So you are trying to say that your comment is somehow more better or that my comment isn't accurate just because someone with mod points modded you up?
And you are giving moderators on Slashdot that much credit? I didn't know that facts were subject to popularity or vote. I always thought they just existed and some idiots choose to ignore them.
Maybe you should take a nic similar to mine, perhaps something with the term idiot in it as you probably need it.
Actually, the CEOs would probably move their portions of the operation to another state with a more favorable tax law and make the Washington State operation a subsidiary company to separate the funding. This is what Microsoft legally did with their licensing division, they created a separate company out of state that escaped Washington State's B&O tax.
No one is cutting their throats either. Someone else' money isn't going to go back to you once the government has taken it via taxes. All that will happen is the government will get bigger unless you are poor and they want your vote (only the "defined" poor can get a refund larger then what they pay into the system). However, it's simply a matter of principle. If you make it, you earn it, it's yours- not anyone else'. 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, even in Washington's sales tax scheme, the rich often purchase over prices luxury items which cause them to pay orders of taxes more then the less wealthy.
Actually, already created shares of stock are finite resources. This means that in order to purchase them, someone has to sell them. You may not be directly creating jobs, but the person who sold the share may very well be with whatever they do with the funds removed.
Also, creating jobs doesn't necessarily need to be a new job that never existed before in this sense. Suppose you sell off your shares of IBM as I want to purchase them, then you use that money to add on to your home. Well, those construction workers, those cabinet makers, those plumbers and electricians may not have been out of a job, but without people doing just that, they would be out of a job. So saving a job is pretty much the same as creating a job even though it's a lateral move of sorts.
Most outed atheists seem to be self proclaimed evangelical atheists. In other words, they are jerks about their beliefs and tend to make them known to others in rather rude ways.
These confused people also see everyone running away from them as discrimination when it's really that people don't like being around them because of how they act. It's the same with the Jehovah's witnesses and how no one really likes them being around.
Lol.. how do you expect your comment to be even remotely taken seriously when you use USian instead of American. Of course I won't even start to go into how the UK health system isn't as cracked up as you seem to think it is. In fact, it's so bad off right now, they are thinking of abandoning it altogether. You should get out more, maybe use your google finger a little.
Yea, "who cares!?". A typical attitude of a US jingoist. I assure you that families of those you've blown up do care. Rather deeply in fact, to the point of taking up the ever-popular hobby of IED construction.
So how does it being authorized change anything about the situation? Are you going to then claim all is well if it was authorized? I mean non of the facts changed, the pilots and service men were in harms way, they reacted when confronted, it turns out they were wrong in their assumptions on data which made their reactions wrong, so what the fuck would be different? It's not like if it wasn't authorized- they wouldn't have been there, history has shown that to be a false assumption if you believe the war wasn't authorized. So, Like I said,:who the fuck cares. Nothing would be any different unless it's your all the sudden dismissal of wrong doing by the crew which would indicate that you are trying to punish these people for the actions of another. (something that is probably even more wrong).
Yes "appropriately", particularly the part where they laugh about kids they've blown up because "How does the brat dare to live in this country where we choose to have our fun little war?! And then show up in our gun sights! What nerve!". Apparently "we blow up whatever the fuck we like wherever the fuck we like" is the "appropriate" behaviour of US troops in a self-fucking-declared war-zone (without actually bothering to declare war in an attempt to "have the cake and eat it too"). No surprise there.
OMG, you havn't seen the unedited version of the video have you? You are seriously sitting there and bitching about something that you know nothing about? And you have the nerve to think you can add your own commentary as if it's real? Fuck dude, maybe you should get in touch with reality and stop whatever drugs it is that you are on.
Bullshit. If the US does not respect basic rules of international behaviour, which it clearly demonstrated, it also stands to reason that these rules do not apply to its opponents. In fact the US legal "luminaries" do claim exactly this, that the "rules do not apply" in their pursuit of "terrists". Polite rules like "sovereign authority". So by being pig-headed and trying to bully your way over everyone else you ended up legitimizing entities like Al-Queda. Congratulations. I am sure Osama will send you a "thank you" note any day now. For this and all the recruitment to his cause you've managed to drum up.
So I see you chose to comment without ever looking up "sovereign authority" or "sovereignty" or even pretending to act like you know what they mean. BTW, Al Qeada can't be legitimized in any way if you actually knew what "sovereign authority" or sovereignty actually was. Figure that out before posting back.
The difference has always been that of law. That is right, laws govern both nations and individuals. But once a nation abandons any pretense of following law and if that law ceases to have any possibility of being enforced internationally because the super-power nation in question threatens violence otherwise, so does the law cease to apply to other nations and individuals and the place becomes a lawless jungle. This is what the US has accomplished in both Iraq and Afghanistan. At this point in time, due to utter disdain the US has displayed for both international law and even its own Constitution it became quite possible to argue that Al Queda is justified in attacking targets within US territory. Again, congratulations on fucking up the only leg you had to stand on and reducing the whole thing to "we are the biggest fucking thugs on the block and so you better give us your money or we will break your kid's neck!" lever of "authority".
Again, you need to understand what Sovereignty actually is. You can only make this statement because you are clearly ig
I will not even bother mentioning stuff like war crimes etc for it would be clearly lost on the apologists like you.
I seriously doubt you have the mental wherewithal to even remotely consider war crimes within the proper context so I guess it's good that you simply do not mention it outside your innuendos as if it's somehow damning.
