I think you are limiting your focus. The rich business man doesn't need to increase production if the demand isn't there for it.
What happens is that he increased investments and that leads to new jobs which also leads to more spending. While the rich man will get richer, more wealth is pumped into the system and more people have a slice of that wealth.
And taxing corporations and businesses is self destructive. All their costs are passed on to the consumer. The consumer pays the businesses taxes so taxing them is only hiding a tax on the people.
Your making the mistake that the current problem ignores the previous problem. I don't think it does and find nothing in the GP's post to give you that impression. What I do find is that the current administration is the one we have to deal with and is the only one in which changes can be made. Concentrating on 9 years ago will do nothing but confuse what is happening now.
The state can only limit products sold in a limited way. They cannot forbid a company from doing business while allowing others to do the same business unless the company perpetrated sever violations of state law or the product causes some sort of harm. IF they outlaws Microsoft's products, they would need a legitimate reason (harm to the community) and band all similar products like the sale of other office suits and operating system. The interstate commerce clause would kick in and bar them from banning MS products because they technically come from out of state.
Also, states can't ban something without showing it causes some sort of harm that is unacceptable. They will have a difficult time showing this with any MS product without showing it on competing products. In fact, the ban would probably do more economic harm to businesses in the state then the software could ever do.
One of the reasons corporations are considered separate people is so investment and progress can happen which benefits all of society without the perils of that coming back onto the investor who did nothing to direct the action.
Corporations are merely organizations of people. They can't act on their own, they can't do on their own, all they can do is be a vehicle for people to act in certain ways. Those people are already accountable for the actions of the corporation at their direction. If a CEO orders someone to do something reckless that kills someone, that CEO is held accountable for that as well as the person who did the act. IF a CEO orders the company to dump poison in the water table, that CEO as well as whoever participated are held accountable.
What you are suggesting is more or less guilt by association. IF the Board members or the CEO didn't do any act then they shouldn't be punished for anything. It's just like you riding in the passenger seat of a speeding car, you wouldn't expect the cop to give you a ticket for speeding, you weren't driving. You did no act that violated the law.
I had someone repeatedly break into my garage and take my gas cans for the lawnmowers and root through the cars for money. Eventually, they took an expensive looking but stock car radio. The time that happened, my then girlfriend walked into the garage to go to work and startled the intruder. He knocked her down and ran but wasn't afraid to come back.
I eventually placed some hidden cameras in the garage and back yard with a dummy camera on the side of the house in plain sight. It took the guy about 5 days to realize the visible camera was a dummy and I got his picture including him rooting through everything and taking crap. I then placed a piece of a set of antique lamps made of sterling silver in the garage but locked them in a cabinet with a window. Anyways, those lamps were valuable enough to make his repeated breaking in worthy of a felony on the crap I could prove he stole alone.
The prosecutor advocated that the guy pay for the security system and cameras that I had to install because of his actions. The judge agreed and order it as part of his restitution. Of course he couldn't pay while sitting in jail, but as a term of his parole, he had to make payments to an account until the costs were paid off. As I understood it, I could have sued him for the costs but doing it this way made it a condition of his freedom which meant I was more likely to get paid.
Bloat is awesome if it makes new hardware do more. The latency is being dealed with by having faster hardware.
I do disagree with making hardware do more. However, slowing the process down has to be weighted against what more is. Sometimes it isn't worth it and no, changing my hardware out because of bloat isn't really a preferred option. Some people can do it, some people cannot, but if you do or not is a personal accepting or rejecting of the bloat. IE, what might work for you might not work for me.
Bloat doesn't matter size-wise if there is less to execute (lower level stuff) and you have more RAM so programs also get moved faster out of the RAM, so to speak
I think we are in agreement here. The size issue I brought up is where there might be 10 ways to accomplish the same tasks with one being the most efficient and one being the least efficient. The least efficient will contain more code that doesn't add anything to the mix. There is the size without adding anything that I think could be wrong with bloat.
Bloat sucks if you don't buy a new PC every 10 years and you still have a 386, but then you can still use that with a 2.24 kernel because there are no known malware for it that anyone is interested in using against you.
Well, against, I don't totally disagree. But from a 386 user's standpoint, the 2.6 kernel offers little additional functionality is any and would be considered bloat where the 2.4 kernel would be less bloat. I think the biggest issue is that bloat is defined more on a personal as needed basis then a general this is the way it is basis. What is bloat to me could be a necessary piece of functionality to you and you would never consider it bloat. However, there will be things that both of us would consider bloat and not good at the same time. It's a matter of perspective I guess.
So ehm... what is this 'problem' we are talking about? Latency is dealed with by faster hardware and the bloat makes sure more gets done/time...
