A modification to the law that such 'heat bulbs' cannot emit light would probably be the next step to prevent wasted energy (i.e. people still using them for lighting).
I don't think that would be possible seeing how heat and light are essentially the same thing except one can be visible while the other usually isn't. Probably what would happen is that the law gets changed to require a special socket for the heat bulbs and then it would be up to zoning code and consumer safety laws to ensure those socket devices do not go into houses and traditional lamps.
(1) None of our business. The US government's job is to police THIS continent, not the Asian continent 10,000 miles outside its jurisdiction. THAT job belongs to the government of Afghnistan and Pakistan, respectively.
So you don't think it's a country's business to remove a government of another country that protects and encourages groups of people killing your own citizens? And BTW, the Afghanistan war started because Afghanistan was refusing to police their own country and gave Al Qeada safe harbor from the US who was pursuing them. I suggest you look up the term sovereignty and sovereign rights.
Judging from your ID number, you were probably 10 years old when that happened and more interested in teletubbies then geopolitical politics. Judging from your reply, you still are.
(2) Only ~3000 Americans were killed by the "enemy" known as Bin Laden. In contrast the US Terror Soldiers have killed ten times that number, almost all innocent men/women/children, plus 1000 american deaths.
And your point is what? I mean according to the UN, the taliban and the terrorist supporters of it have killed 2 or 3 times more in attempting top preserve their right to keep, train, and provide safety to terrorists and terrorist organizations. You should look up the term terrorist too and figure out the relationship between terror and terrorist. That way, when you use terms like Terror soldier, you understand that it doesn't have the same meaning as you are pretending it has.
(3)(a) It would have been wiser to not go to war. Then we'd have 3000 dead not ~35,000.
We would also have Al Qeada operating in the open in Afghanistan with the taliban government protecting them from criminal prosecution over anything that stems from either world trade center bombing or any other terrorist act they committed. They would be free to plan and act on any terrorist plot they choose. Do you seriously think that is acceptable? And no, there is no guarentee that we would only have 3000 dead instead of ~35000, you have no idea what their next terrorist plot would be or how many people it would kill.
(3)(b) We'd also have 1100 billion more dollars in the US treasury which could be used for, oh I don't, SAVING lives (medicare/schip) rather than ending them.
Bullshit. First of all, the war/ actually both wars was funded with deficit spending which means it didn't exist in the first place. Second, if the wars didn't happen, the money wouldn't magically appear out of nowhere. Third, if you think the money could be spent better some other way, nothing is stopping it from being spent that way seeing how it would be deficit spending too. Yes, that means they can just as easily spend money we don't have on that as they can on a war. The only difference is that the majority of people support spending it on the war and almost noone supports spending it how you want to. So even if we had the money, chances are, it wouldn't even be spent the way you want so your gripe is a failure before it even starts.
You really haven't been paying attention have you? The imposed democracy was only to allow the people of Afghanistan to select and create the government of their choice. Democracy works that way, you know. But you have to impose democracy before the people have a choice of thier own otherwise they wouldn't have a choice. Try looking up democracy and paying attention a bit.
it would appear too many of the people don't like our choice of government for them.
Then they can democratically change it into anything they want as long as the Taliban of some other terrorist harboring organization doesn't take back over. That is how a democracy works isn't it?
Al Qaeda and the Taliban that hosted them fled long ago. we are not fighting them with our soldiers. We are fighting insurgents.
So just because Al Capone went to prison, we should ignore the same acts by the rest of his organization under a new leadership? I mean seriously, are you saying that because the people in the dictatorship aren't there right now, those fighting to bring them back are just and we are now unjust?
Nor are we fighting the Saudi government (friends of the Bush family) who for years contributed money to Al Qaeda.
And what is your point? They handed over every single terrorist involved in 9/11 that they had control over. Afghanistan didn't. And yes, we gave Afghanistan, thereby the taliban shit loads of money before 9/11 too. What is your point outside of proving to the world that you are willing to focus on the small shit and ignore the big shit?
This war is without purpose, and is only creating new enemies.
If after all that, you cannot find a purpose for this war, then you should probably stay out of talks concerning it. You have showed your complete ignorance multiple times but this really takes the cake.
That's entirely different then what you said previously when I replied.
Our soldiers are not fighting those who attacked america. but rather every disgruntled afghan. disgusted with foreign invaders, who takes up a rifle is being labeled as "Taliban". We create new enemies and kill them along with civilian bystanders and claim it is part of the "war on terror".
So we should just leave Afghanistan and allow it to fall back into the hands of the regime that allowed terrorists to set up operations, plan and attack against the US, execute the attack against the US, and then proceed to protect those terrorists? Is that what you want? Or have you just not thought this through yet? Perhaps you are completely confused to why we are in Afghanistan in the first place.
Funny your first linked article talks about NATO forces mowing down citizens as part of the death toll. funny like a heart attack. maybe you should have read it before linking.
Oh, I see know. You have a severe reading comprehension skills problem. The article didn't say shit about NATO forces mowing down citizens, it said there was a violent rally of about 2000 afghans and someone opened fired. It said the NATO forced claimed to have only shot at an insurgent sniper and some guy was claiming his kid got killed. BTW, it didn't list the total death or casualty toll in that incident which I presume was minor compared to the others they did list as a direct result of Taliban targeting civilians.
You also used the phrase "imposing democracy". yes indeed, not by those people's choice but us ramming our murderous justice and way and approved leaders down their throats by use of force and mayhem.
Lol.. Yea, you know nothing don't you. We removed their government, and imposed democracy so the people can choose their new government. What do you want us to do? Impose a dictatorship? This is the only fair way because it allows the people of Afghanistan to choose their own government. Whether it remains a democracy or turns into a dictatorship or anything in between is up to them, we just made sure they had the choice. BTW, allowing the government that gave safe harbor to known terrorist who launched and attack on America and operated freely within the country was not an option. Or do you think it should be?
Instead of a known enemy, we are fighting those who did not attack us, and creating new enemies. Our elite line their pockets with wealth and gain power from this fight. That's all this "war" is about.
And your point is what? When those same people will not allow you to go after your known enemy and gives them safe harbor, it would appear that they choose to align themselves with that known enemy. I'm not sure I can understand what you point is here. Please expand on it a bit.