But this goes even beyond that. War you say? Fucking war YOU started, unilaterally, you mean. Without even bothering to officially declare it. And don't even try to pretend that the UN authorized it for some of us do not have the memory span of a goldfish and were actually watching the proceedings at the UN and witnessed the clear failure to obtain the approval of the Security Council, Powell's pathetic dog-and-pony show notwithstanding.
Who cars if it was authorized or not in this context. You have people who are in harms way regardless of whether you want to cry about a declaration of war or not. Those people acted accordingly and appropriately no matter how much you want to close your eyes and ignore the fact that they were in a war. And yes, even if congress doesn't call it a war, when the operations involved are the same as a war, it's a fucking war even if you want to call it a purple hamburger. Quit trying to make something that isn't true out of a fucking procedural issue, it's not like the attack copter, the ground pound'ers, or this newspaper corespondent was over there because it was Tea on Tuesday and everyone was gathering around to tell stories about how their youngest thinks the teddy bear he got for Christmas is real. When you do that, you fail reality big time.
So in accordance with this "logic", if I decide to rob you and so I proceed to your house wherein I blow away your kids and wife and then torture you for the location of your safe, but I am careful to call the whole thing "war on Internet users who call themselves sumdumass", this makes it all right then, no? After all "shit happens in war"!
I suggest you look up and study "sovereign authority", sovereignty, and perhaps you should try to explain why you somehow have it and why the US somehow does not. And while you are at it, stop using bad analogies that couldn't be further from the truth and perhaps you wouldn't appear to be suck a jackwad to everyone.
Oh you mean it is different because instead of me, just one guy, it is the Holy And Divine US Government Douchebags of Manifest Destiny who claim to be in a "war", backed up by the Infallible Gas Bags of Punditry on The Idiot Boxes of Infotainment! And so if your Holy Centurions do it, its righteous and just, but anyone else doing it is a clear sign of Satanic Villainy and Dastardly, Insurgent Defiance of The Rightful Rules of the Universe and they should get "what's coming to them". Intestines of children hanging on tree branches near blown up playgrounds and dismembered wedding parties in ruins of their homes. US Empire has its costs and others must pay them. Got it.
Umm... Yea. When a country does something, it's an act of war, when you do it, it's just a douche bag who hasn't mastered the mental capability to understand the topic he is speaking about. When countries can't come together and work things out rationally, they go to war. When you get pissed and start killing people, you are a murderer. And yes, there is a difference, A difference as big as you killing someone doing nothing but standing there and you killing someone trying to kill yourself. If you do not know what that difference is, or how it applies, then I suggest you go back to your teachers tomorrow when high school is back in and ask them about it.
Fuck I hate US jingoist, imperialist fucks who think USA can do no wrong and the shit of US mercenaries smells like roses.
It's not a 'theater' - it's a foreign country which the American military have invaded, are occupying against the wishes of the majority of citizens there, are getting killed in, and will leave under fire having achieved nothing.
Perhaps you should actually learn what a theater actually is before pretending to be somewhat knowledgeable about a war.
I don't care about booby-trapped this, children that. The 'insurgants' are doing exactly what American citizens would do if another country were occupying them. You'd hear the mexicans (for example) bleating about how the American 'insurgents' are killing them with booby trapped bombs etc.
In all the wars the US has fought, including wars against it's own citizens (civil war), Indian tribes, the state of Mexico and so on, with all the despicable things we have done, we have never once booby trapped bombs to children. You are completely off base with that and making shit up for whatever reason. Probably it related to your general lack of knowledge of war or what a theater actually is. Perhaps it's time you just laid your head down low and shut the fuck up because your not making any sense.
Give it up, nobody cares - you're going to lose, so just give it up already and get out.
Obviously, he cares. From the sound of it, you do too, it's just that you care more about letting the terrorists and Taliban rule then democracy or anything of the sort for the people. It's sad that people like you exist, I mean it probably can only happen because society failed you and allowed you to remain ignorant about so many thing. But hey, it's a free world I guess.
Wow.. I guess everything is murder to you. Did someone murder the cow to make that hamburger for you? You see, some people have different ideas about what the definitions of certain things are and aren't and you obviously have decided to politically motivate yours.
Even if, and there's no reason to assume they are, those men the reporter was with were the insurgents currently being sought, no efforts were taken to link them to the attack before killing them all.
I wish I didn't have to say this, but it's a fucking WAR, not a police investigation or your third grade private eye play that you starred in. When you fight in a war, your priorities are a little different then determining if the clerk was part of the robbery or not. When the reporter attempted to aim the camera, the copter crew mistook it for an RPG and the correct way to proceed was to act like you are in a fucking war and kill them. Efforts were being made to identify them, Efforts were being made to make sure they were the right people. Those efforts went to the side when it appeared that they were armed enough to put them and others in jeopardy. In a war, you staying alive becomes a larger priority then making sure you are not killing the wrong person. It looked like a duck, it walked like a duck, and unfortunately in this case, it was a platypus and not a duck. You will not find that to be the case very often.
Listen to the radio communications again. They got permission to initially fire not because they IDed them as insurgents, but because they thought there was an RPG. Now yes, it turned out to be a camera instead, but your fucking stupid if you think they should have landed or put themselves or other units in any more danger then they were to identify the RPG as a camera. If you fight wars that way, you will be dead.
Yes, its unfortunate that it happened. But it's not murder. It not murder any more then someone losing control of their car on a slick street and causing an accident that kills someone else. was it Manslaughter- maybe, killing- yes, but not murder. The unmarked car that speed onto the scene and started running for the bodies and weapons is nothing more then an accident too. You see, in a war, if you wait for your enemy to arm themselves when it appears like they are running for their weapons, you end up dead too.