The problem, at least to me is, when the bloat causes system instability, slow performance, or increases the size of the code without adding any new features or fixing a problem. You see, that's a specific set of conditions where I find issue with bloat. Outside of that, I think we are in pretty close agreement.
Yea, I was rooting around in your system just the other say. You seem to be completely frugal when it comes to purchasing new software. On a plus side, your system is completely useless to me outside of just exploring around it a little. Good call and staying arcane.
Until it causes system instability, slow performance, or increases the size of the code without adding any new features or fixing a problem. Bloat can become a problem, but it doesn't have to be. I thought I would just point that difference out because "isn't" seems to be an absolute which it shouldn't be.
It's probably more like they do not want their perfectly fine and functional product damaged by the MS FUD and campaigns by others to profit from MS products.
It doesn't take long to realize all the negative publicity out there published with the intent of pushing MS over linux or Mac. The average consumer, if they become aware of it, will not know the context of the statements and could shy away from their product because MS releases another study about windows being cheaper, more stable or Linux not working right, has a bunch of headaches or something.
This idiots who would buy their product would likely see Linux on the side of the box and walk away because of something like that. OF course, most enthusiast or knowledgeable people would likely gravitate towards it, but they are far and few in between.
Your common sense seems to be failing you and I'm not sure what your knowledge of the constitution has to do with the telecoms knowing they were violating the "law".
Poor choice of words I guess. Major could be read as first world countries and third world countries doing substantial commerce with the first world countries.
How many countries are left where the DMCA doesn't apply?
Pretty much every major country has signed onto the WIPO WTC and WPPT which are the basis of the DMCA. In other words, the DMCA or something very similar will apply and the countries who signed on are obligated to enforce it or their version of it.
The constitution needs all the passages about laws "as necessary" removed before that is true. Who decides what is necesssary? The government, whose three branches are acting more in concert than in opposition.
I think you are confused. The as necessary clauses are specific to the objective it's surrounded by. It's not some blanket allowance to make any law they want. That's why there is so many "as necessary" clauses and why they are added to amendments when the amendments are added.
Totally failing to address the issue of political parties in the constitution was also a gigantic fuckup that ignores the nature of man
I do not see a problem with the two party system nor do I see anything that should be required in the constitution about it. It's not the parties or the party system that broken, it's the people inside the parties. Adding more parties or banning them altogether will do nothing at all to address that.
How about putting some protections for life in the constitution? The founders knew that any rights not enumerated would be ignored, and even paid homage to that fact, but did nothing about it. Hindsight may be 20/20, but some of the verbiage in the constitution seems to me to have been inserted to deliberately create loopholes.
Up until Roosevelt (FDR, not his cousin Teddy), the constitution has always been viewed as a permissive document and the government could only act on what the constitution specifically allow. This was specifically addressed in the articles of confederation (the constitution before the constitution), the federalist papers, and personal letters between founding fathers.
Roosevelt changed this with the new deal legislation and it's been taken advantage of ever since. Roosevelt knew what he was doing was unconstitutional and did it anyways. Two years before FDR became president, he gave a speech concerning the Volstead act which marked the 18th amendment and prohibition. In the speech, he clearly shows his understanding and aptitude for this sentiment when he says
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere."
The speech was printed in the New York Times on March 3 1930.
Lol.. I don't think you understand what inflation is.
BTW, if you trade taxes for increased prices, you have a zero sum gain. That is to say, once taxes equalize with the price increases, the purchasing power isn't effected. Some people might save money, but there is nothing to indicate that it will be significant. Clean, or green products aren't magically going to give up profit when their dirty alternatives are artificially inflated. They are highly likely to raise their prices too because people will have to pay.
The entire cap and tax scheme is just a pipe dream that you people have not thought through to it's end.
I'd say the government has the right to do whatever we (the people, not the left) want it to do.
Not without some constitutional amendments first. We the people are one time or another wanted the government to just lock terrorist up in club gitmo without a trial to be held indefinitely. We the people at various times in history wanted to keep people as slaves, outlaw abortion, limit free speech to only what we agreed with, force schools to teach creation instead of evolution and several other things that are barred.
The US government is not set up as some all powerful entity. It's entire intent and purpose was to be a common head of state for international affairs and regulate commerce between the states. It's supposed to operate on what sovereignty the state surrender to it and what is specifically outlines in the constitution, not from the position of a king.
I think I more then adequately explained the situations and how they are completely different. If you want to ignore those differences and think it's acceptable behavior, then I do not agree with you.
Dmitry had the charges drop because he wasn't a corporate officer and agreed to testify against the company. However, the company itself was cleared because the violation law wasn't willful (I.E. elcomsoft never intended to distribute to the US or in the US jurisdiction).
