So what you're saying is that i could upload some anti-government stuff onto Youku or whatever is China's Youtube equivalent and the company would be liable just by virtue of residing in the local jurisdiction, even if the country of origin of the upload and the hosting servers themselves were outside the country?
Unacceptable.
Lets look at it in a little more obvious way. Suppose you live in England and ask me to help you do something. That something is to have merchandise ordered from the internet delivered to my home so I can mail them in non-descriptive packages to you for the purpose of avoiding the VAT fees. Now suppose you do this using stolen credit cards and I knew it was happening. Does the fact that you are in a foreign country absolve me of any laws I broke in the US in the process of this plan? No, it absolutely does not. I may even be liable for the credit card fraud as well as the usual conspiracy and receiving stolen goods crap they could throw at me.
You may think it is unacceptable, but it is the way it is. You simply have to accept that different countries have different laws and if anyone within their jurisdiction violates those laws, they can be held accountable and punished under them.
I understand how it works NOW, but to me this is a critical case of legal vacuum, where current laws do not accurately reflect reality - punishing the carrier for something that is expressly legal where the service is provided (and the service is hosting video, which you then download for viewing. Accessing the video is something your ISP does, since that means connecting to the Internet) rather than the content creator/uploader is counter-productive, while banning access to the content provider also targets legitimate users. Penalizing a company which happens to host the content just because it has offices in your country is wrong, since they are penalizing them for a crime they did not, in actual fact, commit, that is - hosting an infringing video on the territory of Brazil.
I hope you understand that hosting the infringing video isn't the problem. It's allowing it to be accessible within the country for a certain period of time because of the elections.
That said, it works both ways - downloading some content and putting it up outside of the original jurisdiction switches the law's applicability to the exact place where the content is hosted, NOT where it is accessible from. If I suddenly decide to rehost some pirated movies, there is no law from the originating country that can be applicable in this situation - only local laws.
Well, actually- with all the copyright treaties, specifically the wipo WTC and WTTP, there is a bit more difficulty because each signatory country is supposed to honor the laws concerning copyright of other countries as long as they are in line with the two treaties unless they have similar laws and prosecute for the infraction. And yes, I do not have a link handy but this has been tested already. People from within the US have been busted and prosecuted for hosting copyrighted materials on servers in other nations and people in other countries have been extradited to the US for prosecution under US laws when their home country did not have a law that was being violated. One was with sharman networks (Lime wire) I think, another was from Australia too.
But this situation is not about copyrighted materials. It is about speech and the obligations of a company who is doing business within a country. It doesn't matter that the content may be somewhere else, the company will have to obey the laws of the land they are in.
You should stay in school and pay particular attention to your civics class. come talk with me after they cover the constitution.
That federal government has no control over state and local government's taxing. The uniformity part is specifically about federal taxes being levied. It means you cannot tax all blacks one rate and all whites at another rate. It means you cannot charge federal taxes at a higher rate to Ohio then Kentucky or for goods coming from one but not the other. It means they cannot impose a tariff coming from one state unless it is imposed on all states.
by making campaign donation you can effectively cheat on state taxes by gaining an exemption. Large corporation in stead of paying say 10 million dollars in state taxes can pay a public 1 million dollar bribe to gain tax exemption.
Despite the fact that it is illegal as you explained it, states giving companies tax breaks are not cheating any state taxes. They are paying their legally obligated taxes and it is not cheating if they pay less then others.
This results in grossly distorted trade between states and congress is empowered to balance regulate commerce between that states and ensure " all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States",
lol.. while those are forms of taxes, they are not the taxes the states have the power to forgive of the companies. They are not the income, property, or other local and state tax abatement. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
You wonder why Mitt Romney and Co want to shift corporate tax bills to state and local government and avoid federal government
Do I wonder why? I don't really care. The federal government does not have any say on state and local taxes unless it somehow is discriminatory within the state. State and local taxes are not federal taxes, they are not imposed or collected by the federal government.
Now I do think corporate taxes should be lower and we should tax dividends more. That's because dividends end up being double taxed and we can accomplish taxing much more efficiently when it is done when the profit is dispersed instead of when it is originally collected. That leave more money for the companies to expand and create jobs or invest in other avenues of commerce else it gets paid to shareholders and it should be taxed once when it is given to the shareholders.
Of course that is near impossible to effect efficiently due to foreign national owning stock and all.
So there was definitely intention built within the US constitution to block tax cheating at state and local level. No utopia just being fair.
A state is not a subordinate political subdivision of the US federal government. Ask yourself why the fed state department deals with foreign affairs and not the states within the country. The federal government is a united face of diplomacy concerning our sovereignty for the several states and between them, not a governorship over them. What you are insisting is a complete violation of the state's self rule. You would effectively be destroying the concept of a state in doing it.
This problem of state's having different tax rates for people and companies have existed since the beginning of the nation. Some states do not even have income taxes and people and companies strategically relocate to those states for that advantage. Just because your state has finally over taxed the companies to a point that looking at other states to relocate in has become an option for your jobs doesn't mean it is a new thing. I would suggest you examine your own state before trying to screw every other state into being just like it. If that happens, then it jobs going over seas all over again because foreign countries will cater to the jobs by reducing tax burdens on the companies faster then local states will..
I've never heard of a law prohibiting the reporting of news or running of ads in the US close to elections. I have even seen political adds run after the polls are closed and we are waiting for the count (guess some people do not think that far ahead).