The copter crew acted appropriately given the circumstances and known facts at the time. It's only after the fact and never being in combat that you can claim otherwise. If you have ever been in a life or death situation, I would you aren't responsible for the lives of others because I'm sure from what you appear to be requiring out of this crew means you will be dead and possible a lot of people next to you will too.
Your also forgetting that in some cases, they intentionally declock or degrade chips if inventory is particularly low on some budget offering. Like you said, they don't have separate runs for a 1 gig chip verses a 1.2 gig chip (simplified to keep the model numbers from creating confusion), it's all one given architecture then fixed to what is needed or what it will be the most reliable speeds.
Also the parent is a bit wrong on the ideology of this. It's not Intel or whoever selling a crippled part at the same price as a non-crippled part then asking for the $50. It's more like offering the part at a cheaper price then being able to upgrade it in place. You will pay the extra $50 whether it's in the original all there part of uncapping the crippled part you got at a discount.
I'm not entirely sure how actively blocking could in any way coexist with attempting to deliver. Regardless of the fine print disclaiming liability for not delivering any message, their attempt to deliver it is explicitly implied in the offers for service in which they claim delivering the message as a service offered.
So whether it's best effort or even reasonable effort, actively blocking something wouldn't fit into either of those. The GP is just off base altogether. The reason the messages can be blocked is because they attempt to provide access to illegal activities. It's still illegal under federal law to distribute and possess marijuana regardless of what any state law says. The phone companies being a regulated company has to prohibit it's services from being used to violate any state or federal law (in their jurisdiction) where they can reasonable know it's happening.
Really? You think accusing someone of following a "supreme leader" in no way implies bootlicking toadyism?
Not when presented with your rush to Defend Obama along with the tone of your post. Perhaps if you didn't mean for it to seem that way, you should think about what you are writing before writing it.
See, right there, you are stuck in that mental rut. Just because I said you were wrong doesn't mean I was defending anyone. Truth is not partisan.
The problem is that you didn't just say i was wrong. You went to great lengths to take my post out of context then proceed to rail about shit that wasn't even said. Shit like pulling troops out over night which was never even there. Then you pretended to be smart and attempted to put me down which is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black except in this case, it's the retarded monkey calling another monkey stupid because they can't fly or something.
Without a modicum of self-awareness you can't even hear the basic assumptions in your own words.
Strong words from someone who totally ignores them. Perhaps you should take a bit of your own words of wisdom closer to heart.
Of course you didn't - you just suggested that people who voted for Obama were that stupid.
I did not. I suggested they had more trust in Obama then Bush. You can read it again, I said "once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything. (fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were scheduled to be left behind from Bush's SOFA agreement that was created about a year before the elections.)". Nowhere in there do I suggest anyone was stupid.
Listen, don't let your own fears of reality transpose into sentences and statements I make. I'm sorry that you have an underlying notion that people were stupid for voting for obama or that you somehow regret your choice of vote. But that's your problems not mine and trust me, when I speak about something, I will be completely strait forward about it.
Lol - only a sycophant insists on seeing everyone he disagrees with as sycophants. I didn't even vote for Obama. If Obama is the "supreme leader" of someone who didn't vote for him, doesn't like the direction he took healthcare and didn't like his continuing Bush's policies of economic intervention, then you must be impaled on Bush's cock.
I'm not sure how you can get sycophant out of what I wrote, but hey, I'm also puzzled to why you rushed to defend Obama when you took my statement out of context just to claim you want nothing to do with him. Next you will be telling me that Red is Green of something as stupid. I mean the rest of your comment is nothing but gargabe seeing how I didn't even talk about why Obama was elected or health care or the economy or anything of the sort. Please, I know it will be hard with your mental condition and all, But please keep this in the context of reality and stick to what was actually said and not what you imagined was said.
Yeah, what's your point? We've already agreed on the fact that Obama continued doing what Bush eventually ended up doing after all the fucking around that came before.
That was the only point I was making.. You seemed to invent a bunch of other shit so I'm not sure what's going though your mind right now.
And that in no way implies that they thought he would end them immediately upon taking office. Nope, no implication of expecting the opposite of what happened at all.
Nope, it no way implies anything you are attempting to make out of it. All it's saying is that the same people who were pissed over the war were not when Obama was involved with it because they had some sort of trust in Obama that they didn't have in Bush. I'm not sure how you can take it any other way unless you are confusing conversations and jumping to the wrong conclusions.
Wow.. You are just proving my point. Here you even made some shit up.
Wow, I mean this is such fringe lunacy. Bush got into office under very suspicious circumstances and immediately started dismantling our anti-terrorism apparatus in favor of going after dirty words and pornography.
Bullshit. There was nothing suspicious about it, it was all out in the open for all to see. And no, he didn't dismantle anything, the FCC did start going after what it considered indecent content on the airwaves, but you would have to be more stupid then I pretend to be to think that the FCC is responsible for catching terrorists.
After we were attacked by one of his business partners, he immediately surrendered and started adhering to the terrorist demands to eliminate American's freedoms and then used the death and destruction as an excuse to invade one of the most secular ( brutal, yes, but not at all Islamic ) nations in the region as laid out in a plan put together by the same animals who sold crack on the streets of America to fund terrorism all over the world.
You know, they say reality is whatever still exists once you close your eyes. Perhaps you should make a conscious effort in joining the rest of us there.
