First, you do not need to go to France or some other country to file charges on the firm or person making fallacious DMCA take down claims. It is a US law used to protect copyright owners and when it is used incorrectly, a US court can decide penalties or corrective action.
Second, perjury is not the only penalty associated with fallacious DMCA take downs. Any damages caused by the take down plus legal fees can be recovered in much the same way as and that would be from where the harmed party exists. You would not need to go to France in order to sue a french company that used a false claim with a US law to harm you by removing your legitimate content. The DMCA protects only the network provider, not the user or the entity making the claim and regardless of where the legal entity making a claim resides, they sought out you in your hosting company's location to harm you with the false claims.
This is no different then a French citizen coming to wherever you live or do business and punching you or filing incorrect police reports resulting in your arrest and legal harassment (actually imagine he is the body guard of someone else when this happens). You would not need to go to France to seek justice. You just need to go to anywhere they hold assets to collect any awards issued by the court and that can generally be done without leaving your lawyer's office. But if you sue the french company as an agent of the copyright holder, the copyright holder or the person/company employing them will be vicariously liable and you may be able to collect without trying ti seize or attach to assets in foreign lands.
When you teach them that logic and reason sometimes "don't work" because they lead you to conclusions that disagree with a religion's holy book, the child grows up believing in logical fallacies (most importantly, appeal to authority and appeal to majority), and their education (and future ability to succeed in one of these roles) is impacted negatively.
Why do you not pay attention? Is it because it doesn't agree with what you want to believe or something? That does not need to happen as I already stated that the current Scientific understanding can easily be the direct result of creation and science can not prove it wrong because it is untestable. Does that upset you or something insomuch that you cannot recognize it? Here, let me put it in other words, the child will think science is there because God wants him to use it and take advantage of. There will be no "sometimes logic" or "sometimes reason", it will be pressing the A and B button on one game controller and the right shift and space bar on the computer to play the same damn games and figure out the same damn puzzles.
If the child extends the logic and reason to their religion, they might enter your holy grail of atheism and decide religion isn't real, they might not. They might enter it without ever applying logic or reason and insist that things can only be one way to be all rosy or if there is another way it will somehow rape your computer, kick your wife and steal you dog from you.
This entire controversy between science and religion is purely manufactured by people who have grudges against each other over religious beliefs. You certainly seem to fail the reason test that you proclaim to be the high and mighty- at least in your dealings with me on the topic. But let me reiterate, religion and science can easily coexist.
One of the issues here is that when the crime happens to a regular person, different police are involved. When it is done in an attempt to influence a national election, the secrete service is involved.
It's literally the difference between a crime happening in a one horse town that has to use the already overly extended county sheriff verses the big city with multiple divisions and their own crime lab. Different jurisdictions and different policing agencies with different resources at hand because the crimes are different. Now suppose this crime is a kidnapping that crossed the state lines and all the sudden another agency (FBI) gets involved with even different man power and resources.
Now, there might be a valid case when some celebrity and an ordinary crime is involved and they are treated better then others. But this isn't really one even though it seems like it.
lol.. Things like this normally do not mean anything. But they give off appearances- appearances that people typically use to protect themselves when they notice things like an AC stating how proud he would be to have his name known.
It's like someone buying a car from a salesman that says trust me every time you ask a question and get an answer too good to believe. The dealer/salesman may be completely accurate and telling you the honest truth but most people think Trust me coming from one is code for "you're gonna get so fucked in this deal".
You suggested they were just trying to rile me up or that I was misunderstanding them.
I guess I did.. My apologies. I had been fielding several other comments by imbeciles and took yours out of context.
Neither is the case. It is merely convenient for you to suggest that many of your fellow Republicans are not self-deluded ideologs, since I must certainly be misinterpreting them.
Well, not really. Your interactions with the idiots you mentioned are not typical of the republicans I know of. If you asked them about Co2 or the heat trapping effect, the ones I know would just say "so".."what's your point and can you prove it?"
Actually, most the republicans I know understand global warming probably better then most democrats. I understand my anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything, but their concerns with it is in not hurting the economy, putting poor people at risk of financial hardships, or jumping into something that retards the financial success of a few countries and rewards others in the process.
What I always find funny here on slashdot is where republicans want to throw money at science like Romney does in studying more of the impact, causality and mitigation of global warming as well as developing efficiencies and viable sources of clean energy or making our energy cleaner and because it doesn't tow the liberal line of ***(deleted in order to not get offensive, but we know about the tax more, don't have kids, depend on the government with public transportation instead of being free with your own car and rewarding donors with gov backed loans as a solution), it isn't good enough. Then./ bitches that they aren't spending money on science. What would the world be like today if the half billion spend on Solyndra was spent on science investigating pollution sequestration research or energy efficiency research instead? Don't tell me about self deluded.
