You actually made the accusation, I was saying it was an inside political hit job and you put it out there that they did it is stop a customer from getting pisses off and keep the contract. That is an official act and you claiming it is a lie is a fallacy on your own undertaking.
The action fits under the law, it's exactly what you said when attempting to remove the politicl portions of my position and you either stand by what you said or shut up. Either way, it doesn't remotely address that fact that Flickr has to go.
If the burners were needed during the course of business, it may have been impossible to disable them without costing more in the long run.
I find it funny when people say "they should have disabled it" instead of the employee knows the rules and shouldn't have done X. I mean is it the employers fault that the employee was surfing porn at work because the sites he visited wasn't blocked by the content controls? Is it the employers fault for not putting the printing paper or pens under lock and key when the employees start taking it home for personal use? No, it's the employees fault for not following the rules. When employees cannot follow the rules, they need to become ex-employees instead of having the employer jump though hoops locking crap down.
Actually, it was probably more like they checked a log or cache on the PC used and determined the files to be the same as on the CD. Even if it was just a hash, it doesn't mean they would know what was burned, just that they could identify the actual CD when the hash was checked.
As for not having burning software and burners in the PCs, there could be legitimate reasons for them to exist and be functional. You can't pretend to know how they are doing something and present a false dichotomy because it works in your mind or you lack experience. There were controls in place and they worked.
I'm not exactly sure how uploading it to a free hosting site in germany just to download it again got around any of the limitations of having to download it again. That is unless having it all in one repository was the key to the decision.
It doesn't say you can't edit. It just legitimatizes the secrete editing squads who serve their own purposes. All this means is that if you edit and it says something they do not like, no one else will ever see it.
No you didn't, and please note I've reread that pile of crap based on a lie you linked to trying to see if I missed anything of worth.
You have obviously missed everything of worth. If you just can't show where I was wrong, then it's time you moved on and trolled somewhere else. I made the case and it was your job to show how that case was wrong and that the law didn't apply. You failed doing that miserably and you cannot salvage it by shouting liar or insults.
To put what we both know very briefly and clearly to any reader that unfortunately stumbles across this ridiculous discussion: NOTHING AT ALL HAS CHANGED IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES SO NO OFFICIAL ACT HAS BEEN INFLUENCED.
TO put the law into context, nothing has to change between two parties and there isn't a requirement for two parties to be involved in order to be in violation of the law. Just go back and check for yourselves.
I'm sure you are really just looking for the last word so you can pretend I've admitted your silly little lie is true.
You were tasked with a duty to put up or shut up. You failed in doing so. It isn't about the last word, it's about right and wrong and you are simply wrong.
I can see how someone moderated this as redundant because the song was half assed mentioned in the summery, but it's actually informative. This is because although I know who Johny Cash is, I do not listen to him and had no idea he actually had a song named one piece at a time or what it said. The article summery said "took Johny Cash's advice", this could have been something offered in an interview sometime, he could of had some reality TV program or something before he died, he could have been talking about something else entirely, and it could have been a completely different Johny Cash for all I knew.
Not everyone lives in the same world. What was posted cleared up a lot if you ask me. It may be redundent to someone who knew what Johny Cash's advice was, but the post was informative to all of us who drum to a different beat.
You aren't looking at the entire picture here. Calling someone a skank isn't really a problem until her reputation is a strong part of their work prospective.
Assaulting the reputation of a model can stop her from working. It's equivalent to one engineer saying another civil engineer doesn't know the tensile strength of steel and caused bridges to collapse. It's more of a professional hit job then an insult. In this case, exposing the person to be some unqualified student-nobody was enough to negate the damages and she left it at that. If it had been someone inside the industry she worked with, it could have devastated her career.
As soon as, no. You seem to be forfeiting it when someone presents the defamation to a judge and the judge determines that disclosing your identity is prudent to pursuing justice. This means that the judge actually saw the potential of defamation if not actual defamation and determined it was beyond hurt feelings to some extent.
In this model case however, the situation had some preconditions to it. The model thought the anonymous person was someone specific and had intent to sue that person. When it was determined to be just some fashion student with no money, the model stopped pursuing it because enough damage had already been done and it wouldn't be likely to recover any of the expenses. The student is going to have a hard time finding a job in the chosen field after it was found he was behind these actions. His future employers will see him as a liability. Losing a lawsuit for defimation would probaby be over board because it would pretty much lock him out of the field for any job with a potential of paying her back.
I think the model did the right thing here. Going ahead with the lawsuit and getting a 192 million dollar settlement on a student would have spiraled her career into serving coffee at RIAA executive functions. Had it been who she thought it was, she probably would have taken it further. But for now, she got as much justice as she thinks is appropriate. What she thinks is extremely important here because it was her who was defamed. She would set the terms to be made whole again in a court and unless they were ridiculous, the court would likely follow them.