You see, no one responsible for 9/11 was Bush's business partner. You might think but bin laden's family was, but then you have to ask yourself, should you go to prison because your 40 year old son killed someone while driving drunk? Or should you have to ask you dad before you can get a loan for a car because they view all your transactions as actions of his? Of course not.. We don't work corruption of blood so get that idea out of your conspiracy crack pot head.
Next, we never surrendered and you have not lost any freedoms that you actually had before 9/11. You cannot name one freedom you lost that pertains to anyone other then a suspected terrorist or someone aiding them.
Finally, your selling crack to fund terrorism just shows how stupid you are. Yes, I know some crackpots claimed the CIA sold Crack cocaine to Americans to fund black op and then there is the story about how they wanted to use the addictive nature of it to hold the man down. But in the 20 some years that has been going around that I know of, not one creditable piece of evidence has been presented to show it's true and more then enough evidence has been shown to discredit most of the claims.
The fact that this pissing in the face of America was his first couple of years in office actually has a lot more to do with people's objections to Bush than some delusional circular argument you think you're making.
There was no circular argument. Well, except ones put forth by his detractors. I think it's funny because they all say he is stupid, yet he got elected not once, but twice and managed to get congress to go along with most everything he wanted done. In fact, it's so funny that people have started saying it was a conspiracy, a scheme to get that done all along. Now which is it, was he stupid or very clever? Or was he just smarter then some who cling to ideological argumentative points?
Anyways, you are proving my point by admitting that people have a strong disdain for Bush.
Wow. I mean the sane thing to think would be that since Obama didn't start the war, that he shouldn't immediately be blamed for its existence. Obviously if he'd ended it immediately you would have called him a coward who turned tail and ran. Given what a fringe right wing lunatic you clearly are, you'd never give him a fair shake even if he did deserve one.
Wow, you people's knee jerk reactions to rush in a defend your fearless leader as if he can't do any wrong simply amazes me. You see, all the comment was about is that he hasn't done anything to change anything substantial to the SOFA agreement and he isn't running the war any differentl
Way to twist it. He campaigned on those plans - that they were substantially SOFA is no big deal - for one thing Obama was campaigning on that general strategy at roughly the same time that the Iraq SOFA was being negotiated. No one with half a brain could listen to Obama's campaigning and take away that his goal was an immediate pull-out of troops upon inauguration.
I never suggested they should have pulled the troops out immediately. The fun fact comment was nothing more then an illustration to my comment about war protesters who trust Obama running the war verses Bush running the war even though it's essentially the same thing.
Although a dumbass who listened to the PR machine of his political opponents rather than think for himself would probably come away with that impression.
Perhaps you are talking about yourself here. I mean you fell over yourself taking things out of context and defending your supreme leader. Anyways, perhaps you should look at this PR talking point and get back to me.
There was a hell of a lot of bullshit about "cut-and-run" being spread around during that election.
that is because there was a lot of senators saying we need to just up and leave and let Iraq sort out their own mess. If you remember at the time, you will also have heard a lot of talk about how the war was lost and we need to pull our troops out of harms way. Also, I think you might be contorting the 2004 election with Kerry when john Murtha said we could never win in Iraq the best thing to do is abandon it.
anyways, that wasn't what my comment was about. It was about how anti war protesters don't mind Obama in charge of the war even though nothing substantial is different about it's execution.
Wow, I cannot imagine how on earth you got those points. First off, you don't just remove all the troops in a couple days, the results of doing such an ill advised troop withdrawal tends to be catastrophic. Just look at what happened when we basically did that in Vietnam.
Whatever gave you the idea that I expected the troops to be withdrawn overnight. I made the fun fact statement to show that there is no significant difference between Obama and Bush on Iraq which lends strength to my "once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything" comment.
Secondly, it's not just a matter of renaming the mission, they're there under a completely different mandate. By your logic, Operation Desert Storm is almost into its second decade.
No they are not. They are following the SOFA agreement to a T on this. Special forces are still going after terrorists and elements of Al Qeada, the rest of the support troops are training and doing support when absolutely neccesary. What mandate is different?
You know, John Stewart did a comparison piece on this in which he listed all the differences between Obama's plan and Bush's SOFA. All he could find was simplistic name changes that amounted to the same thing. But hey, if you know something I don't know, please point it out. I mean what exactly are the differences between the SOFA and Obama's withdrawal?
I'm going to ignore the rest of what you wrote as I believe you did so because you were too ignorant of the facts and had a knee jerk protect your leader response. Please read upon this before posting back.
Do you think all the War protesters suddenly A-OKed the war after Obama was elected?
A lot of them did. It's for two reasons, one the biggest protesting point was that Bush was involved and anything to rail on Bush seemed to be acceptable. Another reason is that once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything. (fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were scheduled to be left behind from Bush's SOFA agreement that was created about a year before the elections.)
Citizens of third world countries will be dealing with nothing different. They already face many of the same challenges predicted by global warming. It would likely be a wash in reality.
While I don't disagree, I want to point out that this won't or shouldn't be the case when running out of oil on a large scale. The key differences here is that most free nations are already working to make alternative energy sources competitive to the current energy outline. This means that either alternatives will succeed and negate oil for it's biggest use or once oil reaches a certain price, the alternatives will replace it.
So yes, on a scale like Cuba without the technology innovations we have seen in the past decade or two, it could be a problem. But on a world scale, especially with the events since the fall of the USSR, it wouldn't have near as big of an impact.
again, no. OP and the rest of this thread is about a ruling in a civil case, where the cause of action is civil copyright infringement
It doesn't matter if it's a civil action here or not. The same is true regardless, my comment is correct. And yes, a civil violation is still a federal crime.
