Defense: Your honor, that evidence is tainted, a hacker group calling itself anonymous has infiltrated the systems in question and had their way with them. They first brought this evidence to light and blamed my client. It should be bared from entry unless the prosecution can prove it was not tampered with by this hacking group in order to make my client appear guilty.
Judge: Well, can you guarantee the soundness, legitimacy and/or legality of this evidence?
Prosecutor: No your honor, the windows XP computer the victim used does not log the actions of hackers and according to our techs had spyware and Trojans installed on it. It is unlikely this led to unauthorized access but because of the lack of logging, we do not know for sure. The website's logs of Facebook, abc.com, xyz.com doesn't show signs of tampering but they do not validate them on a regular basis so no we cannot verify them either. Further more, we found the defendant's computer was loaded with nasties also. and being a windows machine, we are in the same boat.
Let me guess, you think Obama breaks into talking about how America won't back down from acts of terror when he's talking to a group about how we need better fuel economy in cars as well.
Well, Obama did start the thing off saying "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."
It wasn't until he started talking about the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that he mentioned the terror. It's clear to me that he was speaking about 9/11 when he said it.
If you can grasp the concept of context, duh, yes, he was calling it an act of terrorism.
Here's another hint for you. If they actually had killed the embassy staff because of outrage over an 'American' produced movie against muslimism, that would still be terrorism. It would just be a different motive for the terrorism than the war in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Actually, no. Terrorism as US law defines it needs a deliberate act or an intentional component. Some speculate that this is the reason why Obama didn't call it terrorism and why they went around apologizing for the first amendment for 2 weeks after the attacks. The fact of the matter is that even if Obama called it terrorism by any stretch of the imagination, they did it once then went around for several weeks claiming it was about a damn movie trailer. So it appears they changed their minds directly after it then changed them back when it became politically advantageous or something. My guess is that Obama was afraid of being called weak on terrorism if a terrorist act happened under his watch, something similar to the McCain campain's statements about being better suited to protecting America from terrorism.
But what we know now is that there was an act of terrorism. It was allowed to happen because of oversights and general misfeasance by government organizations with senior members of the administration saying they didn't know requests for extra security had been made under the administration, the administration appeared in public to blame it on our first amendment's protection of free speech, and eventually called it what it was.
If this isn't a sign of incompetence, I'm not sure what is.
A jury probably wouldn't even see the evidence in the first place. This would be hammered out before anything was actually in trial (unless Canada does things extremely different). But ensuring the integrity of the evidence is key to using it.
As for the log files, hackers manipulate them to hide their access. Unless face book (or whoever) has a detailed log of all the activity and commands the anonymous hacker did while in the system. This is unlikely seeing how this type of logging is generally reserves for FEC and SOX regulated enterprises. I'm pretty sure that most of the evidence could be tossed out before it even gets presented. and if other evidence is gained from poisoned evidence, there is a good chance it will be bared too (unless Canada doesn't do the poisoned fruit thing).
More like you don't realize that there are no doors, and there's a giant sign out front in a language you don't understand that is inviting everyone and their dog inside.
No, I understand the language quite well, If we keep the analogy of a house, it is more like he looked in from the street, went around to the alley, slipped past the neighbors, jumped the fence, and walked in the back door. That is not in any way a giant sign inviting anyone in. It is a way that has absolutely no security but it is completely different then published links presented to the public.
Um, I never said it did.
It appears you did. However, even if you didn't, then I can assume you do agree that "Accessible does not automatically mean welcoming any and all actions against them". Or was that your way of disagreeing without addressing the issue?
So anyone who has already entered your yard, a yard which I am guessing displays no invitations to authorize access to strangers, would be able to see inside your house. I'm not really sure how this is comparable. Maybe if your yard had some giant East Asian sculpture that you did not realize was a sign meaning "travelers, come stop here!", but I'm guessing it doesn't.
That is because you are deliberately trying to be obtuse. Every house has a pathway, or a side walk leading to a door that is normally used to contact people inside the house. I can walk up this pathway at any time and knock on your door all I want. I cannot leave it and conceal myself somewhere off the beaten path in order to look into you house. Cops cannot even do that without a warrant. They have tried and the courts threw the evidence out.
Corporations are, and always have been, intended to be a shield that allows the owners and officers to conduct themselves in potentially illegal ways while minimizing their own personal risks.