I doesn't really matter that it's 1%. The problem is that you and I were sold a service at a network speed. Granted, it may have said speeds up to a certain limit but even that becomes bait and switch and a flat out lie when the ISP purposely limits speeds to any number below that.
The real issue here is getting what you paid for. Network conditions outside of the ISP's control can limit the speeds and that makes a case for the "up to" clause. But when the ISP limits your speed to 3 megs, then how in the world can you justify paying for the more expensive 6 meg connection knowing you will only get 3 megs because the ISP is limiting your speed?
With the ISP limiting the speeds, it shows that they clearly cannot deliver the faster speeds they are advertising. This is in effect, the very same thing as a car company saying their car will do 200 MPH or 321 km/h when it can only do 80 MPH or 128 km/h. It doesn't matter that an outside entity put up a speed limit below that, what matters is a misrepresentation of what you are purchasing.
Even with the "UP TO" clause, as soon as the ISP limits your traffic to below that number, they have falsly advertised the service. There is no way in the world that you can get up to any amount of speeds when the ISP had you throttled to below it.
I see this all the time where people want to claim "umm, that's up to that speed, it isn't a guarantee of it". Well, if the up to speed is 6 megs and the ISP has it throttles to 1.5 megs, then they totally misrepresented what they sold because there is no way to get 6 megs with them puting the breaks on.
It's a different story if the network is congested or something outside of their direct control is limiting your speeds. But as soon as they take steps to do so, then they simply are not delivering what they sold. In any other business this would be considered fraud and I'm not sure why people are giving them a pass on it now. They would be severely pissed if they went to the car dealership and purchased a Corvette Stingray and was delivered a Ford Pinto instead. They would be completely pissed if they ordered lobster for dinner and received a burrito containing all the left over breakfast items and still had to pay for the lobster price. I simply do not see how people are willing to let this happen with their internet service.
It's irrelevant at this point. We were obviously lies to by our politicians and what they were saying wasn't reality. You and so many other people have made this clear now. I guess it helps having the government stacked with former employees.
I would agree with you if you were talking about its creation. But, I'm guessing that by "the way it was used" you're referring to the way it was seized upon as a political comment. That, I don't agree with: it was racist.
Please explain to me how this is. The way I see it and everyone else I know of, they see it as the joker is a villain in a popular comic and movie series and Obama pushing socialism is bad just like the villain. I'm interested in how it's politically seized that makes it racism.
You're not seeing the distinction between the circumstances of its creation and the circumstances of its appropriation for political ends.
NO, I am not seeing it. Criticizing Obama does not automagically equal racism. His race does not isolate him from criticism nor should it. Hell, his race is not even a defining factor in his policy. He's a socialist that can't even practice what he preaches (just look at his own family). Please explain how this is about racism outside of being manufactured that way.
I already did. actually, I already did twice. I spelled it out completely in the linked post. Were you not paying attention? Or were you ignoring it in order to press your view?
Well then move on. It's not hard to do. The argument for the tarp find was the banks are failing right? Goldman sachs took 12 billion didn't they? Failing- bankrupt- tell me, what's the difference?
And yes, you can be bankrupt with a profit. They are two different things.
I actually was bitching about the spending. Bush 43 was no fiscal conservative and even after the democrats took control in 2006, spending still increased.
I'm not sure I would lay a claim to Democrats being better on the economy either. While I'm only a year older then you are, I do remember the rampent inflation of Carter and watched things like candybars go from 15 cents to 75 cents while my parents bitched that even while getting 8% raises per year, they still didn't have enough to do much more then get by.
During the 90's, we had a few things going which fueled the surplus. Y2k sparked a lot of spending as well as mores law surpassing programing limitations on computers. The Dot com bubble was a real problem too. It also stemmed from the y2k type of hype. In fact, most of the progress under Clinton was due to cheap fuel and hype. I would say mostly cheap fuel too. There is not one thing in the country that doesn't touch oil. The cheaper it is, the cheaper it is to make products, transport them and material to make them and the cheaper it is for people to live their daily lives to make them. In the 1970's, oil and fuel prices caused a lot of the inflation. In the 1980's, we were basically recovering from it. In the late 1990's, America was put back on the world markets in oil (carter took us off to combat the oil embargo), since then our oil prices rose steadily causing some strain on the economy. However low interest rates fought off inflation and finally, in 2006, oil went from $2.50 something a gallon to almost $5 at times. This was stronger then interest rates could balance and caused lots of problems leading to the issues we saw in 2008.