17 USC 506 provides for criminal penalties in cases of infringement for commercial purposes or for financial gain. No one is accusing the downloaders in this case of selling their copies, so 506 is not relevant to this conversation.
Criminal penalties is not needed for the definition of crime. A crime is the violation of any law on the book. The law can have civil or criminal remedies. The difference is basically who is represented as being protected, a civil case, the citizen/individual is being protected, criminal, the state or governing body is.
That's not over confident at all. We have been manipulating agricultural areas for the last half century with great success. We have built dams and dikes to control water and flooding which has worked great for the most part (look at the dutch before bitching about a system in New Orleans that has been cobbled together over a hundred or more years). As gas and diesel fuels get more expensive, alternative fuels are becoming more attractive and research is going on right now to make them competitive with today's costs without artificially inflating the costs of oil.
Sure, some prime real estate right now might be worthless, but it will take 100 years to do so and is no different then anything else in life right now. It might not be a walk in the park but it certainly won't be some everyone's going to die tomorrow and there won't be any wide spread famine or disease. At least not any worse then it is today.
If you look at all the engineering challenges that have been met and conquered over the last hundred or more years that has made uninhabitable places comfortable and reasonably safe to live in, I'm not sure how you can't believe we can deal with the results of global warming. Right now, it's little more then political fear mongering and other natural courses of events may negate the entire thing altogether. A natural course of events could be war that disrupts oil and forces alternatives because of economic viability. It could be a break through in renewable energy or perhaps even some alternative energy that makes oil so much more inefficient. There are tons of things that could happened in the ordinary course of our lives that completely negate your fears of global warming or my willingness to view reality as it is and know we can deal with whatever comes from it.
No, not really. You must contain yourself within the confines of reality and the law.
Here is what we know:
The law creates property out of whatever qualifies to be copyrighted.
The law gives exclusive control over the distribution and reproduction of anything copyrighted with a few exceptions.
People have used that in order to sell access to copyrighted materials.
When you gain access to this material by copying or distributing it, you have caused them to lose a sale.
This is no different then how a car rental company loses money if you take a car and bring it back when they aren't renting it to someone else
as I mentioned before, look up conversion. It's a specific legal term under the laws of theft in which this would fall into. Just because you refuse to see something, or want to stick to some preconceived notion that is in your head, does not mean it's true. Someone who could never afford a camera could take out a charge card and purchase one with no intent of ever paying the card off. Are you going to say that isn't lost money either? Or lets take this one step closer to home, suppose you hire the next door neighbor to mow your lawn and never pay him. Did the kid lose out on a sale?
So are you proposing that what everyone really needs is an international Pirate Party to flaunt the rules and show people that there is an alternative to suffering under an economy of invented scarcity and priviliged access?
Why would you assume that? I mentioned petitioning your congress critter to address grievances.
BTW, the so called suffering under an artificial scarcity would most likely turn into a suffering under the lack of content if some sort of control wasn't maintained. Your living in fairy tale land if you thing people will invest the money needed to make recordings a hit if there wasn't anyway for them to recoup and come out ahead.
Make no mistake. Corporate media is not competitive. (Why else would Hollywood spontaneously decide to produce two movies in a year about mall cops??)
I'm not sure what your point is.
Look at their track record. They don't want you to do ANYTHING that doesn't involve you paying them.
Bizarre, byzantine useage licences?
And your point is what? Is it that a company designed to make money is structuring it's operation to make money?
Before you so ardently defend copyright laws, ask yourself: In the 21st century does it matter a fuck if a copyright law is broken or that in the 21st century, there are more people going hungry and without the education to end their hunger, than in any other time in human history?
Yawn... And what point of interest is this to me? And no, I didn't defend copyright laws, I stated the facts as they are. If that is defending copyright laws, it's because it makes you feel troubled that the facts are real. I suggest you petition your government to get them changes instead of making up arguments on slashdot.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are trying to say that your comment is somehow more better or that my comment isn't accurate just because someone with mod points modded you up?
And you are giving moderators on Slashdot that much credit? I didn't know that facts were subject to popularity or vote. I always thought they just existed and some idiots choose to ignore them.
Maybe you should take a nic similar to mine, perhaps something with the term idiot in it as you probably need it.
Actually, the CEOs would probably move their portions of the operation to another state with a more favorable tax law and make the Washington State operation a subsidiary company to separate the funding. This is what Microsoft legally did with their licensing division, they created a separate company out of state that escaped Washington State's B&O tax.
No one is cutting their throats either. Someone else' money isn't going to go back to you once the government has taken it via taxes. All that will happen is the government will get bigger unless you are poor and they want your vote (only the "defined" poor can get a refund larger then what they pay into the system). However, it's simply a matter of principle. If you make it, you earn it, it's yours- not anyone else'. 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, even in Washington's sales tax scheme, the rich often purchase over prices luxury items which cause them to pay orders of taxes more then the less wealthy.
Actually, already created shares of stock are finite resources. This means that in order to purchase them, someone has to sell them. You may not be directly creating jobs, but the person who sold the share may very well be with whatever they do with the funds removed.
Also, creating jobs doesn't necessarily need to be a new job that never existed before in this sense. Suppose you sell off your shares of IBM as I want to purchase them, then you use that money to add on to your home. Well, those construction workers, those cabinet makers, those plumbers and electricians may not have been out of a job, but without people doing just that, they would be out of a job. So saving a job is pretty much the same as creating a job even though it's a lateral move of sorts.
Most outed atheists seem to be self proclaimed evangelical atheists. In other words, they are jerks about their beliefs and tend to make them known to others in rather rude ways.
