I used one of those laser thermometer to check the temp of a seat in my car after I burned my ass through my pants sitting on it. It was only about 92 out but the seat itself was at 161F.
To put hat into perspective, you can get about a third degree burn if exposed to water at 160 for 1 second and if exposed to air at 160, you can get a second degree burn in 60 seconds or less. Of course I had pants on so I wasn't exposed to anything that severe. But it left me with a reminder for a couple of days.
Well, the needle didn't melt just because it was 128F (26.6C). You see, on an 80 degree day, a parked car can reach as high as 110F (43.3C) in just 20 minutes and go on to reach 130 degrees F (54.4C) not to long afterward. So the needle already should have survived 128 degrees on it own. This is also why you don't leave children or animals in parked cars.
But if the air is moving through it, it doesn't get that hot. In fact, it stays about the same temp as the outside give or take. And if you perspire or are wet, it can be even cooler. So the key is air movement. You keep it moving and it won't get anywhere near as hot as an 83 GMC on a 128 degree day.
It probably wouldn't matter. If you have enough airflow, you can pull enough heat away from the systems to avoid failure. It's not like the chips and stuff run below 100 degrees F under load much anyways.
It they were liquid cooled, they probably could get away will a bit hotter ambient temps. What matters is the ability to pull excess heat away from the machines faster then it's created. In this situation you would be both heating and cooling the systems to maintain an average temp. As long as the outside air is below 140 f (60 C), most systems will do fine as long as enough volume moves across it. Cooler air need less volume and works more efficiently (sans getting it cooled in the first place) but it's really no different.
My understanding is that if they had a reason to have contact with you, they can search the immediate area for weapons for their own safety. If it goes beyond that, they need to arrest you.
and by search, I mean a pat down nad visual inspection for anything within reach of you, not going through your pockets or billfold or into your locked glove box or anything. Perhaps I used a poor choice of wording.
Does the words unreasonable in that amendment mean anything? If not, then why. If so, then please explain how it's now relevant.
I always believed that Unreasonable was an adjective meaning the lacking of soundness of reasoning: Not guided by or based on good sense: or beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness. Am I wrong on this?
Except for the article says Detainment not arrest. You can be detained without ever being arrested. In fact, you can be walking down the street moments after a crime happened and be detained simply because you are in the area. That's not enough probably cause to arrest you, but it's enough to question you.
Just ask anyone who has been detained for driving while black through a rich neighborhood. Forget the fact that he's the Pizza deliver guy and can't find the house which is why he changed directions on the same road more then once.
Actually, I'm not sure there is a difference anyways. The court basically said that the police can rummage through the contents found on people arrested as justification for the phone searches. Interestingly, this concept seems to touch any computers on your person, your socks, a locked package, your wallet, pockets, purse, hand bag, book bag, grocery sack, as well as a phone if you get arrested.
The summery said taken into custody and not arrested. I'm not sure it could go as far for a detainment seeing how their search is only for "their protection" at that point. You have to be more then stopped and detained (terry stop) and you don't have to give them consent to search (outside what is necessary to ensure you don't have weapons or dangerous objects) if you are not under arrest.
So... in other words, you're saying everyone who watches FOX is already convinced of everything they say, so their propaganda has no effect. Oh.
No, I'm saying that everyone who is watching Fox News that is not already a cheerleader needs to be convinced in some way to think the way you think their actions make them think.
In other words, as I said before, it's either the majority of the country doesn't like Obama so much that his name being associated to any policy makes it a disliked policy or something else besides the name is at work. I doubt Obama would keep the poll numbers he has or the support that got him elected if this was the case.
I suspect this wouldn't apply to MSNBC, would it?
Yes, it would apply to MSNBC. In order for any of their slogans to have any meaning, they must convince someone of the meaning. Outside of those already convinced and of the mindset who would already be on board, it would be argument on the facts that persuaded them, not the slogan. This is also probably why you brought MSNBC up. They seem to do well at complaining about republicans (actually republican mouth pieces at Fox) but do poorly in putting an argument forth with any translatable meaning.
So what was implemented incorrectly?
I already spoke about the death panel boards that weren't supposed to be there but are for some reason. I already spoke about the requirement for everyone to buy a product from a private company or face penalties under the law. I already touched on the subject of the changes to social security and medicare involved in it. Do I need to bring up the underhanded way it was brought to vote, all the deals made in order to get it passed, or the sliding of the rules in what some argue actually violated it because it alters debt to get a vote by reconciliation. Do I need to bring up the provisions about coverage and preexisting conditions having holes in it which allows the uninsured to remain uninsured for preexisting conditions if they didn't have insurance before getting it? Or how about the limits on what they could charge people with preexisting conditions which weren't there meaning that anyone with a preexisting condition could be priced out of buying it anyways?