But enough americans believe the lie, such as you, that this is somehow about bringing democracy, fighting terrorism, ensuring our freedom...blah, blah,blah.
It sounds to me like you don't even have a clue to why we invaded Afghanistan in the first place. I know the cause got lost in all the political one liners in which people through about in attempts to further their own political careers, but could you at least familiarize yourself with the real ones before attempting to comment on them. You will find that it's much deeper then ensuring freedom or simply fighting terrorism when you can't even associate the cause with the fight. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you are not even qualified to say Afghanistan at this point, let alone talk about the war there right now.
Actually, we didn't procure information about Iraq and YellowCake. It was given to us by the government of Spain who in turn got it from someone else. That someone else seems to be retired CIA officers attempting to make Bush look bad.
And no, it wouldn't be helpful to know anything about Manuel Noriegas until after he committed a crime. Just like it wouldn't be helpful to know that you are working for some government office unless you commit some crime which makes it news worthy. And even if we did know everything about every one, all it would do is make them a target until such time they did do something wrong. It's not like you can preemptively arrest and convict someone for some future crime. It's not like you can arrest and convict someone to something that happens outside the relationship with the government. What good would it have really done to have known about our connections with Manuel Noriegas before he turned? All that it might have done was got him killed, but that does nothing to suggest the events you complained about wouldn't have happened anyways.
What's ludicrous is the apparent self promotion of the book.
So let's look at it from another perspective, perhaps the authors perspective. He wrote a book, submitted it to his CO instead of the pentagon for review. Ok honest mistake. The pentagon wanted some things removes, he was fine with that but printing had already started. So the government buys the first run of the print so no one is out any money and this guy isn't facing jail time for disclosing national security information or top secrete information. Along comes his publicists and says we need to spend X money to promote the book or else it won't sell that much. The publicists then says, we can save some of that money if you claim you are being censored unfairly and object to everything the government removed even though you are ok with it all.
So the author does an about face, goes all over national Television claiming he was wronged and the government spending a crap load of money to buy the first run of books is proof. He then adopts the claim that what the government removed was insignificant to the content of the book so buy it, it's still good. Hell, I bet you will buy the book just to see if you can tell what was removed from it.
It's nothing but a win-win for the author and his change of heart can be summed up as not letting a disaster go to waste. He benefited from writing the book, from getting it cleared the wrong way, from making the appropriate changes, and now he is benefiting from complaining about it.
What is so hard to understand that it's illegal to divulge national security secretes? The publisher and all connected with printing the book once they knew the information was blocked by national security classifications would be all facing jail time if they went ahead and published it.
But this isn't even that difficult of a situation. The author needed to get the contents of the book cleared before he could publish it, they cleared it then changed their mind stating that they missed something, the publisher already started a run, so the writer and the government want the book changed in order to not divulge national security interests. It's not a difficult concept, I haven't heard of the author claiming he is being censored to his detriment, the only gripe here is that government money is being spent on buying up the first run of books.
So I guess the bigger question might be, why wouldn't they redact it. Why they are is pretty well known, unless you know of something that would make the people involved (not your fantasy life), claim they don't want to redact it, then tell us.
So are you saying that if more American soldiers ended up dieing, all would be fine according to you?
Here is how preposterous your comment is. American soldiers are fighting a known enemy who kills more innocent civilians and children then the American soldier even thought to. Last year alone, it was more then 2/3rds the civilian collateral casualty rates. In fact, the argument could be made since democracy was imposed in the area, that if the forces of the Taliban and terrorists organizations would stop killing innocent civilians and participate in the democratically elected government for whatever change they wish to impose, that our soldiers wouldn't be killing anyone.
Giving this information out could do little to stop any so called mass murder by our soldiers and directly cause an increase in murder and civilian deaths by the Taliban and it's allies. You shouldn't let your ideology blind you from the facts. Otherwise you will only be pretending to be righteous when you are in fact no worse then who you accuse.
The last CD I purchased that had "hacker tools" on it had roughly 5,000 virus/Trojans on it also. They were in a compresses folder with an explanation of how they work, how to control them and so on. Never did my AV hit on one of the tools itself outside of generic back door/scanner warnings that most all IT software like VNC or IPScanner gets from AVs.
I guess it might depend on where the CD was purchased and who it was purchased from. The one I got was more or less an informational tool designed to learn from but it had all the relevant scripts and attacks/scanners and so on available within the year of when it was produced. It could easily be used to do more then learning from it, but it wasn't anything that couldn't already be found in the interweb with a little looking.
By refusing to pay they are essentially implying that the claimant has committed insurance fraud and filed a fraudulent claim. That is a felony in nearly any jurisdiction. So they should put their money where their mouth is on this one and sue her accordingly or at least counter sue her immediately after she filed a lawsuit.
The government would have to file charges on her if it's a felony. The insurance company could only have standing for a civil suit over the felony if they can show they were injured in the act which is what refusing to pay is stopping. Well, that is unless the law specifically allows them to sue without injury which I'm not aware of any laws doing that for stuff like this.
So in reality, it's sort of a catch 22 for what your thinking off. They would have to lose their case that was brought against them for not paying in order to be injured, but if they lose that, then they couldn't prove they were injured since a court showed it was a valid claim and they had to pay.
When the defendant is a large company with lots of money at stake, then it's possible they hired private investigators to prove the charges against them false or to inject enough reasonable doubt in order to lesson the monetary effects involved with them.
Imagine this scenario for instance. Suppose you are suing me for the same situation. Now, I call your neighbor and ask them for a work reference claiming you listed them on an application a while back. I ask seemingly work related questions that they will presumably answer in a way that would promote you (unless they don't like you). So I ask if you are a good worker, if you would be able to lift 50-70 pounds on a regular basis. I ask if you whatever ending with, if you were me, would you hire this person for this job. And I would describe the job as one that wouldn't be capable if the accusations of injury were true. Now, I don't stop with your neighbor, I go through all the references on your last job, have the detectives do some associations and check out other friends, search the internet for your myspace or face book pages, search friends, look for other people that seem to have you listed as a friend, then I attempt to paint a picture that all the people I pretended to interview as a job reference, and the majority of online references showed your claim was frivolous or lacking.
