Actually, a couple of blocks away is where the mosque is supposed to be, but yes, about a half mile or so of the impact is probably reasonable to consider ground zero.
Since these questions were about about a sexual affair that was not any business to anyone but the three people involved, I would say that yes, this isn't a very serious abuse of public trust or interests.
Umm.. You might want to rethink that. The reason for the question being brought up in the first place was because Bill Clinton was in a court of law over a sexual harassment lawsuit and the law that Bill himself championed and signed into law in 1996 gave the accuser the ability to probe into similar events in order to establish a pattern which would support their case. The question in general was everybody's business that was part of the trial and it was made so specifically at the hand of Bill Clinton. It's more then Three people.
Sure, Bill Clinton lied under oath, but surely you can't argue that this comes even close in seriousness to the Watergate or Plame scandals, or the lies that led to the second Iraq war?
I can't? I mean if a politicians can lie, then what to stop him or her from lieing about anything? Especially when the lie is made in a court of law and they aren't supposed to be above the law? Are you sure that you aren't simply favoring your guy as in "if they lie is bad, if we lie is doesn't matter or isn't important?"
hat has nothing to do with political affiliation, and everything to do with the circumstances.
Perhaps you are right, but the circumstances are a bit different then what you portray there. Is the reasoning behind that political in affiliation or just general ignorance? And yes, I mean ignorance in the generic term as not knowing more and not that you are stupid or willfully ignorant.
A manufactured scandal and a lawsuit that is intended to damage is not the same as blatant abuse of power for murky personal gain.
You don't think that the lieing in court wasn't for personal gain? Here you are using words like a manufactured scandal, and intended to damage which ignores the entire part that the events of the scandal were true so Clinton himself must have manufactured it with the intent to damage.
Here is the problem, there is no difference between lieing for personal gain and lieing to cover the personal gain up. The top law enforcement officer in the land did not do what is expected of every other person that happens to find themselves in a court, and he acted that way for his own personal gain in either securing the ability to sexually harass women at the job or to protect his assets from being transferred to Paula Jones.
I'm sorry that you see sexual harassment as a insignificant item of concern. I'm sorry that you think it's less important then what amounted to a drunken office aid making a comment to a reporter, I'm sorry that you have loads of unsubstantiated claims about lies that led to the second Iraq war which is little more then political fodder taken out of context. In short, I'm sorry that you can't even see your own bias in this little discussion and want to give a pass to one politician lieing while not accepting it from another.
So you are saying that the chief executive officer, constitutionally, the top law enforcement officer of the land, going into a court of law and not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, doesn't somehow abuse the public trust or interests?
And before you go into the splitting hairs bit attempting to redefine the meaning of the word "is", I want to ask if you think it's proper for a politician in one of then highest offices in the land, to be attempting to escape punishment for their own deeds by technicalities and slight of hand tricks? And think about that as a political figure, not your guy or your side as this can go to the same effect of Nixon and Watergate or Bush Gate (whatever the called the Plame bullshit or Bush Lied Bullshit and so on). Can you sit there and say it's appropriate behavior for a sitting elected official to attempt to skirt the truth while under oath in a court of law or other venue- even if it was the guy you disagreed with.
However, this specific site in question concerning the ground zero mosque had plane parts and if I'm not mistake body parts recovered from it due to the twin towers crash. Ground zero probably can be comfortably limited to all the areas the planes/plane parts and towers/tower parts hit instead of just the property lines of the twin towers property without to much exaggeration.
If I remember right, and no, I'm not following this closely, the building/property in conflict was valued at about 3 times the amount or so that the Muslim group purchased it for before 9/11 and it lost value after 9/11 because of the damage is sustained from the 9/11 attacks. I would consider this building part of ground zero in much the same way I consider pearl harbor part of the Japanese attacks at the beginning of WWII and not just the memorials of the ships sunk in the harbor.
The manufacturer and trader isn't really all that distinguishable or separable as it would seem as they can be both in the same.
If you owned a manufacturing plant and I contracted to have you build something and you didn't advertise anything about that but I did and then sold it, you would be separate. However, if you manufactured, marketed, and sold to suppliers, a product and I purchased it for resale, you would be both the trader and manufacturer- even to my customers who purchased the product based on your representations or my repeating of them. Especially when I'm passing your claims and representations off to my customers.
I'm investigating the situation in Australia a little more to attempt to understand it, but their laws clearly state that if you warranty a particular good for service, you have to provide a good capable of that service.
It would seem to me that updating the product wouldn't negate that at any time in the future unless there is a specific condition to the update and agreed upon before the update is made. It would also seem to me that a console that runs Linux as well as plays Play Station games and connects to the Play Station networks, would have to continue doing so or it could run afoul of the bait and switch laws because the failure was specifically due to the companies actions. While I understand there was a warning on April 1st (which could be confused with a joke), regardless, both the linux ability and the removed access to their networks for playing games should be not allowed under the existing law. It's my understanding that the choice was to lose one ability and not retain both which makes the product something entirely different then represented when sold.
I wish I could find the supposed ACCC ruling clearing sony of wrong doing, but it seems to be a mystery right now.
If it was a linux distro, it would be spelled Gnubian or Kgnubian something similar while sporting a picture of some bearded goat thing playing ball with a penguin.