If you need more, perhaps you should go watch Fox News or wherever you think they are griping about it. I mean hell, even liberals I know are complaining that it didn't do enough and jacked off on what it tried to do.
Before you post crap about the law being "unconstitutional", I know about the judge from Texas who issued that opinion. Are you familiar with his arguments? [texasgopvote.com]
What the hell are you talking about? It was ruled unconstitutional by a judge in South Carolina not Texas. And the Judge you linked to was speaking about a bill that got killed, not the Obamacare that was passed. I mean that's like saying you are wacko because you called Fox News channel "a republican mouth piece" then attributing that to you stand on on MSNBC or CNN without keeping the proper context.
I hope you aren't basing your entire position on comments made by people talking about legislation that dies on the table before ever getting voted on.
Besides essentially filibustering it based on his irrelevant policy positions (he thinks it would hire too many people who are not defending the border), he finds the law unconstitutional because it provides health care to illegal aliens.
Um... Please show me there he said unconstitutional in that link. He says he is apposed to it. I can't even search and find the words unconstitutional. And the only instance of the word constitution or variant of I can find is on the links to the other articles posted on the sides of the page. Perhaps you are mistaken again.
But even that is besides the point of your posting. J
The point was that it could only work negatively if and only if associating anything with Obama was a negative.
Now it doesn't matter who started it, or who uses it. That's because they would only be preaching to the quire (who already rejected it) when using it except when explaining something to others which is where "I love the concept but not the implementation" comes into play. The entire negative association assigned to it would be fact based on anyone that wouldn't already outright reject it.
So unless you are going claim that the majority of Americans are republican drones that would automatically dislike something because of an association to Obama, then you are going to have to realize that people saw what was passed and didn't like it even though they liked the idea.
Tsk tsk- dragging our goodhearted policy discussion down into the sewer with Nazi nonsense, eh? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
Actually, it wasn't dragging it down. It was aside note as in Do you get it now. Dragging it down would pretty much require using the nazis to compare someone or to show that something is evil. I didn't come close to that. I showed that people wanted X, but didn't like the way it was implemented to achieve X.
Before leaving I'll point out once more: "Obamacare" is a partisan propaganda label designed and successfully used to craft opinion and twist poll results. Really not hard to understand- "the name has nothing to do with it" only in your little fantasy world.
If you think placing Obama in front of Obama's policy is so bad that it would influence polls and the way people think about policy, you are saying more about Obama's good name then any republican could. Seriously, you are validating the idea that just associating Obama with a policy is enough to transfer some disdain held toward the guy to that policy.
I don't believe that to be the case. I believe it's more like the politicians and you can't get it through your heads that while we like a concept, we might not like the way it's put into practice. And no, there isn't only one way. Forcing everyone to get health insurance is like saying "you don't want them robbing you, well, I'm the government and I'm here to help, Your only choice is to let me rob you first by forcing you to give them payment so they don't get your money under by other means later". Aren't ya happy we have the government working for us.......
I already have a similar patent. Perhaps you lawyer should contact mine and I will work out a licensing deal for you to cover the parts you are infringing on.
Wouldn't that be the outright dumbest thing in the world. Needing to get a patent license just to patent a stupid Idea?
Perhaps this is the entire problem and the guy is slamming the wrong company which is why they want to sue for slander?
Nah, it's probably more like the one site is within the same legal jurisdiction and didn't want to be sued in the process too. So they changed the name to protect the innocent- namely themselves.
Congress would just confiscate it and pay the guy $10 or so each time it's used as a fair market value, turn around and pass the fee onto the people when they file.
Patents are one of congress's constitutional duties. They can do about anything that doesn't violate the constitution to maintain the ability to fulfill that duty however they wanted.
No I googled it allright and found it was only mentioned by questionable news sources. No I do not think "New Jersey Newsroom" is a credible source. Your LA Times link doesn't mentinon Obama at all.
Yea, actually, I like the ring of Is your google finger broke which is why I left it in there. I first heard of this on the 6 O'clock news (CBS) a year or so ago. I was surprised to find that I couldn't even find a reference to that which why I went the long way around of saying it's interesting that no one else is talking about it. But then I remembered the entire journolist thing (which again was mentioned in the local CBS news),and had to wonder if there wasn't a more important reason for this.
