I'm not sure why it wouldn't. I mean it is using the content generated by google isn't it.
When we as consumers of google's services use the content, we are using it how it was intended and generally in ways that wouldn't be considered copying their product. However, repackaging google search results wold be little different then copying pages from several novels in order to create your own wouldn't it?
The purpose of a search engine is to provide search results that match the user's desire for information. What Bing are doing is compatible with this purpose.
Sort of. What bing is doing is more comparable to copying pages from a murder mystery novel in order to write their own murder mystery novel in the hopes that theirs will be more popular then the one they copied from.
People might ignore the fact that the search results are basically copyrighted works, but you can look at them very similar. They are collections of links and other copyrighted works created and compiled by a company for the purpose of benefiting their own customers in search for specific information. Bing pulling the information and presenting it as if it was their own is littler different then me taking your blog, even though it's primarily composed to news articles you pilfered from around the net pasted with your comments, and presenting it as if it was my own work. Last I head, my passing your work off as mine, was not a proper thing to do.
Now where the confusion comes into play is exactly with books and exceptions to copyright. Searches take advantage to exceptions to the copyright's exclusive control over reproduction, copying and distribution. But a search engine that copies the results of another search engine for monetary gain wouldn't likely fall within those exceptions at all. You see, when you search as the user, you get to use the results in any way that copyright doesn't reserve as an exclusive right to the copyright owners. Most search engines go even futher and don't react to us copying the links or whatever as long as it ends up in their benefit. But I'm not sure how google could see a competitor copying their results as being to their benefit. I don't see how it is much different from copying Agatha Christie's "The Mysterious Affair at Styles", then relabeling it "what do you think of this" a book by sumdumass.
Are you sure he would need to see one? Aren't the results of Google's effort copyrighted to the extent that it's their own derivative creation of a collection of other people's copyrighted works?
It's sort of like the GPL, use doens't pertain so if someone searches and uses the results, they are fine. But it gets dicey when they duplicate or copy the results and redistribute them. In that case, a license would probably need to exist else it could be a copyright violation wouldn't it?
I think you might be mistaken. The video claims it was the police who killed the teen, not the military. You can tell when the titles says, the police did it.
The protest were able to be coordinated relatively easily by the internet. They saw some of this coming and going via twitter and a few other social sites which is probably why Google and others is trying to get things going again. Basically, taking down the internet is like jamming the radio frequencies or communications of the enemy on the battlefield. It makes them a lot less organized, less effective due to that, and steals their low tech advantage away from them. Now it will take resources to send messages by hand, there's a greater chance of intercepting them as well as more time in reacting to them. It puts the government back into an advantage.
The importance is most likely tied to the ability to change leadership without resorting to mass protests and riots in the street calling for the removal of someone.
Democracy also works within a republic by allowing the citizens to chose who is representing them. That's how it's supposed to work within the US and yes, eventually, enough people get disgruntled with their representatives and either vote for someone else, or fail to vote entirely which in both cases can result in their replacement.
Having a Roman style senate is little different then having a dictator that you do not agree with. Having a US style senate is in theory at least.
But that does not mean it "doesn't matter." Knowing that other groups of people hold different views and thereby attain better or worse results is relevant and possibly useful information, whether we use the information or not.
Yes, in different contexts of conversations. But it's incoherently inane when you are speaking about the politicians in a specific area as they relate to the voters of that area. When someone says the left in American politics, they are talking about the left of center of American politics, not where the left would be in China for instance. Stating that the left isn't the left adds nothing to the point unless the goal is to somehow convince those people to accept the left of them in some way. And quite frankly, if you have to resort to politics in other countries in order to justify your choices in your own country, it's probably time you went to live in the other country.
Yes, we're sovereign, but if we continue to choose stupidity as national policy, e.g., by underfunding and resisting science and technological progress, we will not always be sovereign, I'd wager.
And that's a valid political opinion that is worthy of politics within your own country. Stating that consolidate X is not left or right enough because Egypt is whatever or some invention of a scale, does nothing to strengthen that point whatsoever at all. The question then becomes are you concerned that it's important in your countries politics or some other countries politics. I don't particularly see that as a left verses right issue either. It seems to be in the US at least, a who's pockets are getting lined under the name of science and progress issue more then anything.