The US does not impose it's law all over the world. There are certain treaty obligations it will enforce which may give that appearance but that's only because the treaties obligate the foreign country to certain actions. An example of this is the Australian who was extradited to the US for trial on some copyright infringement. The WIPO WCT obligated Australia to pass a law making his actions illegal. It was technically illegal there because of the ratified treaty but they didn't codify any punishment which is why it went to the US for prosecution. Another situation is the UK hacker who broke into US government computers, he essentially entered US jurisdiction when he entered those computers. Colombian drug king pins aren't bothered with until they are connected to a crime against a US citizen.
With spain, nothing was done against a spanish national, nothing ever happened in their jurisdiction, the judge is just a loon who will get their country in some serious trouble if they ever act on it.
Thanks for the reference. I believe, though, that the surveillence which is allowed without a warrant applies only to non-"US Persons" which the document describes on page 4 under section 102 "Authorization for Electronic Surveillance for Foreign Intelligence Purposes". It further restricts this under (B) "There is no substantial likelyhood that the surveillance will aquire the contents of any communications to which a United States person is a party;..."
While you are right, your not entirely or completely right on this. The problem is that a United States person is defined in the law and there is a specific exception for corporations and associations who work in concert with foreign powers and agents. This has later been expanded to include terrorists and terrorist groups. Of course corporations and associations are nothing more then groups of people organized under a specific charter so while we would normally consider them as US persons, for the purpose of the law, they are not always US persons.
That distinction does cause some confusion. I believe it's section 101 in which the definitions are. US persons should be defined on the second or third page of the PDF.
My understanding and that of congress is that the law was broken by deliberately and knowingly listening in on communications of thousands of Americans and routing or copying virtually all communications to or through their circuits.
The routing of communications was done through the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act which was passed into law in 1995. It basically states that telecoms need to make certain changes to allow wiretaps and other law enforcement needs and provides a reimbursement of costs provision. It came from a time when even if a warrant was needed and issued, many of the facilities and technology made it difficult to put the wire taps in place because they were all different from area to area and provider to provider. The routing changes, while seemingly scary, were actually supported by this law and made it possible for less people to do more taps from fewer locations.
Now, technically, the Bush Administration did violate the law concerning the taps. The problem is they associated them with terrorists and terrorism. Neither of those apply to the warrant exceptions in the FISA laws. However, the orders for the taps pretended they did apply.
I disagree that they were presented with the proper documentation because my understanding is that that documentation is a court order. The executive branch does not have uncontrolled powers except under declaration of war, which only congress can do.
That's what people are attempting to claim but it just isn't true. The law specifically states that the Attorney General can issue an order for up to one year without a court ever becoming involved at all. The entire TSP program was modeled after the warrantless allowances that were present in FISA including the reporting to congress. Something people tend to gloss over is the fact that the House and Senate intelligence comitys as well as respective leaders knew about the program since it's inception and was updated periodically as the FISA laws require. It was limited to the intelligence communities because of the sensitive nature of the program and national security.
Now your right in that the executive branch does not have uncontrolled powers. However, there are inherent powers that have long been accepted to be constitutionally necessary and even a constitutional duty. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which is the law that first required wiretaps, Congress specifically stated under 2511 section 3,
Nothing contained in this chapter or in section 605 of the C
Here is the problem with a scheme like that. Once everyone starts paying, they have to jack the costs of products up and so on in order to pay for it. All that does is more or less, slide the scale and cause inflation.
The way it is now, the BS is skipped and the payments are just there in the form of cheaper products that everyone uses.
Dear concerned people, we appreciate you're concerned about lost jobs, but this is exactly what we're trying to achieve here.
Yea, because a 12.2% unemployment rate just isn't good enough for California.
Maybe someone should explain how unemployment should be scored like golf, the lower the number the better instead of other games where higher scores are preferred.
1,350,000,000kwh/yr * 0.005 = 6,750,000kwh/yr Not an insignificant amount of energy by any means.
It's not exactly impressive either. A Kilowatt is equal to one thousand watts. A Gigawatt is equal to one billion watts. Your 6,750,000 kwh is more like 6.75Gwh. In contrast, California's in state electricity production in 2007 for only the plants larger the.1 MW capacity was 209,856 gigawatt-hours. It should also be noted that they only produce about 70% of their electricity in state. By not including the out of state production or the smaller plant production, we find that the 6.7GWH is really only about 3% This number would drop largely if the other sources of electrical energy is used.
Lets add some numbers together and see what the difference between costs and savings might actually look like.