I Know I saw it on the CBS news because I got rid of cable about 5 years ago and only do over the air TV and only watch the CBS news in the evening when I watch the news. I know I saw it on the news which is why I thought it was common knowledge.
Anyway. I haven't seen any evidence for this Bill Ayers theory here apart from one conservative blogger who says she met him in a coffee shop at an airport. Hardly compelling. So while he may have had help ranging from a good editor to a team of ghost writers, I don't suppose we'll ever know.
Supposedly, Thomas Libscom or someone like that who was the founder of the publishing company Obama had to resort to after defaulting on another company, said it was ghostwritten and people have linked the styles to that of Ayers. I don't know it was Ayers which is why I said likely.
Well YMMV but I think he's pretty much between a rock and a hard place.
Your probably right but if he's worth half the salt people give him credit for, he would be chipping away the rock and selling the slag as limestone to pave driveways with. What I see him doing instead is ignoring congress on some things, makeing them do stuff when he can't and accepting less then what he wanted for the effort. This should be alarming not because it's happening, but because when it happened with Bush, it was "because he was an idiot" but the opposite is claimed about Obama which shows that it's not only intentional, but there is more lip-service being thrown around to get people to see it one way when it's really another. It's intentional misdirection.
Every DUI checkpoint I have seen only asks for people to blow or take a drug alcohol screening whether it's by machine or by field sobriety test, if and only if, they shows signs of being under the influence of any drug or alcohol. The reason the judge is on site is because the evidence of this currently illegal behavior is volatile and will expire over a period of time.
If a judge is there, and a cop has a reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol while operating a motor vehicle, the only thing different will be the amount of time it takes to get a warrant and collect the evidence if you refuse to take a test. Nothing at all, you won't be forced to take any tests if the normal warrant requirements aren't already met and probable cause isn't there. This is no different then any other situation you might encounter the law in except for the hours and time involved.
I don't like the DUI checkpoints so please don't construe this as me supporting them or anything. It's just being blown way out of portion and it shouldn't be. You cannot be forced to take a alcohol or drug test because you simply drove through one of these checkpoints. There has to be probable cause that you are violating the law to make the stop meaningful outside of you drove through a point in place. The fact that they are allowed to do a meet and greet which gives them cause to check your papers and effects that the law says you have to provide is another story altogether. But to go beyond that, you have to show signs indicating you are breaking the law. This is why DUI checkpoints are valid and Drug search checkpoints (outside borders and their extended capacities from NAFTA) have been ruled unconstitutional and illegal.
I'm not sure I like this analogy. OK, so lets create a strawman agrument and take this to the next logical absurdity.
Let's say I want your car. If I convince someone who doesn't like you to whack you on the head, take your car and give it to me in another country which happens to not have any laws pertaining to inciting someone to carjack someone else in another country, nor does it require me to provide proof of ownership outside saying it's mine, all is well right? I mean I didn't violate any laws in my country or the country I operated in so you shouldn't be angry or look for recourse should you? I know it's illegal to do this in your country and I could probably be charged with a conspiracy in the least if it happened.
Well, a car generally has a title and registration so maybe it's not the best example. I know this is slashdot and car analogies rule but lets look in another area. Suppose he didn't take your car, he took your wallet, gave me your credit card information and ID information and I passed that onto someone else who stole your identity in yet another country. Meanwhile, you can't get a loan to buy a roll of toilet paper and are getting calls from hundreds of creditors threatening to take you to court. I'm having mules pack valuable things (legally through customs) back to me where it wasn't illegal in the first place. Are we sane yet? I mean you shouldn't have any recourse or be angry or anything at all because I have done nothing wrong in my country or the countries I operate from right? And stealing your identity is probably as close to this as it can get as it's fictional too.
But hey, it's not like someone took your kid (you can't own a person) and forced them into labor as a slave when you were on vacation in one of the countries that didn't outlaw slavery before 2007 when almost all countries finally outlawed it. I mean that wouldn't cause you or your country to get upset and look at ways to punish me would it? I mean if it's legal in my country then who gives a fuck about yours right? Your laws can't touch me and your country shouldn't be looking at ways to make it touch me should it?