Now here is the catch, your expectation of privacy does not outweigh a defendant getting a fair trial. In short, you will have to give up some privacy in order to pursuit your case against someone. This is known as discovery in which you give all information pertinent to the case to the defendant/other-side. But if the court or the defendant think other information is pertinent, or that information is likely to exist that would have some bearing on the case, then they can order or get the information ordered to be disclosed. And this is all part of loss of the expectation of privacy when you bring a case against someone. About the only way you can avoid it is to drop the case and hope they don't counter sue and bring it up.
Not to side with your "idiot" comment or anything, but this happened to me too. It wasn't a spare IP, but similar enough to say the same. It was service with Verizon, I came home one night to find the internet not working and a message on my answering machine saying Verizon needed me to call them about my internet service. I started calling and they said I had three take down complaints filed against me for copyright violations. After claiming it didn't happen, they said they emailed the detailed and I had to check a site out to view the complaints. I sometimes take client PCs home to work on and thought maybe it was one of those infested things that did it.
Once the service was activated again, I went to check the complaints and it turns out that 3 complaints were files against an IP address that wasn't even close to mine, all within 3-5 seconds of each other over a star trek movie. Once I pointed that out, they claimed to have removed the reference to the situation from my service record completely.
However, it's BS like this that will cause people to be unfairly targeted for disconnection.
Part of the problem is that filing a DMCA notice requires no concrete evidence of wrongdoing, and that the automated systems used in detecting infringement are far from perfect.
Um.. I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but filing a DMCA take down notice does require enough concrete evidence that you can easily tell if one was fraudulently filed or not. First, you have to have reason to believe the content is copyrighted and owned by you or the rights assigned to you. Now you may be working as an agent of another person who owns the copyright or rights which is the same in law. You have to know that the files are an infringement on your copyright or rights to the copyright and that the person the take down notice is filed against doesn't have rights to it either. Fair use rights do no count as rights because they are more or less legal exceptions to infringement instead of willful limits on enforcement of rights.
So, if the person making the complaint doesn't have rights to the copyright protected work, or isn't an agent of someone who does, then he is acting illegally. If the work isn't correctly identified, they aren't acting legally. Now granted, they only have to make a good faith effort to make sure the content of the take down notice is accurate, but not checking to see if the content is actually the claimed work or not wouldn't be considered a good faith effort in many circles.
But yea, I would definitely say that the requirements to identify the infringed work, identify the work that is the subject of the infringement, and to identify yourself as the copyright holder or an agent of said copyright holder is concrete evidence. Let us also not forget that you can file counter notices too and the ISP is supposed to restore the content else they can be liable for damages from it's removal.
There is one caveat that could cause the entire thing to backfire in their faces. According to the DMCA, they have to also honor the take down notice challenges and if they do not, they are not protected from liability for the disruption in services by the DMCA law. Certain things in contracts can't supersede the law either so it's possible that if they punch someone unfairly, hide behind the DMCA, and the customer ends up losing a crap load of money seeing how paying for a service they aren't receiving isn't the only damage that could be incurred. I can think of things like lost revenue, hits on reputation and so on that could be considered damages that may make them rethink this entire policy. Especially when lawsuits in areas like California seem to take phone books, open to a random page, and then select a random 10 digit phone number to describe the claimed amount of damages for reputation and so on.
Now I have personal experience with DMCA take down notices through Verizon in which they hit me with 3 of them within 2 seconds time for supposedly sharing some star trek movie when I did neither. My service was disconnected until I called in complaining that it wasn't working (surprisingly they claimed to have sent me an email- how you are supposed to check that on suspended service is beyond me) and when they turned it back on, the take down notice had a different IP address range then my service was on. What I'm getting at is, Verizon screwed up and attached the take down notice to the wrong person, disconnected the service, and made it a pain to get back on. If this company has anything similar to that problem, they might be out of service quick- especially if they have commercial customers.
You have an intriguing and valid point but because it conflicts with my ideology and imposed beliefs, I will totally ignore it on it's face, insinuate some pretty clever (at least for his IQ level)strawman points that neglect the reality of the issues, and go on to pretend that I won this argument without ever bringing a counter point up or disputing anything with merit.
Here is what is wrong with the reply.
So you're right wing and believe that freedom is about the right for the rich to be happy while the poor suffer, got it.
Whether he is a right winger or not is irrelevant. He said nothing about anything that would insinuate that only the rich should be happy. He stated that a limit of 20% is the most any government should be taxing without infringing on your freedoms. How is limiting the amount taxed only making rich people happy? Especially if government could be structured to operate on that limit and provide the needed services we have come to expect from it?
Yes, that's flamebait from my side but the way you argue suggests that you don't understand how important the services provided by taxes are.
You mean the services like funding a campaign to show African males how to wash their pecker after sex to slow the spread of aids and VD in South Africa that was funded by the US stimulus money? Here is your problem, you automagically assume that government services are important. Some are, some are simply a waste of funds. However, the efficiency of government can be vastly improved in most situations making providing many of those services less costly in the end. You seem to be totally ignoring both the reality of the situation and imposing some artificial cover to it.
bla bla bla evil gubmint bla bla bla
Ah, you're one of those guys. American I assume?
Yea, this alone probably makes you unqualified to comment on this. Lets see, you dismissed his comments without ever providing a country or showing how he was wrong, yet you seem to be ignoring everything in order to do so. Here is a hint, reality is whatever doesn't disappear when you close your eyes, I suggest you start paying attention to what it is you are commenting on and then structure your comment appropriately to it. If you do that, you won't seem like the ideological ass you come off as while pretending someone else is and you might even realize the truth of the matter which is that life and government is not strictly a left verses right issue and neither ideologies are perfect.
I imagine that since it was a write in campaign, they would have translated the words to be either Arne Anka or Donald Duck. The entire difference would have been what was actually written so unless they just wrote duck, I guess there wouldn't be much confusion.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the software to count votes had a bug in it put there by the programer who wanted to default all invalid votes to something he could reference easily instead of a no vote or fault vote registering? I mean it could have automatically listed Donald Duck as the candidate instead of having a Florida 2000 hanging chad problem.
