Don't you think that Google should have some user interaction with the update so when the terribly vulnerable security fix version breaks my crappy app for work, I know I need to yell at the developers to fix it and point them in the right direction?
I mean that's a big problem with windows automatic updates. Well, not so much any more, but it used to be that someone would update the OS, then some app or piece of hardware would break, and then you spend 10 hours attempting to figure out why it worked the night before but not today- not knowing that they just updated their OS because Microsoft wouldn't ever be the cause of something like that. The worst part is that it only broke on one out of 20 computers.
I'm glad windows now has the ability to lock users out of the updates until it can be approved before installing.
Huh? Nothing in that article indicates that there's something wrong with the new estimate. That I can see, anyway.
Read the articles and posts again. The original numbers were 18k barrels leaking and BP being able to capture 15K. The revised numbers are 35-60k leaking and BP being able to capture 60-80k. You used the old capture numbers with the revised release numbers and it created an entirely too large of a gap for the reality of the situation.
BTW, sorry about the sloppy formatting, I should have previewed it before posting.
Yeah. All I can say is, we'll see about that. If it happens, great! But given that, on the lowest end, the current flow rate is estimated to be *seven times* BP's original estimate, I'll take their claims with a truly enormous grain of salt.
Well, I read an article or saw a news story on it which I can't find a reference to link to for some reason. But they claimed that the current limiting factors are getting rid of the captured oil (which is what I originally posted). Anyways, these numbers are somewhat validated by the USCG which is overseeing the operations and had to ultimately approve the additional collection techniques. BP has underestimated the flow rates but not over estimated their capture rates that I know of. If you know more about that, let me in on it. Part of the reason the current flow rate is 7 times more then the original estimate is also because they cute the BOP off the exposed pipe in order to make collections efforts more efficient. The official USCG estimate is still higher then BP's first new estimate but you also have to remember that it's a game of assumptions in estimating something largely uncontrolled. It won't be the same when estimating the capacity of something completely engineered unless there is some sort of fault in the engineering. We have no evidence of that being involved in the situation to date except for the first failed cap attempt.
Wait... are you talking about the cap that, today, is collecting something like 15k barrels a day from an estimated 35-60k?
Because, if so, you have a *very* odd definition of "most".
I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but as of june 6th, the official US coast guard estimates were that the well was leaking around 19K barrels a day. Collecting 15K is most of the 19K and there is nothing odd about that.
Furthermore, the collection rates aren't higher because they're afraid if they attempt to catch higher volumes, the cap will blow off under the pressure. It's a physical limit on the technique they're using, and they knew that full well before they began, which is why, prior to the operation, the message changed from "we'll stop the leak" to "we'll reduce the outflow as much as we can".Ahh, I see where your numbers are from- there is still something wrong with them.
BP did state that's it was having problems removing the oil because of limits in transportation and burn off capabilities. By mid July, they are supposed to be able to capture or otherwise deal with 60K-80K barrels per day or better.
Maybe you should do some more reading. You will find there is a lot of relevance in America and most western countries. The law makes then an object for the enforcement of the law. You can disagree but you would be wrong.
Here is a quick test you can do, giving classified information to foreign nationals is illegal. What is illegal about it? Not giving them information, it's only illegal to give them certain kinds of information as classified by law. So you can tell Iran how to cook dinner or how to get a sun tan without getting a sun burn, but you can't tell them how to make their centrifuge for enriching uranium more efficient and you can't tell them the troop strength of the initial response force geared as responding to an attack by Iran. Why, because the law made that information an object and placed restrictions on it's possession, use, and dissemination. So you can be an Iranian working for the Iranian government, you can obtain the information about cooking or sun bathing, but possession of military or state secretes or otherwise restricted information is enough for you to be arrested in most western countries. Now how is that possible is the law doesn't treat the information as an object?
If the information isn't an object, then how is obtaining it without permission illegal? How is having the information or divulging it to the wrong people illegal?
You see, the laws treat the information as an object whether they are in reality or not. The information that someone is a covert agent is not an object in reality, but giving that information or object of concern to foreign nationals is completely illegal. So if information cannot be treated as an object, then how is it illegal to give information to certain parties? Of course the answer to that is that the law treats it as an object whether you like it or not.
I don't know. I'm also "the public", and I don't see how I'm better off in the slightest with all this. Furthermore, I don't see a problem with telling the people that they meet to discuss specific things, but why would we care where that happens?
While I admire your spirit, you are only part of "the public". So you not seeing the value of something isn't really the big picture here. In fact, there is probably lots of people just like you, I'm one of them. However, I know enough people who would be terribly frightened if world leaders were meeting in secrete spots. Maybe it's a hold over from some scifi movie or the cold war, but nothing good could happen in their minds.