I would imagine any law limiting speech would be over turned pretty fast as out first amendment free speech has long been interpreted to be especially pertaining to political speech..
Several things here. Google has offices within the local jurisdiction making them culpable for violations of it. Google can likely restrict access to IP's outside the country like they did with that movie trailer thing a week or so ago. We know they have the ability and they have done it already.
Nothing is to stop you from copying the video and posting it everywhere you can find. The companies that have offices within the country that has local jurisdiction will have to remove it or face the same problems as Google it. The services and companie who do not have local offices can ignore the mandates, law and so on unless they plan on visiting and/or opening local offices up within that jurisdiction in the future. Unless some sort of international treaty with a country they have offices within provides otherwise, Brazil can fine and issue arrest warrant all day long on people not within their jurisdiction and nothing can be done about it outside that unless the companies get within their jurisdiction somehow- invasion, treaty, visiting the country, opening shop within the country and so on..
Now on to censorship. Please do not confuse the right to free speech with a mandate that someone provide you a platform or stage for that speech. If a company has offices in a country and doing business within that country, they are obliged to follow the local laws of the country. If that means blocking access to a video on their servers or removing it entirely, then they have to do it or suffer the penalties of breaking the laws. Google already censors a lot of stuff voluntarily- Google already complies with local laws in certain area they have offices in. It's not a big deal for them to comply with this.
We have some of the same taxes in the US. Ever wander what was so special about movie DVDs and Music DVDs that made them more expensive then their data counterparts? And no, the Best Buy floor walker excuse of the music CDs being manufactured to provide better audio is not a valid reason.
The blank media tax does not make distributing copyright protected materials legal by any stretch. DMCA type legislation would still fit in there.
I think the Woz's moving was more of a political statement then an attempt to get broadband. He has enough money and political capitol that he can run fiber to the house he is in already if he wanted to.
You may be right though, he might not have thought it through enough.
not entirely clear why you'd need supervisor approval to start rolling git / mercurial / svn.
I used to have a spare workstation as a site I helped administrate. I used it for all sorts of things that made administrating and fixing crap there more then helpful but I never got approval to use it like that. It was just there and I just started using it because I had a desk to organize myself from.
Long story short, it left the building and went to a satellite shop and served as a part time workstation for an employee who was trying to help another firm (they were thinking of merging with) with a case. It was imaged back to a company original state, set up to VPN back into a sub network I helped set up to facilitate collaboration and I lost everything I had installed on the system including the syslog files (I had backups but not of the logs which was probably the most useful).
Long story short, if they do not know what you are doing with the machines, they can easily not be available to do what you want and anything you did do can disappear without ever consulting you about it. Had I gotten approval, they would have purchased a new machine for the remote location and allowed me to keep working on the one. I know this because when I asked about it after being tasked to do something on it, that is what I was told.
Get approval, there are enough excuses to validate the need for it. You don't want a supervisor making an arbitrary decision that will undo all your effort.
That has been ignored ever since they started using the interstate commerce clause and general welfare to trump property and about any other rights.
So yes, I'm going with the second. I agree that the constitution originally granted the federal government limited abilities but we are long past the time what political leaders and judges thought that too.
That's because pigs cannot process the gummy bears. Using them for food will cause them to die. It actually not only said that in the article in which you read they fed them all to the cows, but it says so in the summery that the article linked to making me thing wow, does anyone ever think before they post.
And yes, I didn't use a question mark on purpose there. I stopped asking that question a long time ago and am now using it as a statement.
--trolling grammar nazi's for fun and profit since 1996.
When the US invaded Greece or demands under the threat of invasion, that they arrest someone for the equivalent of being a loudmouth jackass, I will concede you might have a point. Until then, Greece is acting on it's own and within it's own problems separate from any problems perceived or real within the US.
Ummm, they made exponential extrapolation illegal for the purposes of defining rising sea levels. All the data says that sea level rise isn't "feet x year". It's about as stupid as defining the value of pi to be exactly 3, scientifically, mathematically, etc. And it's not an ad hominem attack -- these people are climate change deniers, a position not supported by science. Saying they aren't trying to declare it illegal is mincing words -- that's their intent, they just can't come out and do it directly, so they're redefining the meaning of everything, cutting funding, and throwing all manner of administrative roadblocks up because they don't believe in it.
You started off sound but then jumped off the wagon the first chance you get. The law, which isn't even law BTW, only made it illegal for the purposes of government planning and zoning. Insurance companies were raping customers based on what has already changed several times but claimed to be accurate and zoning boards were blocking off development on pieces of land making others more valuable by default and there was conflicts of interest. The law says that you can only use the old tried and true calculations and not the new and changing every day but accurate this time I swear global warming predictions.
Dude, I live in Minnesota. I'm 800 feet above sea level. We're not planning for rising sea levels, because it's fucking pointless. We don't have laws regarding the planning of sea levels, because the sea will never, under any circumstances, in the next few million years, reach us. The vast majority of inland states are likewise hundreds of feet above sea level -- and they also have no laws on the books regarding planning for the impossible. There is no "majority" for inland states -- because no such laws exist!
And your point is what? Mine was that they were going to use the same data points they had been using for a century or better until this global warming started changing everything on a weekly basis depending who's correct numbers you look at. When the current system become unreliable, I'm sure they will change but it has not done so yet.
*facepalm* The common, medical, scientific, and legal definition of conception is that it begins when the sperm enters the egg. Since the legal definition now is that it happens at the start of a woman's menstral cycle, and fertilization can't happen until the egg is released two weeks later, it effectively moves the date of conception back two weeks.