I don't think this is any MSFT as the exclusive enemy of Open Source. I think it's more of a wolf in sheep's clothing situation where it's being pointed out that the sheep over by the tree is actually a wolf in disguise.
In other words, not all rants have to touch all participants in a topic. This is just as valid as railing on anything you mentioned, it's just targeted at the "look at me, I'm your friend now" enemy.
When any investigation is started by a public officer he should have a reasonable reason for suspicion. There's ample precedent for that, confirmed all the way to the Supreme Court.
A typical example is drug related offenses, many people have been released after being caught with drugs, just because they were black and the police officer didn't have any other reason to check them out.
In this case, unless the Virginia AG had some reason to suspect the scientist of fraud, the AG is in serious trouble.
Like in the drug cases I mentioned above, the scientist may even have committed fraud, the AG couldn't have initiated an investigation without a valid reason.
I believe the law being used to target these people allows the AG to audit certain things and the standard for initiating an investigation on this is a little lower then random joes on the street. It's one of those things you give up when asking the government for money.
BTW, in the hypothetical example you mention, you call the police because you saw someone packing a car full of luggage, you could be sued for libel and defamation. Don't try that unless you have a good reason. Saying "oops, my mistake" won't get you free from an expensive court suit.
Nah, nothing would happen if it was an honest mistake. An honest mistake would mean you had a good reason- you thought someone was stealing from someone you knew why they were gone. In a lot of cities, well in the US anyways, a lot of the subdivisions consist of 4 or 5 houses that all look alike spread out over the areas. It's not unheard of to read the news paper and find that some drunk got arrested because after he stumbled home at 5 am, he went to sleep in someone else's house that look just like his only 3 blocks away.
Of course if it's done maliciously, then yes, problems can arise really fast.
We've talked before and I have a fair idea of your political views, I strongly suspect that if it was not about climate change you would be screaming about government oppression and Mann's right to be left alone.
Actually, I've pretty much ignored this situation until this story posted and I saw people who don't know the difference between an investigation and a prosecution makes claims that aren't substantiated by the currently known facts.
Your right, I probably would be objecting to this in any other venue except for the fact that court rejected the search because the reason wasn't on it warrant. If the AT doesn't provide another with a valid reason that stands against attempts to invalidate it, I will be be making the claims you suggest I would be. However, until that happens or that it becomes apparent that it isn't happening, I'm simply remaining neutral on this and that includes telling idiots that investigations does not equal prosecutions and they don't know any reasons because one wasn't given which is why the ruling was the way it was.
Wow, I hope you at least go to law school before attempting to act like a lawyer in real life.
As I already provided a scenario in which a cop would have probably cause without an actual crime happening, I'm thinking that you might just be some idiot troll.
Reasonable cause does not mean a law has been broken or that the law has been broken by you. All that is needed the appearance of either convincingly enough that a reasonable person would suspect you and someone actually suspecting you. And if that suspicion turns out to be wrong, it's not perjury as long as the facts are real and not made up.
BTW, I don't think Oath means what you think it means. An oath is little more then a swearing of affirmation. In case those terms are to big for you, I will break it down a little more simpler. an Oath is little more then you saying I'm not lieing when I present this to you. An oath neither proves nor disproves anything, especially in court. It's simply a statement or concept declaring you are representing yourself as telling the truth as you understand it.
When a warrant is sworn out, there can be all sorts of circumstantial evidence that warrant a search or investigation that turns out to be absolutely nothing illegal. It doesn't mean anyone lied, it means that what had the appearance of violating the law wasn't actually doing so or that the person who appeared to be responsible for the violation wasn't actually involved.
So why are so many people saying that the boat is not taking on any water, or saying that until it's proven that it's taking on water we should take no action about it, or even if the boat is taking on water there's nothing we can do about it anyway? Why not take the safe cource of action and turn on a pump, any one? If it's later determined that it wasn't sufficient or that it was more than necessary, at least we took action.
Perhaps it's the idea of jumping from a boat into the middle of the ocean/lake/whatever and wanting proof before abandoning their device meant to keep them dry.
And no, the safe course isn't always to turn a pump on, if there isn't any water or not enough water, the pump will heat up and fail as the water often cools the pump. Some might think "so, there is another pump", and I guess they are right. But they should drive around a couple of months with they parking break on and see if they like replacing the rear brakes more often then they need to or have it inoperative when it is actually needed. You would look awful funny in front of a judge saying "I shouldn't be responsible for the damages from my car rolling down hill, I used the parking brake, in fact, I never take it off".
Can you come up with a rational argument for not reducing carbon dioxide emissions?
Economics.. And the amount of harm done in the process.
It simply doesn't make sense to do more harm then good by implementing to harsh of a strategy forcing the reduction of Co2.
What is the forecast if we continue on the same trend over the next 100 years? Well food crops will thrive in different areas and perish in existing area. Ok, well a century is 3 or more generations which is enough time to adjust. The sea level might rise, ok, but it won't be catastrophic and happen over night, so lets say in 80 years, we have to start building levies and pump houses around large populated areas. Ok, the dutch have shown that's possible as well as New Orleans and a few other places in the US for most of this countries existence. So in reality, houses that would probably be better served to be replaced in 100 years or so would need to be rebuilt, some extra public works projects would need to be done, and a shift in our agricultural production or the continuance of what we already do with irrigation might need to be more wide spread.