Seriously, if you think the laws of one country doesn't touch the products, people, or information that come from another country, you are only inviting crap like this to happen. Assange can be charged in the US if the US wants to charge him. Getting him under their jurisdiction to make the arrest is another story, but anyone in any other country can be charged with a crime in the US as long as any component of the crime touches the US sufficiently to gain personal jurisdiction. And this isn't just a US thing, it's true for about any other country in concept generally consistent with treaty and international laws. This is how the US was able to extradite and Australian man in connection to a criminal copyright complaint made by a US software manufacturer. But for now, it seems that it's more useful for the US to make threats or do encore acts of political theator and keep a fall guy around to blame policy blunders on someone other then the current government.
I brought up the public option because I was trying to figure out if your definition of Obamacare included it or not, since the ACA does not, but it was ostensibly included in Obama's "interpretations of what health care reform should have been".
I'm not really as worried about what someone thinks it should have been, I'm concerned with what was produced at their requests. This was the bill that congress produces, the president signed, and a court found unconstitutional. This was create at Obama's urging and he is the owner of it. If he doesn't want it to be called Obamacare, he should have vetoed the bill requiring more specific things to suit his notions.
If you're going to bitch about "Obamacare" which you say is "his interpretations of what health care should have been" I don't even know which of those two you're complaining about. Your intent isn't "placing a name to the version". You're really just reaching for the worst sounding name for propagandist reasons; "Obamacare" was never anything but a slur and it's a stupid term to include in a poll question unless you're purposefully trying to slant the result.
The name has nothing to do with it. It's just a label to associate what was presented at a certain time. Who cares if it was Obamacare, Bushcare, Clintoncare or whatever else you could imagine. The name isn't the point. Obamacare is simply nothing more then the health care legislation passed into law under president Obama which was initiated at his urging. If you polled people and asked if they like health care, they would probably all say yes, but without a label, you wouldn't know if they were talking about any specific piece of legislation, whether it was purposed or passed into law or even in general without regard to law, whether was the current legislation or previous, or an existing policy.
My god, it looks like you are attempting to step over the issues in order to degrade the discussion to a Yourside-Myside argument instead of addressing the merits of the problems. I'm sorry that you think attaching Obama to anything has such a negative consequence but that's really more of a sign of your interpretation of Obama then anyone else'.
And as for "regurgitated FOX bullshit".. Wake the hell up. I didn't say it was a correct perception, I said it's the perception people have. The majority of Americans have personal experiences where they saw or seen government screwed up in their perspectives I listed the famous DMV in which a simple google search would validate it. I also listed the hurdles some people have to jump through for medicare and so on. Those are all real interactions people have to put up with and give that impressions regardless of who you do not like parroting or building from it. It also doesn't matter who's bullshit it is, if the people believe it, you have to deal with it and address it before anyone will change their minds about the clusterfuck whether real or perceived. Just calling them stupid does nothing but shows you lack intelligent support for your argument.
You know, you started this thread off by saying the people are stupid and don't know what Obamacare is because it doesn't take effect for several years, they watch fox news and blah blah blah. You mentioned that when polled, they like it then don't like it. I said the law is set and people can look at it and they have and they have discusses it. I said that you can have 10 different ways or more to try and achieve the same goals and they can be different enough that the people like the intentions but not the implementations. It's like the Nazi Germany joke about Hitler getting the trains to run on time, but no one wanting to ride them anymore. Using the trains had changed so much in order to make that happen, people feared using them. You can relate that to airport security of you want, people think it's safe to fly but they hate going through the hassles to get on the planes in the first place.
Is your google finger broken or something? I mean seriously, where do you get off saying "Do something that is so easy for me to do or I'll label you as something you don't want to be labeled as". Hell, you even added the obligatory, If your source is something I don't like because of my perceived biases towards them, I will counter with a sit you should have preconceived biases with.
And while this was supposedly discussed by conservatives as shocking, it was widely reported in the news media and dismissed out of hand so I figured it would be common knowledge by now.
But hey, I'll give you credit. I didn't realize that my google finger would bring up a story on this very topic from Salon.com. Nor did I realize that most of the larger media organizations I could find stories about this at ended up just talking down the the importance of the role ghostwriting plays on a book. And articles debunking it without actually debunking it. IT even goes on to describe the dangers in the values people assign to the authors of books they support. And that was my main point, I wouldn't give him that much credit.
So i guess it is all a conservative conspiracy or something right? I mean a big conspiracy in which Obama's Publisher was in on too. Maybe it was a ploy to build sales. Maybe it was a comment reflecting the truth. It's hard to say, and we all know we can trust the news media right? I mean especially this conservative media outlet.
Anyways, whether it's true or not, it doesn't seem to be that Obama is following his manifesto in practice.
