I was going to write a lengthy reply to the parent about how lumping everyone into the same group was disingenuous and dangerous.
However, All I really need to do is thank you for your short and to the point reply that sums it up way better then my 20 paragraph rambling could have.
And your point is what? Was the US supposed to invade and say treat your people differently or something? Or was they supposed to mind their own business and work with countries that didn't attempt to destroy other allies? I mean seriously, what did you expect the US to do? Last I heard, we shouldn't be meddling with the internal affairs of other countries. Is that your point, that we haven't meddled in Egypt's internal politics?
Newsflash: USA have very much to say about exporting this kind (or any kind for that matter) of things elsewhere. Do you say that private company in USA can export anything anywhere and is above USA law?
And when has Egypt used those weapons on it's own people in the past? Oh, in legitimate police and military operations? OK. And even though the US has influence on the selling of weapons, these are non-lethal weapons and would be sold by China or Russia or any other country in the process. In fact, the article you pointed to only says some of the tear gas canisters were made in the US.
Again, I don't see your point. Are we supposed to deny an ally non-lethal weapons because you do no like them? I mean seriously, if it wasn't tear gas, it would have been bullets. And I believe Egypt can make those themselves. The protesters were in a better position because the tear gas was available instead of resorting to bullets. Now make a comprehensible argument or drop it.
I agree that Egyptian army protected protesters. I don't think this was intention of USA, when they was spending 1,3bln$ anually for Egypt military. So this was not any "investment" - by using this word, you suggest that USA somehow did it specifically to help impossible to predict (and unwanted anyway) changes in Egypt. This is lie.
And the inverse that you are attempting to create is just as much a lie. In fact, you are now trying to destroy your argument by saying it's about what you think simply because I turned it against you.
Here are some facts. the Egyptian military was equipped, ready and able to step in between the police and protect the protesters. The US government supported monetarily and trained portions of the Egyptian Military for whatever reason before that happened.
Now here is what we can assume or guess, either the US government, despite all it's talking points and posturing indicating support for the protesters safety and human rights, the US supported the Egyptian military with the goal of harming the protesters and oppressing the people. Or we can assume that because the military was funded, they were able to interject some sanity into the violence and keep things a lot less bloody then they were. And with Egyptian military elements training with US and other ally forces in anti terrorism exercises where the intent is to focus on the bad people and not harm innocents, chances are this separation from doing anything they were told and sticking up for human rights came somewhere from that interaction. If I was a betting man, I would bet on the later seeing how the government lost control of the military and they did specifically protect the unarmed in the conflict without harming the police.
Again, you point is nothing but emotional dribble in your mind centered around what you want to believe. It's disconnected from the reality that was happening.
- "And it is not only one dictatorship helped up by USA, but I digress." - "So is the US supposed to invade and overthrow the dictators?" False dilemma fallacy use noted.
It's no more a false delima then you are attempting to employ. Don't sit there claiming to be the pot calling the kettle black. What was the US supposed to do differently and what difference would it have made? Answer that because the fact that we were allies with a country that was ruled by a dictator does n
Try a bit earlier when Carter created the Department of Education and the federal government took an active roll in shaping and construing education.
Those federal fund subsidies you claim the Right started dismantling, were only around 4-5 years max before that started happening. Most of the so called dismantling you saw was fights against budget increases being too large- not reductions in budget. Some of the dismantling happened to be changes in programs. You will find no year whatsoever since Carter was president that the federal funding for education did not increase.
Wow.. You really lost all sense of credibility when you attempted to call names by capitalizing parts of words. If your that juvenile, I can't think of you actually knowing anything.
But i believe that we should never of gone there to begin with, ITS NOT OUR WAR it never was. I dont see why we cant just let them go and do their thing and wipe each other out. its there CUNTry not anyone elses.
It is our war, we started is. If you don't at least know that, you shouldn't be commenting.
The deaths of the soilders are already meaningless... simple as that.. WHAT HAS THE WORLD COME TO really?
If you think that, you obviously do not know what your talking about.
All this Power and nothing to show for it, But a shit load of australians and americans dead. NO stuff the americans.. They got attacked YES but just because we have to be allied with them we get dragged in and its so pointless and stupid. Fight your own war OR maybe even "WHO CARES" that they did an attack first and hit the TOWERS, get over it, NOT like they attacked the PRESIDENT... just move on. this whole war is childish, ATleast WWI and WWII had valid reason to go to war,
Yep, you are completely clueless. Neither war was about 9/11 directly. One was about the country not allowing the arrest and prosecution of the people behind 9/11 and giving them safe harbor. The other was about actions thought to have been taken and thought likely to be taken from a country that openly supported terrorism. That second country also have Chemical and Biological weapons at a point in time of their history and was to destroy all of them but failed to do so and acted in ways that gave the entire world powers reason to believe they might be making more.