But within that 100 years, someone comes up with a carbon free method of creating energy that is able to replace most of our energy uses. Now that 100 years becomes 500. But wait, another break through is found that allows us to economically remove the estimated amounts of anthropogenic Co2 put into the atmosphere, not that 500 years becomes 1000.
You see, the argument for most people isn't about not reducing or eliminating Co2 production, it's how fast it's done and how much stress it places on the economy and people living within it. If you invented a usable form of energy tomorrow that doesn't produce Co2 and it's competitive to the cost of existing energy, no one will object to putting it into play. What they object to is having their utility bills skyrocket, being told they have to do without, or have some government bureaucrat say they have to spend more of their own money to continue to live the life they are comfortable with. And for some, it will mean giving up a lot of things they don't want to.
And yes, while it's true that fossil fuels will become cheaper when alternative energy starts replacing them, they can only get so cheap before it costs to much to produce them. That's why the best market for alternative energy right now is in expansion of creation to meet demand increases. It both regulates the supply verses demand issue of fossil fuels adding stability to the market which also aids in keeping them competitive to the use of fossil fuels. As technology advances and they become more competitive, they will start replacing fossil fuel use and eventually, Co2 production will be negated. And this can be done over the course of 50-100 or more years instead of the 1-2 decades to go back a decade in time.
It could also be that despite all observations, measurements and calculations, earth could still be flat, and no more than 5000 years old.
It could be, but somehow I doubt it. Of course starting your comment off like this, I'm left wondering if your just another troll from the church of global warming.
But it still makes more sense to base one's actions on more commonly held estimates for shape and age of said planet. And specifically regarding global warming, actions taken to reduce human co2 output are also good more generally since other local and global pollutants are reduced nicely by most actions. Burning non-renewable fossil fuels is also beneficial outside context of co2 emissions.
Sure, if you want to do that, go right ahead. The problem people have which is also why they want more answers then what is being provided is when you take your initiative and not only force it onto them, but onto the manufacturers and suppliers they rely on to live their lives, which end up causing inflation of the prices of their products. In other words, we want more then a hippy saying It's the right thing to do man, just after taking another bong hit. You seriously can't even answer the question of if eliminating all man made Co2 production tomorrow would change anything. The best you can do is say you think it might or it sounds like a good idea.
This is why we need to know what type of hole is in the boat, where it's located, and is killing ourselves the best way to fix it. And yes, if we ended all man made production of Co2 right now, people would die. Thankfully, no one is even remotely being serious about stopping all man made Co2 immediately which is something else to consider. If they aren't, then why not? I mean Kyoto wanted to freeze human causes of Co2 production in wealthy countries to 1990 levels but allow it to increase unregulated in poorer countries. This is why there has been a boom in China and India and certain South American countries- regulated countries sought to outsource their industries in order to meet their guidelines.
Still, the most important thing that is missing from "non-believers" (quotes, because I don't consider this a matter of faith or beliefs as much as many others do) is just that there is lack of credible alternate theories. This is suspiciously similar to stances of creationists: the main focus is no denying the main credible scientific theory, pointing at found or alleged holes, instead of trying to come up with better explanation for observations. This is done at multiple levels, from arguing against existence of observe trends to arguing about whose fault is it anyway. And it also aligns with current conservative political views, which are focused likewise on "just say no" way of argumentation. This is why it is very tempting to lump all said groups into one basket.
Creditable alternative theories to what? When most of the so called non-believers think there are problems with the records indicating the warming, some of which had been proven to be true, what is the alternative that is supposed to be presented other then the records aren't accurate? And to that note, they lost most of the early manipulations so verifying them is almost impossible without repeating every other study again based around new data. But then there are people who say it might be happening, but humans are insignificant or that the amount of increased Co2 is insignificant enough to cause the supposed warming. I mean after all, the Co2 claim is that less then.001% of the total GHG in the atmosphere shifting is going to end the world. I can see where an alternate theory might be possible there, but it seems that whenever someone attempts to toss one out, they are shouted down because of some oil job 20 years ago or because they are friends of someone else or whatever. Do you remember the weather channel babe who was suggesting
Is the Virginia Attorney General qualified to do that investigation?
I don't know about the Virginia Attorney General specifically, but typically, yes, it's their (Attorney General's) duty to oversee investigations. They might not participate in them directly, but they can cause them to happen as well as the actual prosecutions. Think of the AT as more like a front man for the entire justice department and all the offices authorized under it.
A public officer needs to have some basis for any investigation he starts. Unless he has the proper scientific qualifications, or has received reliable information from an expert in the field, anything he does is nothing but political pressure.
Why would you think that? If scientist A got a grant to study process Y, and it was found that process Y was fakes by Scientist B while Scientist A knew all along, science doesn't even come into play on the fraud charge associated with obtaining and misusing the grant. There are plenty of avenues that do not even come close to needing any expertise in science or any field in general in which an investigation can be initiates.
Unless something is found, it's the Virginia Attorney General who must prove he had cause to start that investigation. If he didn't have anything concrete, then he's at least guilty of wasting the state's resources.
Well yea, but as I said, you have no idea right now as nothing has been able to be looked into yet. If is somewhat of a powerful word here but something you should remember is that it's reliant upon and action yet to happen.
