poor, ER visits are free or reduced in costs. HCAP, medicaid, and other programs that have existed for a long period of time to cover most if not all expenses created by ER visits and hospital stays. If the visit is serious enough, the hospital itself will work to find ways to get you onto medicaid if you aren't already on it because it means they will get paid.
Or he took someone else who was injured to the emergency room and had to wait on them to be treated.
In my area, if you show to the ER on your own, you do not get any pain medications and sometimes the pain it too much to drive on your own. There are simple processes a regular doctor would send you to the ER for in the first place like stitching up a cut or getting an MRI or Xrays for an ankle injury does not effect your ability to use a laptop even if you are there for yourself.
There are plenty of reasons to why someone would be at the ER other then for what you claim. Perhaps you should ask instead if insisting that all that you know is all that can be true.
Sigh.. Are you saying that Canada doesn't have the capability to export it's own oil? Are you saying that somehow oil companies in the US can make money by buying Canadian oil at market prices and selling it again at market prices after transporting it 4000 miles instead of 1600 or so to a Canadian port?
It goes to ports because we have some refineries at ports. It really is that simple. If any of it is sold and shipped out, it would only be because it is being switched with much lighter sweet crude that doesn't cost as much to refine given US environmental laws. We have been doing that for decades by the way, selling US oil to Japan and China that doesn't have as oppressive environmental regulations as the US does in order to buy lighter crude that doesn't cost as much to refine into US products.
First, an executive order cannot change law or create laws. They can only direct the executive branch in how they operate. Second, Congress can at any time, create law rescinding any executive order. The president is not above the law and cannot ignore an act of congress. Third, if the administration does ignore an act of congress, it can easily be impeached- just ask Andrew Jackson.
So congress can do shit. They can do a lot of shit, and with a third party president in office, they are not likely to be muddled down by party politics and buck the impeachment process or anything. They will have no problem coming together and overriding a veto either. Congress can and probably will have their way with the third party administration because there is no party support in congress.
sub legitimacy/ with admissibility. The legal argument of its validity will be resolved before a judge is ever asked to believe a story about it.
It is doubtful that a jury would ever see the evidence. second, a judge wouldn't be seeing it outside of determining the legitimacy of it.
Ok, the logs being backed up. This is good and all if they get them before they are rotated out. I usually keep a 1 year backup, 6, 3 and 1 month backup, And a rotating 14 day backup. If their schedule is anything like mine, the events in question will likely not be on the 1 year or the 6 month, Maybe on the 3 or 1 month, definitely on the 14 day rotating, but then again, we have a group of hackers who without permission, accessed the servers, files and logs in question, did whatever they wanted to unauthorized, used them to identify someone specific, then went around bragging about it while naming a specific person that everyone should blame. Even If the time span is such that there is a gap of the incidents and the evidence and the backups don't show discrepancies or different dependencies, how do you know it wasn't done by the hackers?
Here is the problem, even the fact that evidence might have been illegally obtained, you still have a group of people who openly admit they illegally accessed a computer system or sets of systems, did whatever they wanted to do unsupervised, then placed blame for something on a specific person. Liken that to someone was murdered, someone finds the weapon and claims it was that person who killed them because they broke into the crime scene before the police got there and discovered the evidence. Now imagine this person refuses to come forward and testify to their integrity or the legitimacy of the evidence.
In any other situation, you would be able to find someone who would validate the evidence. In this situation, you have people purposely refusing to do so.
The pipeline in question will only bring oil into the US. It was halted by the administration suing over a few dead birds found near the existing parts of it. Nothing concrete has been determined to be caused by the pipeline but that doesn't stop them.
Not just the electoral system, but if ever elected, congress will just do whatever without regard to them. They will be forced to follow or look a fool for the most part. A third party will have no support for thier initiative or policies in congress and will end up being worse then Jimmy Carter when the dems in congress abandoned him.