No, it is/has not been. People may have tried to abuse it that way, they might have even been successful, but that's only because they were good criminals, not because it is legal or intended by law.
When your views of how the law works are at odds with reality, you have to adjust your views.
Lol.. So when the murder gets off because something is wrong with the chain of evidence and it cannot be used at his trial, we should all assume murder it legal? Your logic failed the smell test so bad, it would have flies chipping in to buy you a screen door just to stay away.
Are you sure? All references I can find has Obama saying something of the sorts that America won't back down from acts of terror but not Obama claiming is was a terrorist attack. The transcript has "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nationâ but this isn't obvious that it was about the killing of the Ambassador or the attack on the embassy.
OF course if you are drinking the cool-aid, I suppose you could claim that as calling it terrorism, but then the government went around apologizing for the first amendment and insisting is was over a infantile production of an inflammatory movie about an illiterate pedophile somehow shown as a bumbling idiot (a step up I think )
A vote for third party is a vote for the incumbent. A third party candidate as president will be even less effective then any other president. Worse even then Carter was.
Anyone who thinks a third party president would be a good idea is probably not paying enough attention and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Sadly, there is no poll taxes in the US so we cannot institute that.
You had the internet or dot com bubble, the Y2K rush to replace old and aging systems, the Roth IRA conversions where people could move pre-taxed retirement investments to after tax investments and spread the tax owed over 4 years.
But most importantly, you had low cost energy. Energy costs effect everything from growing food to transporting products to market to the end user consuming or using the items. We simply do not have that now and the political climate seems to be more hashed toward increasing them more to make alternative energy more attractive.
It appears it is a large school district. They have 71 elementary schools, 18 middle schools and 15 high schools along with 8 special schools (I'm guessing career and vocational centers and developmental needs facilities). That's 112 schools, if each misses counting 8 students a day because of lateness or some practice causing them not to be counted the one time they take attendance or something, it comes out to a much larger number of 898 students not being counted per day. 315 students being under-counted comes out to about 2.8 students per school per day.
How about the situation where the crime would have been ignored and forgotten if they hadn't done what they did?
How about the situation where a prosecution cannot be successful now. A clear line of defense is- all your evidence was planted by a group of hackers upset because I made an indecent comment about them or the recently deceased. We already know they "hacked" into things to get the information and make their declarations. I'm betting that most all evidence against him outside of a confession could be tossed aside as not reliable now. No one from anonymous would be likely to come out and admit it was them and ensure the evidence is legit.
A corporation does not shield anyone from breaking the law. Anyone who breaks the laws will be subject to prosecution under the law. If someone is directing others to break the law, and that can be shown as fact, they are more liable because more ranges of charges and liability would apply (racketeering, operating criminal enterprises and so on). The corporation denotation stops people who took no active role in the crime or managing of the company they own (or own stock in) from being held personally liable. The CEO and board have a fiduciary duty to operate the company within the laws and rules and regulations for those shareholders.
The problem with your confusion is that some laws carry only a fine for a penalty and corporations generally are the ones who pay that penalty. Another problem is that often criminal prosecution requires more evidence that what can be gained when asking tight lipped people questions. Think about how many times a case goes unprosecuted because witnesses are more scared of the perpetrators then the law and refuse to offer eye witness accounts of insights into why something happened. What can be more scarier then potentially being the one who could cause you and everyone else around you to lose your jobs and retirement. People will not volunteer to do that normally unless they have more to lose themselves.
Is it unauthorized access if the computer owner authorized access to everyone and their dog, even if they didn't realize they did? Why?
You cannot really "authorize" something without knowing it. To authorize is to consent to permission and it requires an active foreknowledge.
But, this can get cloudy depending on the circumstances. You forget to lock your door, does that invite anyone walking up to it to enter your home? You own a shop and close down but forget to lock the doors, does that make someone a criminal who comes in looking for a pack of gum and some beer 20 minutes after close. If someone doesn't use normally accessible paths to normally accessible services, you cannot really argue authorized because you cut across something or knew to look in the bedrooms for the valuable stuff.
A person being defenseless is not the same thing as that person welcoming any and all actions against them. And no, the little old lady choosing to calmly follow the mugger's instructions because she realizes what would happen if she tried anything does not count as welcoming any and all actions against her.