BTW, you can have cause to investigate something without anything ever being found to support the idea a law was broken. This happens every day, you just need to have cause (which is different from evidence). Suppose you are packing your car full of luggage one night while getting prepared to go on vacation the next day. Now suppose I saw you doing that and called the law saying that someone is stealing all your shit. When the cops show up, they will investigate what you are doing, they will probably also find that you broke no laws, would you call that a waist of tax payer money? *even if the reason I called the law was because I got confused to what block I was on and thought the house belonged to someone else- who was already out of town on vacation?
Wow.. 99.99% of all research and 100% of all reputable research, that's amazing. Where can I find out more about these outrageously large or inflated values? Are you sure you aren't just suffering from selection bias or something? Perhaps the old saying that goes something like 80% of all percentages are made up on the spot?
So arguing about who put the hole in the boat while your sinking seems to be counter productive.
Ahh,, I get it now, you simply do not understand the argument. It's not about who put the hole in the boat, it's about where the whole is, how it was created which indicates a little about how can be plugged or if it even needs to be plugged, and if we are actually sinking or just taking on water. And no, just because you are standing in water doesn't mean you are taking on water in a boat. It could be water from the fresh water source or the piss running down you leg from being scared.
In my speed boat, there is a plug at the very back of it that allows water to completely drain from it. There is also a bilge pump installed in two separate locations. This means that yes, the boat is designed to take on water and deal with it. But as long as you deal with it, you are not sinking. So the question becomes do you turn on one pump? Which one? Both pumps? Or neither pump and just open the drain plug while going full throttle. Or do you do nothing until it gets worse and the answer to those questions become more obvious.
And of course, I have used all 5 of those answers at some point in time. If AGW and Global warming was as simple as you attempt to make it, it would be obvious to everyone, not just the believers.
This isn't even a prosecution yet. It's an investigation....
And you have no clue if it's politicians bloviating with public resources or not until something is found or nothing is found. As the judge said, the argument could be made, it just wasn't on the warrant, to investigate the use of the one grant.
So, Google distributes most of the internet? Because Google links to plenty of HTML pages directly. And people click on links from google, and their browser downloads those web pages directly. Are you really saying that Google distributes other people's HTML? All of those end-point HTML pages are copyright by someone other than Google, and I'm pretty sure that Google does not have a license to redistribute those pages. Google links to some of my web pages, allowing people to download them, and I didn't give Google permission to distribute my copyrighted material. Is Google liable for copyright infringement of my content? Is anyone who links to any content on the web without first getting the copyright holders permission guilty of copyright infringement?
Did you just completely ignore what I wrote then make something up in your own mind and attribute it to me? Yes, Google distributed the internet when it links to a copyrighted work without taking you to a the authors page. Yes, Google does distribute your copyrighted works when someone follows a link from them. However, you do not need to give Google or any other search engine permission to link to your works because the law specifically allows that behavior. That was the law I specifically quoted. Further more, copyright law specifically allows for then caching of copyrighted works on computers in order to view them. This would also apply to viewing web pages.
In other words, being linked to from a search engine is not one of the exclusive controls you have as a copyright holder under US law. There is also the implied permission you gave by making it available in a public venue. Further more, it's pointless to argue this as the GPLv3 has made it specific within it's own document.
I'll happily look over any actual evidence to the contrary.
Actually, I got the pirate bay confused with napster while I was attempting to find more recent cases. Anyhow, napster and limewire do back up the statement that links directly to a file is downloading regardless of who is serving the file or made it available.
A "download" web page does not distribute anything. The thing a download page links to is distributed from some server or other, yes, (and it might even be the same server), but it's the server the file exists on which is where it's distributed from, and the directory in which the file is actually located which is the place that it's distributed from.
I'm not going to argue with you. You know damn well what I mean and are attempting to muddle the point in some failed attempt to retain your incorrect position. Whether FTP, HTTP, or.torrent, there is a page somewhere that links to the file and allows the browser to start the transfer. Sitting on the same server without the links being together is completely useless as far as counting the same place or distribution as I can otherwise place the source code on a non-public side of the server or bury it inside a completely unexpected garbage making it near impossible for you to get the source code. When the GPL says you have to make the source code available, it has specific rules on how to make that available. If you do not comply, you are in violation of it and therefore in violation of copyright laws.
How can you not tell the difference between linking to something which can be distributed, and actually distributing it? The whole World Wide Web is based on the fact that person A can link to files (whether those files are.HTML,.PNG,.ISO, or other) that person B hosts and distributes, without needing to host or distribute those files themselves, and also without person A needing to get permission from the copyright holder to link to that file, because person A is not distributing the content!
Actually, Eisenhower was already looking for a solution to an existing problem before he noticed the autobahn. It could take up to 6 months to transfer troops from one side of the country to the other which severely hampered our war effort in WWII. Eisenhower actually had issues which this before WWII and noted it in his Journal.
This also isn't a question of far right or far left as it's a constitutional right or privilege or duty for the federal government to establish and maintain roads. This ability/obligation existed long before left and right sides or even communism seemed to be prevalent let alone invented.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Otherwise you would have seen a few distinct differences between what you wrote and the current day Muslim issue. Instead, you are masquerading some unwarranted attempt to bash Christians or something and faking intelligence by claiming critical thinking.