In my neck of the woods, the electricity is something like 9 cents per kilowatt hour. In California, according to the DOE, the average residential consumer rates are 15.01 cents per kw. At 220w, the first tier reducing energy consumption by 33%. That turns the power consumption into about 147 watts with roughly 72 in savings. Now lets say you (your family) watch the TV for 3 -4 hours a day on average. 4 times 365 days would be 1460 hours a year at 72 watts (105120 watt hours 105.12kw hours)on 8 cents a kilowatt hour. This gives me a savings of about $8.40 per year. In CA, it works out to about $10.62
Not knowing your brand of TV or anything more then the size of the screen, I can't get exact but I can find 40 inch LCDs for between $775 and $899 at various places on the internet. Of course 10% of that would add $77.50 and $89.90 respectively to the costs. At this 10% increase in costs, your TV will have to last a little over 9.2 years and 10.7 years respectfully in order for the savings to pay for the increased costs if they are sold in my area and 7.6-8.4 years in California.
That is of course, if it only adds 10% to the costs and electric rates do not change. How they arrive at the $18.48 savings per household per year is beyond me unless they are attempting to calculate different usage pasterns or multiple TVs. A Samsung LN40B750 40 inch TV that already meets the California requirements retails for about $1,899.99. The model UN40B6000VF, another Samsung 40 inch TV which doesn't meet the California requirements (PDF) retails for $1,599.99. A difference of about $300 which comes out to about an 18% increase in costs assuming nothing else is radically different between the two TVs. That would require about 28 years for the savings to pay for the costs in CA. I think your right, the TV will not last long enough to cover the increased costs by saving electricity.
Ok moron, it's democrat not democratic. and yes, he fooled you and everyone you know because he isn't a stupid person. The Navy does give million dollar jets to stupid people to fly, stupid people do not last in politics long enough to not only be governor of a state, but president of the country too. Stupid people are not able to manipulate as many people as Bush has. What he has done is allow people to think he is stupid so they wouldn't see the things he did comming or be prepared to fight against them.
And as for why he won twice, I would say it was a combo of two things- one they pretty much gave him Ohio for free, as anyone who has seen videos of the 5 hour plus lines in the Democratic neighborhoods could see that was voter disenfranchisement if ever there was any.
In Ohio, the voting districts are run, staffed and organized by the county. Those 5 hour lines were the result of democrats in charge in those counties. if Ohio was given to Bush, it was done so by the democrats and they are responsible for the so called disenfranchisement. Anyways, that only happened in a few areas which do not contain enough population to cover the lead Bush carried in Ohio.
Second of all he appealed to the little old ladies by thumping the hell out of that bible. Sadly I have found you can get many poor to totally fuck themselves over if you can just thump on that bible and get the right talking heads in the game. just look at all the poor white trash they had out for Glenn beck and his "9-12" anti health care/anti-Obama shindig. How much you wanna bet if you would have taken a poll a good 75% of those attending don't actually have ANY health care? yet there they were, happily screwing themelves better than any insurance company, because the talking heads said to. Is it any wonder that a moron sold to morons? Hell they are his people man!
Here is your problem. You think you know what's best for everyone and you do not. Who cares if some of those attendees do not have health care coverage, it still doesn't mean that they should support Obama's piece of crap plan. The people who showed up, did so because of various things in the plan which are bad. Things like mandatory coverage or you will be fines is complete rubbish. Things like telling old people to take a pain pill instead of getting the surgery is rubbish. Hell, I'm willing to bet that there were plenty of people at the 9-12 thing who support health care reforms, just not the current incarnation of it. You can support an idea and not support it's implementation you know. But here you are acting like there is only one way and everyone else is an idiot for not supporting it.
Sadly the problem is we haven't had a real president since Teddy Roosevelt. Now it is all bankers and CEOs and old money payoffs. Just look at this "cap and trade" bullshit. I'm willing to bet my soon to be worthless last dollar that Goldman Sachs will clean up from that bullshit, which is nothing but a 21st century version of the old Catholic indulgences scam. At least Europe has the right idea by having a whole buttload of parties so it is hard to just buy out the whole thing. Nowadays voting is like Coke VS Pepsi, the only difference is which corporate booty they will kiss and sell us out to, the military industrial complex on the right, the media conglomerates on the left.
It's not really any different in England. The proof, just look at all the civil rights that have been taken away from their citizens or that never existed in the first place. Just look at all the government controlled cameras watching them. They claim that one crime solved for every 8 or 9 thousand cameras and that was being used as an excuse to get more cameras into use.
The problem with multiple parties is that it's only an illusion. In order to be effective, the parties have to band together. That's what happened in the US and a lot of minor parties merged i
If your not going to bother reading anything, then you might as well just leave. I mean how in the hell do you expect anyone to take you seriously or your comments seriously when you openly admit to being willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. Seriously, "it's too long" "It's too hard" pretty much means you do not know what your talking about because you ignore too much crap. I now have my answer to "how can someone who pretends to be so intelligent come off so ignorant?".