Yawn.. Well, where are we at. Is Bush Evil or just a puppet with absolutely no control.
I mean that's where this is going. He's either an evil genius or an idiot that wouldn't know if you turned the lights out in the room or not. The problem is, you can't have it both way. People say he did things, then when you point out how stupid they claim he was, they claim it was someone else who did it in his name. It just seems to me that when you need to do mental gymnastics just to keep the conspiracy alive and in context, it's probably time to stop believing in that particular conspiracy.
I think you are giving Obama too much credit. We know his first book was ghost written (most likely by Ayers according to his publisher) and there is nothing to indicate he wasn't lying about writing the second. Sure, he claims to have wrote it, but I see nothing suggesting he devised it by himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Could have been hotter.
I used one of those laser thermometer to check the temp of a seat in my car after I burned my ass through my pants sitting on it. It was only about 92 out but the seat itself was at 161F.
To put hat into perspective, you can get about a third degree burn if exposed to water at 160 for 1 second and if exposed to air at 160, you can get a second degree burn in 60 seconds or less. Of course I had pants on so I wasn't exposed to anything that severe. But it left me with a reminder for a couple of days.
It may be. I just knew there was a cost to cooling the air in addition to circulating it.
Well, the needle didn't melt just because it was 128F (26.6C). You see, on an 80 degree day, a parked car can reach as high as 110F (43.3C) in just 20 minutes and go on to reach 130 degrees F (54.4C) not to long afterward. So the needle already should have survived 128 degrees on it own. This is also why you don't leave children or animals in parked cars.
But if the air is moving through it, it doesn't get that hot. In fact, it stays about the same temp as the outside give or take. And if you perspire or are wet, it can be even cooler. So the key is air movement. You keep it moving and it won't get anywhere near as hot as an 83 GMC on a 128 degree day.
It probably wouldn't matter. If you have enough airflow, you can pull enough heat away from the systems to avoid failure. It's not like the chips and stuff run below 100 degrees F under load much anyways.
It they were liquid cooled, they probably could get away will a bit hotter ambient temps. What matters is the ability to pull excess heat away from the machines faster then it's created. In this situation you would be both heating and cooling the systems to maintain an average temp. As long as the outside air is below 140 f (60 C), most systems will do fine as long as enough volume moves across it. Cooler air need less volume and works more efficiently (sans getting it cooled in the first place) but it's really no different.
It didn't work because it's Pseudo science./
My understanding is that if they had a reason to have contact with you, they can search the immediate area for weapons for their own safety. If it goes beyond that, they need to arrest you.
and by search, I mean a pat down nad visual inspection for anything within reach of you, not going through your pockets or billfold or into your locked glove box or anything. Perhaps I used a poor choice of wording.
Does the words unreasonable in that amendment mean anything? If not, then why. If so, then please explain how it's now relevant.
I always believed that Unreasonable was an adjective meaning the lacking of soundness of reasoning: Not guided by or based on good sense: or beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness. Am I wrong on this?
Except for the article says Detainment not arrest. You can be detained without ever being arrested. In fact, you can be walking down the street moments after a crime happened and be detained simply because you are in the area. That's not enough probably cause to arrest you, but it's enough to question you.
Just ask anyone who has been detained for driving while black through a rich neighborhood. Forget the fact that he's the Pizza deliver guy and can't find the house which is why he changed directions on the same road more then once.
Actually, I'm not sure there is a difference anyways. The court basically said that the police can rummage through the contents found on people arrested as justification for the phone searches. Interestingly, this concept seems to touch any computers on your person, your socks, a locked package, your wallet, pockets, purse, hand bag, book bag, grocery sack, as well as a phone if you get arrested.
The summery said taken into custody and not arrested. I'm not sure it could go as far for a detainment seeing how their search is only for "their protection" at that point. You have to be more then stopped and detained (terry stop) and you don't have to give them consent to search (outside what is necessary to ensure you don't have weapons or dangerous objects) if you are not under arrest.
No, I'm saying that everyone who is watching Fox News that is not already a cheerleader needs to be convinced in some way to think the way you think their actions make them think.
In other words, as I said before, it's either the majority of the country doesn't like Obama so much that his name being associated to any policy makes it a disliked policy or something else besides the name is at work. I doubt Obama would keep the poll numbers he has or the support that got him elected if this was the case.