Accessible does not automatically mean welcoming any and all actions against them. When I open the curtains to my windows in the back yard, anyone in the back yard could see in them. However, that is not an invite for you to trespass and look into them at night when no one is watching.
Maybe we can organize giving him one while he serves his prison term. I mean there have been stranger things to happen like Nobel Peace Prize winners with an active Kill List.
Progress is a dirty word when it means ever crushing control and power being wielded by the federal government and spending without any control.
The major parties have the money because they are household names. They became this because they participate in state and local elections and hold seats close to home. If the minor parties did the same, they would or could be in the same position. However, if you think being president is all that matters, you can forget about third parties because they won't be effectual without a congress to support them.
Non-neutral advocating will lead to things being undone and ignore by opposing forces. Further more, it will in fact lead to a de facto dismissing by opposing forces. Look at Fox News and how they are treated by the administration. Clinton and Bush did the same and ignored media sources that appeared to have been advocating for the opposition. Remember travel gate?
Go political with it and you will be sure to either be ignored or actively worked against.
Sign.. Tax cuts in and of themselves do not create or destroy anything involving a job. Econ 101 should have told you that in order for a company to be in business, they have to take in more then they spend to do business. When regulatory, material, energy, and other costs are high, lowering taxes can alleviate this and bring on a growth spurt or maintain a status quo. Prices are pretty much already fixed with imports and the ability of the market's to provide. Lowering taxes is a crutch until other things can be fixed and when the right or close to the right costs verses profit is found large scale, they can be increased again.
When taxes are low, the barrier for entry is lower because investment income can be used for lower yielding returns. If 30% of your return is going to be taxed, and you expect $100 return for every $1000 invested, you have to make sure you will get $140 so you still have the $100 after taxes. But because this $100 is already taxed at on the investment before being paid, the company has to pay thier income taxes at 28% then you with the 28%. This means that for every $1000 invested, you will need to see a complete return of something closer to $160. When taxes are at 15%, you are looking at the company you are investing in having to make a significant less amount for the same return. So when taxes are low more investment happens if it is enough to compensate for the increased costs in other areas. Unfortunately with our war on energy, we will not have a Clinton like Boom no matter what we do because energy is sky high. This forces jobs over seas looking for lowered costs like you mentioned.
Lowering taxes might not be a panacea for jobs, but raising them will definitely hurt them. Especially since we are largely a service economy in most areas which means not only will the businesses pay more, the people who contract services to them will and the investors will. As those costs raise, it becomes one more nail in the coffin of that business looking elsewhere to save money. Raising taxes will hurt a slow or damaged economy even if lowering them does not help.
Actually, the term sheep and herder stems from a time when most religious societies revolved around sheep herding. Sheep were to the original religious of these societies as Cows are to farmers in the US today.
Any connection to dumb animals is purely conjecture on your part. Your premise is contrived and lacking any solid basis in reality. It's about providing for and protecting your flock, the flock was their wealth at the time.
So Iran released something indicating they thought they were on military networks? Or do you have some special insight into Iran's operations?
I actually think this has more to do with politics in the US more then actual threat to the US. Think about it, Biden said republicans would start war with Iran in the debates the other day, Ryan said that was false. Obama and Biden have been floating that war mongering bit around for a while now and all the sudden near an election (less then 4 weeks out) Iran is "attacking" our infrastructure.
Wow, what a jackass political response to a non political issue. What exactly has Romney said that supports your belief. I'm betting you do not know, or you will bring some contrived scenario up that only makes sense in your mind.
Doesn't "anti-submarine exercises" imply that the surface vessels were supposed to be targeting the sub and not the other way around? I can see a cocky captain of a sub saying lets really fuck with them and hide right underneath them or surface right in front to say ha ha did you ever think to look right in front of you. He knew he wouldn't be harmed as it wasn't a real exercise.
Your things that science can answer is not very strong. First, does prayer work, yes it does, about as well as a placebo. But that doesn't mean it hasn't worked either. Second, created in 6 days, well, despite the word used to day is also used to era or time span, the fact that it was created means it can appear to be anything the creator wanted. So if science indicates no, that could be specifically a result of the creation. That is why science and religion are separate things. I think you get the drift, or should be able to get it.
These can all be proved negative to my satisfaction.