That's an outright lie. The legal definition of conception has not changed at all if it ever existed. The time starting the 20 week count does say from the last menstrual cycle but it has absolutely nothing to do with conception, life or anything else other then it needs to be followed if you are killing your unborn baby through an approved medical procedure called abortion. The law is full of things like that too. Does something magical happen when you turn 16 and are all the sudden able to drive a car? Does some miracle of development happen when you turn 21 and all the sudden you can legally purchase alcohol? How about when you turn 18 and all the sudden can vote? Does mental maturity only happen at 18 because it's defined by law? The law doesn't make those claim, it says they do not object when you reach those ages. Likewise, the time to start counting a period of time until you can no longer kill your baby by aborting it is just a fucking time picked to avoid ambiguity. It is nothing more and no matter how hard you attempt to contort it into something else, it will never become the time of conception. It is just a date to provide a legal counting for the purposes of the law.
Sir, I'm not in the business of splitting hairs just to win an argument with some guy on the internet -- but clearly, you have far too much time on your hand and real problem with anyone who disagrees with you, so you run around yelling "liar
No you cannot. Everything you said was exaggerated ad hominem not even closely related to the truth. The links you posted even show that if anyone cares to read them objectively.
North Carolina did not outlaw global warming, they required planning to be done using historical data instead of a myriad of guesses that sea levels will rise if X isn't done. This move only limited the data to what was perfectly fine historically exclusively used until about the year 2000 or so when all the sudden research after research after research all pointed to different levels of sea rise based on global warming with every one of them claiming to be accurate.In my local area, the planning commissions never attempted to incorporate these guesses as to what will be more if and when something in the future happens so their law is now consistent with the vast majority of inland states.
Your link to the conception argument is a farce too. The time line is just a starting point to mark 20 weeks so someone doesn't thwart the law by claiming they didn't know they were pregnant for 3 months of 16 weeks and end up having a 36 week abortion instead. It provides hard line definitions so doctors do not guess wrong by a month and end of aborting a 24 or 25 week old baby. By using the last menstrual cycle as the starting point, it escapes the ambiguity of from "when" considering the time span of a legal abortion. And to the effect, it does not define life as starting two weeks before, it defines a period of time when a count is to start for the purpose of terminating a life.
Everything you said if factually incorrect because of how far you exaggerated it for effect and impact. Whether you actually believe them to be true or deliberately misrepresented them isn't important. The fact that you passed them off trying to pretend they are valid is concern enough when considering you will be trying to vote. Hopefully, you can't figure out how to get an ID and forget to get off the couch on Thursday when we should vote.
(yes, I know Tuesday is the day federal elections are held in the US, I'm trying to make a joke on the entire voter disenfranchisement claims by implying something that happened in Ohio a few years ago. Someone circulated flyers saying don't forget to vote on Thursday and one that said republicans vote on one day and democrats vote on another (illegitimate) day and the claim was it somehow caused people to not vote. Those particular disenfranchised voters are another lot that should scare us.)
How can the government doing what your religion tells you to do "override" or "conflict" with your religious values?
Because it isn't you doing it. That right there is the entire problem. Christianity is about a personal relationship with God. It isn't something you can have your butler do for you or in this case, your government because you are too occupied with yourself to be bothered. The verses in question where not intended to put an entire country into the kingdom of Heaven, but you the practitioner of it.
Think of it this way, you get a job making $14 an hour. You switch with someone all week long so you didn't have to work at all. Are surprised when you don't get a paycheck? Are you entitled to a paycheck? Did you fulfill your work obligations? No, someone else did the work and they get paid for it.
Of course, I know the real reason certain sects of American Protestants think this way. To them, charity isn't about helping anyone--it's about enriching your own soul, paving your own way to heaven. You want God to see you depriving yourself to the benefit of someone else, deliberately and intentionally.
What exactly is wrong with that? People who want a TV to watch the latest celebrity gossip or trash reality show are motivated to spend _their_money_ on a TV. Is there now some sort of morality police who gets to judge the motivations of people and declare certain ones invalid? But in this statement, I think you already know the answer to your first question. Now tell me why now allowing them to do that is so important to you. Do you seem to think that if there isn't a large crowd at the gates of heaven they will lower their standards and somehow include you or something?
If the government does it by taking taxes from your paycheck, then you don't get brownie points with the Almighty, and that makes it wrong. These are the same people who believe this is a world of ruin that's doomed to burn when Christ returns, so the eventual fate of this world is completely irrelevant to them.
If you would have continued that statement, you would have went on to where Jesus would take certain people to heaven and so on.
But a more important point is freedom. It's your money, you earned it, If you want to give it to charity, good for you. If you want to give it to the government, good for you. But when what you want to do is taken away from you and demanded by the government or any other entity claiming a power over you, are you still just as free? What about when you think it is more important to donate to education funds so poor children do not end up in the same cycle and the government decides all they will do is put food on the table for them?
This also neglects the problems with government charity in which the programs general end up entrapping people into them without giving them opportunities to advance out of the roles. I've met quite a few people online who will claim that isn't true, but history shows it is. Of course you will have people only interested in doing as little as possible and game the systems.
It's a horrifying worldview to anyone who doesn't share it, because it claims quite unambiguously that this life doesn't matter, except insofar as it helps you get to heaven. Anyone not working on getting to heaven is irrelevant and deserves whatever fate they get. It's an attitude completely against what communities and civilized states stand for.