You see, you listed people who claimed to be doing something in their own right of Christianity, however, they cease to exist because when people started looking at the scriptures, they realized they were full of crap. In the muslim religion, most of the violence and hatred is actually supported in their bible if strict literal interpretations are taken. This isn't the case in the christian bible unless you totally misconstrue the entire point of it and take it out of the christian context. This is probably because of your tendency to rebel and rejection of the christian teachings in the Christian schools you claimed to have been raised in.
Why would simply the name of someone make a thread serious or not serious?
It would seem that the content and the context is more important to the distinction of serious or not. Perhaps I'm missing something, could you let me in on it?
Actually, the union will step in and do the legal action as if there are any shenanigans like you mentioned, the Union will benefit from punitive damages as well. Also built into federal law is provisions that allow a court to force the reopening of the establishment as well as the payment of back wages to all employees working there.
Perhaps before you throw your hand in the air claiming all is lost and it's hopeless, you should actually speak to a qualified union rep or someone who has a little more experience starting a union then giving up at the thought of it. And no, I don't like Unions but the facts remain that the law is on their side.
And yes, I do have the perspective of a waitress as I was a waiter for 5 years and dated a waitress for 10. Sure, there are crappy waitresses and crappy jobs and they do not make much money, but most of that is their own fault. This is just as true as if you remained at a minimum wage job knowing you won't get a raise yet refuse to look for better employment. Or are you saying that you are somehow entitled to something more then the employer is willing to offer and you shouldn't have to change jobs to get it?
This whole story reminds me of a dirty campaign trick from a few years back- I'm not going to figure out which campaign or which election, since that's not important to this example.
Cleavland or Toledo Ohio area- 2004 or 2006 or 2008 elections. I forget which, but there was several controversies like this within the last couple major elections in that area. Some used the controversies to claim Bush Stole the election from Kerry, in other situations it was used to rally certain supporters. I'm not sure if the fliers or the rhetoric resulting form them were connected to the later by intend as the areas impacted seemed to be low income, high violence-crime areas where you wouldn't expect voting or civic duty as being a high priority.
I don't think they ever figures out who issued the flyers but as soon as one is seen, all the local news is running stories about it having the wrong dates and correcting them now.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, a couple of blocks away is where the mosque is supposed to be, but yes, about a half mile or so of the impact is probably reasonable to consider ground zero.
Umm.. You might want to rethink that. The reason for the question being brought up in the first place was because Bill Clinton was in a court of law over a sexual harassment lawsuit and the law that Bill himself championed and signed into law in 1996 gave the accuser the ability to probe into similar events in order to establish a pattern which would support their case. The question in general was everybody's business that was part of the trial and it was made so specifically at the hand of Bill Clinton. It's more then Three people.
I can't? I mean if a politicians can lie, then what to stop him or her from lieing about anything? Especially when the lie is made in a court of law and they aren't supposed to be above the law? Are you sure that you aren't simply favoring your guy as in "if they lie is bad, if we lie is doesn't matter or isn't important?"
Perhaps you are right, but the circumstances are a bit different then what you portray there. Is the reasoning behind that political in affiliation or just general ignorance? And yes, I mean ignorance in the generic term as not knowing more and not that you are stupid or willfully ignorant.
You don't think that the lieing in court wasn't for personal gain? Here you are using words like a manufactured scandal, and intended to damage which ignores the entire part that the events of the scandal were true so Clinton himself must have manufactured it with the intent to damage.
Here is the problem, there is no difference between lieing for personal gain and lieing to cover the personal gain up. The top law enforcement officer in the land did not do what is expected of every other person that happens to find themselves in a court, and he acted that way for his own personal gain in either securing the ability to sexually harass women at the job or to protect his assets from being transferred to Paula Jones.
I'm sorry that you see sexual harassment as a insignificant item of concern. I'm sorry that you think it's less important then what amounted to a drunken office aid making a comment to a reporter, I'm sorry that you have loads of unsubstantiated claims about lies that led to the second Iraq war which is little more then political fodder taken out of context. In short, I'm sorry that you can't even see your own bias in this little discussion and want to give a pass to one politician lieing while not accepting it from another.
So you are saying that the chief executive officer, constitutionally, the top law enforcement officer of the land, going into a court of law and not telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, doesn't somehow abuse the public trust or interests?
And before you go into the splitting hairs bit attempting to redefine the meaning of the word "is", I want to ask if you think it's proper for a politician in one of then highest offices in the land, to be attempting to escape punishment for their own deeds by technicalities and slight of hand tricks? And think about that as a political figure, not your guy or your side as this can go to the same effect of Nixon and Watergate or Bush Gate (whatever the called the Plame bullshit or Bush Lied Bullshit and so on). Can you sit there and say it's appropriate behavior for a sitting elected official to attempt to skirt the truth while under oath in a court of law or other venue- even if it was the guy you disagreed with.
No, not all of Manhatten Island.
However, this specific site in question concerning the ground zero mosque had plane parts and if I'm not mistake body parts recovered from it due to the twin towers crash. Ground zero probably can be comfortably limited to all the areas the planes/plane parts and towers/tower parts hit instead of just the property lines of the twin towers property without to much exaggeration.
If I remember right, and no, I'm not following this closely, the building/property in conflict was valued at about 3 times the amount or so that the Muslim group purchased it for before 9/11 and it lost value after 9/11 because of the damage is sustained from the 9/11 attacks. I would consider this building part of ground zero in much the same way I consider pearl harbor part of the Japanese attacks at the beginning of WWII and not just the memorials of the ships sunk in the harbor.