Now my post corrected many of your misgivings. You ignored that and started preaching about bursting someone's ego. You were wrong, wrong, wrong, about your entire premises and I do not see any reason to consider you anything but wrong about this either.
Well, not exactly. The administration was required to get a FISA warrant, which they did not do. They could ask for the information legally, but they couldn't require it without a FISA warrant. And, the telekoms could not legally give it to them without a warrant.
I'm sorry but this is just wrong. There always have been ways to get legal wiretaps without warrants. FISA never even required a warrant for all wire taps, just certain ones. Even the 1968 wire tap laws has situations where warrants are not required. What is required in these situation are sworn statements signed by certain department heads or investigating officers claiming to have a legal right to the information being sought.
The original FISA law can be found here. (PDF warning)
On about the fourth page, under the section 102 of 50 USC 1802, you will find where the president thought the Attorney General can order wire taps without a warrant for up to one year. Current law has expanded this quite a bit.
As you can see, A warrant isn't always required.
That's the law and it was clear to the administration, the justicce department and to the telekoms, all of whom have sufficient legal advice.
Evidently not. As I just showed you, there always has been legal means to get wiretaps without warrants.
Problem is, the administration didn't feel they were required to follow the law by the simple declaration that we were at war and they said as much.
Yes, it is a problem for the administration. However, it isn't a problem for the telecoms because they were presented with the proper documentation for the wiretaps. You can tell this because the immunity law specifically require this documentation in order for the telecoms to receive any immunity. You can find the actual text of this here (pdf warning). You will find the provisions under title 8 which starts around the page 32.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are limiting your focus. The rich business man doesn't need to increase production if the demand isn't there for it.
What happens is that he increased investments and that leads to new jobs which also leads to more spending. While the rich man will get richer, more wealth is pumped into the system and more people have a slice of that wealth.
And taxing corporations and businesses is self destructive. All their costs are passed on to the consumer. The consumer pays the businesses taxes so taxing them is only hiding a tax on the people.
Your making the mistake that the current problem ignores the previous problem. I don't think it does and find nothing in the GP's post to give you that impression. What I do find is that the current administration is the one we have to deal with and is the only one in which changes can be made. Concentrating on 9 years ago will do nothing but confuse what is happening now.
The state can only limit products sold in a limited way. They cannot forbid a company from doing business while allowing others to do the same business unless the company perpetrated sever violations of state law or the product causes some sort of harm. IF they outlaws Microsoft's products, they would need a legitimate reason (harm to the community) and band all similar products like the sale of other office suits and operating system. The interstate commerce clause would kick in and bar them from banning MS products because they technically come from out of state.
Also, states can't ban something without showing it causes some sort of harm that is unacceptable. They will have a difficult time showing this with any MS product without showing it on competing products. In fact, the ban would probably do more economic harm to businesses in the state then the software could ever do.
One of the reasons corporations are considered separate people is so investment and progress can happen which benefits all of society without the perils of that coming back onto the investor who did nothing to direct the action.
Corporations are merely organizations of people. They can't act on their own, they can't do on their own, all they can do is be a vehicle for people to act in certain ways. Those people are already accountable for the actions of the corporation at their direction. If a CEO orders someone to do something reckless that kills someone, that CEO is held accountable for that as well as the person who did the act. IF a CEO orders the company to dump poison in the water table, that CEO as well as whoever participated are held accountable.
What you are suggesting is more or less guilt by association. IF the Board members or the CEO didn't do any act then they shouldn't be punished for anything. It's just like you riding in the passenger seat of a speeding car, you wouldn't expect the cop to give you a ticket for speeding, you weren't driving. You did no act that violated the law.
This is not entirely unheard of.
I had someone repeatedly break into my garage and take my gas cans for the lawnmowers and root through the cars for money. Eventually, they took an expensive looking but stock car radio. The time that happened, my then girlfriend walked into the garage to go to work and startled the intruder. He knocked her down and ran but wasn't afraid to come back.
I eventually placed some hidden cameras in the garage and back yard with a dummy camera on the side of the house in plain sight. It took the guy about 5 days to realize the visible camera was a dummy and I got his picture including him rooting through everything and taking crap. I then placed a piece of a set of antique lamps made of sterling silver in the garage but locked them in a cabinet with a window. Anyways, those lamps were valuable enough to make his repeated breaking in worthy of a felony on the crap I could prove he stole alone.