I'm not sure your logic is sound here. If helping the poor is part of the way to get to heaven, then why would they be irrelevant? I think your problem is that you got but hurt by someone claiming to be a christian who wasn't a good christian or something. Here is a hint, not all people are who they claim to be and cars owned by little old ladies from Pasadena who drove them only to church on Sunday does not always make for a good car. If you weren't so repulsed by thes
I can understand that you have no concept of anything outside America. But you should note that this is about Greece, not the US. Crying about what you think is wrong in the US has nothing to do with the situation in a foreign country.
The scariest thing here is that you pretend to be informed enough to vote and one would assume you actually attempt the process. Politics being the same elsewhere is probably the closest truth in your post.
The "Barbara Streisand" effect can actually be hazardous for the accused here. Supposing that the charge is actually valid enough to surpass a cursory ruling of the courts, his crime is essentially the equivilent of pointing something out that makes someone else look bad in public. If a lot more public are now aware of it, then potentially the harm or problems these actions caused are now compounded.
Blasphemy laws are not necessarily about hiding the certain speech. They are more to the point of stopping it altogether. The bigger the exposure the bigger the penalty might be in order to discourage the behavior in the future. Of course people outside of Greece's jurisdiction don't really need to worry about them.
There really isn't anything wrong with it- outside of it being perverted to mean government provided everything that is.
The entire unto Caesar line was to segregate church from the demands of government when they over ride or conflict with the religious values. It was a response to someone attempting to trick Jesus into angering the Romans so he would be arrested and out of their hair.
The least of our brothers was about personal responsibility too. It won't be satisfied by a government or someone else doing something on your behalf because you were too busy or whatever.
So when people use it to claim we should be taxed so the government can do something with the poor or whatever, they are lost on the entire concept.
Ever heard the expression that there is more then one way to skin a cat? It is important because the existence of one way does not in any way disprove another nor does it make any other ways false on it's own. When you start attaching reasons and motivations or attempting to disconnect them, it gets more complicated.
That you cannot disprove the supernatural says specifically that you cannot claim it's validity to be false. The most you can do is show an alternate path to whatever the supernatural outcome was and suggest it was used.
You ask what value is a belief that provides no reliable predictions or if it is better then something that can be provably false. Does it really matter if it is the truth of what happened? I mean if I used chemicals and house hold items to make a piece of furniture look old and antique, does the fact that after 100 or so years it would have looked like that anyways matter more then I deliberately did it? Of course it would because it effects the perceived value the purchaser might have. Likewise, with a religion, people are convinced their versions are true and the value of that conviction is something they need to decide, not you or I.
You're right, you could use water in an internal combustion engine, but it would require something like elemental sodium as a reactant. Also, water injection is currently sometimes used in forced induction engines to reduce intake charge temperature and to reduce knocking, though not as a fuel. (however, you never said the water had to be the fuel)
Actually, I was using water injection in motors back in the mid to late 80's at the track. We did it then to lower the air temp and make it more dense in the intake. We also used alcohol and dry ice contraptions in an attempt to cool the intake attempting to do the same but you had to make sure it was sealed up good or you defeated your purpose and possibly caused health issues. But yes, it's still used today for more common purposes. The uses wasn't really the point, it is that just because we have a process, it doesn't mean it is or was the only process that something could happen or ever will happen. Saying that something can be proven false because it doesn't match that process is in and of itself false.
More to your point though, you appear to be arguing for interpretive reading of religious texts. Some would say that's false, or at least intellectually dishonest. Others would say that it was never intended to be literal and that one is supposed to read between the lines.
That wasn't an intended point, if it appears that way, it is purely by accident. My point is, just because someone can conceive of a way other then what is stated does not invalidate what was stated. The majority of so called contradictions in religions amount to the equivalence of Han shot first and misses the entire points of the religions. It's like trying to invalidate your entire post because you spelled Odyssey or deity wrong.
Regardless of which viewpoint you take, the problem with most religious texts is that people are reading them in languages other than the ones in which they were written. How do you know the translators captured the meaning correctly?
I somewhat agree. But there are tools like Dr. Strong's exhaustive concordance (others are available too) that can be used to completely understand the words and meanings. But even the original doesn't account for the changes in dialect over the ages so the problem still exists even with the originals (or as close to possible). The Hebrew spoken and written in Israel today is not the same Hebrew language written in the bible- there are more words in the present day so one word doesn't carry 20 meanings and so on. Similarly, it's like the language in the King James version of the Christian bible, the language in it isn't the same english we speak today and even between you and me, American English can be drastically different then in other countries. That's where a concordance comes in handy, if one word was used to mean X 3000 years ago, and ended up meaning Y, Z and eventually XYZ in today's time, the concordance will give you the definition and usages of the period time it was supposed to have belonged to.
But you are correct, without some investigation other then reading a book, you will have issues trying to understand it as in the original intent.
Yes, you can reach out there and claim that the translators were being helped along my the invisible hand of [insert deity(s)], but really that's just cognitive dissonance trying to bend reality to match your preexisting beliefs.
Well, the translation processes that bring about the most common versions of religious texts aren't handled by one person. Take the Christian bible for instance. The line and verse numbers aren't there so you can quote something easily. They are artifacts from the early translations and copying where they portioned it off to the original and others would check the processes and work. It was actually a lengthy and complicated process. But there are a few issues that have slipped
It could, or it could be that when God gave man independence of thought and free will (something he later regretted), he couldn't control us so he trashed the system and started over from time to time.