That's fine. Just don't force your opinion on others and we should be getting along just fine.
I didn't say science has anything to say about religion. Science is merely the act of trying to find answers with reason, and proving it with evidence. It's not a religion - it doesn't say a thing.
You said "Anyone who truly understands science is inherently anti-religion". This indicates to me that you are saying in order to truly understand science, you must evaluate and reject religion. I said that is false, science and religion are separate and you do not need to think anything about one or the other.
People who understand science see people being swindled by religion all the time - people are hurt by religion. Think about the babies raped in Africa to "cure HIV" - this is an extreme example of a false belief that is widely shared - basically a disorganised religion. If these people thought scientifically, they wouldn't do that. Same with faith healers, fortune telling, cold reading, greedy evangelists, stoned women etc.
You are really screwed up in the head of you think someone convincing idiots in Africa to rape babies in order to get rid of AIDS is a religious value. Of course I see what you are doing, everything you do not see a support consensus for in science must be a religion right. Just like Eugenics right, just like electromagnetism and all the scientific advancements it brought about with the crazies. Lets cure society with lobotomies by shoving wire rods up someone's knows and turning their frontal cortex into a scrambles egg. oh wait, science kicked that to the curb, it must have all been a religion right?
Get a fucking grip on yourself. You describes fraud and eugenics and claimed it was a religion. (yes, telling HIV and AIDS infected people to rape those too young was little more then a ploy to wipe an entire tribe out of existence just like the forced sterilizations and even the chemical sterilizations that went on in south africa..)
And of course the absurdity of it all is this fallacious argument you seem to hold that is saying because a group of people organized into a religion believes the teachings and eye witness stories from 2000 to 6000 or more years ago to be fundamentally true that they have to ignore science, math, or anything else in their present day tasks.
No one, let me repeat this, No one, thinks that because of their beliefs that something will automagically happen. Even the people who think God will provide what they need, do not sit around waiting or wishing, they actually attempt to accomplish something using the best tools available to them at the time and pray that it was enough. You bring up NASA and yes, there are people working for NASA, even on the mars rover and the Cassini project that are religious.
You and everyone else who thinks so is living in a delusional world that has no connection to reality. The people who achieve things with science do so because they do not confuse science and religion. If you can look at science and claim it mandates a rejection of religion, you have no clue about science or religion at all and are more likely using science as your religion.
Actually, they are closer then you think. Religion is about a set of people saying a God told them something and passing it down the ages to others. You cannot do half the science out there, so you are trusting and believing what someone else is telling you.
But you are also wrong. This is because science and religion are separate things. You do not need to apply the scientific method to it or any other thing and religion doesn't require you to ignore the scientific method to anything. So saying someone who truly understand science, would imply that they would also truly understand that religion is not science therefore their scientific understanding would be indifferent to religion in much the same way as it would be indifferent to the Saturday morning cartoons or love or poetry.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it would be more like this
Defense: Your honor, that evidence is tainted, a hacker group calling itself anonymous has infiltrated the systems in question and had their way with them. They first brought this evidence to light and blamed my client. It should be bared from entry unless the prosecution can prove it was not tampered with by this hacking group in order to make my client appear guilty.
Judge: Well, can you guarantee the soundness, legitimacy and/or legality of this evidence?
Prosecutor: No your honor, the windows XP computer the victim used does not log the actions of hackers and according to our techs had spyware and Trojans installed on it. It is unlikely this led to unauthorized access but because of the lack of logging, we do not know for sure. The website's logs of Facebook, abc.com, xyz.com doesn't show signs of tampering but they do not validate them on a regular basis so no we cannot verify them either. Further more, we found the defendant's computer was loaded with nasties also. and being a windows machine, we are in the same boat.
Judge: You can forget using the evidence then.
Jury: what makes you think he did what again?
Well, Obama did start the thing off saying "Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts."
It wasn't until he started talking about the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that he mentioned the terror. It's clear to me that he was speaking about 9/11 when he said it.