Why wouldn't have he done that? I don't think intelligent design or creation is claiming that evolution doesn't exist at all, in fact, it would be logical that it's needed to ensure the survival of the lifeform. They are just claiming creation instead of speciation and nothing in this article suggests that the soybeans are now potatoes or something.
You are claiming that someone selling the stock is then taking that money and using it to stimulate the economy. But, they had to buy the stock in the first place. In the long term, only their profit can really be called "stimulus".
Well, tell me. If the money is sitting in an existing investment, does it create any activity on the economy? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is no. Now when you take that money out of the investment, and use it on something that causes an activity in the economy, does that cause activity? The answer to that is yes. But I never said it stimulated the economy *which is does, I said it will create jobs which is why you buying existing stocks can still create jobs. Stimulating the economy is more or less anything that causes activity in the economy.
You want to count each sale of the stock as "stimulus", but that's the fallacy of the broken window, and the same poor logic that leads the BSA to say that software piracy costs the economy hundreds of billions per year.
Lol.. Wow, am I not conveying the thought properly of are you simply that dense? Each sale is not being counted as stimulating the economy, I said each sale has the potential of stimulating the economy. The mere fact that it's an existing stock does not disqualify the action from creating jobs.
That's fine. It's a free country. If they want to bail out because they don't want to pay that's their choice. They can enjoy the good life. Moving their corporate headquarters doesn't mean much. Each executive is in charge of a section of the business. They can't work in a vacuum with each other. It's not very efficient to be away from their core business center. One might ask why workers don't move to Idaho?
Actually, with today's technology, top level management can be anywhere in the world and not be in a vacuum. But you are right, they would probably move the entire shop with them as they are in the area they are because of financial considerations. If those considerations become too hostile, moving the entire shop is the logical step.
That's where you're incorrect. In order for me to make that $100 million I need to have an infrastructure to do it. That means that I need to have roads, trains, safety, and whatever else. Government in this case enables me to make my 100K. That doesn't come for free.
I also understand that I have a role to play in civil society. With great wealth comes great responsibility. I'm acutely aware that I need contribute back. Sometimes that's higher taxes, sometimes that is charity whatever it is I have an obligation.
You know, you are being completely disingenuous here. You weren't talking about infrastructure costs before, and I wasn't negating it's costs either. As I already posted, I said "'. If in order to have a functioning society, there are costs associated, they should be bared by those participating within the society. It's not like the rich escape taxes". Of course you said you "Your second paragraph are usual conservative talking points about big government." and dismissed it completely then turn around and pretend to lecture me on what I already said.
The premise that you need to be selfish is the bedrock of those of you who complain about high taxes. I used to think it was because of efficiency of private enterprise and I used to believe it. But I've toiled in a big corporation for some time and private enterprise is not some magic bullet. Worse, the value of executives is over valued.. even big mistakes are not punished.The premise that you need to be selfish is the bedrock of those of you who complain about high taxes. I used to think it was because of efficiency of private enterprise and I used to believe it. But I've toiled in a big corporation for some time and private enterprise is not some magic bullet. Worse, the value of executives is over valued.. even big mistakes are not punished.
Actually, it would appear that you are the one being selfish here. OR should I say greedy too. It appears that you think it's ok to keep your money and go after the magical bad guy who for some unexplained (to you) reason is capable of earning more pay then you.
If it was just a matter of infrastructure, that would be one thing, but it's not just that. It's more, it's politicians buying votes and waste that shouldn't be around in a functioning government. But you should read up on something called a fiduciary responsibility which is in place by law. It means that a company has to operate in a way that will maximize share holder values to a tolerable degree.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up private enterprises though, this topic is about retaining what you earned, how you think that is some conservative talking point, and isn't worth your time. It doesn't really matter if you think Executives are over compensated as you are not the ones in charge of paying them and obviously you are not one of them. Again, I think you are being completely disingenuous.
You're making a lot of assumptions about the wealthy and why they are that way. There is no direct correlation between wealth and productivity
In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately we do not live in one of those. There is this thing called a reserve bank and loans that create artificial currency on demand based around a small amount in reserve.
Basically, the way it works is you deposit $100 into a bank, they put $20 into a reserve and loan the other $80 out to other people. They then purchase something that ends up getting deposited back into the bank. They in turn put a portion into reserve and loan it out again. what this creates is a buffer that cushions the effects of increasing or limiting amounts of actual cash in the economy at any given point in time (inflation/deflation). The end result is that you would have to burn an amount of cash in excess of the artificial amounts created by using the same money over and over again in order to have the effect you describe. That isn't likely to happen with any one lawsuit or without ruining the entire global economy.
We aren't talking about corporations. We're talking about wealthy individuals. Your CEO is not going to move to Idaho when his base of operations is currently in Washington. He might build a vacation home, but it's not likely he'll be away from the main hub of operations.
The CEO would still be liable for the income tax on all monies made in Washington State regardless of where he lives. If he moved to Idaho and commuted to Washington, he would still owe the income tax on the income earned in Washington. And yes, companies have moved their upper level management facilities to other states before because of tax benefits. This actually happened with Boeing (and I believe a subsidiary of ford motor company) in Washington a few years ago when they attempted to escape the B&O tax. Washington ended up taking them to court and winning because the B&O tax is on gross not net operations.
Your second paragraph are usual conservative talking points about big government. Those are not convincing arguments for me. You need to think about how well government functions. A well functioning government is not proportional to how large it is.
So if you make it, you earn it and it's yours is a conservative talking point that you do not buy into? Interesting- Then who does it really belong to? I mean if you earned $100k last year, is it yours or someone else'? It's your time, your effort, should it be yours or someone else'? I can't believe the basics of freedom is a conservative talking point that you won't buy into.
And you seriously think that the government will take money from the rich and give it to you? When has that ever happened in the past unless you were "defined" as poor and they wanted your vote? This has nothing to do with a well functioning government, it's entirely about the concept stated of cutting your own throat if you don't go after the rich. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, it has to do with reality. We either have freedom in this country and one of the core concepts of freedom is to be able to own things you worked for, or we don't. I find it a tad bit troubling that you somehow think that if you earn it- it's not yours, and that we should penalize the most productive people in society for the sake of penalizing them. But what is really disturbing is that you somehow think the converse of that is a conservative talking point that doesn't deserve your time or attention. I mean Wow, Just Wow!