Besides, one thing I learned a long time ago, if you give the appearance of no improprieties happening, then less people will accuse you of them. Regardless of anything, this public appearance is a shell that follows that line.
I'm sure we all want our political leaders to not overspend on what is essentially bling - especially when one of the central points of the talk is fiscal austerity! Instead, this whole thing just reeks of a deliberate show of grandeur. The figure of $1B was announced in advance and widely publicized by now, so none of those attending can claim ignorance as to how much their little tea party is going to cost, and I can't believe they don't understand how it will be taken by the citizens - who are, in the end, the ones footing the bill. So is is really ignorance to such an extreme length, or an intentional gesture of "fuck you, know your place" to us all?
One Billion Dollars isn't really all that much when you break it down per representative. Most G20 countries have operating budgets or GDP's in the trillions of dollars, and you have to remember that this is Canada where everything is more expensive then in the US. If all 20 countries send representatives, it's about 500 million a piece. Now considering that they will send more then their top figurehead (lets assume 2 each), that's about 250 million per party. Now Obama is supposed to be there for 3 days so assuming the others will be too, that's about 83.5 million per day per state head. This still seems like a lot, but you can then break it down with their aids included and such and it doesn't seem all that much considering the increased security threat from a target created by all the leaders being in one spot at the same time.
ON the practical levels though, we have been able to transmit signatures for several decades now but we still see leaders from both countries get together to sign treaties and trade deals. That's because tradition has been that way forever, the people tend to like it, and politics tends to stay as close to the same as possible as long as they can keep their power. It's not ignorance or a fuck you, it's just the way it was so it's still the way it is.
As far as conspiracy theorists are concerned, G20 has been a front for Illuminati/ZOG/aliens/whatever for as long as it exists - and the same applies to pretty much any international organization of influence, so nothing new there. Since their meetings are closed as needed, there's more than enough fuel for all those theories.
Sure there are conspiracies now. But only the wackos and idiots fall for them. How many sane and otherwise intelligent people would fall for them if it was done in secrete. That would be quite a bit. Oh and BTW, I know conspiracies are believed by intelligent people, some conspiracies are so close to the truth it's not funny. Otherwise intelligent people is meant to mean they aren't the ones ignoring facts to keep the conspiracy alive. Or that's just what they want you to think.
It would be interesting for a group to host an axe handle rally where everyone shows up with blocks of hickory and makes axe handles. They could get 2000 or more people to walk in with wooden logs and walk out with axe handled just to overwhelm the police for stupid things like this.
If a guy going about his day can be arrested in Canada for possessing things that aren't illegal to posses- even when all possessed together, then I think they need a lesson in how bad of an idea that really is.
I think the idea of being in public and letting the public know is to keep it above the table even though the talks are closed. It also allows a platform for certain things to be said depending on how convenient or proper it may be.
If you found out that 20 leaders from the largest economies around the world met at some secrete location, the conspiracy radar would be going off like crazy. All this limited openness does is allows what little trust in government around the world there is, to remain.
Yawn.. I guess you have ran out of intelligent things to say.
Would it be better if I said the information is still an object as defined by law? Either way, it's an object and no amount of attempted insults or inference to avoid that will change it.
Cap idea? They places a container above the broken pipe and are collecting most of the spillage, however, that's limited more by their transportation and disposal abilities then the operation of the cap. They can't contain or burn the amount seeping from the broken pipe as fast as it's coming out. Anyways, the Blowout preventor would have ceased the need for such extremes had they made sure it was in working order.
It's not systematic unless you count management styles as systematic. No one will be cutting corners with the BP problem still happening.
Yes I do, you obviously don't though. Yes, people and businesses are due due process when their property is taken, however none of BP's property has been taken yet. BP voluntarily setup an escrow account and deposited money in it. There was political pressure but BP could have told Obama to take a hike. As New Orleans' federal judge proved, which TFA is about, a court of law can declare the government does not have the ability to take something.
I should have known you were just trolling. Due process is a specific legal term used in the US constitution and honored by the Courts and governments subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It has nothing to due with people and businesses unless they are in a legal action. The entire point of this thread branch is that BP's voluntary action was at the end of a stick poking them. You can't say their actions under coercion is strictly a voluntary procedure. And with the coercion, you do not know if the action was willingly or a direct result of it making it an action under duress. And yes, that's a specific legal term too.
The Constitution lost meaning many years ago. Today politicians use it for toilet paper, both Democrats and Republicans. Obama is just the most recent example. His predecessor, Bush, trashed the Constitution as well. There was no due process for prisoners at Gitmo. Hell there was no due process in the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq. The feds have been denying states states rights. Bush went after CA after the state approved medical marijuana.