I don't watch Fox news and I still don't know about corruption they exposed. Please, could you list some of the things. As far as I know, most all of the leaks were benign and the ones that weren't seemed to subject to much interpretation in order to be damaging.
As for your point on Bank of America, it appears that you are wishing for bad news and do not have any insight that isn't already publicly available. You are complaining that there isn't more news that you want to hear and all you do hear is something you dismiss it seems.
I think it's time to step back and do a reality check.
How about fact that USA sponsored Mubarak's regime (among other things providing tear-gas used to surpress protests and generally giving 1.3bln $ anually for Egyptian military)?
Egypt was an ally. We sold them weapons. Non-lethal weapons and it was a private company not the US. They could have purchased them anywhere. Again, what's the point?
And as far as the military goes, aren't they the ones who kept the Egyptian police from turning it into a blood bath? Wasn't Egypt's military putting armored vehicles in between protesters armed with rocks and sticks and the police who had guns and charging towards them?
It seems to me that that investment payed off pretty well if you actually pay attention.
And it is not only one dictatorship helped up by USA, but I digress.
So is the US supposed to invade and overthrow the dictators? We deal with what we have to deal with. When the new government of Egypt is formed, we will deal with them too. Since when is the US supposed to be roaming the earth imposing it's wishes on all countries and their governments?
Do you still claim that USA have nothing to do with this?
You certainly didn't show where they did have anything to do with it. At best, you pointed to a private company that sells non-lethal weapons to foreign governments. You point about funding the military is completely lost on the fact that the military protected the protesters. Please take a deep breath and examine reality.
"you are sounding like a raving lunatic" Yes, sure, only raving lunatics do not like best and most free country in world, USA. ZSRR sang same tune - and my country know this music very well, being under Reds from IIWW to '89.
Lol.. Where in the hell did you dredge that up from? I said you sound like a raving lunatic because your accusations are baseless and do not match reality. Whether or not the US is the best country or not is not even at issue here. What is at issue is if your accusations meet with reality and they don't. They contained nothing but falsehoods draped with adjectives and adverbs with some intent to demonize the US and aren't completely Unfounded.
Again, I will ask. was there a point that got dropped in there somewhere?
IT may be common among elected officials, but I think the point I was trying to make is that it's unfounded as what is clearly illustrated by Obama.
I mean a good portion of America believed he was a Muslim or just didn't care what religion he claimed to be. That was about 6-7 years after 9/11 and we had all the fear mongering about Muslim extremists wanting to destroy America. If being the wrong religion, and being in a religion that is supposedly hating on the US wasn't enough to defeat him, then being an atheist isn't going to bother anyone other then those who would not have voted for him anyways.
The point was about injecting your "political" or religious beliefs into a conversation that did not warrant it. If you are talking about abortion or gay rights, then obviously it's appropriate to inject "political" or religious thoughts if the conversation moves that way.
However, there are arguments against both abortion and gay rights (as they are stated now) that have absolutely nothing to do with religious or political ends. And note that I did not quote you on the political part that one time. That's because I want it to be distinguished as completely separate from your bastardizations.
There is an old saying, never talk religion or politics in a bar. That's because both eventually offend someone. It's the same when you inject it where it's not requested. It's still your own fault if people treat you poorly after you do it. Now get over yourself.
What does the US have to do with how Egypt treated it's people?
I think the only bankrupt thing going on here is your thought process. It went home to sit on the sofa and watch Oprah and the price is right while your emotions and whatever else are concocting things on their own.
Oh, and yes.. I am trying to say you are sounding like a raving lunatic. Perhaps you had something of value to say, but it's completely lost in your emotion. Please restate anything of value that might have slipped into obscurity.
The point I was trying to make was that even though Atheists aren't nuts, they are treated like they are group of subhumans by most of spiritual America and therefore would be kicked out of any jury pool without having to resort to extreme measures.
And that point would be wrong. Now if you said people who insert into conversations that they are atheist are treated just like most people who insist on inserting their religion into those conversations when the conversation has nothing pertaining to religion or the lack of one, I cold agree.
But if your going to a church and claiming you are atheist then complaining that they treated you poorly, guess what, it's your own fault not theirs. If you are injecting that you are atheist without anyone asking and they treat you poorly after, guess what, it's your own fault, not theirs. Why? Because spirituality or the lack thereof is something personal. People do not like it injected into the conversation when it doesn't belong there. And yes, people who claim to be christian or Jewish or Muslim all get treated poorly when they walk up to someone of a different faith and proclaim their religious views. It's your own damn fault because of your own actions, not your beliefs.