Well, the context is there in plain english. Perhaps you can point out where I'm wrong. Here is even a biased link that I think you might enjoy.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/12/remarks-president-deaths-us-embassy-staff-libya
Actually, no. Terrorism as US law defines it needs a deliberate act or an intentional component. Some speculate that this is the reason why Obama didn't call it terrorism and why they went around apologizing for the first amendment for 2 weeks after the attacks. The fact of the matter is that even if Obama called it terrorism by any stretch of the imagination, they did it once then went around for several weeks claiming it was about a damn movie trailer. So it appears they changed their minds directly after it then changed them back when it became politically advantageous or something. My guess is that Obama was afraid of being called weak on terrorism if a terrorist act happened under his watch, something similar to the McCain campain's statements about being better suited to protecting America from terrorism.
But what we know now is that there was an act of terrorism. It was allowed to happen because of oversights and general misfeasance by government organizations with senior members of the administration saying they didn't know requests for extra security had been made under the administration, the administration appeared in public to blame it on our first amendment's protection of free speech, and eventually called it what it was.
If this isn't a sign of incompetence, I'm not sure what is.
A jury probably wouldn't even see the evidence in the first place. This would be hammered out before anything was actually in trial (unless Canada does things extremely different). But ensuring the integrity of the evidence is key to using it.
As for the log files, hackers manipulate them to hide their access. Unless face book (or whoever) has a detailed log of all the activity and commands the anonymous hacker did while in the system. This is unlikely seeing how this type of logging is generally reserves for FEC and SOX regulated enterprises. I'm pretty sure that most of the evidence could be tossed out before it even gets presented. and if other evidence is gained from poisoned evidence, there is a good chance it will be bared too (unless Canada doesn't do the poisoned fruit thing).
No, I understand the language quite well, If we keep the analogy of a house, it is more like he looked in from the street, went around to the alley, slipped past the neighbors, jumped the fence, and walked in the back door. That is not in any way a giant sign inviting anyone in. It is a way that has absolutely no security but it is completely different then published links presented to the public.
It appears you did. However, even if you didn't, then I can assume you do agree that "Accessible does not automatically mean welcoming any and all actions against them". Or was that your way of disagreeing without addressing the issue?
That is because you are deliberately trying to be obtuse. Every house has a pathway, or a side walk leading to a door that is normally used to contact people inside the house. I can walk up this pathway at any time and knock on your door all I want. I cannot leave it and conceal myself somewhere off the beaten path in order to look into you house. Cops cannot even do that without a warrant. They have tried and the courts threw the evidence out.
No, it is/has not been. People may have tried to abuse it that way, they might have even been successful, but that's only because they were good criminals, not because it is legal or intended by law.
Lol.. So when the murder gets off because something is wrong with the chain of evidence and it cannot be used at his trial, we should all assume murder it legal? Your logic failed the smell test so bad, it would have flies chipping in to buy you a screen door just to stay away.
Are you sure? All references I can find has Obama saying something of the sorts that America won't back down from acts of terror but not Obama claiming is was a terrorist attack. The transcript has "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nationâ but this isn't obvious that it was about the killing of the Ambassador or the attack on the embassy.
OF course if you are drinking the cool-aid, I suppose you could claim that as calling it terrorism, but then the government went around apologizing for the first amendment and insisting is was over a infantile production of an inflammatory movie about an illiterate pedophile somehow shown as a bumbling idiot (a step up I think )
A vote for third party is a vote for the incumbent. A third party candidate as president will be even less effective then any other president. Worse even then Carter was.
Anyone who thinks a third party president would be a good idea is probably not paying enough attention and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote. Sadly, there is no poll taxes in the US so we cannot institute that.
You had the internet or dot com bubble, the Y2K rush to replace old and aging systems, the Roth IRA conversions where people could move pre-taxed retirement investments to after tax investments and spread the tax owed over 4 years.
But most importantly, you had low cost energy. Energy costs effect everything from growing food to transporting products to market to the end user consuming or using the items. We simply do not have that now and the political climate seems to be more hashed toward increasing them more to make alternative energy more attractive.
Why don't you tell us what criminal laws where broken in the sony rootkit debacle. Not all laws carry criminal sentences.
http://www.nisd.net/schools/
It appears it is a large school district. They have 71 elementary schools, 18 middle schools and 15 high schools along with 8 special schools (I'm guessing career and vocational centers and developmental needs facilities). That's 112 schools, if each misses counting 8 students a day because of lateness or some practice causing them not to be counted the one time they take attendance or something, it comes out to a much larger number of 898 students not being counted per day. 315 students being under-counted comes out to about 2.8 students per school per day.