Funding education is a socialist policy. Societies that fund education do better. We ignore useful data at our peril.
We do fund education. And no, funding education is not a socialist policy in the US. Or at least it's one of the few socialist policies that we all accept. The US has funded education for quite some time under the guise of national security and economic well being. Even the US government that has absolutely no constitutional authority to get into education at all, has funded it. I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this unless it's the tired old spend more for the same results- just throw money at the schools argument. You know, the give the failing institutions a raise without stopping them from failing policy that has degraded public schools over the last 40 or more years.
At the same time, I agree that a one dimensional "left-right" dichotomy is simplistic and harmful.
And hopefully now you see why comparing the left or right to Europe's version or China's version is irrelevant to the discussion within a countries politics. When you do, you end up in conflict with your own political opinions because you are abstracting them from outside in.
Under the 5% doesn't bar someone from the ballot. It just means you have to get a petition signed by so many people. The amount of people is usually tied to the amount of people who voted for the current governor in the last gubernatorial elections. Let's say you had 100k people vote in the last gubernatorial election, out of those, 51k voted for the governor that won. Then the amount of signatures needed would tend to be a percentage based on the 51k. In some state's it's just a minimum number that doesn't change ever.
The 5% was only the "automatic inclusion in the next election". Jesse Ventura getting elected supports more that it's not a burden then it does that it is. He and the party he ran under had to simply get some signatures to be placed on the ballot.
It still doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of a concept called sovereignty? The point you jumped to miss is that the USA is not England or France, or Germany or Egypts or South Africa or any other country. When someone says something in US politics is leftist, or rightists, they are speaking specifically in reference to how it's standing with in US politics. The US could be a complete fascist dictatorship and calling the guy who wants to elect the dictators instead of having them appointed by parliament a "leftist" would be accurate in reference those politics.
That is because no matter where the scale or standard sets in any other imagination, that reference is not referencing those scales and indexes. It's really not that much more difficult then that.
Now I know what you are doing, your trying to do the entire, it's not that bad, look at Europe thing in order to talk people into somehow excepting what they don't want. People in the US don't want some European style government or society. We go to visit there but if it was worth staying, we would have already.
Dude, if you are not getting 5-10% of the vote, then your name on the ballot does nothing but stroke your ego anyways. I mean seriously, you are not going to win anything with less then that amount of vote. Why should the people be troubled to look over your name on the ballot when you cannot get enough signatures to show the public is interested in you being their politician or you can't even get a miniscule amount of the vote?
And yes, the 5% and such would likely change as the chances of getting it changes too. Nothing will be difference, only some people will be happier while they overlook the obvious.
There are more then just two candidate in the elections. there are even more then just two parties. Nothing is preventing there from being more parties or candidates either.
The reason why there is two dominating parties in US politics, is because they have vested the time and effort to infest all government offices from the local levels up. All third parties tend to want to do it run for national elections where the general population has absolutely no experience with them running government and they want to do this on about 2 unique ideas along with about 20 ideas that already exist in the dominate parties. We vote for two dominate party candidates in national elections because we voted for them in state elections because we voted for them in country elections because we voted for them in city and township elections.
Changing the system is not going to change the reasons, which is not going to change the outlook for the carpet bagers wanting to jump in and become famous.
I don't think it would make a difference unless the entire idea is to allow the democrats pick the conservative candidate while picking their own. And then, it would likely turn into one of those, I like IKE on myside, so I will choose the only guy that can't win for yours.
Maybe I'm missing something here? I mean suppose we can chose between 4 candidates, two of whom come across like complete batshit crazy extremist. I pick the guy I like because he's on my side, I then second the crazy guy on your side, and you end up doing the same to me. No big difference here that I can tell.
It's not really rigged. For the most part, at least in areas I am families with, if you held 5 or 10 percent of the populous vote the previous election, your party is automatically on the ballot for that same seat. You just need to hold a caucus or primary according to the state's laws to decide who that candidate is going to be. That's nothing different from the two major parties.
Where it does become different is that you need signatures on petition to get your candidate on the ballot if you didn't hold 5 or 10 percent of the vote in the previous election for that same seat. The number of signatures usually varies but it's generally tied to the number of people who voted for the last elected governor of the state (eg, number totaling 5% of the total number of votes cast in favor of the last elected governor in the last gubernatorial race)..