The prosecutor advocated that the guy pay for the security system and cameras that I had to install because of his actions. The judge agreed and order it as part of his restitution. Of course he couldn't pay while sitting in jail, but as a term of his parole, he had to make payments to an account until the costs were paid off. As I understood it, I could have sued him for the costs but doing it this way made it a condition of his freedom which meant I was more likely to get paid.
I do disagree with making hardware do more. However, slowing the process down has to be weighted against what more is. Sometimes it isn't worth it and no, changing my hardware out because of bloat isn't really a preferred option. Some people can do it, some people cannot, but if you do or not is a personal accepting or rejecting of the bloat. IE, what might work for you might not work for me.
I think we are in agreement here. The size issue I brought up is where there might be 10 ways to accomplish the same tasks with one being the most efficient and one being the least efficient. The least efficient will contain more code that doesn't add anything to the mix. There is the size without adding anything that I think could be wrong with bloat.
Bloat sucks if you don't buy a new PC every 10 years and you still have a 386, but then you can still use that with a 2.24 kernel because there are no known malware for it that anyone is interested in using against you.
Well, against, I don't totally disagree. But from a 386 user's standpoint, the 2.6 kernel offers little additional functionality is any and would be considered bloat where the 2.4 kernel would be less bloat. I think the biggest issue is that bloat is defined more on a personal as needed basis then a general this is the way it is basis. What is bloat to me could be a necessary piece of functionality to you and you would never consider it bloat. However, there will be things that both of us would consider bloat and not good at the same time. It's a matter of perspective I guess.
The problem, at least to me is, when the bloat causes system instability, slow performance, or increases the size of the code without adding any new features or fixing a problem. You see, that's a specific set of conditions where I find issue with bloat. Outside of that, I think we are in pretty close agreement.
Yea, I was rooting around in your system just the other say. You seem to be completely frugal when it comes to purchasing new software. On a plus side, your system is completely useless to me outside of just exploring around it a little. Good call and staying arcane.
Until it causes system instability, slow performance, or increases the size of the code without adding any new features or fixing a problem. Bloat can become a problem, but it doesn't have to be. I thought I would just point that difference out because "isn't" seems to be an absolute which it shouldn't be.
You think you can still actually sell that? I mean the password is pretty obvious. UrBusteD01 seems to be pretty universal in each state.
It's probably more like they do not want their perfectly fine and functional product damaged by the MS FUD and campaigns by others to profit from MS products.
It doesn't take long to realize all the negative publicity out there published with the intent of pushing MS over linux or Mac. The average consumer, if they become aware of it, will not know the context of the statements and could shy away from their product because MS releases another study about windows being cheaper, more stable or Linux not working right, has a bunch of headaches or something.
This idiots who would buy their product would likely see Linux on the side of the box and walk away because of something like that. OF course, most enthusiast or knowledgeable people would likely gravitate towards it, but they are far and few in between.
Your common sense seems to be failing you and I'm not sure what your knowledge of the constitution has to do with the telecoms knowing they were violating the "law".
Poor choice of words I guess. Major could be read as first world countries and third world countries doing substantial commerce with the first world countries.
How many countries are left where the DMCA doesn't apply?
Pretty much every major country has signed onto the WIPO WTC and WPPT which are the basis of the DMCA. In other words, the DMCA or something very similar will apply and the countries who signed on are obligated to enforce it or their version of it.
I think you are confused. The as necessary clauses are specific to the objective it's surrounded by. It's not some blanket allowance to make any law they want. That's why there is so many "as necessary" clauses and why they are added to amendments when the amendments are added.
I do not see a problem with the two party system nor do I see anything that should be required in the constitution about it. It's not the parties or the party system that broken, it's the people inside the parties. Adding more parties or banning them altogether will do nothing at all to address that.
Up until Roosevelt (FDR, not his cousin Teddy), the constitution has always been viewed as a permissive document and the government could only act on what the constitution specifically allow. This was specifically addressed in the articles of confederation (the constitution before the constitution), the federalist papers, and personal letters between founding fathers.
Roosevelt changed this with the new deal legislation and it's been taken advantage of ever since. Roosevelt knew what he was doing was unconstitutional and did it anyways. Two years before FDR became president, he gave a speech concerning the Volstead act which marked the 18th amendment and prohibition. In the speech, he clearly shows his understanding and aptitude for this sentiment when he says
The speech was printed in the New York Times on March 3 1930.
Lol.. I don't think you understand what inflation is.
BTW, if you trade taxes for increased prices, you have a zero sum gain. That is to say, once taxes equalize with the price increases, the purchasing power isn't effected. Some people might save money, but there is nothing to indicate that it will be significant. Clean, or green products aren't magically going to give up profit when their dirty alternatives are artificially inflated. They are highly likely to raise their prices too because people will have to pay.
The entire cap and tax scheme is just a pipe dream that you people have not thought through to it's end.