No, the Constitution did not lose meaning. People have attempted to go around it, and some were/are successful at it. But that doesn't mean it lost it's meaning, it means that some people are ignoring it.
BTW, there was, is and still is due process for the prisoners at club gitmo. It's not the same due process that you and I enjoy, but it's there and defined by law. There was due process for the invasions as congress explicitly authorized them per their constitutional requirements. I can see you are still not understanding what Due Process actually is. Maybe you should buy a blacks legal dictionary or something. Older versions can be found cheap and the term due process hasn't changed all that much in 200 years.
Also, the US constitution supports Bush going after California over medical marijuana in that the constitution says federal laws are the supreme law of the land (under the constitution). Where the US constitution doesn't support that is the federal government has no constitutional authority to have a law concerning Marijuana that is cultivated and consumed entirely within a single state. So the action was constitutionally justified even if the law isn't.
One of the reason why Bush and Obama and whoever else is able to screw the constitution is because of people like you. When you object to the things being done which are not in line with the constitution, you're not giving the right reasons which ends up making you look like an uneducated loon. You are right to be upset over these things, giving up and saying someone else did it isn't the answer, ignoring the concepts and constructs isn't either. The fight for right can be won, it just need to be accurately represented.
You mean the piece of equipment that was damaged when testing it's operation because a crane operator bumped a control which caused movement in the drilling apparatus when they were testing the locking mechanism of the Blow Out Preventor? You know, the fail safe device that they knew was faulting when the crew members started finding large pieces of the rubber seals in the wash water but the operational decision to ignore that instead of replacing the device because of costs issues was made?
Yea, the fail safe device was not defective at all, it was damaged and the damage was ignored due to managerial decisions instead of replacing or fixing it like proper protocol would dictate. This we know from interviews with crew members that survived the explosion and fire.
Still, this isn't a case of defectiveness, it's a case of operational error. It's really more akin to the guy who doesn't fix his brakes getting into an accident than someone who just purchased a car from the dealership with faulty brakes. In the one, they halt the sales of the car, in the other, they charge and prosecute the guy who made the decision.
I think you are purposely dropping the State portion of it. It doesn't matter if it's still a secrete or not, it's still the property of the state as the possessive connotation of "state secret" implies.
And yes, when the property is a particular piece of information, it is stolen property when it is stolen. It doesn't matter how many copies are made or not, the information is still an object and possession of that object carries consequences. Maybe less severe consequences when it's a copy, but they don't automagically disappear.
BTW, the copy itself isn't the issue at hand here. It's the information in the copy itself which is considered the state's secrete. Knowingly disclosing that information, being a journalist or not, can and probably will have legal ramifications pertaining to the release of the information. Now if it is something everyone already knows about, then it's news you are reporting, but when it's still largely a secrete, then it's state secrets you are revealing.
It the legal process afforded to everyone else- the rules and procedures of which have been set by courts and the laws over the last I don't know how many years. Their Due process is exactly where BP's is, in the process and procedures already prescribes in law and tort.
As for Just Compensation, I was actually using the term constitutionally in which when the government takes someone's property without "Due Process" or for use by the public, they are constitutionally required to justly compensate them for it.
As for the victims of this spill, they have claim too, but you can't ignore the laws, constitution, and set procedures contrary to them just to satisfy your sense of empathy or anger. IF we did that, we could see things like a right to a fair trial or trial by a jury of our peers disappear just as easily when someone else finds the need convenient.
Here is the short form, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and not smart enough to understand a simple concept. Your reading comprehension sucks so much that you impose your own personal and imaginary beliefs onto what you are incredibly stupid at.
Most of that post is a reference to one of two lines in the beginning of it which say the effect of the above. Nothing in my post is contradicting to anything other then your own imaginary beliefs that you insist on imposing onto the subject. That doesn't make what I say contradictory, it makes what you believe contradictory.
And yes, others will see the same thing. Especially since you pointed it out and they will now go back and attempt to find it.
You wouldn't need a specific law making it illegal. The problem is that as long as it's a state secret, it belongs to that state. IF Australia has a law against illegal possession of goods or items or possession of items that were stolen, or as one law in the US implies- conversion, then those laws in the AU would apply. BTW, just because you come into possession of a document or commit a crime and flee to another country, it doesn't mean you are scott free. We've ended that a long time ago and AU will extradite you for violations of US law when they can be applied. And if you think getting something off the internet doesn't mean they apply, then I would suggest looking back into Sharman networks who offered services to US citizens which then allowed US courts to have jurisdiction in one of the lawsuits brought against them. The Au government was more then happy to raid their offices and confiscate servers on behalf of the US courts.
I love all the people that are acting like stopping related projects is this unprecedented move.