That's actually really close to how the bible tells it. Anyone who has read and understood it would know about the war(s) with man waged by god when we pissed him/her/it off from time to time. This is also the peace that Jesus brought, peace between God and Man not that there will never be wars or anything again.
Some supernatural claims can be tested. You can prove that magic spells and prayer are no more effective than random noise.
Some wasn't the claim. All and false were.
No, you can not prove magic spells and prayer is "no more effective" then random noise. You can prove they are statistically similar but you cannot prove or disprove their effectiveness because you have no way to test supernatural events within the bounds of nature. That is why spells and prayer are not science.
Many supernatural claims can be refuted when the actual mechanism for an action or event is proven through science.
And just because you know how to make paper a certain way, it does not mean all paper is made that way or that it wasn't made in different ways.
The problem you run into is that just because there can be a natural mechanism, it doesn't mean the event used it or the mechanism isn't a specific artifact from the supernatural event. We know this to be true within science specifically as we often shortcut natural processes through the means of manipulations and man made chemicals to get materials and organisms to certain stages that is more productive or valuable at the time. In antique restoration, fixed parts are often given a patina by artificial methods in order to match natural processes already on the pieces. Some of these processes are virtually indistinguishable from the real deal if applied by the right person.
While those examples are still natural as in they obey the laws of physics and science as we know them, they are illustrative of a natural process being applied by other then strictly natural means. You can show something is possible without resorting to supernatural claims but you can't show anything about the supernatural-ness of the claims because you can't test it.
Contradictory things within a religion does not make it false any more then your kitchen would be false if you made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with spoon instead of a knife to spread it on the bread.
Scientific inquiry does not make something false unless it is observed directly. You can say using water in a certain way to run this internal combustion engine doesn't work, but you cannot say no one has ever used water to run an internal combustion engine and never will.
This is especially difficult when your abilities are limited to natural explanations and observations and the claim of supernatural events or powers or beings were part of the process. You simply cannot test supernatural claims. All you can do is find reasonable natural alternatives.
You would still be wrong. You have no way of proving religions false- especially when claims of supernatural beings and events are included and you are limited to only natural tests and explanations.
Slashdot Mirror
Lets look at it in a little more obvious way. Suppose you live in England and ask me to help you do something. That something is to have merchandise ordered from the internet delivered to my home so I can mail them in non-descriptive packages to you for the purpose of avoiding the VAT fees. Now suppose you do this using stolen credit cards and I knew it was happening. Does the fact that you are in a foreign country absolve me of any laws I broke in the US in the process of this plan? No, it absolutely does not. I may even be liable for the credit card fraud as well as the usual conspiracy and receiving stolen goods crap they could throw at me.
You may think it is unacceptable, but it is the way it is. You simply have to accept that different countries have different laws and if anyone within their jurisdiction violates those laws, they can be held accountable and punished under them.
I hope you understand that hosting the infringing video isn't the problem. It's allowing it to be accessible within the country for a certain period of time because of the elections.
Well, actually- with all the copyright treaties, specifically the wipo WTC and WTTP, there is a bit more difficulty because each signatory country is supposed to honor the laws concerning copyright of other countries as long as they are in line with the two treaties unless they have similar laws and prosecute for the infraction. And yes, I do not have a link handy but this has been tested already. People from within the US have been busted and prosecuted for hosting copyrighted materials on servers in other nations and people in other countries have been extradited to the US for prosecution under US laws when their home country did not have a law that was being violated. One was with sharman networks (Lime wire) I think, another was from Australia too.
But this situation is not about copyrighted materials. It is about speech and the obligations of a company who is doing business within a country. It doesn't matter that the content may be somewhere else, the company will have to obey the laws of the land they are in.
You should stay in school and pay particular attention to your civics class. come talk with me after they cover the constitution.
That federal government has no control over state and local government's taxing. The uniformity part is specifically about federal taxes being levied. It means you cannot tax all blacks one rate and all whites at another rate. It means you cannot charge federal taxes at a higher rate to Ohio then Kentucky or for goods coming from one but not the other. It means they cannot impose a tariff coming from one state unless it is imposed on all states.
Despite the fact that it is illegal as you explained it, states giving companies tax breaks are not cheating any state taxes. They are paying their legally obligated taxes and it is not cheating if they pay less then others.
lol.. while those are forms of taxes, they are not the taxes the states have the power to forgive of the companies. They are not the income, property, or other local and state tax abatement. You simply do not know what you are talking about.
Do I wonder why? I don't really care. The federal government does not have any say on state and local taxes unless it somehow is discriminatory within the state. State and local taxes are not federal taxes, they are not imposed or collected by the federal government.
Now I do think corporate taxes should be lower and we should tax dividends more. That's because dividends end up being double taxed and we can accomplish taxing much more efficiently when it is done when the profit is dispersed instead of when it is originally collected. That leave more money for the companies to expand and create jobs or invest in other avenues of commerce else it gets paid to shareholders and it should be taxed once when it is given to the shareholders.
Of course that is near impossible to effect efficiently due to foreign national owning stock and all.
A state is not a subordinate political subdivision of the US federal government. Ask yourself why the fed state department deals with foreign affairs and not the states within the country. The federal government is a united face of diplomacy concerning our sovereignty for the several states and between them, not a governorship over them. What you are insisting is a complete violation of the state's self rule. You would effectively be destroying the concept of a state in doing it.