So if you are in a room talking with strangers about car, one of the quickest ways to become treated poorly will be to insert the fact that you are an Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Protestant, Roman catholic, New lifer' Jehovah's witness, or anything else. If you want to continue to be treated normally, then stick with talking about cars or whatever the discussion was. And yes, this phenomenon of everyone is out to get me for my beliefs is spouted by people of almost every religion out there. It's because they can't tell that it's their actions that offends people when you share an intament personal belief with with strangers unsolicited..
I doubt that. People don't care much about the religion of our elected leaders except when it might indicate control from outside parties. That's why Kennedy spent a good bit of time claiming the Vatican would not influence any of his decisions before he was elected.
Take president Obama for instance. Most people know he went to a Islamic school as a child. It was the only one available where he was living at the time. Most people know he spent a lot of time in Islamic countries. He spent very little time talking about being a christian. When he did in his books, he left the image that it was a calculated political decision to declare himself a christian and even the church he attended which a lot of people don't think is christian outside of name, was calculated. On the campaign trail, most of his discussions on being a christian was in rebuttal to claims he wasn't.
Now here is the point of that. Many people were lead to beleive that Obama was a Muslim. Probably more people who thought he was a christian. They even had stories about him being sworn into office on the Koran (which was someone else completely). Yet he still became our president of the United State. And if you remember some of the debate around the internet at the time when people were claiming he was a Muslim, a lot of the argument against him consisted of so what, who cares. This argument continued when the attack turned onto his church and the crazy ass shit his pastor was saying.
I think maybe you are taking something you are seeing and attributing it to something you want to be the blame for it. I don't think your all that correct in your assumptions.
No Fox News Needed. Either the Muslim brother hood takes over or not. Either they are peace loving people bent on some religious ideology, or the are the evil fanatics that think terrorist, killing people, and attacking our allies is right. Perhaps there is in-between, but it a matter of waiting to see what happens at this point.
There will be people who will knee jerk, there will be people who will celebrate, there will be people who will cry. This is probably true no matter what kind of government is installed. But people in general aren't the government as a whole as even though they might comprise some members of the government, the diversity of the country will temper their actions or reactions.
In other words, unless we, or an ally are somehow attacked due to the new government, we will spend more time fighting amongst ourselves in government then any newly formed regime, The closest to unity you will find the US government outside that would be sanctions or something if human right violations start happening. But if history has showed us anything, we will even over look a lot of that if they pretend to be on our side in something important.
So what's your point. Most senators and representatives have no chance in hell of being president.
In someone's 80 year lifetime, there will be about 20 presidential elections. That can be as little as 9-10 depending on when they were born and if they all serve 2 terms. There are 583 total members of congress not counting the "special members" like the representatives from DC or our territories. 100 of these politician will have the opportunity to be replaced every 6 years so there could possibly be 600 of them in the same time span. The other 483 will have the opportunity to be replaced every 2 years so there could conceivable be 17,520 different ones. And even if they all kept their seats for the entire length of time covering those 80 years, only 1.8-7.4% of them could become president. So without even considering governors, movie stars, and others who have filled the job in the past, there is very little chance in hell that any of them will be elected president. Especially when someone's notoriety outside their district consists of "that one atheist" or "that one different person". That's not a result of being Atheist, it's a result of being against the odds.
There is nothing indicating that the US would have a knee jerk reaction to any Islamist government. As you pointed out, Islamist does not necessarily mean radical, al Qaeda type people in power.
Where the knee jerk reactions typically come from is where the Islamic government tends to favor terrorism or what we perceive as Terrorist actions. Take Palestine for instance, we withdrew financial support when they elected a terrorist organization turned political party to their government. But we didn't care at all when some of those political members were trying to get involved into the government under a different political party.
It's more the actions and motivations of the newly formed government then the government itself. If it's full of Bin laden death to infidels type people, our reaction will likely be negative, if it's full of We believe in Islam and we want peace type people, our reaction will be friendly. The US does not make policy decision based on religion. We recognize that it's the people, not the religion, doing things in the name of the religion, that gives the wrong impression and cause for concern.
Wikipedia's article about TRIPS, the copyright treaty negotiated in Uruguay, doesn't mention anything beyond the life+50 of Berne. Go ahead and follow the WP article's citations if you remember differently. As I understand it, treaty requirements for life+70 come out of largely Bush-era bilateral treaties between the United States and other countries.
I can't find any of my old links from when I used to actually pay attention to this, but I could find some related links.
This link here sums it up pretty well It was the Uruguay Round table agreements of 1993 that is credited for the EU's Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) (Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection) which eventually was replaced with the Directive 2006/116/EC
The Copyright extension act in the US was passed in 1996-98 or so It was introduced after the 1993 round table. To assume they were unrelated would be a tragic mistake in understanding it all for the purpose of changing it.
In most places it is. Well outside of exemptions to the tax that is.