It's the same thing that happens in any other emergency when "Something bad happened and we're not sure what" FAA grounds plane because of suspected defects, FHSA will temporarily say "Don't drive trucks of such and such years", et al.
Well, lets look at this in contrast. suspected defects, nope, from the start we had rig workers who survived the initial fire talking about taking shortcuts and damaging equipment (in the test that ruptured/tore the BOP seal because a crane operator touched a control). So there is no suspected defects here.
The fundamental statement by the judge here, that this isn't standard protocol, is factually wrong. When you have an emergency that casts doubt on the procedures you've been using . . . you stop related operations till you find out what the hell happened.
And here is the problem that makes it different from the defective products. There is nothing indicating that the standard procedure or devices in use are substandard or that the standards are sub par. All evidence to date is that they took shortcuts and it came back on them. You do not close down an entire industry because some company took shortcuts and caused an industrial accident. Nothing with the procedures or processes or equipment is in doubt here- it's the decisions the BP rig made against regulations to save money that is. It's more equivalent to a person driving with worn brakes instead of a car with faulty brakes from the dealership.
Unless of course you're in the oil industry, and the accident has wiped out the economy and devastated the environment. Then you get conservative morons with their typical sense of entitlement insisting they shouldn't be treated the same way as other people.
Some people can see things without emotions clouding their judgment. And yes, emotions is the only reason to halt the drilling at this point.
listen, i get that they are using "miracle" as the word to describe how much they "appreciate" the things they mention in the song, what i don't get is you and they both believe "understanding" gets in the way *of* that appreciation.
Lol.. Neither of us believe understanding gets in the way of appreciating the things. But insisting on the understanding can detract from the perceptions of the things. You can know how a baby is made and born, knowing it came from you is a miracle even though you know your sperm fertilized an egg and the woman carried it to conception. Understanding isn't the problem, using the understanding in front of the appreciation is.
it's a romanticized world view that prefers to remain ignorant, instead of learning the *why* and only enjoying the *what*. like a child that doesn't want to grow up for fear they'll never appreciate magic shows again once they learn how they work. what i disagree with, not fear, is simply the preference to remain ignorant instead of evolving through learning. for the hedonistic idea that they prefer a perpetual state of "wonder" that they believe "understanding" will belittle. willful ignorance.
And here you are talking out your ass again. Just like when you tried to claim that one of the most foul mouthed disgusting groups around was Christians pushing their agenda in the last post. Nothing means remain ignorant at all, no one is suggesting that.
Never before have I seen so many people proudly showing their ignorance and repeating the stupid shit others claimed without ever investigating it themselves then have I with this article. You seem hell bent on insisting that your made up on the spot view is correct despite all evidence contrary. I guess if you don't get it, then you should stay away from it instead of imposing fake shit and pretending you know something.
i have no fear about what they believe, as i don't believe *in* fear. fear is simply the belief that a choice will lead to an undesirable outcome. there is nothing mystical in that, or any "miracle" that the ICP "appreciates". if they want to marvel at the "the sun, the moon, the ocean and stars", that's great, but there is a difference between wondering "wow! that's so cool i wonder how that works", and "wow that's so cool that it looks like magic, i want to stay in this state forever by not learning how the magic is done".
See above-- BTW, did you ever figure out what Deity they were afraid of offending?
that's the crux of it, a preference to "miracles" over understanding, a willful preference to remain undeveloped. a romanticized preference by an irrational, over-emotional, unstable mentality that prefers it's own "world" to the real world. just like the child resists the parents teaching them all about the real world, because the child's fantasy is much more entertaining with less effort. looking at these clowns, they are just big kids too, they have the most immature lifestyle and world-view, and they sing and entertain other followers about it all. they promote staying in the child's mentality for as long as you can, resisting learning and understanding for fear it will steal the "magic and miracle" away and you'll never be able to "appreciate" it as much.
See above again. BTW have you even read the lyrics to the song? My guess is no because you couldn't reasonably make that shit up if you did. My god you are a total idiot. It has nothing to do with remaining ignorant and no one is promoting that, that's just something you want to impose on it. It has to do with the wonder of how and why- the magical feeling of witnessing something larger then yourself- the miracle of a kid being it's own independent conscious. Like I said before, see above.
*THAT* is what i disagree with, and that's what this is all about. the religious deity i mentioned is the same
Actually, it would make it less of a conflict of interest. What it wouldn't make it is any less of might be a impression of inappropriate behavior happening.
A conflict of interest requires the person to know that they have an interest which could create the conflict. IF they do not know about it, then no conflict can ensue. However, others will not know if or when they knew about it so they will not know if a conflict was present or not. So while the conflict is still looming, it is less when they do not know about the interests in which the conflict can come from.