This problem of state's having different tax rates for people and companies have existed since the beginning of the nation. Some states do not even have income taxes and people and companies strategically relocate to those states for that advantage. Just because your state has finally over taxed the companies to a point that looking at other states to relocate in has become an option for your jobs doesn't mean it is a new thing. I would suggest you examine your own state before trying to screw every other state into being just like it. If that happens, then it jobs going over seas all over again because foreign countries will cater to the jobs by reducing tax burdens on the companies faster then local states will..
I've never heard of a law prohibiting the reporting of news or running of ads in the US close to elections. I have even seen political adds run after the polls are closed and we are waiting for the count (guess some people do not think that far ahead).
I would imagine any law limiting speech would be over turned pretty fast as out first amendment free speech has long been interpreted to be especially pertaining to political speech..
Several things here. Google has offices within the local jurisdiction making them culpable for violations of it. Google can likely restrict access to IP's outside the country like they did with that movie trailer thing a week or so ago. We know they have the ability and they have done it already.
Nothing is to stop you from copying the video and posting it everywhere you can find. The companies that have offices within the country that has local jurisdiction will have to remove it or face the same problems as Google it. The services and companie who do not have local offices can ignore the mandates, law and so on unless they plan on visiting and/or opening local offices up within that jurisdiction in the future. Unless some sort of international treaty with a country they have offices within provides otherwise, Brazil can fine and issue arrest warrant all day long on people not within their jurisdiction and nothing can be done about it outside that unless the companies get within their jurisdiction somehow- invasion, treaty, visiting the country, opening shop within the country and so on..
Now on to censorship. Please do not confuse the right to free speech with a mandate that someone provide you a platform or stage for that speech. If a company has offices in a country and doing business within that country, they are obliged to follow the local laws of the country. If that means blocking access to a video on their servers or removing it entirely, then they have to do it or suffer the penalties of breaking the laws. Google already censors a lot of stuff voluntarily- Google already complies with local laws in certain area they have offices in. It's not a big deal for them to comply with this.
We have some of the same taxes in the US. Ever wander what was so special about movie DVDs and Music DVDs that made them more expensive then their data counterparts? And no, the Best Buy floor walker excuse of the music CDs being manufactured to provide better audio is not a valid reason.
The blank media tax does not make distributing copyright protected materials legal by any stretch. DMCA type legislation would still fit in there.
I think the Woz's moving was more of a political statement then an attempt to get broadband. He has enough money and political capitol that he can run fiber to the house he is in already if he wanted to.
You may be right though, he might not have thought it through enough.
hmm.. A federal law to block a state and locally controlled issue.... Why not just get rid of the states altogether and you will have your utopia.
And yes, the obligatory, it is not evasion if it is legal. Tax Evasion has a specific legal meaning and working within the law is not one of them.
Does California still have the rolling brownouts?
I used to have a spare workstation as a site I helped administrate. I used it for all sorts of things that made administrating and fixing crap there more then helpful but I never got approval to use it like that. It was just there and I just started using it because I had a desk to organize myself from.
Long story short, it left the building and went to a satellite shop and served as a part time workstation for an employee who was trying to help another firm (they were thinking of merging with) with a case. It was imaged back to a company original state, set up to VPN back into a sub network I helped set up to facilitate collaboration and I lost everything I had installed on the system including the syslog files (I had backups but not of the logs which was probably the most useful).
Long story short, if they do not know what you are doing with the machines, they can easily not be available to do what you want and anything you did do can disappear without ever consulting you about it. Had I gotten approval, they would have purchased a new machine for the remote location and allowed me to keep working on the one. I know this because when I asked about it after being tasked to do something on it, that is what I was told.
Get approval, there are enough excuses to validate the need for it. You don't want a supervisor making an arbitrary decision that will undo all your effort.
That has been ignored ever since they started using the interstate commerce clause and general welfare to trump property and about any other rights.
So yes, I'm going with the second. I agree that the constitution originally granted the federal government limited abilities but we are long past the time what political leaders and judges thought that too.
That's because pigs cannot process the gummy bears. Using them for food will cause them to die. It actually not only said that in the article in which you read they fed them all to the cows, but it says so in the summery that the article linked to making me thing wow, does anyone ever think before they post.
And yes, I didn't use a question mark on purpose there. I stopped asking that question a long time ago and am now using it as a statement.
--trolling grammar nazi's for fun and profit since 1996.
When the US invaded Greece or demands under the threat of invasion, that they arrest someone for the equivalent of being a loudmouth jackass, I will concede you might have a point. Until then, Greece is acting on it's own and within it's own problems separate from any problems perceived or real within the US.
You started off sound but then jumped off the wagon the first chance you get. The law, which isn't even law BTW, only made it illegal for the purposes of government planning and zoning. Insurance companies were raping customers based on what has already changed several times but claimed to be accurate and zoning boards were blocking off development on pieces of land making others more valuable by default and there was conflicts of interest. The law says that you can only use the old tried and true calculations and not the new and changing every day but accurate this time I swear global warming predictions.
And your point is what? Mine was that they were going to use the same data points they had been using for a century or better until this global warming started changing everything on a weekly basis depending who's correct numbers you look at. When the current system become unreliable, I'm sure they will change but it has not done so yet.