Do you think that is a good thing? I mean currently, we chose the best of the candidates first, then run off between them. A system like this just seems to be little more then holding that over to the end with the exception that someone who can play a crowd better having the ability to completely contradict themselves to get each side and end up stealing the election.
Furthermore, think about what this will do to public confidence in the government. We think it's bad now when almost half the population voted for the other guy, wait until 80% or better all the sudden don't like what's happening and they all say they preferred someone else. At least now it's an, at least it wasn't that other guy- which is how people will still vote as we seem to pick the least of two evils now instead of the one you can support.
Oh well, I guess we will have to wait and see. I'll be laughing my ass off when it happens.
Yes, that's right. We should all look at other countries when we find some politicians or political idea to be to the left or right of our own ideals. This way, not matter how stupid they are or no matter how much others don't like him, we can embrace voting for them because according to some other country or their scale, they aren't left or right enough.
Here is the thing. Politics is generally about home rule, local governments and all that. Pointing out that the left in Europe is different from the left in the US or China or Africa or where the hell ever is only useful in trivial pursuit. It's competely pointless and likely dangerous to base your political opinions on how bad they screwed up some other country and use that as a basis to accept someone you think will screw up your country.
I was going to just mod you but I couldn't find the -1 irrelevant and always will be moderation button. When you are talking about local politics, it's completely irrelevant to the topic to claim X isn't left enough because in some country that has no sovereignty over you, they are more left. It all has to be relevant to the person expressing the opinion in the first place. The left and the right is only an imaginary scale held by the people making the assumptions.
Hmm.. I always imagined a cute little furry cat when someone calls someone else mittens.
Perhaps you are just thinking too hard and as usually, have your own thoughts that few other share.
Oh yea, it's on a different level then calling Obama Berry. You see, it's not really common knowledge that Romney's nickname was mittens. It is common knowledge that people who know berry called him that.
Also, Palin has a better shot at beating Obama then Mittens does. You want to know why? It isn't because she is some intellectual wizard or anything, it's because she pisses people like you off. Think about it, ever since Reagan, we have had people like you who call themselves progressive say they are moving out of the country if X is elected president or that guy for president is the worse ever. Well, not only do we elect X only to watch those people renig on their promises, we like to watch them squirm in trashing talking the president while sidestepping their own failures to live up to their promises. We have a short history of electing people just to piss others off. And the more polarized this country gets by idiots like you spouting off BS like this, the more chances that Bush or Palin or whoever isn't your guy has to win. And yes, McCain's loss can be largely factored into him trying to appease both sides too much. He ran on a platform that he wouldn't follow the republican party line (even though as president he essentially would set it) as he was the maverick that democrats could trust.
Yes, and the only successful portions of those movements involved breaking laws that punished people for something others were allowed to do. IE, get to the back of the damn buss.
There is a hug difference in violating a law that targets a subset of people because of race or gender (whatever that isn't a choice) and violating the same laws that everyone is supposed to follow. That says we aren't going to take it any more. Violating a law that everyone has to follow just says you are a lawless ass who shouldn't be paid any attention outside of locking you away.
It's called obamacare because Obama was president and demanded that something got passed. The democrats took some old republican counter to one of their old attempts and claimed the republicans would support it.
And no, it isn't exactly the same plan that Mittens Romney come up and you should be thankful for that because Romneycare in MASS sucks balls big time.
Actually, I stated it in reply to your first response to me. I guess I incorrectly assumed that you knew more about the situation then you did and didn't do it clearly enough.
and I'm not sure it's a good thing to protest. I mean after all, it was changed in order to keep classified information classified. Perhaps protesting over classifying information that could show blatant violations of the law and constitutional violations by the government for little more reason then that would be completely appropriate.
As for taking the contractors to court, we as the public are not supposed to know about these interactions until such time either a case is made against someone or it is determined that one can't be made. Even then, it's more of a need to know thing for anything more then X taps happened and Y companies helped. The problem with what was happening is that it was an ongoing and active issue, some with and some without merit, some proper and probably some that were improper. The public has a right and perhaps an obligation to know if their government is abusing the laws or systems set up to help enforce the laws. But they don't have a right to look into my checking account to see if I received any illicit government payment and they don't have the right to break the law or find loopholes in a vein attempt to ignore the law in order to find out. That would be little different then the government illegally spying on your international phone calls in order to catch the chance that you might be up to no good.