I don't think the poor is the one that government listens to. The rich has much better access. After all, they can just go and hit a $2000 a plate fund-raiser and speak their mind. The poor? Not so much.
Hmm.. How does this really work in reality. The rich pay $2000 for a plate of food at some fund raiser and the politician has to listen to their ideas and attempt to implement them. Or, the politician simply structures the economy to benefit the already rich who paid $2000 for a $5.00 plate of food which creates a lot of people that can be "defined" as poor, throw them a bone or two in order to ensure they vote for them and get re-/elected, and pow, you have the same effect.
I didn't say the government was listening to the poor, I said you will never get more out of the government then what you put in unless you are "defined" as poor. I also said they only define you as poor if they think they can gain your vote by giving you things you didn't earn.
Right, and because of this, it's a zero-sum game, and the rest of your analysis falls apart.
How do you figure? If the stocks are already created, they aren't just sitting there being held by some magical fairy waiting on someone to acquire them with the money used to purchase them disappearing into think air. They are owned by someone, whether it's an individual, some fund, or a company or even the company the stocks are for. When you purchase that stock, you are paying someone for that stock, what they do with that money can still create jobs. If IBM owns 45% of it's outstanding stock shares and decides to open a new branch, they can sell off 15% of that to fund it. That would create jobs even though you purchased existing stock. Nothing falls apart at all and it's not a zero sum gain as you purchasing the stock makes my investment liquid which allows me to do whatever I want with it. If no one purchased the stock, then I couldn't spend it.
Only the issuer of the stock can guarantee a profit on the sale, while the rest of the sellers have to take their chances, since they had to buy it in the first place. This results in taking money out of the pockets of the construction workers you mention, since the homeowner had to choose to buy the stock instead of add on to their home.
No one said anything about profit or loss, I spoke about using assets as money by selling the stock off. You can sell the stock as a loss and still create jobs with the funds you now have access too. and when you sell the stock, someone has to purchase it, there isn't a magical fairy that takes it and gives you money. You buy stock as an investment, when you need access to that investment for other reasons, you sell out which requires someone to buy. If someone buys your shares of IBM, you can then create jobs by paying the construction workers to put an addition on your home. I'm not sure how you figure doing that would take money from the pockets of the construction workers. They wouldn't have to give any money unless it was purely voluntary or some sort of tax.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that would be possible seeing how heat and light are essentially the same thing except one can be visible while the other usually isn't. Probably what would happen is that the law gets changed to require a special socket for the heat bulbs and then it would be up to zoning code and consumer safety laws to ensure those socket devices do not go into houses and traditional lamps.
So you don't think it's a country's business to remove a government of another country that protects and encourages groups of people killing your own citizens? And BTW, the Afghanistan war started because Afghanistan was refusing to police their own country and gave Al Qeada safe harbor from the US who was pursuing them. I suggest you look up the term sovereignty and sovereign rights.
Judging from your ID number, you were probably 10 years old when that happened and more interested in teletubbies then geopolitical politics. Judging from your reply, you still are.
And your point is what? I mean according to the UN, the taliban and the terrorist supporters of it have killed 2 or 3 times more in attempting top preserve their right to keep, train, and provide safety to terrorists and terrorist organizations. You should look up the term terrorist too and figure out the relationship between terror and terrorist. That way, when you use terms like Terror soldier, you understand that it doesn't have the same meaning as you are pretending it has.
We would also have Al Qeada operating in the open in Afghanistan with the taliban government protecting them from criminal prosecution over anything that stems from either world trade center bombing or any other terrorist act they committed. They would be free to plan and act on any terrorist plot they choose. Do you seriously think that is acceptable? And no, there is no guarentee that we would only have 3000 dead instead of ~35000, you have no idea what their next terrorist plot would be or how many people it would kill.
Bullshit. First of all, the war/ actually both wars was funded with deficit spending which means it didn't exist in the first place. Second, if the wars didn't happen, the money wouldn't magically appear out of nowhere. Third, if you think the money could be spent better some other way, nothing is stopping it from being spent that way seeing how it would be deficit spending too. Yes, that means they can just as easily spend money we don't have on that as they can on a war. The only difference is that the majority of people support spending it on the war and almost noone supports spending it how you want to. So even if we had the money, chances are, it wouldn't even be spent the way you want so your gripe is a failure before it even starts.
You really haven't been paying attention have you? The imposed democracy was only to allow the people of Afghanistan to select and create the government of their choice. Democracy works that way, you know. But you have to impose democracy before the people have a choice of thier own otherwise they wouldn't have a choice. Try looking up democracy and paying attention a bit.
Then they can democratically change it into anything they want as long as the Taliban of some other terrorist harboring organization doesn't take back over. That is how a democracy works isn't it?
So just because Al Capone went to prison, we should ignore the same acts by the rest of his organization under a new leadership? I mean seriously, are you saying that because the people in the dictatorship aren't there right now, those fighting to bring them back are just and we are now unjust?
And what is your point? They handed over every single terrorist involved in 9/11 that they had control over. Afghanistan didn't. And yes, we gave Afghanistan, thereby the taliban shit loads of money before 9/11 too. What is your point outside of proving to the world that you are willing to focus on the small shit and ignore the big shit?
If after all that, you cannot find a purpose for this war, then you should probably stay out of talks concerning it. You have showed your complete ignorance multiple times but this really takes the cake.
That's entirely different then what you said previously when I replied.
So we should just leave Afghanistan and allow it to fall back into the hands of the regime that allowed terrorists to set up operations, plan and attack against the US, execute the attack against the US, and then proceed to protect those terrorists? Is that what you want? Or have you just not thought this through yet? Perhaps you are completely confused to why we are in Afghanistan in the first place.