That's an outright lie. The legal definition of conception has not changed at all if it ever existed. The time starting the 20 week count does say from the last menstrual cycle but it has absolutely nothing to do with conception, life or anything else other then it needs to be followed if you are killing your unborn baby through an approved medical procedure called abortion. The law is full of things like that too. Does something magical happen when you turn 16 and are all the sudden able to drive a car? Does some miracle of development happen when you turn 21 and all the sudden you can legally purchase alcohol? How about when you turn 18 and all the sudden can vote? Does mental maturity only happen at 18 because it's defined by law? The law doesn't make those claim, it says they do not object when you reach those ages. Likewise, the time to start counting a period of time until you can no longer kill your baby by aborting it is just a fucking time picked to avoid ambiguity. It is nothing more and no matter how hard you attempt to contort it into something else, it will never become the time of conception. It is just a date to provide a legal counting for the purposes of the law.
No you cannot. Everything you said was exaggerated ad hominem not even closely related to the truth. The links you posted even show that if anyone cares to read them objectively.
North Carolina did not outlaw global warming, they required planning to be done using historical data instead of a myriad of guesses that sea levels will rise if X isn't done. This move only limited the data to what was perfectly fine historically exclusively used until about the year 2000 or so when all the sudden research after research after research all pointed to different levels of sea rise based on global warming with every one of them claiming to be accurate.In my local area, the planning commissions never attempted to incorporate these guesses as to what will be more if and when something in the future happens so their law is now consistent with the vast majority of inland states.
Your link to the conception argument is a farce too. The time line is just a starting point to mark 20 weeks so someone doesn't thwart the law by claiming they didn't know they were pregnant for 3 months of 16 weeks and end up having a 36 week abortion instead. It provides hard line definitions so doctors do not guess wrong by a month and end of aborting a 24 or 25 week old baby. By using the last menstrual cycle as the starting point, it escapes the ambiguity of from "when" considering the time span of a legal abortion. And to the effect, it does not define life as starting two weeks before, it defines a period of time when a count is to start for the purpose of terminating a life.
Everything you said if factually incorrect because of how far you exaggerated it for effect and impact. Whether you actually believe them to be true or deliberately misrepresented them isn't important. The fact that you passed them off trying to pretend they are valid is concern enough when considering you will be trying to vote. Hopefully, you can't figure out how to get an ID and forget to get off the couch on Thursday when we should vote.
(yes, I know Tuesday is the day federal elections are held in the US, I'm trying to make a joke on the entire voter disenfranchisement claims by implying something that happened in Ohio a few years ago. Someone circulated flyers saying don't forget to vote on Thursday and one that said republicans vote on one day and democrats vote on another (illegitimate) day and the claim was it somehow caused people to not vote. Those particular disenfranchised voters are another lot that should scare us.)
Because it isn't you doing it. That right there is the entire problem. Christianity is about a personal relationship with God. It isn't something you can have your butler do for you or in this case, your government because you are too occupied with yourself to be bothered. The verses in question where not intended to put an entire country into the kingdom of Heaven, but you the practitioner of it.
Think of it this way, you get a job making $14 an hour. You switch with someone all week long so you didn't have to work at all. Are surprised when you don't get a paycheck? Are you entitled to a paycheck? Did you fulfill your work obligations? No, someone else did the work and they get paid for it.
What exactly is wrong with that? People who want a TV to watch the latest celebrity gossip or trash reality show are motivated to spend _their_money_ on a TV. Is there now some sort of morality police who gets to judge the motivations of people and declare certain ones invalid? But in this statement, I think you already know the answer to your first question. Now tell me why now allowing them to do that is so important to you. Do you seem to think that if there isn't a large crowd at the gates of heaven they will lower their standards and somehow include you or something?
If you would have continued that statement, you would have went on to where Jesus would take certain people to heaven and so on.
But a more important point is freedom. It's your money, you earned it, If you want to give it to charity, good for you. If you want to give it to the government, good for you. But when what you want to do is taken away from you and demanded by the government or any other entity claiming a power over you, are you still just as free? What about when you think it is more important to donate to education funds so poor children do not end up in the same cycle and the government decides all they will do is put food on the table for them?
This also neglects the problems with government charity in which the programs general end up entrapping people into them without giving them opportunities to advance out of the roles. I've met quite a few people online who will claim that isn't true, but history shows it is. Of course you will have people only interested in doing as little as possible and game the systems.
I'm not sure your logic is sound here. If helping the poor is part of the way to get to heaven, then why would they be irrelevant? I think your problem is that you got but hurt by someone claiming to be a christian who wasn't a good christian or something. Here is a hint, not all people are who they claim to be and cars owned by little old ladies from Pasadena who drove them only to church on Sunday does not always make for a good car. If you weren't so repulsed by thes
I can understand that you have no concept of anything outside America. But you should note that this is about Greece, not the US. Crying about what you think is wrong in the US has nothing to do with the situation in a foreign country.
The scariest thing here is that you pretend to be informed enough to vote and one would assume you actually attempt the process. Politics being the same elsewhere is probably the closest truth in your post.
The "Barbara Streisand" effect can actually be hazardous for the accused here. Supposing that the charge is actually valid enough to surpass a cursory ruling of the courts, his crime is essentially the equivilent of pointing something out that makes someone else look bad in public. If a lot more public are now aware of it, then potentially the harm or problems these actions caused are now compounded.
Blasphemy laws are not necessarily about hiding the certain speech. They are more to the point of stopping it altogether. The bigger the exposure the bigger the penalty might be in order to discourage the behavior in the future. Of course people outside of Greece's jurisdiction don't really need to worry about them.