Are you just spouting things at the top of your mind just because you think it's coy or something? I mean seriously, you took nothing I said for it's face value and in turn attempted to restate it with your already incorrect beliefs.
riiiight. They weren't breaking the law yet it still still required that they *change* the law to make it so that they weren't breaking the law.
Why don't you read up on the law at the time and the situation, the things those suing them were saying instead of making wild stabs based on nothing but guesses based around your mis-perceptional of the situation? Seriously, they actually admitted in an interview that the ACLU lawsuit was more about getting information on what the government was doing then punishing the telcos because they didn't think they would win against them. The immunity clause was there to stop the harassment of the telcos in an attempt to get information about the government's supposedly secrete operations.
So they didn't break the law... yet they needed a change to the law and an amnesty to make it so that they weren't breaking the law. that's called breaking the law.
They didn't change the law. Well they did but they didn't change the already existing immunity from prosecution or liability. What they changed was the way the immunity kicked in. Before, the telco would have to show up in court and say "here is the authorization, I have complete immunity from liability. The court would enter it into evidence and dismiss the case. The amnesty law said that those cases can't even go to court in the first place, unless there is evidence the telcos didn't act within the law. Again, learn a little about this crap before showing the world your ignorance.
ok, so this "loophole" which required an amnesty and a change to the law to close not only didn't actually mean they were breaking the law but it also didn't exist. they just changed the law and declared the amnesty for fun.
Do you need a Qtip? The loophole was nothing but a means to get the telcos into court for discovery to find out what the government was doing. The EFF even said "the lawsuits were one of the few means available for the public to gain important information about the underpinnings of the wiretapping program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without court warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda. "
The intent was never to punish the telelecoms, it was to damage the government and they weaseled a process in order to do so. This is what congress stopped with the amnesty clause and it was only constitutional because it was already there which is what the ACLU and EFF found out when they attempted to appeal the dismissal of their suits.
Still, going only on your own statements here.
And you are ignoring the very content of those statements in favor of imposing your incorrect views on them. Try reading what was said again and this time, do it without the presumption that you are right. Because you are not and you will find that you are either a useful idiot allowing the system to be manipulated or severely misinformed.
So they didn't do anything wrong yet they required a change to the law and an amnesty to protect them from prosecution for certainly not breaking the law due to a loophole in the law which didn't exist. great. good we've got that settled.
This has already been explained before. Yes, the way they got immunity was to go to court, present their evidence, and state they have an affirmative defense. This however also put them in violation of existing law about disclosing the NSA warrants which made it difficult to do so. But the entire purpose, as stated by the popular rights groups, was not to punish the telecoms, but to gather information
Isn't the line: "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
if the telcos broke the law and opened themselves up to liability, even through what you call a loophole (ie the laws actually working) then they should have known they were exposing themselves as such. They're the ones with the legal teams after all.
Well, no. There was no ignorance of the law. The law clearly stated that when the government or it's authorized representative request assistance, they wouldn't be liable for the assistance provided. The loophole isn't actually a loophole as it was never tested in court. That's what the immunity intended to do- shut down the possibility of it actually working as was the intent and purposed of the original law.
The telcos did not break the law. They provided the access and technical services they were required to by law. The government broke the law (or so it's claimed) and used the telcos and existing laws to do so. Punishing the telcos for following the laws they are required to follow simply does not make sense when the violation was someone else'. The loophole didn't actualy exist, it was a ploy to harass the telcos by costing them money and discover information about the government's actions.
So they did something illegal(after someone, apparently without the authority to make it legal told them it was legal) at the governments request and then the government not only covered it's own ass but theirs as well. That damn well does deserve protests.
No!. What part of this is so hard for you to understand? The only way the telcos did anything illegal is if the government came to them and said "we aren't allowed to do this, but will you let us anyways". If the government presented anything stating they had the authority, the telcos were absolved from any liability or prosecution because the law said specifically that they had to provide access and assistance to them. And the government did claim to have the authority to do it.