Yes, it would apply to MSNBC. In order for any of their slogans to have any meaning, they must convince someone of the meaning. Outside of those already convinced and of the mindset who would already be on board, it would be argument on the facts that persuaded them, not the slogan. This is also probably why you brought MSNBC up. They seem to do well at complaining about republicans (actually republican mouth pieces at Fox) but do poorly in putting an argument forth with any translatable meaning.
I already spoke about the death panel boards that weren't supposed to be there but are for some reason. I already spoke about the requirement for everyone to buy a product from a private company or face penalties under the law. I already touched on the subject of the changes to social security and medicare involved in it. Do I need to bring up the underhanded way it was brought to vote, all the deals made in order to get it passed, or the sliding of the rules in what some argue actually violated it because it alters debt to get a vote by reconciliation. Do I need to bring up the provisions about coverage and preexisting conditions having holes in it which allows the uninsured to remain uninsured for preexisting conditions if they didn't have insurance before getting it? Or how about the limits on what they could charge people with preexisting conditions which weren't there meaning that anyone with a preexisting condition could be priced out of buying it anyways?
If you need more, perhaps you should go watch Fox News or wherever you think they are griping about it. I mean hell, even liberals I know are complaining that it didn't do enough and jacked off on what it tried to do.
What the hell are you talking about? It was ruled unconstitutional by a judge in South Carolina not Texas. And the Judge you linked to was speaking about a bill that got killed, not the Obamacare that was passed. I mean that's like saying you are wacko because you called Fox News channel "a republican mouth piece" then attributing that to you stand on on MSNBC or CNN without keeping the proper context.
I hope you aren't basing your entire position on comments made by people talking about legislation that dies on the table before ever getting voted on.
Um... Please show me there he said unconstitutional in that link. He says he is apposed to it. I can't even search and find the words unconstitutional. And the only instance of the word constitution or variant of I can find is on the links to the other articles posted on the sides of the page. Perhaps you are mistaken again.
But even that is besides the point of your posting. J
Lol..
The point was that it could only work negatively if and only if associating anything with Obama was a negative.
Now it doesn't matter who started it, or who uses it. That's because they would only be preaching to the quire (who already rejected it) when using it except when explaining something to others which is where "I love the concept but not the implementation" comes into play. The entire negative association assigned to it would be fact based on anyone that wouldn't already outright reject it.
So unless you are going claim that the majority of Americans are republican drones that would automatically dislike something because of an association to Obama, then you are going to have to realize that people saw what was passed and didn't like it even though they liked the idea.
Please, Stop missing the forest for the trees.
Actually, it wasn't dragging it down. It was aside note as in Do you get it now. Dragging it down would pretty much require using the nazis to compare someone or to show that something is evil. I didn't come close to that. I showed that people wanted X, but didn't like the way it was implemented to achieve X.
If you think placing Obama in front of Obama's policy is so bad that it would influence polls and the way people think about policy, you are saying more about Obama's good name then any republican could. Seriously, you are validating the idea that just associating Obama with a policy is enough to transfer some disdain held toward the guy to that policy.
I don't believe that to be the case. I believe it's more like the politicians and you can't get it through your heads that while we like a concept, we might not like the way it's put into practice. And no, there isn't only one way. Forcing everyone to get health insurance is like saying "you don't want them robbing you, well, I'm the government and I'm here to help, Your only choice is to let me rob you first by forcing you to give them payment so they don't get your money under by other means later". Aren't ya happy we have the government working for us.......
I already have a similar patent. Perhaps you lawyer should contact mine and I will work out a licensing deal for you to cover the parts you are infringing on.
Wouldn't that be the outright dumbest thing in the world. Needing to get a patent license just to patent a stupid Idea?
Perhaps this is the entire problem and the guy is slamming the wrong company which is why they want to sue for slander?
Nah, it's probably more like the one site is within the same legal jurisdiction and didn't want to be sued in the process too. So they changed the name to protect the innocent- namely themselves.
Scary indeed..
I just want to know what this means for all the celebrity porn sites?
Congress would just confiscate it and pay the guy $10 or so each time it's used as a fair market value, turn around and pass the fee onto the people when they file.
Patents are one of congress's constitutional duties. They can do about anything that doesn't violate the constitution to maintain the ability to fulfill that duty however they wanted.
The president has very little power on domestic issues. Do you think he is a king or something?
Yea, actually, I like the ring of Is your google finger broke which is why I left it in there. I first heard of this on the 6 O'clock news (CBS) a year or so ago. I was surprised to find that I couldn't even find a reference to that which why I went the long way around of saying it's interesting that no one else is talking about it. But then I remembered the entire journolist thing (which again was mentioned in the local CBS news),and had to wonder if there wasn't a more important reason for this.