I doubt $ signs flashed anywhere. In the US, doctors are often scared of liability lawsuits for malpractice if they do not catch something. A foreigner in the office on vacation (anyone on vacation actually) pretty much assures the patient will see another doctor for the same reason and if he missed something, it would be pointed out instead of some BS story about how a symptom is new so we now are considering this too.
The problem is that too many things appear the same without further testing to rule them out or confirm them. If your brother was a regular patient of his and had not been in a different area recently, the doc would have likely been comfortable taking a best guess considering the medical history and the local environment. I ran into this problem a few years ago with a family doctor after visiting Mexico and Canada. I got worried then was told it was just because I was in another country for a while close to when we went in.
Is what true? The fact that people have exaggerated global warming in the past or that the emails made it look like a scam to some people? Yes, that it true.
What debate? The science is the science. Debate policy, not fact.
I sincerely do not think you are competent enough to be discussing this. I certainly appears your reading comprehension is lacking in critical areas. Of course we are talking about policy. This entire thread, entire article, entire story is about policy.
The British government did one a while back and it said that homeopathic medicine has a success rate similar to placebos.
This is also why I do not understand what the big issue is. If the guy tries to institute it, someone will just throw it in his face. Of course, sometimes people need placebos and it could be a harmless alternative to those demanding millions of pills for the common cold.
In my younger years, I used to be a trend setter- well me and some of the people I hung around. I would start wearing things like jewelry or brand name shirts and shoes, and all the other people my age in my school would copy it. We would do things like flick our lighters in the air to greet each other and they would too (yes, I'm old enough they let us smoke at school and even carry pocket knives).
The reason I'm bringing this up is because I would see things that were fading from popularity and there would be cliques of kids and people jut starting to jump onto it. I don't know if they were purposely messing around by doing it or if it just took them that long to see it happening, or even if it wasn't their fault and their parents though it was the in thing and got it for their birthday or something. The point is, even when something stops being popular, there will be a residual effect for quite a while- even years while it fades into obscurity. what you see could be this effect.
that or the carriers who offer Iphones don't offer decent alternatives.
I do not think I said anything about other guys in your imagination or elsewhere. Way to not only bring up a strawman but insist a red hearing is pertinent to what was actually said.
Perhaps if you would stick to what was said instead of what you think or want to be said, you would have a better grasp on reality.
This is all pretty much common knowledge by now. If you don't know about them, I seriously doubt you are versed enough in the global warming debate to try to participate in it.
Try looking at James Hansen and how democrats staged his first session in front of congress in 1988. Also, look into the CRU East Angola emails.
So raising the taxes to punish the rich is somehow going to give it to the working and bridge that income inequality or fix all that ails you?
Please do not attempt to conflate greed with how tax policy should or does work and nobody said a damn thing about trickle down. Businesses need to make money to survive. Businesses need to survive and grow in order for there to be jobs. They do this be making sure their costs are less then their income in order to give profit that gets distributed. Taxes is one of those costs and when the others are too high, lowering them can and does spur growth.
I understand why you posted as an AC spewing crap like that. It's ok, If I posted something as ignorant as you did, I wouldn't want anyone knowing who I was either.
Giving tax breaks to the wealthy and ending all government regulation and letting big corps do whatever the fuck they want is the CURE ALL of the 21-st century. It will make the economy strong, give us all great jobs, improve education, and make your dick bigger! Just give the wealthy and big corps everything they want and we'll all live in a fucking paradise on earth!
Yeah, because doing the exact opposite has worked so well.
You are being a bit overly dramatic in your interpretation. Cutting taxes to a competitive rate not only removes incentives to move off shore to get the lower rates, it provides a more stable environment for businesses to invest and expand in the US. Tell me, which is more, 10% of $100 or 10% of $1000? That's what is expected to happen, more economic activity means more taxes at the same lower rates.
Cutting burdensome regulation also brings that about and lowers the bar for entry meaning more jobs to boot. Nowhere did he say they could do whatever they wanted. Regulation for the sake of regulation is never a good thing. Trimming the burdens and ensuring the regulation that remain are effective is what is needed. This is not the same deregulation from the Clinton days so don't pretend it is.