Oh, I see know. You have a severe reading comprehension skills problem. The article didn't say shit about NATO forces mowing down citizens, it said there was a violent rally of about 2000 afghans and someone opened fired. It said the NATO forced claimed to have only shot at an insurgent sniper and some guy was claiming his kid got killed. BTW, it didn't list the total death or casualty toll in that incident which I presume was minor compared to the others they did list as a direct result of Taliban targeting civilians.
Lol.. Yea, you know nothing don't you. We removed their government, and imposed democracy so the people can choose their new government. What do you want us to do? Impose a dictatorship? This is the only fair way because it allows the people of Afghanistan to choose their own government. Whether it remains a democracy or turns into a dictatorship or anything in between is up to them, we just made sure they had the choice. BTW, allowing the government that gave safe harbor to known terrorist who launched and attack on America and operated freely within the country was not an option. Or do you think it should be?
And your point is what? When those same people will not allow you to go after your known enemy and gives them safe harbor, it would appear that they choose to align themselves with that known enemy. I'm not sure I can understand what you point is here. Please expand on it a bit.
It sounds to me like you don't even have a clue to why we invaded Afghanistan in the first place. I know the cause got lost in all the political one liners in which people through about in attempts to further their own political careers, but could you at least familiarize yourself with the real ones before attempting to comment on them. You will find that it's much deeper then ensuring freedom or simply fighting terrorism when you can't even associate the cause with the fight. In fact, I'm pretty sure that you are not even qualified to say Afghanistan at this point, let alone talk about the war there right now.
Actually, we didn't procure information about Iraq and YellowCake. It was given to us by the government of Spain who in turn got it from someone else. That someone else seems to be retired CIA officers attempting to make Bush look bad.
And no, it wouldn't be helpful to know anything about Manuel Noriegas until after he committed a crime. Just like it wouldn't be helpful to know that you are working for some government office unless you commit some crime which makes it news worthy. And even if we did know everything about every one, all it would do is make them a target until such time they did do something wrong. It's not like you can preemptively arrest and convict someone for some future crime. It's not like you can arrest and convict someone to something that happens outside the relationship with the government. What good would it have really done to have known about our connections with Manuel Noriegas before he turned? All that it might have done was got him killed, but that does nothing to suggest the events you complained about wouldn't have happened anyways.
What's ludicrous is the apparent self promotion of the book.
So let's look at it from another perspective, perhaps the authors perspective. He wrote a book, submitted it to his CO instead of the pentagon for review. Ok honest mistake. The pentagon wanted some things removes, he was fine with that but printing had already started. So the government buys the first run of the print so no one is out any money and this guy isn't facing jail time for disclosing national security information or top secrete information. Along comes his publicists and says we need to spend X money to promote the book or else it won't sell that much. The publicists then says, we can save some of that money if you claim you are being censored unfairly and object to everything the government removed even though you are ok with it all.
So the author does an about face, goes all over national Television claiming he was wronged and the government spending a crap load of money to buy the first run of books is proof. He then adopts the claim that what the government removed was insignificant to the content of the book so buy it, it's still good. Hell, I bet you will buy the book just to see if you can tell what was removed from it.
It's nothing but a win-win for the author and his change of heart can be summed up as not letting a disaster go to waste. He benefited from writing the book, from getting it cleared the wrong way, from making the appropriate changes, and now he is benefiting from complaining about it.
What is so hard to understand that it's illegal to divulge national security secretes? The publisher and all connected with printing the book once they knew the information was blocked by national security classifications would be all facing jail time if they went ahead and published it.
But this isn't even that difficult of a situation. The author needed to get the contents of the book cleared before he could publish it, they cleared it then changed their mind stating that they missed something, the publisher already started a run, so the writer and the government want the book changed in order to not divulge national security interests. It's not a difficult concept, I haven't heard of the author claiming he is being censored to his detriment, the only gripe here is that government money is being spent on buying up the first run of books.
So I guess the bigger question might be, why wouldn't they redact it. Why they are is pretty well known, unless you know of something that would make the people involved (not your fantasy life), claim they don't want to redact it, then tell us.
So are you saying that if more American soldiers ended up dieing, all would be fine according to you?
Here is how preposterous your comment is. American soldiers are fighting a known enemy who kills more innocent civilians and children then the American soldier even thought to. Last year alone, it was more then 2/3rds the civilian collateral casualty rates. In fact, the argument could be made since democracy was imposed in the area, that if the forces of the Taliban and terrorists organizations would stop killing innocent civilians and participate in the democratically elected government for whatever change they wish to impose, that our soldiers wouldn't be killing anyone.
Giving this information out could do little to stop any so called mass murder by our soldiers and directly cause an increase in murder and civilian deaths by the Taliban and it's allies. You shouldn't let your ideology blind you from the facts. Otherwise you will only be pretending to be righteous when you are in fact no worse then who you accuse.
Well, you choked it.. Right? Shouldn't be talking much at all now.
The last CD I purchased that had "hacker tools" on it had roughly 5,000 virus/Trojans on it also. They were in a compresses folder with an explanation of how they work, how to control them and so on. Never did my AV hit on one of the tools itself outside of generic back door/scanner warnings that most all IT software like VNC or IPScanner gets from AVs.
I guess it might depend on where the CD was purchased and who it was purchased from. The one I got was more or less an informational tool designed to learn from but it had all the relevant scripts and attacks/scanners and so on available within the year of when it was produced. It could easily be used to do more then learning from it, but it wasn't anything that couldn't already be found in the interweb with a little looking.
The government would have to file charges on her if it's a felony. The insurance company could only have standing for a civil suit over the felony if they can show they were injured in the act which is what refusing to pay is stopping. Well, that is unless the law specifically allows them to sue without injury which I'm not aware of any laws doing that for stuff like this.
So in reality, it's sort of a catch 22 for what your thinking off. They would have to lose their case that was brought against them for not paying in order to be injured, but if they lose that, then they couldn't prove they were injured since a court showed it was a valid claim and they had to pay.
When the defendant is a large company with lots of money at stake, then it's possible they hired private investigators to prove the charges against them false or to inject enough reasonable doubt in order to lesson the monetary effects involved with them.