I Know I saw it on the CBS news because I got rid of cable about 5 years ago and only do over the air TV and only watch the CBS news in the evening when I watch the news. I know I saw it on the news which is why I thought it was common knowledge.
Supposedly, Thomas Libscom or someone like that who was the founder of the publishing company Obama had to resort to after defaulting on another company, said it was ghostwritten and people have linked the styles to that of Ayers. I don't know it was Ayers which is why I said likely.
Your probably right but if he's worth half the salt people give him credit for, he would be chipping away the rock and selling the slag as limestone to pave driveways with. What I see him doing instead is ignoring congress on some things, makeing them do stuff when he can't and accepting less then what he wanted for the effort. This should be alarming not because it's happening, but because when it happened with Bush, it was "because he was an idiot" but the opposite is claimed about Obama which shows that it's not only intentional, but there is more lip-service being thrown around to get people to see it one way when it's really another. It's intentional misdirection.
Actually, no it's not.
Every DUI checkpoint I have seen only asks for people to blow or take a drug alcohol screening whether it's by machine or by field sobriety test, if and only if, they shows signs of being under the influence of any drug or alcohol. The reason the judge is on site is because the evidence of this currently illegal behavior is volatile and will expire over a period of time.
If a judge is there, and a cop has a reasonable suspicion that you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol while operating a motor vehicle, the only thing different will be the amount of time it takes to get a warrant and collect the evidence if you refuse to take a test. Nothing at all, you won't be forced to take any tests if the normal warrant requirements aren't already met and probable cause isn't there. This is no different then any other situation you might encounter the law in except for the hours and time involved.
I don't like the DUI checkpoints so please don't construe this as me supporting them or anything. It's just being blown way out of portion and it shouldn't be. You cannot be forced to take a alcohol or drug test because you simply drove through one of these checkpoints. There has to be probable cause that you are violating the law to make the stop meaningful outside of you drove through a point in place. The fact that they are allowed to do a meet and greet which gives them cause to check your papers and effects that the law says you have to provide is another story altogether. But to go beyond that, you have to show signs indicating you are breaking the law. This is why DUI checkpoints are valid and Drug search checkpoints (outside borders and their extended capacities from NAFTA) have been ruled unconstitutional and illegal.
I'm not sure I like this analogy. OK, so lets create a strawman agrument and take this to the next logical absurdity.
Let's say I want your car. If I convince someone who doesn't like you to whack you on the head, take your car and give it to me in another country which happens to not have any laws pertaining to inciting someone to carjack someone else in another country, nor does it require me to provide proof of ownership outside saying it's mine, all is well right? I mean I didn't violate any laws in my country or the country I operated in so you shouldn't be angry or look for recourse should you? I know it's illegal to do this in your country and I could probably be charged with a conspiracy in the least if it happened.
Well, a car generally has a title and registration so maybe it's not the best example. I know this is slashdot and car analogies rule but lets look in another area. Suppose he didn't take your car, he took your wallet, gave me your credit card information and ID information and I passed that onto someone else who stole your identity in yet another country. Meanwhile, you can't get a loan to buy a roll of toilet paper and are getting calls from hundreds of creditors threatening to take you to court. I'm having mules pack valuable things (legally through customs) back to me where it wasn't illegal in the first place. Are we sane yet? I mean you shouldn't have any recourse or be angry or anything at all because I have done nothing wrong in my country or the countries I operate from right? And stealing your identity is probably as close to this as it can get as it's fictional too.
But hey, it's not like someone took your kid (you can't own a person) and forced them into labor as a slave when you were on vacation in one of the countries that didn't outlaw slavery before 2007 when almost all countries finally outlawed it. I mean that wouldn't cause you or your country to get upset and look at ways to punish me would it? I mean if it's legal in my country then who gives a fuck about yours right? Your laws can't touch me and your country shouldn't be looking at ways to make it touch me should it?
Seriously, if you think the laws of one country doesn't touch the products, people, or information that come from another country, you are only inviting crap like this to happen. Assange can be charged in the US if the US wants to charge him. Getting him under their jurisdiction to make the arrest is another story, but anyone in any other country can be charged with a crime in the US as long as any component of the crime touches the US sufficiently to gain personal jurisdiction. And this isn't just a US thing, it's true for about any other country in concept generally consistent with treaty and international laws. This is how the US was able to extradite and Australian man in connection to a criminal copyright complaint made by a US software manufacturer. But for now, it seems that it's more useful for the US to make threats or do encore acts of political theator and keep a fall guy around to blame policy blunders on someone other then the current government.