When a person dies, whether they are intestate or testate, one of the requirements before the estate can be settled is an accurate inventory with accurate appraisals of worth. There is an estate tax assigned by most states and the federal government. Currently, I believe there is an exception to some if it's not over a certain amount. When it's over, the estate of the decease is responsible on paying the estate taxes even if it has to sell your inheritance to do so (meaning you get the difference).
Now an estate tax is different and separate from an inheritance tax. Some areas (the US federal government doesn't have one, I'm not sure about other countries) or states have an inheritance tax on top of that. You may end up having to pay a sum in taxes in order to keep your inheritance that is in addition to any estate tax paid before you got it. Most areas allow a certain amount of estate taxes to count towards inheritance taxes paid and there is an exemption under a certain amount, but I'm not sure if all or which ones do.
Now you can be screwed in giving your assets away too. There are actually taxes called a gift tax. A gift tax is a tax assessed to anything of value given or the use of given to someone for no return or below a fair value in return. It too has a threshold limit and is paid by the donor. This is why it's important that when you gift something to offspring, you consider gifting it to grandchildren. You pay the same tax, the parent can use the money or property to aid the child freeing up their own funds.
Governments around the world have found ways to tax people, even after they are dead. The copyrights should have been taxed just like money unless your country has a specific exemption for them. The problem is that, just like money, if they have any value, sinces taxes aren't quite 100%, there will be enough to pay the taxes and have something left over.
OK, but suppose your dad isn't a writer, he's a carpenter. And suppose he builds himself a fabulous house, with his own hands. Every nail he hammers himself. This is an awesome house. And then he dies. By your logic, should your mom, you, and the rest of his offspring be allowed to live in a house that they had nothing to do with?
I thought his logic was pretty clear. He's saying that just because you are associated with someone who died, you shouldn't be able to treat the world as if you were him by proxy and maintain the conditions present when he was alive. Basically, he doesn't think that people should still sponge off of daddy once daddy is dead. That would have nothing to do with a house which was inherited as it's no longer daddy's, it's whoever inherited it. I'm not sure where you are getting by his logic from.
The rest of what you posted is severely misguided. This is because the so called house is no longer in his dad's possession and nothing becomes public property by association. This scenario differs from the op's statement in that no one living in the house is pretending that Daddy is still alive and in control. Dad is dead, his personal and everything else about his identity died with him. What you need to do is come up with some example or scenario in which someone is pretending that dad is still alive and they are calling the shots for dad by proxy. Only then will you get his logic right. You are probably going to have a difficult time in doing it too. The persona of someone isn't generally protected in any way unless they somehow become famous. Even serial killers who become famous and their heirs do not have the ability to control what is written about or how that person is used in fiction after that serial killer is decease.
I'm going to have to check again, but I think the Uruguay round table added the extra 20 years in 96 or so. I'm not sure any country or sets of countries that has moved up could move back without at least readdressing that. If if they are going to do one, they might as well try to tackle a lot more.
As for the fifth amendment, I don't think it would matter with dropping only 20 years off because the actual loss would be realized after the copyright holder is dead. In other words, the copyright holder wouldn't realize the loss themselves and would be giving the copyright to someone else so it would automatically be worth the value it was when given to them.. Not the value they think it should have been. I could be wrong though. It just seems like there might actually be one of those loop holes in there because it would have to change hands.
And I'm sure that someone would try to make the case that they deserve just compensation. So if it did happen, we would most likely see it in the courts.
Actually, the Berne convention provides for life plus 50 years in article 7. It's 50 years for anonymous or pseudonymous works unless the author is somehow known then life plus 50.
It allows longer terms for any country, and lower terms only for countries bound by the Rome convention at the time of signing the treaty. That is where your link comes into play. regardless of terms outlined in the Berne Convention, foreign works will only be protected as long as it's protected within it's originating country.
This means if some country has a copyright of 20 years, we can follow that copyright term on that's country's original works only- else we have to follow our own.
Well, let me know your old address in Oregon.. If your not going to be mailing your ballet in, I'll give you $20 and mail it in for you.
Higher turn out because of ease doesn't necessarily translate into more people voting, even with more votes being turned in.
There is somewhat of a reason why some states check ID. One vote for one person if that person chooses to vote should be more then just an idea. And in some areas, $20 a ballot is good money for something they couldn't care about in the first place... Yet it cheaper then TV adds and a lot of other things associated with getting a ballot measure passed or a politician elected.
I have two of them.. Well, actually, one of a 3.12 and the other is a 4. something.
They don't do much beside sit on my network as a novelty. They became unneeded when a software package we used stopped supporting them and the company decided it would be cheaper to go with another vendor altogether then to upgrade the Novell machines. I had to keep them online for another couple years for backwards data access (they transferred much of it by hand) but that was years ago.
This is a true story.. Had 2 and a half year old computers at a site with windows XP installed on them once. We needed to replace the cases on a couple of them because of some messed up desk they purchased which they didn't fit into. After the cases were changed out, the employees that sat at the computers started commenting on how much faster they were and how well they liked them. Before long, everyone was demanding new computers too. Instead of getting new computers, the owner decided to get new cases for each computer.