There is more to it too. Cheap and reliable energy will be needed. We have never had a prosperous or booming economy with high energy prices unless it was the result of cheaper prices previously and the more expensive prices haven't impacted yet.
It's what I think and I'm more or less a republican. Perhaps your problem is who you hang out with or know. Perhaps they like to take an opposite stance from you in order to rile you up.
Or more precisely, perhaps you aren't understanding them and take what they say out of context. Global warming has been exaggerated in the past, we do have a record of leaked Emails that show what at minimum on the surface seems to be not only an agenda, but steps to implement it. We also have a political agenda promised to be the fix that seems more like punishment for developed nations in the west and rewards for third world countries who are completely free to increase thier carbon emissions to levels well above any cuts in the western nations.
I've also been hammering the same point Romney thinks is a solution too. If global warming is as serious as its claimed, developing the tech for cleaner energy and emissions control and implementing that is the better solution then imposing burdens on the economy and causing financial hardships for the poor. In fact, Kyoto should have been an agreement to develop and share this tech instead of the monstrosity it was..
No third party president would be useful if they won. Congress doesn't wait for instructions from the president to act. A president will only be as effective as the support they hold in congress. Just ask Jimmy Carter how that can screw you over if you have no support in congress. His presidency has been considered one of the worst in our history. People were begging to vote for Reagan who won by something along the lines of 90% of the electoral vote.
All a third party president would accomplish is the uniting of dems and reps in an flagrant display of asshattery in attempts to pop the jackass trying to order them around. The only reason presidents seem to have power is because they become the defacto leader of their party and it isn't considered good form to buck a president from your party. It took the democrats 4 terms and a waesle named Ross Pero to get back in the white house (with less then half the popular vote) after the last time they did it (president Carter).
If that is the law, the president must execute it. The separation of powers has nothing to do with the president and a law. It has to do with how laws are made and validated. It would take a judge- the third branch of government- to say the law is unconstitutional or in conflict with a higher law for the president to have the ability to ignore it without violating his duty.
Actually, that is a core difference between the two parties. One thinks that all the government should do is set an environment and let private firms take advantage of it. The other thinks the government should give or award the advantages.
Perhaps he dismisses the notion of the necessity of that infrastructure or it's importance in building a company. In the old days, people built their own roads, built their own rail ways, dug their own wells and did a lot of other things provided by public infrastructure.
Slashdot Mirror
First, you do not need to go to France or some other country to file charges on the firm or person making fallacious DMCA take down claims. It is a US law used to protect copyright owners and when it is used incorrectly, a US court can decide penalties or corrective action.
Second, perjury is not the only penalty associated with fallacious DMCA take downs. Any damages caused by the take down plus legal fees can be recovered in much the same way as and that would be from where the harmed party exists. You would not need to go to France in order to sue a french company that used a false claim with a US law to harm you by removing your legitimate content. The DMCA protects only the network provider, not the user or the entity making the claim and regardless of where the legal entity making a claim resides, they sought out you in your hosting company's location to harm you with the false claims.
This is no different then a French citizen coming to wherever you live or do business and punching you or filing incorrect police reports resulting in your arrest and legal harassment (actually imagine he is the body guard of someone else when this happens). You would not need to go to France to seek justice. You just need to go to anywhere they hold assets to collect any awards issued by the court and that can generally be done without leaving your lawyer's office. But if you sue the french company as an agent of the copyright holder, the copyright holder or the person/company employing them will be vicariously liable and you may be able to collect without trying ti seize or attach to assets in foreign lands.
Why do you not pay attention? Is it because it doesn't agree with what you want to believe or something? That does not need to happen as I already stated that the current Scientific understanding can easily be the direct result of creation and science can not prove it wrong because it is untestable. Does that upset you or something insomuch that you cannot recognize it? Here, let me put it in other words, the child will think science is there because God wants him to use it and take advantage of. There will be no "sometimes logic" or "sometimes reason", it will be pressing the A and B button on one game controller and the right shift and space bar on the computer to play the same damn games and figure out the same damn puzzles.
If the child extends the logic and reason to their religion, they might enter your holy grail of atheism and decide religion isn't real, they might not. They might enter it without ever applying logic or reason and insist that things can only be one way to be all rosy or if there is another way it will somehow rape your computer, kick your wife and steal you dog from you.
This entire controversy between science and religion is purely manufactured by people who have grudges against each other over religious beliefs. You certainly seem to fail the reason test that you proclaim to be the high and mighty- at least in your dealings with me on the topic. But let me reiterate, religion and science can easily coexist.