The manufacturer and trader isn't really all that distinguishable or separable as it would seem as they can be both in the same.
If you owned a manufacturing plant and I contracted to have you build something and you didn't advertise anything about that but I did and then sold it, you would be separate. However, if you manufactured, marketed, and sold to suppliers, a product and I purchased it for resale, you would be both the trader and manufacturer- even to my customers who purchased the product based on your representations or my repeating of them. Especially when I'm passing your claims and representations off to my customers.
I'm investigating the situation in Australia a little more to attempt to understand it, but their laws clearly state that if you warranty a particular good for service, you have to provide a good capable of that service.
It would seem to me that updating the product wouldn't negate that at any time in the future unless there is a specific condition to the update and agreed upon before the update is made. It would also seem to me that a console that runs Linux as well as plays Play Station games and connects to the Play Station networks, would have to continue doing so or it could run afoul of the bait and switch laws because the failure was specifically due to the companies actions. While I understand there was a warning on April 1st (which could be confused with a joke), regardless, both the linux ability and the removed access to their networks for playing games should be not allowed under the existing law. It's my understanding that the choice was to lose one ability and not retain both which makes the product something entirely different then represented when sold.
I wish I could find the supposed ACCC ruling clearing sony of wrong doing, but it seems to be a mystery right now.
Perhaps the AU legal system doesn't have the same concept of bait and switch as what's in the US systems.
Perhaps the regulatory board that cleared Sony didn't look at it thoroughly enough or had an alternate motivation.
If it was a linux distro, it would be spelled Gnubian or Kgnubian something similar while sporting a picture of some bearded goat thing playing ball with a penguin.
I don't think this is any MSFT as the exclusive enemy of Open Source. I think it's more of a wolf in sheep's clothing situation where it's being pointed out that the sheep over by the tree is actually a wolf in disguise.
In other words, not all rants have to touch all participants in a topic. This is just as valid as railing on anything you mentioned, it's just targeted at the "look at me, I'm your friend now" enemy.
Just redirect it to http://amishrakefight.org/gfy/
All will be fine.
I believe the law being used to target these people allows the AG to audit certain things and the standard for initiating an investigation on this is a little lower then random joes on the street. It's one of those things you give up when asking the government for money.
Nah, nothing would happen if it was an honest mistake. An honest mistake would mean you had a good reason- you thought someone was stealing from someone you knew why they were gone. In a lot of cities, well in the US anyways, a lot of the subdivisions consist of 4 or 5 houses that all look alike spread out over the areas. It's not unheard of to read the news paper and find that some drunk got arrested because after he stumbled home at 5 am, he went to sleep in someone else's house that look just like his only 3 blocks away.
Of course if it's done maliciously, then yes, problems can arise really fast.
Actually, I've pretty much ignored this situation until this story posted and I saw people who don't know the difference between an investigation and a prosecution makes claims that aren't substantiated by the currently known facts.
Your right, I probably would be objecting to this in any other venue except for the fact that court rejected the search because the reason wasn't on it warrant. If the AT doesn't provide another with a valid reason that stands against attempts to invalidate it, I will be be making the claims you suggest I would be. However, until that happens or that it becomes apparent that it isn't happening, I'm simply remaining neutral on this and that includes telling idiots that investigations does not equal prosecutions and they don't know any reasons because one wasn't given which is why the ruling was the way it was.
Wow, I hope you at least go to law school before attempting to act like a lawyer in real life.
As I already provided a scenario in which a cop would have probably cause without an actual crime happening, I'm thinking that you might just be some idiot troll.
Reasonable cause does not mean a law has been broken or that the law has been broken by you. All that is needed the appearance of either convincingly enough that a reasonable person would suspect you and someone actually suspecting you. And if that suspicion turns out to be wrong, it's not perjury as long as the facts are real and not made up.
BTW, I don't think Oath means what you think it means. An oath is little more then a swearing of affirmation. In case those terms are to big for you, I will break it down a little more simpler. an Oath is little more then you saying I'm not lieing when I present this to you. An oath neither proves nor disproves anything, especially in court. It's simply a statement or concept declaring you are representing yourself as telling the truth as you understand it.
When a warrant is sworn out, there can be all sorts of circumstantial evidence that warrant a search or investigation that turns out to be absolutely nothing illegal. It doesn't mean anyone lied, it means that what had the appearance of violating the law wasn't actually doing so or that the person who appeared to be responsible for the violation wasn't actually involved.
Perhaps it's the idea of jumping from a boat into the middle of the ocean/lake/whatever and wanting proof before abandoning their device meant to keep them dry.
And no, the safe course isn't always to turn a pump on, if there isn't any water or not enough water, the pump will heat up and fail as the water often cools the pump. Some might think "so, there is another pump", and I guess they are right. But they should drive around a couple of months with they parking break on and see if they like replacing the rear brakes more often then they need to or have it inoperative when it is actually needed. You would look awful funny in front of a judge saying "I shouldn't be responsible for the damages from my car rolling down hill, I used the parking brake, in fact, I never take it off".
Economics.. And the amount of harm done in the process.
It simply doesn't make sense to do more harm then good by implementing to harsh of a strategy forcing the reduction of Co2.