Oh yea, in case you were wondering, the desk issue was where a ventilation channel ran through the center of the base and the tower just spanned the vent. Vibrations or whatever would cause them to move slightly to one side and they would fall into the vent chamber and knock some of the wires off in the rear of the system while dumping anything stored on top of it. Turned out the vent was supposed to have a cover but the owner purchased them second hand from another business that closed down and they didn't come with them. It was cheaper to replace the cases then the vent covers.
It's probably more of an issue of a demand for costs to go down along with increasing complexity with stuffing more and more storage into the same space.
It used to be that all hard drives had a 3-5 year warranty on them. Then for some reason (known flaky supply parts?) it dropped to only 1 year. Now it's back up to 3 and 5 with the majority I'm seeing being 5 years. ( I wasn't thinking of OEM drives either.)
Perhaps the new modern drive are robust again, we just haven't seen enough time pass to recognize it yet.
Slashdot Mirror
I was going to write a lengthy reply to the parent about how lumping everyone into the same group was disingenuous and dangerous.
However, All I really need to do is thank you for your short and to the point reply that sums it up way better then my 20 paragraph rambling could have.
Thank you.
And your point is what? Was the US supposed to invade and say treat your people differently or something? Or was they supposed to mind their own business and work with countries that didn't attempt to destroy other allies? I mean seriously, what did you expect the US to do? Last I heard, we shouldn't be meddling with the internal affairs of other countries. Is that your point, that we haven't meddled in Egypt's internal politics?
And when has Egypt used those weapons on it's own people in the past? Oh, in legitimate police and military operations? OK. And even though the US has influence on the selling of weapons, these are non-lethal weapons and would be sold by China or Russia or any other country in the process. In fact, the article you pointed to only says some of the tear gas canisters were made in the US.
Again, I don't see your point. Are we supposed to deny an ally non-lethal weapons because you do no like them? I mean seriously, if it wasn't tear gas, it would have been bullets. And I believe Egypt can make those themselves. The protesters were in a better position because the tear gas was available instead of resorting to bullets. Now make a comprehensible argument or drop it.
And the inverse that you are attempting to create is just as much a lie. In fact, you are now trying to destroy your argument by saying it's about what you think simply because I turned it against you.
Here are some facts. the Egyptian military was equipped, ready and able to step in between the police and protect the protesters. The US government supported monetarily and trained portions of the Egyptian Military for whatever reason before that happened.
Now here is what we can assume or guess, either the US government, despite all it's talking points and posturing indicating support for the protesters safety and human rights, the US supported the Egyptian military with the goal of harming the protesters and oppressing the people. Or we can assume that because the military was funded, they were able to interject some sanity into the violence and keep things a lot less bloody then they were. And with Egyptian military elements training with US and other ally forces in anti terrorism exercises where the intent is to focus on the bad people and not harm innocents, chances are this separation from doing anything they were told and sticking up for human rights came somewhere from that interaction. If I was a betting man, I would bet on the later seeing how the government lost control of the military and they did specifically protect the unarmed in the conflict without harming the police.
Again, you point is nothing but emotional dribble in your mind centered around what you want to believe. It's disconnected from the reality that was happening.
It's no more a false delima then you are attempting to employ. Don't sit there claiming to be the pot calling the kettle black. What was the US supposed to do differently and what difference would it have made? Answer that because the fact that we were allies with a country that was ruled by a dictator does n
Try a bit earlier when Carter created the Department of Education and the federal government took an active roll in shaping and construing education.
Those federal fund subsidies you claim the Right started dismantling, were only around 4-5 years max before that started happening. Most of the so called dismantling you saw was fights against budget increases being too large- not reductions in budget. Some of the dismantling happened to be changes in programs. You will find no year whatsoever since Carter was president that the federal funding for education did not increase.
Wow.. You really lost all sense of credibility when you attempted to call names by capitalizing parts of words. If your that juvenile, I can't think of you actually knowing anything.
It is our war, we started is. If you don't at least know that, you shouldn't be commenting.
If you think that, you obviously do not know what your talking about.
Yep, you are completely clueless. Neither war was about 9/11 directly. One was about the country not allowing the arrest and prosecution of the people behind 9/11 and giving them safe harbor. The other was about actions thought to have been taken and thought likely to be taken from a country that openly supported terrorism. That second country also have Chemical and Biological weapons at a point in time of their history and was to destroy all of them but failed to do so and acted in ways that gave the entire world powers reason to believe they might be making more.
for a minute there, I thought you were talking about a baklava and I was wondering how that was even possible.
So I looked it up and found I didn't need to answer that question.