One of the issues here is that when the crime happens to a regular person, different police are involved. When it is done in an attempt to influence a national election, the secrete service is involved.
It's literally the difference between a crime happening in a one horse town that has to use the already overly extended county sheriff verses the big city with multiple divisions and their own crime lab. Different jurisdictions and different policing agencies with different resources at hand because the crimes are different. Now suppose this crime is a kidnapping that crossed the state lines and all the sudden another agency (FBI) gets involved with even different man power and resources.
Now, there might be a valid case when some celebrity and an ordinary crime is involved and they are treated better then others. But this isn't really one even though it seems like it.
lol.. Things like this normally do not mean anything. But they give off appearances- appearances that people typically use to protect themselves when they notice things like an AC stating how proud he would be to have his name known.
It's like someone buying a car from a salesman that says trust me every time you ask a question and get an answer too good to believe. The dealer/salesman may be completely accurate and telling you the honest truth but most people think Trust me coming from one is code for "you're gonna get so fucked in this deal".
I guess I did.. My apologies. I had been fielding several other comments by imbeciles and took yours out of context.
Well, not really. Your interactions with the idiots you mentioned are not typical of the republicans I know of. If you asked them about Co2 or the heat trapping effect, the ones I know would just say "so".."what's your point and can you prove it?"
Actually, most the republicans I know understand global warming probably better then most democrats. I understand my anecdotal evidence is not proof of anything, but their concerns with it is in not hurting the economy, putting poor people at risk of financial hardships, or jumping into something that retards the financial success of a few countries and rewards others in the process.
What I always find funny here on slashdot is where republicans want to throw money at science like Romney does in studying more of the impact, causality and mitigation of global warming as well as developing efficiencies and viable sources of clean energy or making our energy cleaner and because it doesn't tow the liberal line of ***(deleted in order to not get offensive, but we know about the tax more, don't have kids, depend on the government with public transportation instead of being free with your own car and rewarding donors with gov backed loans as a solution), it isn't good enough. Then ./ bitches that they aren't spending money on science. What would the world be like today if the half billion spend on Solyndra was spent on science investigating pollution sequestration research or energy efficiency research instead? Don't tell me about self deluded.
I doubt $ signs flashed anywhere. In the US, doctors are often scared of liability lawsuits for malpractice if they do not catch something. A foreigner in the office on vacation (anyone on vacation actually) pretty much assures the patient will see another doctor for the same reason and if he missed something, it would be pointed out instead of some BS story about how a symptom is new so we now are considering this too.
The problem is that too many things appear the same without further testing to rule them out or confirm them. If your brother was a regular patient of his and had not been in a different area recently, the doc would have likely been comfortable taking a best guess considering the medical history and the local environment. I ran into this problem a few years ago with a family doctor after visiting Mexico and Canada. I got worried then was told it was just because I was in another country for a while close to when we went in.
People often confuse alternative and natural "cures" with homeopathy. You are probably correct in that it wasn't homeopathic.
Is what true? The fact that people have exaggerated global warming in the past or that the emails made it look like a scam to some people? Yes, that it true.
I sincerely do not think you are competent enough to be discussing this. I certainly appears your reading comprehension is lacking in critical areas. Of course we are talking about policy. This entire thread, entire article, entire story is about policy.
The British government did one a while back and it said that homeopathic medicine has a success rate similar to placebos.
This is also why I do not understand what the big issue is. If the guy tries to institute it, someone will just throw it in his face. Of course, sometimes people need placebos and it could be a harmless alternative to those demanding millions of pills for the common cold.
In my younger years, I used to be a trend setter- well me and some of the people I hung around. I would start wearing things like jewelry or brand name shirts and shoes, and all the other people my age in my school would copy it. We would do things like flick our lighters in the air to greet each other and they would too (yes, I'm old enough they let us smoke at school and even carry pocket knives).
The reason I'm bringing this up is because I would see things that were fading from popularity and there would be cliques of kids and people jut starting to jump onto it. I don't know if they were purposely messing around by doing it or if it just took them that long to see it happening, or even if it wasn't their fault and their parents though it was the in thing and got it for their birthday or something. The point is, even when something stops being popular, there will be a residual effect for quite a while- even years while it fades into obscurity. what you see could be this effect.
that or the carriers who offer Iphones don't offer decent alternatives.
Well, in totally unrelated news, Apple had just received a patent for the same shit but on a phone!
I do not think I said anything about other guys in your imagination or elsewhere. Way to not only bring up a strawman but insist a red hearing is pertinent to what was actually said.