Not without some constitutional amendments first. We the people are one time or another wanted the government to just lock terrorist up in club gitmo without a trial to be held indefinitely. We the people at various times in history wanted to keep people as slaves, outlaw abortion, limit free speech to only what we agreed with, force schools to teach creation instead of evolution and several other things that are barred.
The US government is not set up as some all powerful entity. It's entire intent and purpose was to be a common head of state for international affairs and regulate commerce between the states. It's supposed to operate on what sovereignty the state surrender to it and what is specifically outlines in the constitution, not from the position of a king.
I think I more then adequately explained the situations and how they are completely different. If you want to ignore those differences and think it's acceptable behavior, then I do not agree with you.
Dmitry had the charges drop because he wasn't a corporate officer and agreed to testify against the company. However, the company itself was cleared because the violation law wasn't willful (I.E. elcomsoft never intended to distribute to the US or in the US jurisdiction).
The US does not impose it's law all over the world. There are certain treaty obligations it will enforce which may give that appearance but that's only because the treaties obligate the foreign country to certain actions. An example of this is the Australian who was extradited to the US for trial on some copyright infringement. The WIPO WCT obligated Australia to pass a law making his actions illegal. It was technically illegal there because of the ratified treaty but they didn't codify any punishment which is why it went to the US for prosecution. Another situation is the UK hacker who broke into US government computers, he essentially entered US jurisdiction when he entered those computers. Colombian drug king pins aren't bothered with until they are connected to a crime against a US citizen.
With spain, nothing was done against a spanish national, nothing ever happened in their jurisdiction, the judge is just a loon who will get their country in some serious trouble if they ever act on it.
While you are right, your not entirely or completely right on this. The problem is that a United States person is defined in the law and there is a specific exception for corporations and associations who work in concert with foreign powers and agents. This has later been expanded to include terrorists and terrorist groups. Of course corporations and associations are nothing more then groups of people organized under a specific charter so while we would normally consider them as US persons, for the purpose of the law, they are not always US persons.
That distinction does cause some confusion. I believe it's section 101 in which the definitions are. US persons should be defined on the second or third page of the PDF.
The routing of communications was done through the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act which was passed into law in 1995. It basically states that telecoms need to make certain changes to allow wiretaps and other law enforcement needs and provides a reimbursement of costs provision. It came from a time when even if a warrant was needed and issued, many of the facilities and technology made it difficult to put the wire taps in place because they were all different from area to area and provider to provider. The routing changes, while seemingly scary, were actually supported by this law and made it possible for less people to do more taps from fewer locations.
Now, technically, the Bush Administration did violate the law concerning the taps. The problem is they associated them with terrorists and terrorism. Neither of those apply to the warrant exceptions in the FISA laws. However, the orders for the taps pretended they did apply.
That's what people are attempting to claim but it just isn't true. The law specifically states that the Attorney General can issue an order for up to one year without a court ever becoming involved at all. The entire TSP program was modeled after the warrantless allowances that were present in FISA including the reporting to congress. Something people tend to gloss over is the fact that the House and Senate intelligence comitys as well as respective leaders knew about the program since it's inception and was updated periodically as the FISA laws require. It was limited to the intelligence communities because of the sensitive nature of the program and national security.
Now your right in that the executive branch does not have uncontrolled powers. However, there are inherent powers that have long been accepted to be constitutionally necessary and even a constitutional duty. The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which is the law that first required wiretaps, Congress specifically stated under 2511 section 3,
Here is the problem with a scheme like that. Once everyone starts paying, they have to jack the costs of products up and so on in order to pay for it. All that does is more or less, slide the scale and cause inflation.
The way it is now, the BS is skipped and the payments are just there in the form of cheaper products that everyone uses.
Yea, because a 12.2% unemployment rate just isn't good enough for California.
Maybe someone should explain how unemployment should be scored like golf, the lower the number the better instead of other games where higher scores are preferred.
It's not exactly impressive either. A Kilowatt is equal to one thousand watts. A Gigawatt is equal to one billion watts. Your 6,750,000 kwh is more like 6.75Gwh. In contrast, California's in state electricity production in 2007 for only the plants larger the .1 MW capacity was 209,856 gigawatt-hours. It should also be noted that they only produce about 70% of their electricity in state. By not including the out of state production or the smaller plant production, we find that the 6.7GWH is really only about 3% This number would drop largely if the other sources of electrical energy is used.
It's a start but not all that impressive of one.
Lets add some numbers together and see what the difference between costs and savings might actually look like.