I don't watch Fox news and I still don't know about corruption they exposed. Please, could you list some of the things. As far as I know, most all of the leaks were benign and the ones that weren't seemed to subject to much interpretation in order to be damaging.
As for your point on Bank of America, it appears that you are wishing for bad news and do not have any insight that isn't already publicly available. You are complaining that there isn't more news that you want to hear and all you do hear is something you dismiss it seems.
I think it's time to step back and do a reality check.
Egypt was an ally. We sold them weapons. Non-lethal weapons and it was a private company not the US. They could have purchased them anywhere. Again, what's the point?
And as far as the military goes, aren't they the ones who kept the Egyptian police from turning it into a blood bath? Wasn't Egypt's military putting armored vehicles in between protesters armed with rocks and sticks and the police who had guns and charging towards them?
It seems to me that that investment payed off pretty well if you actually pay attention.
So is the US supposed to invade and overthrow the dictators? We deal with what we have to deal with. When the new government of Egypt is formed, we will deal with them too. Since when is the US supposed to be roaming the earth imposing it's wishes on all countries and their governments?
You certainly didn't show where they did have anything to do with it. At best, you pointed to a private company that sells non-lethal weapons to foreign governments. You point about funding the military is completely lost on the fact that the military protected the protesters. Please take a deep breath and examine reality.
Lol.. Where in the hell did you dredge that up from? I said you sound like a raving lunatic because your accusations are baseless and do not match reality. Whether or not the US is the best country or not is not even at issue here. What is at issue is if your accusations meet with reality and they don't. They contained nothing but falsehoods draped with adjectives and adverbs with some intent to demonize the US and aren't completely Unfounded.
Again, I will ask. was there a point that got dropped in there somewhere?
IT may be common among elected officials, but I think the point I was trying to make is that it's unfounded as what is clearly illustrated by Obama.
I mean a good portion of America believed he was a Muslim or just didn't care what religion he claimed to be. That was about 6-7 years after 9/11 and we had all the fear mongering about Muslim extremists wanting to destroy America. If being the wrong religion, and being in a religion that is supposedly hating on the US wasn't enough to defeat him, then being an atheist isn't going to bother anyone other then those who would not have voted for him anyways.
The point was about injecting your "political" or religious beliefs into a conversation that did not warrant it. If you are talking about abortion or gay rights, then obviously it's appropriate to inject "political" or religious thoughts if the conversation moves that way.
However, there are arguments against both abortion and gay rights (as they are stated now) that have absolutely nothing to do with religious or political ends. And note that I did not quote you on the political part that one time. That's because I want it to be distinguished as completely separate from your bastardizations.
There is an old saying, never talk religion or politics in a bar. That's because both eventually offend someone. It's the same when you inject it where it's not requested. It's still your own fault if people treat you poorly after you do it. Now get over yourself.
What does the US have to do with how Egypt treated it's people?
I think the only bankrupt thing going on here is your thought process. It went home to sit on the sofa and watch Oprah and the price is right while your emotions and whatever else are concocting things on their own.
Oh, and yes.. I am trying to say you are sounding like a raving lunatic. Perhaps you had something of value to say, but it's completely lost in your emotion. Please restate anything of value that might have slipped into obscurity.
And that point would be wrong. Now if you said people who insert into conversations that they are atheist are treated just like most people who insist on inserting their religion into those conversations when the conversation has nothing pertaining to religion or the lack of one, I cold agree.
But if your going to a church and claiming you are atheist then complaining that they treated you poorly, guess what, it's your own fault not theirs. If you are injecting that you are atheist without anyone asking and they treat you poorly after, guess what, it's your own fault, not theirs. Why? Because spirituality or the lack thereof is something personal. People do not like it injected into the conversation when it doesn't belong there. And yes, people who claim to be christian or Jewish or Muslim all get treated poorly when they walk up to someone of a different faith and proclaim their religious views. It's your own damn fault because of your own actions, not your beliefs.
So if you are in a room talking with strangers about car, one of the quickest ways to become treated poorly will be to insert the fact that you are an Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Protestant, Roman catholic, New lifer' Jehovah's witness, or anything else. If you want to continue to be treated normally, then stick with talking about cars or whatever the discussion was. And yes, this phenomenon of everyone is out to get me for my beliefs is spouted by people of almost every religion out there. It's because they can't tell that it's their actions that offends people when you share an intament personal belief with with strangers unsolicited..
I doubt that. People don't care much about the religion of our elected leaders except when it might indicate control from outside parties. That's why Kennedy spent a good bit of time claiming the Vatican would not influence any of his decisions before he was elected.
Take president Obama for instance. Most people know he went to a Islamic school as a child. It was the only one available where he was living at the time. Most people know he spent a lot of time in Islamic countries. He spent very little time talking about being a christian. When he did in his books, he left the image that it was a calculated political decision to declare himself a christian and even the church he attended which a lot of people don't think is christian outside of name, was calculated. On the campaign trail, most of his discussions on being a christian was in rebuttal to claims he wasn't.