These confused people also see everyone running away from them as discrimination when it's really that people don't like being around them because of how they act. It's the same with the Jehovah's witnesses and how no one really likes them being around.
Lol.. how do you expect your comment to be even remotely taken seriously when you use USian instead of American. Of course I won't even start to go into how the UK health system isn't as cracked up as you seem to think it is. In fact, it's so bad off right now, they are thinking of abandoning it altogether. You should get out more, maybe use your google finger a little.
So how does it being authorized change anything about the situation? Are you going to then claim all is well if it was authorized? I mean non of the facts changed, the pilots and service men were in harms way, they reacted when confronted, it turns out they were wrong in their assumptions on data which made their reactions wrong, so what the fuck would be different? It's not like if it wasn't authorized- they wouldn't have been there, history has shown that to be a false assumption if you believe the war wasn't authorized. So, Like I said, :who the fuck cares. Nothing would be any different unless it's your all the sudden dismissal of wrong doing by the crew which would indicate that you are trying to punish these people for the actions of another. (something that is probably even more wrong).
OMG, you havn't seen the unedited version of the video have you? You are seriously sitting there and bitching about something that you know nothing about? And you have the nerve to think you can add your own commentary as if it's real? Fuck dude, maybe you should get in touch with reality and stop whatever drugs it is that you are on.
So I see you chose to comment without ever looking up "sovereign authority" or "sovereignty" or even pretending to act like you know what they mean. BTW, Al Qeada can't be legitimized in any way if you actually knew what "sovereign authority" or sovereignty actually was. Figure that out before posting back.
Again, you need to understand what Sovereignty actually is. You can only make this statement because you are clearly ig
I seriously doubt you have the mental wherewithal to even remotely consider war crimes within the proper context so I guess it's good that you simply do not mention it outside your innuendos as if it's somehow damning.
Who cars if it was authorized or not in this context. You have people who are in harms way regardless of whether you want to cry about a declaration of war or not. Those people acted accordingly and appropriately no matter how much you want to close your eyes and ignore the fact that they were in a war. And yes, even if congress doesn't call it a war, when the operations involved are the same as a war, it's a fucking war even if you want to call it a purple hamburger. Quit trying to make something that isn't true out of a fucking procedural issue, it's not like the attack copter, the ground pound'ers, or this newspaper corespondent was over there because it was Tea on Tuesday and everyone was gathering around to tell stories about how their youngest thinks the teddy bear he got for Christmas is real. When you do that, you fail reality big time.
I suggest you look up and study "sovereign authority", sovereignty, and perhaps you should try to explain why you somehow have it and why the US somehow does not. And while you are at it, stop using bad analogies that couldn't be further from the truth and perhaps you wouldn't appear to be suck a jackwad to everyone.
Umm... Yea. When a country does something, it's an act of war, when you do it, it's just a douche bag who hasn't mastered the mental capability to understand the topic he is speaking about. When countries can't come together and work things out rationally, they go to war. When you get pissed and start killing people, you are a murderer. And yes, there is a difference, A difference as big as you killing someone doing nothing but standing there and you killing someone trying to kill yourself. If you do not know what that difference is, or how it applies, then I suggest you go back to your teachers tomorrow when high school is back in and ask them about it.
Oh I see now. It's just another reason to
Perhaps you should actually learn what a theater actually is before pretending to be somewhat knowledgeable about a war.
In all the wars the US has fought, including wars against it's own citizens (civil war), Indian tribes, the state of Mexico and so on, with all the despicable things we have done, we have never once booby trapped bombs to children. You are completely off base with that and making shit up for whatever reason. Probably it related to your general lack of knowledge of war or what a theater actually is. Perhaps it's time you just laid your head down low and shut the fuck up because your not making any sense.
Obviously, he cares. From the sound of it, you do too, it's just that you care more about letting the terrorists and Taliban rule then democracy or anything of the sort for the people. It's sad that people like you exist, I mean it probably can only happen because society failed you and allowed you to remain ignorant about so many thing. But hey, it's a free world I guess.
Wow.. I guess everything is murder to you. Did someone murder the cow to make that hamburger for you? You see, some people have different ideas about what the definitions of certain things are and aren't and you obviously have decided to politically motivate yours.
I wish I didn't have to say this, but it's a fucking WAR, not a police investigation or your third grade private eye play that you starred in. When you fight in a war, your priorities are a little different then determining if the clerk was part of the robbery or not. When the reporter attempted to aim the camera, the copter crew mistook it for an RPG and the correct way to proceed was to act like you are in a fucking war and kill them. Efforts were being made to identify them, Efforts were being made to make sure they were the right people. Those efforts went to the side when it appeared that they were armed enough to put them and others in jeopardy. In a war, you staying alive becomes a larger priority then making sure you are not killing the wrong person. It looked like a duck, it walked like a duck, and unfortunately in this case, it was a platypus and not a duck. You will not find that to be the case very often.
Listen to the radio communications again. They got permission to initially fire not because they IDed them as insurgents, but because they thought there was an RPG. Now yes, it turned out to be a camera instead, but your fucking stupid if you think they should have landed or put themselves or other units in any more danger then they were to identify the RPG as a camera. If you fight wars that way, you will be dead.
Yes, its unfortunate that it happened. But it's not murder. It not murder any more then someone losing control of their car on a slick street and causing an accident that kills someone else. was it Manslaughter- maybe, killing- yes, but not murder. The unmarked car that speed onto the scene and started running for the bodies and weapons is nothing more then an accident too. You see, in a war, if you wait for your enemy to arm themselves when it appears like they are running for their weapons, you end up dead too.