Perhaps if you would stick to what was said instead of what you think or want to be said, you would have a better grasp on reality.
This is all pretty much common knowledge by now. If you don't know about them, I seriously doubt you are versed enough in the global warming debate to try to participate in it.
Try looking at James Hansen and how democrats staged his first session in front of congress in 1988. Also, look into the CRU East Angola emails.
So raising the taxes to punish the rich is somehow going to give it to the working and bridge that income inequality or fix all that ails you?
Please do not attempt to conflate greed with how tax policy should or does work and nobody said a damn thing about trickle down. Businesses need to make money to survive. Businesses need to survive and grow in order for there to be jobs. They do this be making sure their costs are less then their income in order to give profit that gets distributed. Taxes is one of those costs and when the others are too high, lowering them can and does spur growth.
I understand why you posted as an AC spewing crap like that. It's ok, If I posted something as ignorant as you did, I wouldn't want anyone knowing who I was either.
That was one the major rejections about Kyoto Protocol.
As Europe lowered its emissions, it also increased imports from China and India. They may not be related, but it looks that way.
What do you propose we do? Don't say cap and trade either. As Romney pointed out, we are not the only nation spewing emissions.
Yeah, because doing the exact opposite has worked so well.
You are being a bit overly dramatic in your interpretation. Cutting taxes to a competitive rate not only removes incentives to move off shore to get the lower rates, it provides a more stable environment for businesses to invest and expand in the US. Tell me, which is more, 10% of $100 or 10% of $1000? That's what is expected to happen, more economic activity means more taxes at the same lower rates.
Cutting burdensome regulation also brings that about and lowers the bar for entry meaning more jobs to boot. Nowhere did he say they could do whatever they wanted. Regulation for the sake of regulation is never a good thing. Trimming the burdens and ensuring the regulation that remain are effective is what is needed. This is not the same deregulation from the Clinton days so don't pretend it is.
There is more to it too. Cheap and reliable energy will be needed. We have never had a prosperous or booming economy with high energy prices unless it was the result of cheaper prices previously and the more expensive prices haven't impacted yet.
It's what I think and I'm more or less a republican. Perhaps your problem is who you hang out with or know. Perhaps they like to take an opposite stance from you in order to rile you up.
Or more precisely, perhaps you aren't understanding them and take what they say out of context. Global warming has been exaggerated in the past, we do have a record of leaked Emails that show what at minimum on the surface seems to be not only an agenda, but steps to implement it. We also have a political agenda promised to be the fix that seems more like punishment for developed nations in the west and rewards for third world countries who are completely free to increase thier carbon emissions to levels well above any cuts in the western nations.
I've also been hammering the same point Romney thinks is a solution too. If global warming is as serious as its claimed, developing the tech for cleaner energy and emissions control and implementing that is the better solution then imposing burdens on the economy and causing financial hardships for the poor. In fact, Kyoto should have been an agreement to develop and share this tech instead of the monstrosity it was..
Thanks. The pastebin link was a lot more readable for me.
No third party president would be useful if they won. Congress doesn't wait for instructions from the president to act. A president will only be as effective as the support they hold in congress. Just ask Jimmy Carter how that can screw you over if you have no support in congress. His presidency has been considered one of the worst in our history. People were begging to vote for Reagan who won by something along the lines of 90% of the electoral vote.
All a third party president would accomplish is the uniting of dems and reps in an flagrant display of asshattery in attempts to pop the jackass trying to order them around. The only reason presidents seem to have power is because they become the defacto leader of their party and it isn't considered good form to buck a president from your party. It took the democrats 4 terms and a waesle named Ross Pero to get back in the white house (with less then half the popular vote) after the last time they did it (president Carter).
If that is the law, the president must execute it. The separation of powers has nothing to do with the president and a law. It has to do with how laws are made and validated. It would take a judge- the third branch of government- to say the law is unconstitutional or in conflict with a higher law for the president to have the ability to ignore it without violating his duty.
What does the military requirements of being commander in chief of the constitution have to do with science or the running the country?
Actually, that is a core difference between the two parties. One thinks that all the government should do is set an environment and let private firms take advantage of it. The other thinks the government should give or award the advantages.
Perhaps he dismisses the notion of the necessity of that infrastructure or it's importance in building a company. In the old days, people built their own roads, built their own rail ways, dug their own wells and did a lot of other things provided by public infrastructure.
Actually, Obama did say that. He also said more but is operating from a flawed concept to begin with.