Now here is the point of that. Many people were lead to beleive that Obama was a Muslim. Probably more people who thought he was a christian. They even had stories about him being sworn into office on the Koran (which was someone else completely). Yet he still became our president of the United State. And if you remember some of the debate around the internet at the time when people were claiming he was a Muslim, a lot of the argument against him consisted of so what, who cares. This argument continued when the attack turned onto his church and the crazy ass shit his pastor was saying.
I think maybe you are taking something you are seeing and attributing it to something you want to be the blame for it. I don't think your all that correct in your assumptions.
No Fox News Needed. Either the Muslim brother hood takes over or not. Either they are peace loving people bent on some religious ideology, or the are the evil fanatics that think terrorist, killing people, and attacking our allies is right. Perhaps there is in-between, but it a matter of waiting to see what happens at this point.
There will be people who will knee jerk, there will be people who will celebrate, there will be people who will cry. This is probably true no matter what kind of government is installed. But people in general aren't the government as a whole as even though they might comprise some members of the government, the diversity of the country will temper their actions or reactions.
In other words, unless we, or an ally are somehow attacked due to the new government, we will spend more time fighting amongst ourselves in government then any newly formed regime, The closest to unity you will find the US government outside that would be sanctions or something if human right violations start happening. But if history has showed us anything, we will even over look a lot of that if they pretend to be on our side in something important.
I don't watch glen beck so could you tell me where he was wrong and what is has to do with glen beck?
So what's your point. Most senators and representatives have no chance in hell of being president.
In someone's 80 year lifetime, there will be about 20 presidential elections. That can be as little as 9-10 depending on when they were born and if they all serve 2 terms. There are 583 total members of congress not counting the "special members" like the representatives from DC or our territories. 100 of these politician will have the opportunity to be replaced every 6 years so there could possibly be 600 of them in the same time span. The other 483 will have the opportunity to be replaced every 2 years so there could conceivable be 17,520 different ones. And even if they all kept their seats for the entire length of time covering those 80 years, only 1.8-7.4% of them could become president. So without even considering governors, movie stars, and others who have filled the job in the past, there is very little chance in hell that any of them will be elected president. Especially when someone's notoriety outside their district consists of "that one atheist" or "that one different person". That's not a result of being Atheist, it's a result of being against the odds.
There is nothing indicating that the US would have a knee jerk reaction to any Islamist government. As you pointed out, Islamist does not necessarily mean radical, al Qaeda type people in power.
Where the knee jerk reactions typically come from is where the Islamic government tends to favor terrorism or what we perceive as Terrorist actions. Take Palestine for instance, we withdrew financial support when they elected a terrorist organization turned political party to their government. But we didn't care at all when some of those political members were trying to get involved into the government under a different political party.
It's more the actions and motivations of the newly formed government then the government itself. If it's full of Bin laden death to infidels type people, our reaction will likely be negative, if it's full of We believe in Islam and we want peace type people, our reaction will be friendly. The US does not make policy decision based on religion. We recognize that it's the people, not the religion, doing things in the name of the religion, that gives the wrong impression and cause for concern.
I can't find any of my old links from when I used to actually pay attention to this, but I could find some related links.
This link here sums it up pretty well It was the Uruguay Round table agreements of 1993 that is credited for the EU's Copyright Duration Directive (93/98/EEC) (Directive harmonizing the term of copyright protection) which eventually was replaced with the Directive 2006/116/EC
The Copyright extension act in the US was passed in 1996-98 or so It was introduced after the 1993 round table. To assume they were unrelated would be a tragic mistake in understanding it all for the purpose of changing it.
In most places it is. Well outside of exemptions to the tax that is.
When a person dies, whether they are intestate or testate, one of the requirements before the estate can be settled is an accurate inventory with accurate appraisals of worth. There is an estate tax assigned by most states and the federal government. Currently, I believe there is an exception to some if it's not over a certain amount. When it's over, the estate of the decease is responsible on paying the estate taxes even if it has to sell your inheritance to do so (meaning you get the difference).
Now an estate tax is different and separate from an inheritance tax. Some areas (the US federal government doesn't have one, I'm not sure about other countries) or states have an inheritance tax on top of that. You may end up having to pay a sum in taxes in order to keep your inheritance that is in addition to any estate tax paid before you got it. Most areas allow a certain amount of estate taxes to count towards inheritance taxes paid and there is an exemption under a certain amount, but I'm not sure if all or which ones do.
Now you can be screwed in giving your assets away too. There are actually taxes called a gift tax. A gift tax is a tax assessed to anything of value given or the use of given to someone for no return or below a fair value in return. It too has a threshold limit and is paid by the donor. This is why it's important that when you gift something to offspring, you consider gifting it to grandchildren. You pay the same tax, the parent can use the money or property to aid the child freeing up their own funds.