How about the situation where a prosecution cannot be successful now. A clear line of defense is- all your evidence was planted by a group of hackers upset because I made an indecent comment about them or the recently deceased. We already know they "hacked" into things to get the information and make their declarations. I'm betting that most all evidence against him outside of a confession could be tossed aside as not reliable now. No one from anonymous would be likely to come out and admit it was them and ensure the evidence is legit.
A corporation does not shield anyone from breaking the law. Anyone who breaks the laws will be subject to prosecution under the law. If someone is directing others to break the law, and that can be shown as fact, they are more liable because more ranges of charges and liability would apply (racketeering, operating criminal enterprises and so on). The corporation denotation stops people who took no active role in the crime or managing of the company they own (or own stock in) from being held personally liable. The CEO and board have a fiduciary duty to operate the company within the laws and rules and regulations for those shareholders.
The problem with your confusion is that some laws carry only a fine for a penalty and corporations generally are the ones who pay that penalty. Another problem is that often criminal prosecution requires more evidence that what can be gained when asking tight lipped people questions. Think about how many times a case goes unprosecuted because witnesses are more scared of the perpetrators then the law and refuse to offer eye witness accounts of insights into why something happened. What can be more scarier then potentially being the one who could cause you and everyone else around you to lose your jobs and retirement. People will not volunteer to do that normally unless they have more to lose themselves.
You cannot really "authorize" something without knowing it. To authorize is to consent to permission and it requires an active foreknowledge.
But, this can get cloudy depending on the circumstances. You forget to lock your door, does that invite anyone walking up to it to enter your home? You own a shop and close down but forget to lock the doors, does that make someone a criminal who comes in looking for a pack of gum and some beer 20 minutes after close. If someone doesn't use normally accessible paths to normally accessible services, you cannot really argue authorized because you cut across something or knew to look in the bedrooms for the valuable stuff.
Accessible does not automatically mean welcoming any and all actions against them. When I open the curtains to my windows in the back yard, anyone in the back yard could see in them. However, that is not an invite for you to trespass and look into them at night when no one is watching.
Maybe we can organize giving him one while he serves his prison term. I mean there have been stranger things to happen like Nobel Peace Prize winners with an active Kill List.
Progress is a dirty word when it means ever crushing control and power being wielded by the federal government and spending without any control.
The major parties have the money because they are household names. They became this because they participate in state and local elections and hold seats close to home. If the minor parties did the same, they would or could be in the same position. However, if you think being president is all that matters, you can forget about third parties because they won't be effectual without a congress to support them.
Non-neutral advocating will lead to things being undone and ignore by opposing forces. Further more, it will in fact lead to a de facto dismissing by opposing forces. Look at Fox News and how they are treated by the administration. Clinton and Bush did the same and ignored media sources that appeared to have been advocating for the opposition. Remember travel gate?
Go political with it and you will be sure to either be ignored or actively worked against.
Evidently not. How else would he know it is wearing a toga.. Ah wait, the God could have told him so.
Sign.. Tax cuts in and of themselves do not create or destroy anything involving a job. Econ 101 should have told you that in order for a company to be in business, they have to take in more then they spend to do business. When regulatory, material, energy, and other costs are high, lowering taxes can alleviate this and bring on a growth spurt or maintain a status quo. Prices are pretty much already fixed with imports and the ability of the market's to provide. Lowering taxes is a crutch until other things can be fixed and when the right or close to the right costs verses profit is found large scale, they can be increased again.
When taxes are low, the barrier for entry is lower because investment income can be used for lower yielding returns. If 30% of your return is going to be taxed, and you expect $100 return for every $1000 invested, you have to make sure you will get $140 so you still have the $100 after taxes. But because this $100 is already taxed at on the investment before being paid, the company has to pay thier income taxes at 28% then you with the 28%. This means that for every $1000 invested, you will need to see a complete return of something closer to $160. When taxes are at 15%, you are looking at the company you are investing in having to make a significant less amount for the same return. So when taxes are low more investment happens if it is enough to compensate for the increased costs in other areas. Unfortunately with our war on energy, we will not have a Clinton like Boom no matter what we do because energy is sky high. This forces jobs over seas looking for lowered costs like you mentioned.