Fuck man. You are looking really hard to be pissed at something but you can't even get your facts straight when it's laid out right in front of you. I suggest you sit back and take a deep breath before even thinking about proceeding. The telcos did nothing illegal because they were required by law to give access and technical assistance to any valid government request. And the word valid does not have anything to do with the government being legal or not, it has to do with the paperwork presented to them.
You are trying to turn this into a cop in the middle of the intersection directing traffic and getting pissed off because the damn cars that passed through on the red light at the cops direction weren't cited for running a red light. That's how obviously wrong holding the telcos responsible and claiming they violated the law is.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure why it wouldn't. I mean it is using the content generated by google isn't it.
When we as consumers of google's services use the content, we are using it how it was intended and generally in ways that wouldn't be considered copying their product. However, repackaging google search results wold be little different then copying pages from several novels in order to create your own wouldn't it?
Sort of. What bing is doing is more comparable to copying pages from a murder mystery novel in order to write their own murder mystery novel in the hopes that theirs will be more popular then the one they copied from.
People might ignore the fact that the search results are basically copyrighted works, but you can look at them very similar. They are collections of links and other copyrighted works created and compiled by a company for the purpose of benefiting their own customers in search for specific information. Bing pulling the information and presenting it as if it was their own is littler different then me taking your blog, even though it's primarily composed to news articles you pilfered from around the net pasted with your comments, and presenting it as if it was my own work. Last I head, my passing your work off as mine, was not a proper thing to do.
Now where the confusion comes into play is exactly with books and exceptions to copyright. Searches take advantage to exceptions to the copyright's exclusive control over reproduction, copying and distribution. But a search engine that copies the results of another search engine for monetary gain wouldn't likely fall within those exceptions at all. You see, when you search as the user, you get to use the results in any way that copyright doesn't reserve as an exclusive right to the copyright owners. Most search engines go even futher and don't react to us copying the links or whatever as long as it ends up in their benefit. But I'm not sure how google could see a competitor copying their results as being to their benefit. I don't see how it is much different from copying Agatha Christie's "The Mysterious Affair at Styles", then relabeling it "what do you think of this" a book by sumdumass.
Are you sure he would need to see one? Aren't the results of Google's effort copyrighted to the extent that it's their own derivative creation of a collection of other people's copyrighted works?
It's sort of like the GPL, use doens't pertain so if someone searches and uses the results, they are fine. But it gets dicey when they duplicate or copy the results and redistribute them. In that case, a license would probably need to exist else it could be a copyright violation wouldn't it?
I think you might be mistaken. The video claims it was the police who killed the teen, not the military. You can tell when the titles says, the police did it.
command and control communications structure.
The protest were able to be coordinated relatively easily by the internet. They saw some of this coming and going via twitter and a few other social sites which is probably why Google and others is trying to get things going again. Basically, taking down the internet is like jamming the radio frequencies or communications of the enemy on the battlefield. It makes them a lot less organized, less effective due to that, and steals their low tech advantage away from them. Now it will take resources to send messages by hand, there's a greater chance of intercepting them as well as more time in reacting to them. It puts the government back into an advantage.
The importance is most likely tied to the ability to change leadership without resorting to mass protests and riots in the street calling for the removal of someone.
Democracy also works within a republic by allowing the citizens to chose who is representing them. That's how it's supposed to work within the US and yes, eventually, enough people get disgruntled with their representatives and either vote for someone else, or fail to vote entirely which in both cases can result in their replacement.
Having a Roman style senate is little different then having a dictator that you do not agree with. Having a US style senate is in theory at least.
You mean like this?
http://www.bloodninja.org/view.php?id=7
Probably not work safe..
I tried online dating once.. Let me tell you something, the online part is just to lure you into it. They expect to see you in real life,.
God I miss the good ole days when cyber actually meant phone sex over the interweb.
Yes, in different contexts of conversations. But it's incoherently inane when you are speaking about the politicians in a specific area as they relate to the voters of that area. When someone says the left in American politics, they are talking about the left of center of American politics, not where the left would be in China for instance. Stating that the left isn't the left adds nothing to the point unless the goal is to somehow convince those people to accept the left of them in some way. And quite frankly, if you have to resort to politics in other countries in order to justify your choices in your own country, it's probably time you went to live in the other country.