IT wasn't "convincing them" at the time. Obama repeatedly claimed he was going to take the money, that BP was going to pay, he was going to "kick their asses", and he was going to use the government to go after them and make them pay.
Now you tell me, If the federal government with it's unlimited resources repeatedly made threats like that to you, including threats of changing laws to retroactively (post facto) increase your penalties for something and threats of driving you into bankruptcy, and then asked you to do one thing to make it all stop, what the hell are you going to do?
If they weren't using the power of the US government and many questionably unconstitutional devices to threaten them first, I could agree with you. However, cooperation by coercion from the federal government most certainly is unconstitutional and it's most certainly not convincing someone to cooperate. It's forcing them to do something without due process or just compensation.
That may be so, but the problem is that no one has correlated the effects of the 33 exploratory wells impacting those negatively.
The best they have done is said "these people fucked up and something happened". There is no reason to believe the other people have fucked up or that anything is going to happen to them. Attempting to weight the jobs now is no different then before the BP disaster except that we have an ongoing reminder of how bad it can get if something goes wrong. Outside of that, nothing it different.
It's ok unless the act is legal in the country with the extradition treaty or the country in which it was published.
Setting up a situation where something sucks because it's more draconian doesn't negate the reality we live in. It only makes us wish things were different more. There are government agents who damn well will be picked up and held if they enter a china friendly territory because they were spies. Isreal has people (supposedly) that will be picked up and extradited to several different middle eastern countries because of the acts supposedly committed by them (murder). If a violation of the law is a violation, then it's a violation pure and simple. The only recourse is to determine that the law didn't apply to you or that you somehow had a necessity that superseded the law or violation. Both of which can only be accomplished in court.
It was the WTO doing the screwing not WIPO. The country is Antigua and it was about online gambling and a serious lack of knowledge on how the US government structure works.
And the ruling is only to the effect that the US can't create embargoes or trade sanctions against them because of pirating activity. It doesn't absolve them from individual lawsuits from the owners of the copyrighted materials as those treaties and protections from them are separate and complete by another organization altogether (WIPO as you already suggested). A company or person in Antigua can pirate something, then be arrested and criminally charged if they enter the US or any territory the US controls. Civil lawsuits can also be pursued against them if their pirating happens or extends to any US jurisdiction including other WIPO member states due to provisions in the wtc and wppt treaties.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice, you weren't adding much anyways.
Don't you think that Google should have some user interaction with the update so when the terribly vulnerable security fix version breaks my crappy app for work, I know I need to yell at the developers to fix it and point them in the right direction?
I mean that's a big problem with windows automatic updates. Well, not so much any more, but it used to be that someone would update the OS, then some app or piece of hardware would break, and then you spend 10 hours attempting to figure out why it worked the night before but not today- not knowing that they just updated their OS because Microsoft wouldn't ever be the cause of something like that. The worst part is that it only broke on one out of 20 computers.
I'm glad windows now has the ability to lock users out of the updates until it can be approved before installing.
Read the articles and posts again. The original numbers were 18k barrels leaking and BP being able to capture 15K. The revised numbers are 35-60k leaking and BP being able to capture 60-80k. You used the old capture numbers with the revised release numbers and it created an entirely too large of a gap for the reality of the situation.
BTW, sorry about the sloppy formatting, I should have previewed it before posting.
Well, I read an article or saw a news story on it which I can't find a reference to link to for some reason. But they claimed that the current limiting factors are getting rid of the captured oil (which is what I originally posted). Anyways, these numbers are somewhat validated by the USCG which is overseeing the operations and had to ultimately approve the additional collection techniques. BP has underestimated the flow rates but not over estimated their capture rates that I know of. If you know more about that, let me in on it. Part of the reason the current flow rate is 7 times more then the original estimate is also because they cute the BOP off the exposed pipe in order to make collections efforts more efficient. The official USCG estimate is still higher then BP's first new estimate but you also have to remember that it's a game of assumptions in estimating something largely uncontrolled. It won't be the same when estimating the capacity of something completely engineered unless there is some sort of fault in the engineering. We have no evidence of that being involved in the situation to date except for the first failed cap attempt.
I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, but as of june 6th, the official US coast guard estimates were that the well was leaking around 19K barrels a day. Collecting 15K is most of the 19K and there is nothing odd about that.
Maybe you should do some more reading. You will find there is a lot of relevance in America and most western countries. The law makes then an object for the enforcement of the law. You can disagree but you would be wrong.