Lowering taxes might not be a panacea for jobs, but raising them will definitely hurt them. Especially since we are largely a service economy in most areas which means not only will the businesses pay more, the people who contract services to them will and the investors will. As those costs raise, it becomes one more nail in the coffin of that business looking elsewhere to save money. Raising taxes will hurt a slow or damaged economy even if lowering them does not help.
Actually, the term sheep and herder stems from a time when most religious societies revolved around sheep herding. Sheep were to the original religious of these societies as Cows are to farmers in the US today.
Any connection to dumb animals is purely conjecture on your part. Your premise is contrived and lacking any solid basis in reality. It's about providing for and protecting your flock, the flock was their wealth at the time.
So Iran released something indicating they thought they were on military networks? Or do you have some special insight into Iran's operations?
I actually think this has more to do with politics in the US more then actual threat to the US. Think about it, Biden said republicans would start war with Iran in the debates the other day, Ryan said that was false. Obama and Biden have been floating that war mongering bit around for a while now and all the sudden near an election (less then 4 weeks out) Iran is "attacking" our infrastructure.
Wow, what a jackass political response to a non political issue. What exactly has Romney said that supports your belief. I'm betting you do not know, or you will bring some contrived scenario up that only makes sense in your mind.
Doesn't "anti-submarine exercises" imply that the surface vessels were supposed to be targeting the sub and not the other way around? I can see a cocky captain of a sub saying lets really fuck with them and hide right underneath them or surface right in front to say ha ha did you ever think to look right in front of you. He knew he wouldn't be harmed as it wasn't a real exercise.
Your things that science can answer is not very strong. First, does prayer work, yes it does, about as well as a placebo. But that doesn't mean it hasn't worked either. Second, created in 6 days, well, despite the word used to day is also used to era or time span, the fact that it was created means it can appear to be anything the creator wanted. So if science indicates no, that could be specifically a result of the creation. That is why science and religion are separate things. I think you get the drift, or should be able to get it.
That's fine. Just don't force your opinion on others and we should be getting along just fine.
You said "Anyone who truly understands science is inherently anti-religion". This indicates to me that you are saying in order to truly understand science, you must evaluate and reject religion. I said that is false, science and religion are separate and you do not need to think anything about one or the other.
You are really screwed up in the head of you think someone convincing idiots in Africa to rape babies in order to get rid of AIDS is a religious value. Of course I see what you are doing, everything you do not see a support consensus for in science must be a religion right. Just like Eugenics right, just like electromagnetism and all the scientific advancements it brought about with the crazies. Lets cure society with lobotomies by shoving wire rods up someone's knows and turning their frontal cortex into a scrambles egg. oh wait, science kicked that to the curb, it must have all been a religion right?
Get a fucking grip on yourself. You describes fraud and eugenics and claimed it was a religion. (yes, telling HIV and AIDS infected people to rape those too young was little more then a ploy to wipe an entire tribe out of existence just like the forced sterilizations and even the chemical sterilizations that went on in south africa..)
And of course the absurdity of it all is this fallacious argument you seem to hold that is saying because a group of people organized into a religion believes the teachings and eye witness stories from 2000 to 6000 or more years ago to be fundamentally true that they have to ignore science, math, or anything else in their present day tasks.
No one, let me repeat this, No one, thinks that because of their beliefs that something will automagically happen. Even the people who think God will provide what they need, do not sit around waiting or wishing, they actually attempt to accomplish something using the best tools available to them at the time and pray that it was enough. You bring up NASA and yes, there are people working for NASA, even on the mars rover and the Cassini project that are religious.
You and everyone else who thinks so is living in a delusional world that has no connection to reality. The people who achieve things with science do so because they do not confuse science and religion. If you can look at science and claim it mandates a rejection of religion, you have no clue about science or religion at all and are more likely using science as your religion.
Actually, they are closer then you think. Religion is about a set of people saying a God told them something and passing it down the ages to others. You cannot do half the science out there, so you are trusting and believing what someone else is telling you.
But you are also wrong. This is because science and religion are separate things. You do not need to apply the scientific method to it or any other thing and religion doesn't require you to ignore the scientific method to anything. So saying someone who truly understand science, would imply that they would also truly understand that religion is not science therefore their scientific understanding would be indifferent to religion in much the same way as it would be indifferent to the Saturday morning cartoons or love or poetry.