And that's a valid political opinion that is worthy of politics within your own country. Stating that consolidate X is not left or right enough because Egypt is whatever or some invention of a scale, does nothing to strengthen that point whatsoever at all. The question then becomes are you concerned that it's important in your countries politics or some other countries politics. I don't particularly see that as a left verses right issue either. It seems to be in the US at least, a who's pockets are getting lined under the name of science and progress issue more then anything.
We do fund education. And no, funding education is not a socialist policy in the US. Or at least it's one of the few socialist policies that we all accept. The US has funded education for quite some time under the guise of national security and economic well being. Even the US government that has absolutely no constitutional authority to get into education at all, has funded it. I'm not exactly sure where you are going with this unless it's the tired old spend more for the same results- just throw money at the schools argument. You know, the give the failing institutions a raise without stopping them from failing policy that has degraded public schools over the last 40 or more years.
And hopefully now you see why comparing the left or right to Europe's version or China's version is irrelevant to the discussion within a countries politics. When you do, you end up in conflict with your own political opinions because you are abstracting them from outside in.
Under the 5% doesn't bar someone from the ballot. It just means you have to get a petition signed by so many people. The amount of people is usually tied to the amount of people who voted for the current governor in the last gubernatorial elections. Let's say you had 100k people vote in the last gubernatorial election, out of those, 51k voted for the governor that won. Then the amount of signatures needed would tend to be a percentage based on the 51k. In some state's it's just a minimum number that doesn't change ever.
The 5% was only the "automatic inclusion in the next election". Jesse Ventura getting elected supports more that it's not a burden then it does that it is. He and the party he ran under had to simply get some signatures to be placed on the ballot.
It still doesn't matter. Have you ever heard of a concept called sovereignty? The point you jumped to miss is that the USA is not England or France, or Germany or Egypts or South Africa or any other country. When someone says something in US politics is leftist, or rightists, they are speaking specifically in reference to how it's standing with in US politics. The US could be a complete fascist dictatorship and calling the guy who wants to elect the dictators instead of having them appointed by parliament a "leftist" would be accurate in reference those politics.
That is because no matter where the scale or standard sets in any other imagination, that reference is not referencing those scales and indexes. It's really not that much more difficult then that.
Now I know what you are doing, your trying to do the entire, it's not that bad, look at Europe thing in order to talk people into somehow excepting what they don't want. People in the US don't want some European style government or society. We go to visit there but if it was worth staying, we would have already.
Dude, if you are not getting 5-10% of the vote, then your name on the ballot does nothing but stroke your ego anyways. I mean seriously, you are not going to win anything with less then that amount of vote. Why should the people be troubled to look over your name on the ballot when you cannot get enough signatures to show the public is interested in you being their politician or you can't even get a miniscule amount of the vote?
And yes, the 5% and such would likely change as the chances of getting it changes too. Nothing will be difference, only some people will be happier while they overlook the obvious.
There are more then just two candidate in the elections. there are even more then just two parties. Nothing is preventing there from being more parties or candidates either.
The reason why there is two dominating parties in US politics, is because they have vested the time and effort to infest all government offices from the local levels up. All third parties tend to want to do it run for national elections where the general population has absolutely no experience with them running government and they want to do this on about 2 unique ideas along with about 20 ideas that already exist in the dominate parties. We vote for two dominate party candidates in national elections because we voted for them in state elections because we voted for them in country elections because we voted for them in city and township elections.
Changing the system is not going to change the reasons, which is not going to change the outlook for the carpet bagers wanting to jump in and become famous.
I don't think it would make a difference unless the entire idea is to allow the democrats pick the conservative candidate while picking their own. And then, it would likely turn into one of those, I like IKE on myside, so I will choose the only guy that can't win for yours.
Maybe I'm missing something here? I mean suppose we can chose between 4 candidates, two of whom come across like complete batshit crazy extremist. I pick the guy I like because he's on my side, I then second the crazy guy on your side, and you end up doing the same to me. No big difference here that I can tell.
That's sort of irrelevant. the bottom line is that the field is narrowed with a choice whihc was the point I was making..
It's not really rigged. For the most part, at least in areas I am families with, if you held 5 or 10 percent of the populous vote the previous election, your party is automatically on the ballot for that same seat. You just need to hold a caucus or primary according to the state's laws to decide who that candidate is going to be. That's nothing different from the two major parties.