In my neck of the woods, the electricity is something like 9 cents per kilowatt hour. In California, according to the DOE, the average residential consumer rates are 15.01 cents per kw. At 220w, the first tier reducing energy consumption by 33%. That turns the power consumption into about 147 watts with roughly 72 in savings. Now lets say you (your family) watch the TV for 3 -4 hours a day on average. 4 times 365 days would be 1460 hours a year at 72 watts (105120 watt hours 105.12kw hours)on 8 cents a kilowatt hour. This gives me a savings of about $8.40 per year. In CA, it works out to about $10.62
Not knowing your brand of TV or anything more then the size of the screen, I can't get exact but I can find 40 inch LCDs for between $775 and $899 at various places on the internet. Of course 10% of that would add $77.50 and $89.90 respectively to the costs. At this 10% increase in costs, your TV will have to last a little over 9.2 years and 10.7 years respectfully in order for the savings to pay for the increased costs if they are sold in my area and 7.6-8.4 years in California.
That is of course, if it only adds 10% to the costs and electric rates do not change. How they arrive at the $18.48 savings per household per year is beyond me unless they are attempting to calculate different usage pasterns or multiple TVs. A Samsung LN40B750 40 inch TV that already meets the California requirements retails for about $1,899.99. The model UN40B6000VF, another Samsung 40 inch TV which doesn't meet the California requirements (PDF) retails for $1,599.99. A difference of about $300 which comes out to about an 18% increase in costs assuming nothing else is radically different between the two TVs. That would require about 28 years for the savings to pay for the costs in CA. I think your right, the TV will not last long enough to cover the increased costs by saving electricity.
Ok moron, it's democrat not democratic. and yes, he fooled you and everyone you know because he isn't a stupid person. The Navy does give million dollar jets to stupid people to fly, stupid people do not last in politics long enough to not only be governor of a state, but president of the country too. Stupid people are not able to manipulate as many people as Bush has. What he has done is allow people to think he is stupid so they wouldn't see the things he did comming or be prepared to fight against them.
In Ohio, the voting districts are run, staffed and organized by the county. Those 5 hour lines were the result of democrats in charge in those counties. if Ohio was given to Bush, it was done so by the democrats and they are responsible for the so called disenfranchisement. Anyways, that only happened in a few areas which do not contain enough population to cover the lead Bush carried in Ohio.
Here is your problem. You think you know what's best for everyone and you do not. Who cares if some of those attendees do not have health care coverage, it still doesn't mean that they should support Obama's piece of crap plan. The people who showed up, did so because of various things in the plan which are bad. Things like mandatory coverage or you will be fines is complete rubbish. Things like telling old people to take a pain pill instead of getting the surgery is rubbish. Hell, I'm willing to bet that there were plenty of people at the 9-12 thing who support health care reforms, just not the current incarnation of it. You can support an idea and not support it's implementation you know. But here you are acting like there is only one way and everyone else is an idiot for not supporting it.
It's not really any different in England. The proof, just look at all the civil rights that have been taken away from their citizens or that never existed in the first place. Just look at all the government controlled cameras watching them. They claim that one crime solved for every 8 or 9 thousand cameras and that was being used as an excuse to get more cameras into use.
The problem with multiple parties is that it's only an illusion. In order to be effective, the parties have to band together. That's what happened in the US and a lot of minor parties merged i
If your not going to bother reading anything, then you might as well just leave. I mean how in the hell do you expect anyone to take you seriously or your comments seriously when you openly admit to being willfully ignorant and intellectually lazy. Seriously, "it's too long" "It's too hard" pretty much means you do not know what your talking about because you ignore too much crap. I now have my answer to "how can someone who pretends to be so intelligent come off so ignorant?".
Now my post corrected many of your misgivings. You ignored that and started preaching about bursting someone's ego. You were wrong, wrong, wrong, about your entire premises and I do not see any reason to consider you anything but wrong about this either.
I'm sorry but this is just wrong. There always have been ways to get legal wiretaps without warrants. FISA never even required a warrant for all wire taps, just certain ones. Even the 1968 wire tap laws has situations where warrants are not required. What is required in these situation are sworn statements signed by certain department heads or investigating officers claiming to have a legal right to the information being sought.
The original FISA law can be found here. (PDF warning)
On about the fourth page, under the section 102 of 50 USC 1802, you will find where the president thought the Attorney General can order wire taps without a warrant for up to one year. Current law has expanded this quite a bit.
As you can see, A warrant isn't always required.
Evidently not. As I just showed you, there always has been legal means to get wiretaps without warrants.
Yes, it is a problem for the administration. However, it isn't a problem for the telecoms because they were presented with the proper documentation for the wiretaps. You can tell this because the immunity law specifically require this documentation in order for the telecoms to receive any immunity. You can find the actual text of this here (pdf warning). You will find the provisions under title 8 which starts around the page 32.