There really isn't anything wrong with it- outside of it being perverted to mean government provided everything that is.
The entire unto Caesar line was to segregate church from the demands of government when they over ride or conflict with the religious values. It was a response to someone attempting to trick Jesus into angering the Romans so he would be arrested and out of their hair.
The least of our brothers was about personal responsibility too. It won't be satisfied by a government or someone else doing something on your behalf because you were too busy or whatever.
So when people use it to claim we should be taxed so the government can do something with the poor or whatever, they are lost on the entire concept.
Ever heard the expression that there is more then one way to skin a cat? It is important because the existence of one way does not in any way disprove another nor does it make any other ways false on it's own. When you start attaching reasons and motivations or attempting to disconnect them, it gets more complicated.
That you cannot disprove the supernatural says specifically that you cannot claim it's validity to be false. The most you can do is show an alternate path to whatever the supernatural outcome was and suggest it was used.
You ask what value is a belief that provides no reliable predictions or if it is better then something that can be provably false. Does it really matter if it is the truth of what happened? I mean if I used chemicals and house hold items to make a piece of furniture look old and antique, does the fact that after 100 or so years it would have looked like that anyways matter more then I deliberately did it? Of course it would because it effects the perceived value the purchaser might have. Likewise, with a religion, people are convinced their versions are true and the value of that conviction is something they need to decide, not you or I.
Actually, I was using water injection in motors back in the mid to late 80's at the track. We did it then to lower the air temp and make it more dense in the intake. We also used alcohol and dry ice contraptions in an attempt to cool the intake attempting to do the same but you had to make sure it was sealed up good or you defeated your purpose and possibly caused health issues. But yes, it's still used today for more common purposes. The uses wasn't really the point, it is that just because we have a process, it doesn't mean it is or was the only process that something could happen or ever will happen. Saying that something can be proven false because it doesn't match that process is in and of itself false.
That wasn't an intended point, if it appears that way, it is purely by accident. My point is, just because someone can conceive of a way other then what is stated does not invalidate what was stated. The majority of so called contradictions in religions amount to the equivalence of Han shot first and misses the entire points of the religions. It's like trying to invalidate your entire post because you spelled Odyssey or deity wrong.
I somewhat agree. But there are tools like Dr. Strong's exhaustive concordance (others are available too) that can be used to completely understand the words and meanings. But even the original doesn't account for the changes in dialect over the ages so the problem still exists even with the originals (or as close to possible). The Hebrew spoken and written in Israel today is not the same Hebrew language written in the bible- there are more words in the present day so one word doesn't carry 20 meanings and so on. Similarly, it's like the language in the King James version of the Christian bible, the language in it isn't the same english we speak today and even between you and me, American English can be drastically different then in other countries. That's where a concordance comes in handy, if one word was used to mean X 3000 years ago, and ended up meaning Y, Z and eventually XYZ in today's time, the concordance will give you the definition and usages of the period time it was supposed to have belonged to.
But you are correct, without some investigation other then reading a book, you will have issues trying to understand it as in the original intent.
Well, the translation processes that bring about the most common versions of religious texts aren't handled by one person. Take the Christian bible for instance. The line and verse numbers aren't there so you can quote something easily. They are artifacts from the early translations and copying where they portioned it off to the original and others would check the processes and work. It was actually a lengthy and complicated process. But there are a few issues that have slipped
It could, or it could be that when God gave man independence of thought and free will (something he later regretted), he couldn't control us so he trashed the system and started over from time to time.
That's actually really close to how the bible tells it. Anyone who has read and understood it would know about the war(s) with man waged by god when we pissed him/her/it off from time to time. This is also the peace that Jesus brought, peace between God and Man not that there will never be wars or anything again.
Some wasn't the claim. All and false were.
No, you can not prove magic spells and prayer is "no more effective" then random noise. You can prove they are statistically similar but you cannot prove or disprove their effectiveness because you have no way to test supernatural events within the bounds of nature. That is why spells and prayer are not science.
And just because you know how to make paper a certain way, it does not mean all paper is made that way or that it wasn't made in different ways.
The problem you run into is that just because there can be a natural mechanism, it doesn't mean the event used it or the mechanism isn't a specific artifact from the supernatural event. We know this to be true within science specifically as we often shortcut natural processes through the means of manipulations and man made chemicals to get materials and organisms to certain stages that is more productive or valuable at the time. In antique restoration, fixed parts are often given a patina by artificial methods in order to match natural processes already on the pieces. Some of these processes are virtually indistinguishable from the real deal if applied by the right person.
While those examples are still natural as in they obey the laws of physics and science as we know them, they are illustrative of a natural process being applied by other then strictly natural means. You can show something is possible without resorting to supernatural claims but you can't show anything about the supernatural-ness of the claims because you can't test it.
Contradictory things within a religion does not make it false any more then your kitchen would be false if you made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with spoon instead of a knife to spread it on the bread.
Scientific inquiry does not make something false unless it is observed directly. You can say using water in a certain way to run this internal combustion engine doesn't work, but you cannot say no one has ever used water to run an internal combustion engine and never will.
This is especially difficult when your abilities are limited to natural explanations and observations and the claim of supernatural events or powers or beings were part of the process. You simply cannot test supernatural claims. All you can do is find reasonable natural alternatives.
You would still be wrong. You have no way of proving religions false- especially when claims of supernatural beings and events are included and you are limited to only natural tests and explanations.