Imagine this scenario for instance. Suppose you are suing me for the same situation. Now, I call your neighbor and ask them for a work reference claiming you listed them on an application a while back. I ask seemingly work related questions that they will presumably answer in a way that would promote you (unless they don't like you). So I ask if you are a good worker, if you would be able to lift 50-70 pounds on a regular basis. I ask if you whatever ending with, if you were me, would you hire this person for this job. And I would describe the job as one that wouldn't be capable if the accusations of injury were true. Now, I don't stop with your neighbor, I go through all the references on your last job, have the detectives do some associations and check out other friends, search the internet for your myspace or face book pages, search friends, look for other people that seem to have you listed as a friend, then I attempt to paint a picture that all the people I pretended to interview as a job reference, and the majority of online references showed your claim was frivolous or lacking.
Now here is the catch, your expectation of privacy does not outweigh a defendant getting a fair trial. In short, you will have to give up some privacy in order to pursuit your case against someone. This is known as discovery in which you give all information pertinent to the case to the defendant/other-side. But if the court or the defendant think other information is pertinent, or that information is likely to exist that would have some bearing on the case, then they can order or get the information ordered to be disclosed. And this is all part of loss of the expectation of privacy when you bring a case against someone. About the only way you can avoid it is to drop the case and hope they don't counter sue and bring it up.
Not to side with your "idiot" comment or anything, but this happened to me too. It wasn't a spare IP, but similar enough to say the same. It was service with Verizon, I came home one night to find the internet not working and a message on my answering machine saying Verizon needed me to call them about my internet service. I started calling and they said I had three take down complaints filed against me for copyright violations. After claiming it didn't happen, they said they emailed the detailed and I had to check a site out to view the complaints. I sometimes take client PCs home to work on and thought maybe it was one of those infested things that did it.
Once the service was activated again, I went to check the complaints and it turns out that 3 complaints were files against an IP address that wasn't even close to mine, all within 3-5 seconds of each other over a star trek movie. Once I pointed that out, they claimed to have removed the reference to the situation from my service record completely.
However, it's BS like this that will cause people to be unfairly targeted for disconnection.
Um.. I'm not sure where you got that idea from, but filing a DMCA take down notice does require enough concrete evidence that you can easily tell if one was fraudulently filed or not. First, you have to have reason to believe the content is copyrighted and owned by you or the rights assigned to you. Now you may be working as an agent of another person who owns the copyright or rights which is the same in law. You have to know that the files are an infringement on your copyright or rights to the copyright and that the person the take down notice is filed against doesn't have rights to it either. Fair use rights do no count as rights because they are more or less legal exceptions to infringement instead of willful limits on enforcement of rights.
So, if the person making the complaint doesn't have rights to the copyright protected work, or isn't an agent of someone who does, then he is acting illegally. If the work isn't correctly identified, they aren't acting legally. Now granted, they only have to make a good faith effort to make sure the content of the take down notice is accurate, but not checking to see if the content is actually the claimed work or not wouldn't be considered a good faith effort in many circles.
But yea, I would definitely say that the requirements to identify the infringed work, identify the work that is the subject of the infringement, and to identify yourself as the copyright holder or an agent of said copyright holder is concrete evidence. Let us also not forget that you can file counter notices too and the ISP is supposed to restore the content else they can be liable for damages from it's removal.
Well, sort of.
There is one caveat that could cause the entire thing to backfire in their faces. According to the DMCA, they have to also honor the take down notice challenges and if they do not, they are not protected from liability for the disruption in services by the DMCA law. Certain things in contracts can't supersede the law either so it's possible that if they punch someone unfairly, hide behind the DMCA, and the customer ends up losing a crap load of money seeing how paying for a service they aren't receiving isn't the only damage that could be incurred. I can think of things like lost revenue, hits on reputation and so on that could be considered damages that may make them rethink this entire policy. Especially when lawsuits in areas like California seem to take phone books, open to a random page, and then select a random 10 digit phone number to describe the claimed amount of damages for reputation and so on.
Now I have personal experience with DMCA take down notices through Verizon in which they hit me with 3 of them within 2 seconds time for supposedly sharing some star trek movie when I did neither. My service was disconnected until I called in complaining that it wasn't working (surprisingly they claimed to have sent me an email- how you are supposed to check that on suspended service is beyond me) and when they turned it back on, the take down notice had a different IP address range then my service was on. What I'm getting at is, Verizon screwed up and attached the take down notice to the wrong person, disconnected the service, and made it a pain to get back on. If this company has anything similar to that problem, they might be out of service quick- especially if they have commercial customers.
Translation of that post can be summed up as:
Here is what is wrong with the reply.
Whether he is a right winger or not is irrelevant. He said nothing about anything that would insinuate that only the rich should be happy. He stated that a limit of 20% is the most any government should be taxing without infringing on your freedoms. How is limiting the amount taxed only making rich people happy? Especially if government could be structured to operate on that limit and provide the needed services we have come to expect from it?
You mean the services like funding a campaign to show African males how to wash their pecker after sex to slow the spread of aids and VD in South Africa that was funded by the US stimulus money? Here is your problem, you automagically assume that government services are important. Some are, some are simply a waste of funds. However, the efficiency of government can be vastly improved in most situations making providing many of those services less costly in the end. You seem to be totally ignoring both the reality of the situation and imposing some artificial cover to it.
Yea, this alone probably makes you unqualified to comment on this. Lets see, you dismissed his comments without ever providing a country or showing how he was wrong, yet you seem to be ignoring everything in order to do so. Here is a hint, reality is whatever doesn't disappear when you close your eyes, I suggest you start paying attention to what it is you are commenting on and then structure your comment appropriately to it. If you do that, you won't seem like the ideological ass you come off as while pretending someone else is and you might even realize the truth of the matter which is that life and government is not strictly a left verses right issue and neither ideologies are perfect.
I imagine that since it was a write in campaign, they would have translated the words to be either Arne Anka or Donald Duck. The entire difference would have been what was actually written so unless they just wrote duck, I guess there wouldn't be much confusion.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the software to count votes had a bug in it put there by the programer who wanted to default all invalid votes to something he could reference easily instead of a no vote or fault vote registering? I mean it could have automatically listed Donald Duck as the candidate instead of having a Florida 2000 hanging chad problem.
Yea right, Silly American, think what you want.