What is the forecast if we continue on the same trend over the next 100 years? Well food crops will thrive in different areas and perish in existing area. Ok, well a century is 3 or more generations which is enough time to adjust. The sea level might rise, ok, but it won't be catastrophic and happen over night, so lets say in 80 years, we have to start building levies and pump houses around large populated areas. Ok, the dutch have shown that's possible as well as New Orleans and a few other places in the US for most of this countries existence. So in reality, houses that would probably be better served to be replaced in 100 years or so would need to be rebuilt, some extra public works projects would need to be done, and a shift in our agricultural production or the continuance of what we already do with irrigation might need to be more wide spread.
But within that 100 years, someone comes up with a carbon free method of creating energy that is able to replace most of our energy uses. Now that 100 years becomes 500. But wait, another break through is found that allows us to economically remove the estimated amounts of anthropogenic Co2 put into the atmosphere, not that 500 years becomes 1000.
You see, the argument for most people isn't about not reducing or eliminating Co2 production, it's how fast it's done and how much stress it places on the economy and people living within it. If you invented a usable form of energy tomorrow that doesn't produce Co2 and it's competitive to the cost of existing energy, no one will object to putting it into play. What they object to is having their utility bills skyrocket, being told they have to do without, or have some government bureaucrat say they have to spend more of their own money to continue to live the life they are comfortable with. And for some, it will mean giving up a lot of things they don't want to.
And yes, while it's true that fossil fuels will become cheaper when alternative energy starts replacing them, they can only get so cheap before it costs to much to produce them. That's why the best market for alternative energy right now is in expansion of creation to meet demand increases. It both regulates the supply verses demand issue of fossil fuels adding stability to the market which also aids in keeping them competitive to the use of fossil fuels. As technology advances and they become more competitive, they will start replacing fossil fuel use and eventually, Co2 production will be negated. And this can be done over the course of 50-100 or more years instead of the 1-2 decades to go back a decade in time.
It could be, but somehow I doubt it. Of course starting your comment off like this, I'm left wondering if your just another troll from the church of global warming.
Sure, if you want to do that, go right ahead. The problem people have which is also why they want more answers then what is being provided is when you take your initiative and not only force it onto them, but onto the manufacturers and suppliers they rely on to live their lives, which end up causing inflation of the prices of their products. In other words, we want more then a hippy saying It's the right thing to do man, just after taking another bong hit. You seriously can't even answer the question of if eliminating all man made Co2 production tomorrow would change anything. The best you can do is say you think it might or it sounds like a good idea.
This is why we need to know what type of hole is in the boat, where it's located, and is killing ourselves the best way to fix it. And yes, if we ended all man made production of Co2 right now, people would die. Thankfully, no one is even remotely being serious about stopping all man made Co2 immediately which is something else to consider. If they aren't, then why not? I mean Kyoto wanted to freeze human causes of Co2 production in wealthy countries to 1990 levels but allow it to increase unregulated in poorer countries. This is why there has been a boom in China and India and certain South American countries- regulated countries sought to outsource their industries in order to meet their guidelines.
Creditable alternative theories to what? When most of the so called non-believers think there are problems with the records indicating the warming, some of which had been proven to be true, what is the alternative that is supposed to be presented other then the records aren't accurate? And to that note, they lost most of the early manipulations so verifying them is almost impossible without repeating every other study again based around new data. But then there are people who say it might be happening, but humans are insignificant or that the amount of increased Co2 is insignificant enough to cause the supposed warming. I mean after all, the Co2 claim is that less then .001% of the total GHG in the atmosphere shifting is going to end the world. I can see where an alternate theory might be possible there, but it seems that whenever someone attempts to toss one out, they are shouted down because of some oil job 20 years ago or because they are friends of someone else or whatever. Do you remember the weather channel babe who was suggesting
I don't know about the Virginia Attorney General specifically, but typically, yes, it's their (Attorney General's) duty to oversee investigations. They might not participate in them directly, but they can cause them to happen as well as the actual prosecutions. Think of the AT as more like a front man for the entire justice department and all the offices authorized under it.
Why would you think that? If scientist A got a grant to study process Y, and it was found that process Y was fakes by Scientist B while Scientist A knew all along, science doesn't even come into play on the fraud charge associated with obtaining and misusing the grant. There are plenty of avenues that do not even come close to needing any expertise in science or any field in general in which an investigation can be initiates.
Well yea, but as I said, you have no idea right now as nothing has been able to be looked into yet. If is somewhat of a powerful word here but something you should remember is that it's reliant upon and action yet to happen.
BTW, you can have cause to investigate something without anything ever being found to support the idea a law was broken. This happens every day, you just need to have cause (which is different from evidence). Suppose you are packing your car full of luggage one night while getting prepared to go on vacation the next day. Now suppose I saw you doing that and called the law saying that someone is stealing all your shit. When the cops show up, they will investigate what you are doing, they will probably also find that you broke no laws, would you call that a waist of tax payer money? *even if the reason I called the law was because I got confused to what block I was on and thought the house belonged to someone else- who was already out of town on vacation?
It would seem to me that the democrats don't agree with you enough to put their jobs on the line.
Blocking this helps them keep their jobs.
Wow.. 99.99% of all research and 100% of all reputable research, that's amazing. Where can I find out more about these outrageously large or inflated values? Are you sure you aren't just suffering from selection bias or something? Perhaps the old saying that goes something like 80% of all percentages are made up on the spot?