Here is a quick test you can do, giving classified information to foreign nationals is illegal. What is illegal about it? Not giving them information, it's only illegal to give them certain kinds of information as classified by law. So you can tell Iran how to cook dinner or how to get a sun tan without getting a sun burn, but you can't tell them how to make their centrifuge for enriching uranium more efficient and you can't tell them the troop strength of the initial response force geared as responding to an attack by Iran. Why, because the law made that information an object and placed restrictions on it's possession, use, and dissemination. So you can be an Iranian working for the Iranian government, you can obtain the information about cooking or sun bathing, but possession of military or state secretes or otherwise restricted information is enough for you to be arrested in most western countries. Now how is that possible is the law doesn't treat the information as an object?
If the information isn't an object, then how is obtaining it without permission illegal? How is having the information or divulging it to the wrong people illegal?
You see, the laws treat the information as an object whether they are in reality or not. The information that someone is a covert agent is not an object in reality, but giving that information or object of concern to foreign nationals is completely illegal. So if information cannot be treated as an object, then how is it illegal to give information to certain parties? Of course the answer to that is that the law treats it as an object whether you like it or not.
While I admire your spirit, you are only part of "the public". So you not seeing the value of something isn't really the big picture here. In fact, there is probably lots of people just like you, I'm one of them. However, I know enough people who would be terribly frightened if world leaders were meeting in secrete spots. Maybe it's a hold over from some scifi movie or the cold war, but nothing good could happen in their minds.
Besides, one thing I learned a long time ago, if you give the appearance of no improprieties happening, then less people will accuse you of them. Regardless of anything, this public appearance is a shell that follows that line.
One Billion Dollars isn't really all that much when you break it down per representative. Most G20 countries have operating budgets or GDP's in the trillions of dollars, and you have to remember that this is Canada where everything is more expensive then in the US. If all 20 countries send representatives, it's about 500 million a piece. Now considering that they will send more then their top figurehead (lets assume 2 each), that's about 250 million per party. Now Obama is supposed to be there for 3 days so assuming the others will be too, that's about 83.5 million per day per state head. This still seems like a lot, but you can then break it down with their aids included and such and it doesn't seem all that much considering the increased security threat from a target created by all the leaders being in one spot at the same time.
ON the practical levels though, we have been able to transmit signatures for several decades now but we still see leaders from both countries get together to sign treaties and trade deals. That's because tradition has been that way forever, the people tend to like it, and politics tends to stay as close to the same as possible as long as they can keep their power. It's not ignorance or a fuck you, it's just the way it was so it's still the way it is.
Sure there are conspiracies now. But only the wackos and idiots fall for them. How many sane and otherwise intelligent people would fall for them if it was done in secrete. That would be quite a bit. Oh and BTW, I know conspiracies are believed by intelligent people, some conspiracies are so close to the truth it's not funny. Otherwise intelligent people is meant to mean they aren't the ones ignoring facts to keep the conspiracy alive. Or that's just what they want you to think.
It would be interesting for a group to host an axe handle rally where everyone shows up with blocks of hickory and makes axe handles. They could get 2000 or more people to walk in with wooden logs and walk out with axe handled just to overwhelm the police for stupid things like this.
If a guy going about his day can be arrested in Canada for possessing things that aren't illegal to posses- even when all possessed together, then I think they need a lesson in how bad of an idea that really is.
I think the idea of being in public and letting the public know is to keep it above the table even though the talks are closed. It also allows a platform for certain things to be said depending on how convenient or proper it may be.
If you found out that 20 leaders from the largest economies around the world met at some secrete location, the conspiracy radar would be going off like crazy. All this limited openness does is allows what little trust in government around the world there is, to remain.
Yawn.. I guess you have ran out of intelligent things to say.
Would it be better if I said the information is still an object as defined by law? Either way, it's an object and no amount of attempted insults or inference to avoid that will change it.
Cap idea? They places a container above the broken pipe and are collecting most of the spillage, however, that's limited more by their transportation and disposal abilities then the operation of the cap. They can't contain or burn the amount seeping from the broken pipe as fast as it's coming out. Anyways, the Blowout preventor would have ceased the need for such extremes had they made sure it was in working order.
It's not systematic unless you count management styles as systematic. No one will be cutting corners with the BP problem still happening.
I should have known you were just trolling. Due process is a specific legal term used in the US constitution and honored by the Courts and governments subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It has nothing to due with people and businesses unless they are in a legal action. The entire point of this thread branch is that BP's voluntary action was at the end of a stick poking them. You can't say their actions under coercion is strictly a voluntary procedure. And with the coercion, you do not know if the action was willingly or a direct result of it making it an action under duress. And yes, that's a specific legal term too.
No, the Constitution did not lose meaning. People have attempted to go around it, and some were/are successful at it. But that doesn't mean it lost it's meaning, it means that some people are ignoring it.