Where it does become different is that you need signatures on petition to get your candidate on the ballot if you didn't hold 5 or 10 percent of the vote in the previous election for that same seat. The number of signatures usually varies but it's generally tied to the number of people who voted for the last elected governor of the state (eg, number totaling 5% of the total number of votes cast in favor of the last elected governor in the last gubernatorial race)..
Do you think that is a good thing? I mean currently, we chose the best of the candidates first, then run off between them. A system like this just seems to be little more then holding that over to the end with the exception that someone who can play a crowd better having the ability to completely contradict themselves to get each side and end up stealing the election.
Furthermore, think about what this will do to public confidence in the government. We think it's bad now when almost half the population voted for the other guy, wait until 80% or better all the sudden don't like what's happening and they all say they preferred someone else. At least now it's an, at least it wasn't that other guy- which is how people will still vote as we seem to pick the least of two evils now instead of the one you can support.
Oh well, I guess we will have to wait and see. I'll be laughing my ass off when it happens.
Yes, that's right. We should all look at other countries when we find some politicians or political idea to be to the left or right of our own ideals. This way, not matter how stupid they are or no matter how much others don't like him, we can embrace voting for them because according to some other country or their scale, they aren't left or right enough.
Here is the thing. Politics is generally about home rule, local governments and all that. Pointing out that the left in Europe is different from the left in the US or China or Africa or where the hell ever is only useful in trivial pursuit. It's competely pointless and likely dangerous to base your political opinions on how bad they screwed up some other country and use that as a basis to accept someone you think will screw up your country.
I was going to just mod you but I couldn't find the -1 irrelevant and always will be moderation button. When you are talking about local politics, it's completely irrelevant to the topic to claim X isn't left enough because in some country that has no sovereignty over you, they are more left. It all has to be relevant to the person expressing the opinion in the first place. The left and the right is only an imaginary scale held by the people making the assumptions.
Hmm.. I always imagined a cute little furry cat when someone calls someone else mittens.
Perhaps you are just thinking too hard and as usually, have your own thoughts that few other share.
Oh yea, it's on a different level then calling Obama Berry. You see, it's not really common knowledge that Romney's nickname was mittens. It is common knowledge that people who know berry called him that.
Also, Palin has a better shot at beating Obama then Mittens does. You want to know why? It isn't because she is some intellectual wizard or anything, it's because she pisses people like you off. Think about it, ever since Reagan, we have had people like you who call themselves progressive say they are moving out of the country if X is elected president or that guy for president is the worse ever. Well, not only do we elect X only to watch those people renig on their promises, we like to watch them squirm in trashing talking the president while sidestepping their own failures to live up to their promises. We have a short history of electing people just to piss others off. And the more polarized this country gets by idiots like you spouting off BS like this, the more chances that Bush or Palin or whoever isn't your guy has to win. And yes, McCain's loss can be largely factored into him trying to appease both sides too much. He ran on a platform that he wouldn't follow the republican party line (even though as president he essentially would set it) as he was the maverick that democrats could trust.
Lol.. I don't see a problem with a pet name for someone when it's not derogatory.
Yes, and the only successful portions of those movements involved breaking laws that punished people for something others were allowed to do. IE, get to the back of the damn buss.
There is a hug difference in violating a law that targets a subset of people because of race or gender (whatever that isn't a choice) and violating the same laws that everyone is supposed to follow. That says we aren't going to take it any more. Violating a law that everyone has to follow just says you are a lawless ass who shouldn't be paid any attention outside of locking you away.
It's called obamacare because Obama was president and demanded that something got passed. The democrats took some old republican counter to one of their old attempts and claimed the republicans would support it.
And no, it isn't exactly the same plan that Mittens Romney come up and you should be thankful for that because Romneycare in MASS sucks balls big time.
Actually, I stated it in reply to your first response to me. I guess I incorrectly assumed that you knew more about the situation then you did and didn't do it clearly enough.
and I'm not sure it's a good thing to protest. I mean after all, it was changed in order to keep classified information classified. Perhaps protesting over classifying information that could show blatant violations of the law and constitutional violations by the government for little more reason then that would be completely appropriate.