Governments around the world have found ways to tax people, even after they are dead. The copyrights should have been taxed just like money unless your country has a specific exemption for them. The problem is that, just like money, if they have any value, sinces taxes aren't quite 100%, there will be enough to pay the taxes and have something left over.
I thought his logic was pretty clear. He's saying that just because you are associated with someone who died, you shouldn't be able to treat the world as if you were him by proxy and maintain the conditions present when he was alive. Basically, he doesn't think that people should still sponge off of daddy once daddy is dead. That would have nothing to do with a house which was inherited as it's no longer daddy's, it's whoever inherited it. I'm not sure where you are getting by his logic from.
The rest of what you posted is severely misguided. This is because the so called house is no longer in his dad's possession and nothing becomes public property by association. This scenario differs from the op's statement in that no one living in the house is pretending that Daddy is still alive and in control. Dad is dead, his personal and everything else about his identity died with him. What you need to do is come up with some example or scenario in which someone is pretending that dad is still alive and they are calling the shots for dad by proxy. Only then will you get his logic right. You are probably going to have a difficult time in doing it too. The persona of someone isn't generally protected in any way unless they somehow become famous. Even serial killers who become famous and their heirs do not have the ability to control what is written about or how that person is used in fiction after that serial killer is decease.
I'm going to have to check again, but I think the Uruguay round table added the extra 20 years in 96 or so. I'm not sure any country or sets of countries that has moved up could move back without at least readdressing that. If if they are going to do one, they might as well try to tackle a lot more.
As for the fifth amendment, I don't think it would matter with dropping only 20 years off because the actual loss would be realized after the copyright holder is dead. In other words, the copyright holder wouldn't realize the loss themselves and would be giving the copyright to someone else so it would automatically be worth the value it was when given to them.. Not the value they think it should have been. I could be wrong though. It just seems like there might actually be one of those loop holes in there because it would have to change hands.
And I'm sure that someone would try to make the case that they deserve just compensation. So if it did happen, we would most likely see it in the courts.
Actually, the Berne convention provides for life plus 50 years in article 7. It's 50 years for anonymous or pseudonymous works unless the author is somehow known then life plus 50.
It allows longer terms for any country, and lower terms only for countries bound by the Rome convention at the time of signing the treaty. That is where your link comes into play. regardless of terms outlined in the Berne Convention, foreign works will only be protected as long as it's protected within it's originating country.
This means if some country has a copyright of 20 years, we can follow that copyright term on that's country's original works only- else we have to follow our own.
Well, let me know your old address in Oregon.. If your not going to be mailing your ballet in, I'll give you $20 and mail it in for you.
Higher turn out because of ease doesn't necessarily translate into more people voting, even with more votes being turned in.
There is somewhat of a reason why some states check ID. One vote for one person if that person chooses to vote should be more then just an idea. And in some areas, $20 a ballot is good money for something they couldn't care about in the first place... Yet it cheaper then TV adds and a lot of other things associated with getting a ballot measure passed or a politician elected.
I have two of them.. Well, actually, one of a 3.12 and the other is a 4. something.
They don't do much beside sit on my network as a novelty. They became unneeded when a software package we used stopped supporting them and the company decided it would be cheaper to go with another vendor altogether then to upgrade the Novell machines. I had to keep them online for another couple years for backwards data access (they transferred much of it by hand) but that was years ago.
Bought macs for work? Or for their home systems?
This is a true story.. Had 2 and a half year old computers at a site with windows XP installed on them once. We needed to replace the cases on a couple of them because of some messed up desk they purchased which they didn't fit into. After the cases were changed out, the employees that sat at the computers started commenting on how much faster they were and how well they liked them. Before long, everyone was demanding new computers too. Instead of getting new computers, the owner decided to get new cases for each computer.
Oh yea, in case you were wondering, the desk issue was where a ventilation channel ran through the center of the base and the tower just spanned the vent. Vibrations or whatever would cause them to move slightly to one side and they would fall into the vent chamber and knock some of the wires off in the rear of the system while dumping anything stored on top of it. Turned out the vent was supposed to have a cover but the owner purchased them second hand from another business that closed down and they didn't come with them. It was cheaper to replace the cases then the vent covers.
It's probably more of an issue of a demand for costs to go down along with increasing complexity with stuffing more and more storage into the same space.
It used to be that all hard drives had a 3-5 year warranty on them. Then for some reason (known flaky supply parts?) it dropped to only 1 year. Now it's back up to 3 and 5 with the majority I'm seeing being 5 years. ( I wasn't thinking of OEM drives either.)
Perhaps the new modern drive are robust again, we just haven't seen enough time pass to recognize it yet.