Why wouldn't have he done that? I don't think intelligent design or creation is claiming that evolution doesn't exist at all, in fact, it would be logical that it's needed to ensure the survival of the lifeform. They are just claiming creation instead of speciation and nothing in this article suggests that the soybeans are now potatoes or something.
Or am I missing something?
Well, tell me. If the money is sitting in an existing investment, does it create any activity on the economy? I'm pretty sure the answer to that is no. Now when you take that money out of the investment, and use it on something that causes an activity in the economy, does that cause activity? The answer to that is yes. But I never said it stimulated the economy *which is does, I said it will create jobs which is why you buying existing stocks can still create jobs. Stimulating the economy is more or less anything that causes activity in the economy.
Lol.. Wow, am I not conveying the thought properly of are you simply that dense? Each sale is not being counted as stimulating the economy, I said each sale has the potential of stimulating the economy. The mere fact that it's an existing stock does not disqualify the action from creating jobs.
Actually, with today's technology, top level management can be anywhere in the world and not be in a vacuum. But you are right, they would probably move the entire shop with them as they are in the area they are because of financial considerations. If those considerations become too hostile, moving the entire shop is the logical step.
You know, you are being completely disingenuous here. You weren't talking about infrastructure costs before, and I wasn't negating it's costs either. As I already posted, I said "'. If in order to have a functioning society, there are costs associated, they should be bared by those participating within the society. It's not like the rich escape taxes". Of course you said you "Your second paragraph are usual conservative talking points about big government." and dismissed it completely then turn around and pretend to lecture me on what I already said.
Actually, it would appear that you are the one being selfish here. OR should I say greedy too. It appears that you think it's ok to keep your money and go after the magical bad guy who for some unexplained (to you) reason is capable of earning more pay then you.
If it was just a matter of infrastructure, that would be one thing, but it's not just that. It's more, it's politicians buying votes and waste that shouldn't be around in a functioning government. But you should read up on something called a fiduciary responsibility which is in place by law. It means that a company has to operate in a way that will maximize share holder values to a tolerable degree.
I'm not sure why you are bringing up private enterprises though, this topic is about retaining what you earned, how you think that is some conservative talking point, and isn't worth your time. It doesn't really matter if you think Executives are over compensated as you are not the ones in charge of paying them and obviously you are not one of them. Again, I think you are being completely disingenuous.
In a perfect world, yes. Unfortunately we do not live in one of those. There is this thing called a reserve bank and loans that create artificial currency on demand based around a small amount in reserve.
Basically, the way it works is you deposit $100 into a bank, they put $20 into a reserve and loan the other $80 out to other people. They then purchase something that ends up getting deposited back into the bank. They in turn put a portion into reserve and loan it out again. what this creates is a buffer that cushions the effects of increasing or limiting amounts of actual cash in the economy at any given point in time (inflation/deflation). The end result is that you would have to burn an amount of cash in excess of the artificial amounts created by using the same money over and over again in order to have the effect you describe. That isn't likely to happen with any one lawsuit or without ruining the entire global economy.
The CEO would still be liable for the income tax on all monies made in Washington State regardless of where he lives. If he moved to Idaho and commuted to Washington, he would still owe the income tax on the income earned in Washington. And yes, companies have moved their upper level management facilities to other states before because of tax benefits. This actually happened with Boeing (and I believe a subsidiary of ford motor company) in Washington a few years ago when they attempted to escape the B&O tax. Washington ended up taking them to court and winning because the B&O tax is on gross not net operations.
So if you make it, you earn it and it's yours is a conservative talking point that you do not buy into? Interesting- Then who does it really belong to? I mean if you earned $100k last year, is it yours or someone else'? It's your time, your effort, should it be yours or someone else'? I can't believe the basics of freedom is a conservative talking point that you won't buy into.
And you seriously think that the government will take money from the rich and give it to you? When has that ever happened in the past unless you were "defined" as poor and they wanted your vote? This has nothing to do with a well functioning government, it's entirely about the concept stated of cutting your own throat if you don't go after the rich. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, it has to do with reality. We either have freedom in this country and one of the core concepts of freedom is to be able to own things you worked for, or we don't. I find it a tad bit troubling that you somehow think that if you earn it- it's not yours, and that we should penalize the most productive people in society for the sake of penalizing them. But what is really disturbing is that you somehow think the converse of that is a conservative talking point that doesn't deserve your time or attention. I mean Wow, Just Wow!
Hmm.. How does this really work in reality. The rich pay $2000 for a plate of food at some fund raiser and the politician has to listen to their ideas and attempt to implement them. Or, the politician simply structures the economy to benefit the already rich who paid $2000 for a $5.00 plate of food which creates a lot of people that can be "defined" as poor, throw them a bone or two in order to ensure they vote for them and get re-/elected, and pow, you have the same effect.
I didn't say the government was listening to the poor, I said you will never get more out of the government then what you put in unless you are "defined" as poor. I also said they only define you as poor if they think they can gain your vote by giving you things you didn't earn.
How do you figure? If the stocks are already created, they aren't just sitting there being held by some magical fairy waiting on someone to acquire them with the money used to purchase them disappearing into think air. They are owned by someone, whether it's an individual, some fund, or a company or even the company the stocks are for. When you purchase that stock, you are paying someone for that stock, what they do with that money can still create jobs. If IBM owns 45% of it's outstanding stock shares and decides to open a new branch, they can sell off 15% of that to fund it. That would create jobs even though you purchased existing stock. Nothing falls apart at all and it's not a zero sum gain as you purchasing the stock makes my investment liquid which allows me to do whatever I want with it. If no one purchased the stock, then I couldn't spend it.
No one said anything about profit or loss, I spoke about using assets as money by selling the stock off. You can sell the stock as a loss and still create jobs with the funds you now have access too. and when you sell the stock, someone has to purchase it, there isn't a magical fairy that takes it and gives you money. You buy stock as an investment, when you need access to that investment for other reasons, you sell out which requires someone to buy. If someone buys your shares of IBM, you can then create jobs by paying the construction workers to put an addition on your home. I'm not sure how you figure doing that would take money from the pockets of the construction workers. They wouldn't have to give any money unless it was purely voluntary or some sort of tax.