As for taking the contractors to court, we as the public are not supposed to know about these interactions until such time either a case is made against someone or it is determined that one can't be made. Even then, it's more of a need to know thing for anything more then X taps happened and Y companies helped. The problem with what was happening is that it was an ongoing and active issue, some with and some without merit, some proper and probably some that were improper. The public has a right and perhaps an obligation to know if their government is abusing the laws or systems set up to help enforce the laws. But they don't have a right to look into my checking account to see if I received any illicit government payment and they don't have the right to break the law or find loopholes in a vein attempt to ignore the law in order to find out. That would be little different then the government illegally spying on your international phone calls in order to catch the chance that you might be up to no good.
Are you just spouting things at the top of your mind just because you think it's coy or something? I mean seriously, you took nothing I said for it's face value and in turn attempted to restate it with your already incorrect beliefs.
Why don't you read up on the law at the time and the situation, the things those suing them were saying instead of making wild stabs based on nothing but guesses based around your mis-perceptional of the situation? Seriously, they actually admitted in an interview that the ACLU lawsuit was more about getting information on what the government was doing then punishing the telcos because they didn't think they would win against them. The immunity clause was there to stop the harassment of the telcos in an attempt to get information about the government's supposedly secrete operations.
They didn't change the law. Well they did but they didn't change the already existing immunity from prosecution or liability. What they changed was the way the immunity kicked in. Before, the telco would have to show up in court and say "here is the authorization, I have complete immunity from liability. The court would enter it into evidence and dismiss the case. The amnesty law said that those cases can't even go to court in the first place, unless there is evidence the telcos didn't act within the law. Again, learn a little about this crap before showing the world your ignorance.
Do you need a Qtip? The loophole was nothing but a means to get the telcos into court for discovery to find out what the government was doing. The EFF even said "the lawsuits were one of the few means available for the public to gain important information about the underpinnings of the wiretapping program, which allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without court warrants on the international communications of Americans suspected of links to Al Qaeda. "
The intent was never to punish the telelecoms, it was to damage the government and they weaseled a process in order to do so. This is what congress stopped with the amnesty clause and it was only constitutional because it was already there which is what the ACLU and EFF found out when they attempted to appeal the dismissal of their suits.
And you are ignoring the very content of those statements in favor of imposing your incorrect views on them. Try reading what was said again and this time, do it without the presumption that you are right. Because you are not and you will find that you are either a useful idiot allowing the system to be manipulated or severely misinformed.
This has already been explained before. Yes, the way they got immunity was to go to court, present their evidence, and state they have an affirmative defense. This however also put them in violation of existing law about disclosing the NSA warrants which made it difficult to do so. But the entire purpose, as stated by the popular rights groups, was not to punish the telecoms, but to gather information
Well, no. There was no ignorance of the law. The law clearly stated that when the government or it's authorized representative request assistance, they wouldn't be liable for the assistance provided. The loophole isn't actually a loophole as it was never tested in court. That's what the immunity intended to do- shut down the possibility of it actually working as was the intent and purposed of the original law.
The telcos did not break the law. They provided the access and technical services they were required to by law. The government broke the law (or so it's claimed) and used the telcos and existing laws to do so. Punishing the telcos for following the laws they are required to follow simply does not make sense when the violation was someone else'. The loophole didn't actualy exist, it was a ploy to harass the telcos by costing them money and discover information about the government's actions.
No!. What part of this is so hard for you to understand? The only way the telcos did anything illegal is if the government came to them and said "we aren't allowed to do this, but will you let us anyways". If the government presented anything stating they had the authority, the telcos were absolved from any liability or prosecution because the law said specifically that they had to provide access and assistance to them. And the government did claim to have the authority to do it.
Fuck man. You are looking really hard to be pissed at something but you can't even get your facts straight when it's laid out right in front of you. I suggest you sit back and take a deep breath before even thinking about proceeding. The telcos did nothing illegal because they were required by law to give access and technical assistance to any valid government request. And the word valid does not have anything to do with the government being legal or not, it has to do with the paperwork presented to them.
You are trying to turn this into a cop in the middle of the intersection directing traffic and getting pissed off because the damn cars that passed through on the red light at the cops direction weren't cited for running a red light. That's how obviously wrong holding the telcos responsible and claiming they violated the law is.