BTW, there was, is and still is due process for the prisoners at club gitmo. It's not the same due process that you and I enjoy, but it's there and defined by law. There was due process for the invasions as congress explicitly authorized them per their constitutional requirements. I can see you are still not understanding what Due Process actually is. Maybe you should buy a blacks legal dictionary or something. Older versions can be found cheap and the term due process hasn't changed all that much in 200 years.
Also, the US constitution supports Bush going after California over medical marijuana in that the constitution says federal laws are the supreme law of the land (under the constitution). Where the US constitution doesn't support that is the federal government has no constitutional authority to have a law concerning Marijuana that is cultivated and consumed entirely within a single state. So the action was constitutionally justified even if the law isn't.
One of the reason why Bush and Obama and whoever else is able to screw the constitution is because of people like you. When you object to the things being done which are not in line with the constitution, you're not giving the right reasons which ends up making you look like an uneducated loon. You are right to be upset over these things, giving up and saying someone else did it isn't the answer, ignoring the concepts and constructs isn't either. The fight for right can be won, it just need to be accurately represented.
You mean the piece of equipment that was damaged when testing it's operation because a crane operator bumped a control which caused movement in the drilling apparatus when they were testing the locking mechanism of the Blow Out Preventor? You know, the fail safe device that they knew was faulting when the crew members started finding large pieces of the rubber seals in the wash water but the operational decision to ignore that instead of replacing the device because of costs issues was made?
Yea, the fail safe device was not defective at all, it was damaged and the damage was ignored due to managerial decisions instead of replacing or fixing it like proper protocol would dictate. This we know from interviews with crew members that survived the explosion and fire.
Still, this isn't a case of defectiveness, it's a case of operational error. It's really more akin to the guy who doesn't fix his brakes getting into an accident than someone who just purchased a car from the dealership with faulty brakes. In the one, they halt the sales of the car, in the other, they charge and prosecute the guy who made the decision.
I think you are purposely dropping the State portion of it. It doesn't matter if it's still a secrete or not, it's still the property of the state as the possessive connotation of "state secret" implies.
And yes, when the property is a particular piece of information, it is stolen property when it is stolen. It doesn't matter how many copies are made or not, the information is still an object and possession of that object carries consequences. Maybe less severe consequences when it's a copy, but they don't automagically disappear.
BTW, the copy itself isn't the issue at hand here. It's the information in the copy itself which is considered the state's secrete. Knowingly disclosing that information, being a journalist or not, can and probably will have legal ramifications pertaining to the release of the information. Now if it is something everyone already knows about, then it's news you are reporting, but when it's still largely a secrete, then it's state secrets you are revealing.
Do you know what "Due process" even is?
It the legal process afforded to everyone else- the rules and procedures of which have been set by courts and the laws over the last I don't know how many years. Their Due process is exactly where BP's is, in the process and procedures already prescribes in law and tort.
As for Just Compensation, I was actually using the term constitutionally in which when the government takes someone's property without "Due Process" or for use by the public, they are constitutionally required to justly compensate them for it.
As for the victims of this spill, they have claim too, but you can't ignore the laws, constitution, and set procedures contrary to them just to satisfy your sense of empathy or anger. IF we did that, we could see things like a right to a fair trial or trial by a jury of our peers disappear just as easily when someone else finds the need convenient.
Here is the short form, you are wrong, wrong, wrong, and not smart enough to understand a simple concept. Your reading comprehension sucks so much that you impose your own personal and imaginary beliefs onto what you are incredibly stupid at.
Most of that post is a reference to one of two lines in the beginning of it which say the effect of the above. Nothing in my post is contradicting to anything other then your own imaginary beliefs that you insist on imposing onto the subject. That doesn't make what I say contradictory, it makes what you believe contradictory.
And yes, others will see the same thing. Especially since you pointed it out and they will now go back and attempt to find it.
You wouldn't need a specific law making it illegal. The problem is that as long as it's a state secret, it belongs to that state. IF Australia has a law against illegal possession of goods or items or possession of items that were stolen, or as one law in the US implies- conversion, then those laws in the AU would apply. BTW, just because you come into possession of a document or commit a crime and flee to another country, it doesn't mean you are scott free. We've ended that a long time ago and AU will extradite you for violations of US law when they can be applied. And if you think getting something off the internet doesn't mean they apply, then I would suggest looking back into Sharman networks who offered services to US citizens which then allowed US courts to have jurisdiction in one of the lawsuits brought against them. The Au government was more then happy to raid their offices and confiscate servers on behalf of the US courts.
You would be bankrupt and in jail I'm afraid. I'll give you kudos for standing up or attempting to stand up for what's right though.