The copter crew acted appropriately given the circumstances and known facts at the time. It's only after the fact and never being in combat that you can claim otherwise. If you have ever been in a life or death situation, I would you aren't responsible for the lives of others because I'm sure from what you appear to be requiring out of this crew means you will be dead and possible a lot of people next to you will too.
SO he posted that it was a setup/he is being setup, and it's confirmed how?
Your also forgetting that in some cases, they intentionally declock or degrade chips if inventory is particularly low on some budget offering. Like you said, they don't have separate runs for a 1 gig chip verses a 1.2 gig chip (simplified to keep the model numbers from creating confusion), it's all one given architecture then fixed to what is needed or what it will be the most reliable speeds.
Also the parent is a bit wrong on the ideology of this. It's not Intel or whoever selling a crippled part at the same price as a non-crippled part then asking for the $50. It's more like offering the part at a cheaper price then being able to upgrade it in place. You will pay the extra $50 whether it's in the original all there part of uncapping the crippled part you got at a discount.
I'm not entirely sure how actively blocking could in any way coexist with attempting to deliver. Regardless of the fine print disclaiming liability for not delivering any message, their attempt to deliver it is explicitly implied in the offers for service in which they claim delivering the message as a service offered.
So whether it's best effort or even reasonable effort, actively blocking something wouldn't fit into either of those. The GP is just off base altogether. The reason the messages can be blocked is because they attempt to provide access to illegal activities. It's still illegal under federal law to distribute and possess marijuana regardless of what any state law says. The phone companies being a regulated company has to prohibit it's services from being used to violate any state or federal law (in their jurisdiction) where they can reasonable know it's happening.
Not when presented with your rush to Defend Obama along with the tone of your post. Perhaps if you didn't mean for it to seem that way, you should think about what you are writing before writing it.
The problem is that you didn't just say i was wrong. You went to great lengths to take my post out of context then proceed to rail about shit that wasn't even said. Shit like pulling troops out over night which was never even there. Then you pretended to be smart and attempted to put me down which is sort of like the pot calling the kettle black except in this case, it's the retarded monkey calling another monkey stupid because they can't fly or something.
Strong words from someone who totally ignores them. Perhaps you should take a bit of your own words of wisdom closer to heart.
I did not. I suggested they had more trust in Obama then Bush. You can read it again, I said "once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything. (fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were scheduled to be left behind from Bush's SOFA agreement that was created about a year before the elections.)". Nowhere in there do I suggest anyone was stupid.
Listen, don't let your own fears of reality transpose into sentences and statements I make. I'm sorry that you have an underlying notion that people were stupid for voting for obama or that you somehow regret your choice of vote. But that's your problems not mine and trust me, when I speak about something, I will be completely strait forward about it.
I'm not sure how you can get sycophant out of what I wrote, but hey, I'm also puzzled to why you rushed to defend Obama when you took my statement out of context just to claim you want nothing to do with him. Next you will be telling me that Red is Green of something as stupid. I mean the rest of your comment is nothing but gargabe seeing how I didn't even talk about why Obama was elected or health care or the economy or anything of the sort. Please, I know it will be hard with your mental condition and all, But please keep this in the context of reality and stick to what was actually said and not what you imagined was said.
That was the only point I was making.. You seemed to invent a bunch of other shit so I'm not sure what's going though your mind right now.
Nope, it no way implies anything you are attempting to make out of it. All it's saying is that the same people who were pissed over the war were not when Obama was involved with it because they had some sort of trust in Obama that they didn't have in Bush. I'm not sure how you can take it any other way unless you are confusing conversations and jumping to the wrong conclusions.
Wow.. You are just proving my point. Here you even made some shit up.
Bullshit. There was nothing suspicious about it, it was all out in the open for all to see. And no, he didn't dismantle anything, the FCC did start going after what it considered indecent content on the airwaves, but you would have to be more stupid then I pretend to be to think that the FCC is responsible for catching terrorists.
You know, they say reality is whatever still exists once you close your eyes. Perhaps you should make a conscious effort in joining the rest of us there.
You see, no one responsible for 9/11 was Bush's business partner. You might think but bin laden's family was, but then you have to ask yourself, should you go to prison because your 40 year old son killed someone while driving drunk? Or should you have to ask you dad before you can get a loan for a car because they view all your transactions as actions of his? Of course not.. We don't work corruption of blood so get that idea out of your conspiracy crack pot head.
Next, we never surrendered and you have not lost any freedoms that you actually had before 9/11. You cannot name one freedom you lost that pertains to anyone other then a suspected terrorist or someone aiding them.
Finally, your selling crack to fund terrorism just shows how stupid you are. Yes, I know some crackpots claimed the CIA sold Crack cocaine to Americans to fund black op and then there is the story about how they wanted to use the addictive nature of it to hold the man down. But in the 20 some years that has been going around that I know of, not one creditable piece of evidence has been presented to show it's true and more then enough evidence has been shown to discredit most of the claims.
There was no circular argument. Well, except ones put forth by his detractors. I think it's funny because they all say he is stupid, yet he got elected not once, but twice and managed to get congress to go along with most everything he wanted done. In fact, it's so funny that people have started saying it was a conspiracy, a scheme to get that done all along. Now which is it, was he stupid or very clever? Or was he just smarter then some who cling to ideological argumentative points?
Anyways, you are proving my point by admitting that people have a strong disdain for Bush.