Ahh,, I get it now, you simply do not understand the argument. It's not about who put the hole in the boat, it's about where the whole is, how it was created which indicates a little about how can be plugged or if it even needs to be plugged, and if we are actually sinking or just taking on water. And no, just because you are standing in water doesn't mean you are taking on water in a boat. It could be water from the fresh water source or the piss running down you leg from being scared.
In my speed boat, there is a plug at the very back of it that allows water to completely drain from it. There is also a bilge pump installed in two separate locations. This means that yes, the boat is designed to take on water and deal with it. But as long as you deal with it, you are not sinking. So the question becomes do you turn on one pump? Which one? Both pumps? Or neither pump and just open the drain plug while going full throttle. Or do you do nothing until it gets worse and the answer to those questions become more obvious.
And of course, I have used all 5 of those answers at some point in time. If AGW and Global warming was as simple as you attempt to make it, it would be obvious to everyone, not just the believers.
This isn't even a prosecution yet. It's an investigation....
And you have no clue if it's politicians bloviating with public resources or not until something is found or nothing is found. As the judge said, the argument could be made, it just wasn't on the warrant, to investigate the use of the one grant.
Did you just completely ignore what I wrote then make something up in your own mind and attribute it to me? Yes, Google distributed the internet when it links to a copyrighted work without taking you to a the authors page. Yes, Google does distribute your copyrighted works when someone follows a link from them. However, you do not need to give Google or any other search engine permission to link to your works because the law specifically allows that behavior. That was the law I specifically quoted. Further more, copyright law specifically allows for then caching of copyrighted works on computers in order to view them. This would also apply to viewing web pages.
In other words, being linked to from a search engine is not one of the exclusive controls you have as a copyright holder under US law. There is also the implied permission you gave by making it available in a public venue. Further more, it's pointless to argue this as the GPLv3 has made it specific within it's own document.
Actually, I got the pirate bay confused with napster while I was attempting to find more recent cases. Anyhow, napster and limewire do back up the statement that links directly to a file is downloading regardless of who is serving the file or made it available.
I'm not going to argue with you. You know damn well what I mean and are attempting to muddle the point in some failed attempt to retain your incorrect position. Whether FTP, HTTP, or .torrent, there is a page somewhere that links to the file and allows the browser to start the transfer. Sitting on the same server without the links being together is completely useless as far as counting the same place or distribution as I can otherwise place the source code on a non-public side of the server or bury it inside a completely unexpected garbage making it near impossible for you to get the source code. When the GPL says you have to make the source code available, it has specific rules on how to make that available. If you do not comply, you are in violation of it and therefore in violation of copyright laws.
No, the whole web is not based on that. A
Actually, Eisenhower was already looking for a solution to an existing problem before he noticed the autobahn. It could take up to 6 months to transfer troops from one side of the country to the other which severely hampered our war effort in WWII. Eisenhower actually had issues which this before WWII and noted it in his Journal.
This also isn't a question of far right or far left as it's a constitutional right or privilege or duty for the federal government to establish and maintain roads. This ability/obligation existed long before left and right sides or even communism seemed to be prevalent let alone invented.
critically,
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Otherwise you would have seen a few distinct differences between what you wrote and the current day Muslim issue. Instead, you are masquerading some unwarranted attempt to bash Christians or something and faking intelligence by claiming critical thinking.
You see, you listed people who claimed to be doing something in their own right of Christianity, however, they cease to exist because when people started looking at the scriptures, they realized they were full of crap. In the muslim religion, most of the violence and hatred is actually supported in their bible if strict literal interpretations are taken. This isn't the case in the christian bible unless you totally misconstrue the entire point of it and take it out of the christian context. This is probably because of your tendency to rebel and rejection of the christian teachings in the Christian schools you claimed to have been raised in.
Why would simply the name of someone make a thread serious or not serious?
It would seem that the content and the context is more important to the distinction of serious or not. Perhaps I'm missing something, could you let me in on it?
Actually, the union will step in and do the legal action as if there are any shenanigans like you mentioned, the Union will benefit from punitive damages as well. Also built into federal law is provisions that allow a court to force the reopening of the establishment as well as the payment of back wages to all employees working there.
Perhaps before you throw your hand in the air claiming all is lost and it's hopeless, you should actually speak to a qualified union rep or someone who has a little more experience starting a union then giving up at the thought of it. And no, I don't like Unions but the facts remain that the law is on their side.
And yes, I do have the perspective of a waitress as I was a waiter for 5 years and dated a waitress for 10. Sure, there are crappy waitresses and crappy jobs and they do not make much money, but most of that is their own fault. This is just as true as if you remained at a minimum wage job knowing you won't get a raise yet refuse to look for better employment. Or are you saying that you are somehow entitled to something more then the employer is willing to offer and you shouldn't have to change jobs to get it?
Cleavland or Toledo Ohio area- 2004 or 2006 or 2008 elections. I forget which, but there was several controversies like this within the last couple major elections in that area. Some used the controversies to claim Bush Stole the election from Kerry, in other situations it was used to rally certain supporters. I'm not sure if the fliers or the rhetoric resulting form them were connected to the later by intend as the areas impacted seemed to be low income, high violence-crime areas where you wouldn't expect voting or civic duty as being a high priority.
I don't think they ever figures out who issued the flyers but as soon as one is seen, all the local news is running stories about it having the wrong dates and correcting them now.