Well, lets look at this in contrast. suspected defects, nope, from the start we had rig workers who survived the initial fire talking about taking shortcuts and damaging equipment (in the test that ruptured/tore the BOP seal because a crane operator touched a control). So there is no suspected defects here.
And here is the problem that makes it different from the defective products. There is nothing indicating that the standard procedure or devices in use are substandard or that the standards are sub par. All evidence to date is that they took shortcuts and it came back on them. You do not close down an entire industry because some company took shortcuts and caused an industrial accident. Nothing with the procedures or processes or equipment is in doubt here- it's the decisions the BP rig made against regulations to save money that is. It's more equivalent to a person driving with worn brakes instead of a car with faulty brakes from the dealership.
Some people can see things without emotions clouding their judgment. And yes, emotions is the only reason to halt the drilling at this point.
Lol.. Neither of us believe understanding gets in the way of appreciating the things. But insisting on the understanding can detract from the perceptions of the things. You can know how a baby is made and born, knowing it came from you is a miracle even though you know your sperm fertilized an egg and the woman carried it to conception. Understanding isn't the problem, using the understanding in front of the appreciation is.
And here you are talking out your ass again. Just like when you tried to claim that one of the most foul mouthed disgusting groups around was Christians pushing their agenda in the last post. Nothing means remain ignorant at all, no one is suggesting that.
Never before have I seen so many people proudly showing their ignorance and repeating the stupid shit others claimed without ever investigating it themselves then have I with this article. You seem hell bent on insisting that your made up on the spot view is correct despite all evidence contrary. I guess if you don't get it, then you should stay away from it instead of imposing fake shit and pretending you know something.
See above-- BTW, did you ever figure out what Deity they were afraid of offending?
See above again. BTW have you even read the lyrics to the song? My guess is no because you couldn't reasonably make that shit up if you did. My god you are a total idiot. It has nothing to do with remaining ignorant and no one is promoting that, that's just something you want to impose on it. It has to do with the wonder of how and why- the magical feeling of witnessing something larger then yourself- the miracle of a kid being it's own independent conscious. Like I said before, see above.
Actually, it would make it less of a conflict of interest. What it wouldn't make it is any less of might be a impression of inappropriate behavior happening.
A conflict of interest requires the person to know that they have an interest which could create the conflict. IF they do not know about it, then no conflict can ensue. However, others will not know if or when they knew about it so they will not know if a conflict was present or not. So while the conflict is still looming, it is less when they do not know about the interests in which the conflict can come from.
IT wasn't "convincing them" at the time. Obama repeatedly claimed he was going to take the money, that BP was going to pay, he was going to "kick their asses", and he was going to use the government to go after them and make them pay.
Now you tell me, If the federal government with it's unlimited resources repeatedly made threats like that to you, including threats of changing laws to retroactively (post facto) increase your penalties for something and threats of driving you into bankruptcy, and then asked you to do one thing to make it all stop, what the hell are you going to do?
If they weren't using the power of the US government and many questionably unconstitutional devices to threaten them first, I could agree with you. However, cooperation by coercion from the federal government most certainly is unconstitutional and it's most certainly not convincing someone to cooperate. It's forcing them to do something without due process or just compensation.
That may be so, but the problem is that no one has correlated the effects of the 33 exploratory wells impacting those negatively.
The best they have done is said "these people fucked up and something happened". There is no reason to believe the other people have fucked up or that anything is going to happen to them. Attempting to weight the jobs now is no different then before the BP disaster except that we have an ongoing reminder of how bad it can get if something goes wrong. Outside of that, nothing it different.
It's ok unless the act is legal in the country with the extradition treaty or the country in which it was published.
Setting up a situation where something sucks because it's more draconian doesn't negate the reality we live in. It only makes us wish things were different more. There are government agents who damn well will be picked up and held if they enter a china friendly territory because they were spies. Isreal has people (supposedly) that will be picked up and extradited to several different middle eastern countries because of the acts supposedly committed by them (murder). If a violation of the law is a violation, then it's a violation pure and simple. The only recourse is to determine that the law didn't apply to you or that you somehow had a necessity that superseded the law or violation. Both of which can only be accomplished in court.
It was the WTO doing the screwing not WIPO. The country is Antigua and it was about online gambling and a serious lack of knowledge on how the US government structure works.
And the ruling is only to the effect that the US can't create embargoes or trade sanctions against them because of pirating activity. It doesn't absolve them from individual lawsuits from the owners of the copyrighted materials as those treaties and protections from them are separate and complete by another organization altogether (WIPO as you already suggested). A company or person in Antigua can pirate something, then be arrested and criminally charged if they enter the US or any territory the US controls. Civil lawsuits can also be pursued against them if their pirating happens or extends to any US jurisdiction including other WIPO member states due to provisions in the wtc and wppt treaties.