Wow, you people's knee jerk reactions to rush in a defend your fearless leader as if he can't do any wrong simply amazes me. You see, all the comment was about is that he hasn't done anything to change anything substantial to the SOFA agreement and he isn't running the war any differentl
I never suggested they should have pulled the troops out immediately. The fun fact comment was nothing more then an illustration to my comment about war protesters who trust Obama running the war verses Bush running the war even though it's essentially the same thing.
Perhaps you are talking about yourself here. I mean you fell over yourself taking things out of context and defending your supreme leader. Anyways, perhaps you should look at this PR talking point and get back to me.
that is because there was a lot of senators saying we need to just up and leave and let Iraq sort out their own mess. If you remember at the time, you will also have heard a lot of talk about how the war was lost and we need to pull our troops out of harms way. Also, I think you might be contorting the 2004 election with Kerry when john Murtha said we could never win in Iraq the best thing to do is abandon it.
anyways, that wasn't what my comment was about. It was about how anti war protesters don't mind Obama in charge of the war even though nothing substantial is different about it's execution.
Whatever gave you the idea that I expected the troops to be withdrawn overnight. I made the fun fact statement to show that there is no significant difference between Obama and Bush on Iraq which lends strength to my "once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything" comment.
No they are not. They are following the SOFA agreement to a T on this. Special forces are still going after terrorists and elements of Al Qeada, the rest of the support troops are training and doing support when absolutely neccesary. What mandate is different?
You know, John Stewart did a comparison piece on this in which he listed all the differences between Obama's plan and Bush's SOFA. All he could find was simplistic name changes that amounted to the same thing. But hey, if you know something I don't know, please point it out. I mean what exactly are the differences between the SOFA and Obama's withdrawal?
I'm going to ignore the rest of what you wrote as I believe you did so because you were too ignorant of the facts and had a knee jerk protect your leader response. Please read upon this before posting back.
How does inertia or momentum figure into that? It seems to me that you would coast for a while before gravity takes control.
A lot of them did. It's for two reasons, one the biggest protesting point was that Bush was involved and anything to rail on Bush seemed to be acceptable. Another reason is that once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything. (fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were scheduled to be left behind from Bush's SOFA agreement that was created about a year before the elections.)
Citizens of third world countries will be dealing with nothing different. They already face many of the same challenges predicted by global warming. It would likely be a wash in reality.
there is no need to be scared.
While I don't disagree, I want to point out that this won't or shouldn't be the case when running out of oil on a large scale. The key differences here is that most free nations are already working to make alternative energy sources competitive to the current energy outline. This means that either alternatives will succeed and negate oil for it's biggest use or once oil reaches a certain price, the alternatives will replace it.
So yes, on a scale like Cuba without the technology innovations we have seen in the past decade or two, it could be a problem. But on a world scale, especially with the events since the fall of the USSR, it wouldn't have near as big of an impact.
It doesn't matter if it's a civil action here or not. The same is true regardless, my comment is correct. And yes, a civil violation is still a federal crime.
Criminal penalties is not needed for the definition of crime. A crime is the violation of any law on the book. The law can have civil or criminal remedies. The difference is basically who is represented as being protected, a civil case, the citizen/individual is being protected, criminal, the state or governing body is.
That's not over confident at all. We have been manipulating agricultural areas for the last half century with great success. We have built dams and dikes to control water and flooding which has worked great for the most part (look at the dutch before bitching about a system in New Orleans that has been cobbled together over a hundred or more years). As gas and diesel fuels get more expensive, alternative fuels are becoming more attractive and research is going on right now to make them competitive with today's costs without artificially inflating the costs of oil.
Sure, some prime real estate right now might be worthless, but it will take 100 years to do so and is no different then anything else in life right now. It might not be a walk in the park but it certainly won't be some everyone's going to die tomorrow and there won't be any wide spread famine or disease. At least not any worse then it is today.
If you look at all the engineering challenges that have been met and conquered over the last hundred or more years that has made uninhabitable places comfortable and reasonably safe to live in, I'm not sure how you can't believe we can deal with the results of global warming. Right now, it's little more then political fear mongering and other natural courses of events may negate the entire thing altogether. A natural course of events could be war that disrupts oil and forces alternatives because of economic viability. It could be a break through in renewable energy or perhaps even some alternative energy that makes oil so much more inefficient. There are tons of things that could happened in the ordinary course of our lives that completely negate your fears of global warming or my willingness to view reality as it is and know we can deal with whatever comes from it.
No, not really. You must contain yourself within the confines of reality and the law.
Here is what we know:
as I mentioned before, look up conversion. It's a specific legal term under the laws of theft in which this would fall into. Just because you refuse to see something, or want to stick to some preconceived notion that is in your head, does not mean it's true. Someone who could never afford a camera could take out a charge card and purchase one with no intent of ever paying the card off. Are you going to say that isn't lost money either? Or lets take this one step closer to home, suppose you hire the next door neighbor to mow your lawn and never pay him. Did the kid lose out on a sale?
Why would you assume that? I mentioned petitioning your congress critter to address grievances.
BTW, the so called suffering under an artificial scarcity would most likely turn into a suffering under the lack of content if some sort of control wasn't maintained. Your living in fairy tale land if you thing people will invest the money needed to make recordings a hit if there wasn't anyway for them to recoup and come out ahead.
I'm not sure what your point is.
And your point is what? Is it that a company designed to make money is structuring it's operation to make money?
Yawn...
And what point of interest is this to me? And no, I didn't defend copyright laws, I stated the facts as they are. If that is defending copyright laws, it's because it makes you feel troubled that the facts are real. I suggest you petition your government to get them changes instead of making up arguments on slashdot.