I'm not really as worried about what someone thinks it should have been, I'm concerned with what was produced at their requests. This was the bill that congress produces, the president signed, and a court found unconstitutional. This was create at Obama's urging and he is the owner of it. If he doesn't want it to be called Obamacare, he should have vetoed the bill requiring more specific things to suit his notions.
The name has nothing to do with it. It's just a label to associate what was presented at a certain time. Who cares if it was Obamacare, Bushcare, Clintoncare or whatever else you could imagine. The name isn't the point. Obamacare is simply nothing more then the health care legislation passed into law under president Obama which was initiated at his urging. If you polled people and asked if they like health care, they would probably all say yes, but without a label, you wouldn't know if they were talking about any specific piece of legislation, whether it was purposed or passed into law or even in general without regard to law, whether was the current legislation or previous, or an existing policy.
My god, it looks like you are attempting to step over the issues in order to degrade the discussion to a Yourside-Myside argument instead of addressing the merits of the problems. I'm sorry that you think attaching Obama to anything has such a negative consequence but that's really more of a sign of your interpretation of Obama then anyone else'.
And as for "regurgitated FOX bullshit".. Wake the hell up. I didn't say it was a correct perception, I said it's the perception people have. The majority of Americans have personal experiences where they saw or seen government screwed up in their perspectives I listed the famous DMV in which a simple google search would validate it. I also listed the hurdles some people have to jump through for medicare and so on. Those are all real interactions people have to put up with and give that impressions regardless of who you do not like parroting or building from it. It also doesn't matter who's bullshit it is, if the people believe it, you have to deal with it and address it before anyone will change their minds about the clusterfuck whether real or perceived. Just calling them stupid does nothing but shows you lack intelligent support for your argument.
You know, you started this thread off by saying the people are stupid and don't know what Obamacare is because it doesn't take effect for several years, they watch fox news and blah blah blah. You mentioned that when polled, they like it then don't like it. I said the law is set and people can look at it and they have and they have discusses it. I said that you can have 10 different ways or more to try and achieve the same goals and they can be different enough that the people like the intentions but not the implementations. It's like the Nazi Germany joke about Hitler getting the trains to run on time, but no one wanting to ride them anymore. Using the trains had changed so much in order to make that happen, people feared using them. You can relate that to airport security of you want, people think it's safe to fly but they hate going through the hassles to get on the planes in the first place.
If
Is your google finger broken or something? I mean seriously, where do you get off saying "Do something that is so easy for me to do or I'll label you as something you don't want to be labeled as". Hell, you even added the obligatory, If your source is something I don't like because of my perceived biases towards them, I will counter with a sit you should have preconceived biases with.
And while this was supposedly discussed by conservatives as shocking, it was widely reported in the news media and dismissed out of hand so I figured it would be common knowledge by now.
But hey, I'll give you credit. I didn't realize that my google finger would bring up a story on this very topic from Salon.com. Nor did I realize that most of the larger media organizations I could find stories about this at ended up just talking down the the importance of the role ghostwriting plays on a book. And articles debunking it without actually debunking it. IT even goes on to describe the dangers in the values people assign to the authors of books they support. And that was my main point, I wouldn't give him that much credit.
So i guess it is all a conservative conspiracy or something right? I mean a big conspiracy in which Obama's Publisher was in on too. Maybe it was a ploy to build sales. Maybe it was a comment reflecting the truth. It's hard to say, and we all know we can trust the news media right? I mean especially this conservative media outlet.
Anyways, whether it's true or not, it doesn't seem to be that Obama is following his manifesto in practice.
Yawn.. Well, where are we at. Is Bush Evil or just a puppet with absolutely no control.
I mean that's where this is going. He's either an evil genius or an idiot that wouldn't know if you turned the lights out in the room or not. The problem is, you can't have it both way. People say he did things, then when you point out how stupid they claim he was, they claim it was someone else who did it in his name. It just seems to me that when you need to do mental gymnastics just to keep the conspiracy alive and in context, it's probably time to stop believing in that particular conspiracy.
I think you are giving Obama too much credit. We know his first book was ghost written (most likely by Ayers according to his publisher) and there is nothing to indicate he wasn't lying about writing the second. Sure, he claims to have wrote it, but I see nothing suggesting he devised it by himself.