The point of that was that the different presidents were in different times with different problems. Most of them were related to oil/energy prices but they all presented unique situations that will not be repeated and you can't really say one way or another which party handles the economy better. Clinton got lucky and had a congress that was willing to halt spending. That was replaced by a bunch of democrats and republicans who couldn't say no to someone from their own party like they did in the late 90's. Perhaps if anything can be said, it would be that the economy is best handled when the administration is of a different party then congress. At least that was the case with the most viable times in the last 30 years.
but they only pay the high percentage on PROFITS.. and like all good Hollywood accountants most companies report one profit number to the investors, then the "taxable" profits to the SEC which includes all the expenses and deductions they get to take, as well as things like retained earnings and reinvestments (that show as returns over time, even though paid up front). There's lots of ways companies reduce tax burden.
What you described here is highly illegal. All of the SEC filings are public information too. What holly wood seems to do is have 20 sister companies that should be doing the workd of one company and each sister company subs it out to the other for a finders fee. This delutes the profit making it next to nothing as far as the actual feature is concerned. However, certain members or players in the game will own most of the sister companies and ectually benefit well beyond what they should have. This is borderline illegal too but the accountants can keep most of it off the illegal side.
Think of how many taxes YOU pay on INCOME.. you don't get to exclude rent, utilities, cable, cell phone, internet, etc, etc. and companies get to exclude all those types of things as "expenses". Companies only pay taxes on what's LEFT after paying everybody else which is much smaller than the amount of "gross margin" they make.
But I get to exclude the cost of doing business. I also get a lump deduction for a personal living expense and an expense for all my claimed dependents. Personal income taxes just are not the same as business taxes in the sense your attempting to make it. Standard accounting says that profit is what's left after costs. Businesses pay taxes on profit not gross receipts. Most businesses only make 10-15% profit to begin with so taxing them on gross receipts could cripple them.
So nothing changes at all and no correspondance of any kind has been entered into by either party? You are either dreaming here and trying to pull suckers into your dream or more likely you know that there is nothing wrong (because nothing has changed and no threats or promises have been made) and you are just pretending there is some sort of hidden corruption here.
Show me in the law where it says anything about having to accept anything. The intent is an action against the law, the offer is against the law. You are the one that said they did it in order not to piss the government off and lose thier business. You are the one who put the argument together. Read the law and show me where in the law it doesn't apply. Otherwise shut up about it.
And no, it doesn't take two sides for it to violate the law, what it takes is someone to offer an action to influence an official government action and it's a violation that could land you 15 years in prison.
I think it is the latter and you are just lying because you are angry that Flickr took their bat and ball and went home went things got contraversial and you instead wanted them to be a conduit for this propaganda.
They cannot do that when they are contracting for the government. It's really that simple. This is no different then Flickr firing all the republicans working there in order to keep a government contract. IF they allow free speech and contract with the government then they must not bias it with political agendas even if they are their own single ended agendas and the government has no part of the bias. I have a right to not have to entertain a political bias to access information published by the government of my own country. Imagine is you had to go to Carl Rove's website to get official government information.
You keep whining about this law - it doesn't mean anything like what you are pretending it means and you know it. It means what it says not what you pretend it does.
As I said before, show me where I am wrong. Simply saying it isn't getting you anywhere because I specifically showed where the law supports me. So show me where the law says something different or where I misrepresented it. This isn't the first time I asked you to do this and to date you answer seems to be the law doesn't matter, we need to look in the dictionary. Well, nice try but the law is what is legally binding, not your pocket version of Websters dictionary.
You have NOTHING - now the lying, the insults, the padding and the petty bullying stand out as your only arguments. This is a dangerous and really stupid course to take because you only get to cry wolf a few times.
Actually, it's you that has nothing. You are the one who ignored the relevant facts and imposed your interpretation based around your one anecdotal experience and then you attempted back out of that when I pointed out it made it worse. I showed where in the law it's a violation and instead of referring to the law, you are insisting that a dictionary reference means more then the legally binding laws on the books. You are then avoiding all this and calling me a liar and a bully to back up your unfounded assertions.
And no, this is not crying wolf, I have a right as a citizen of the United States of America to not be subject to a politically bias in order to reach government published information. Flickr has an exclusive arrangement with the government and hosts exclusive content. There can be no political bias coming from them at all even if it's just a kickback scheme attempting to keep the lucrative exclusive deal.
Or do you think it would be proper to have to go to only Rupert Murdock's sites as the only source for government published information? The information needs to be released in an area with no political bias whatsoever at all.
Why in the hell would you expect me to know the answer to the question I was asking? If I knew I would not have asked it. Fuck man, think sometime won't you?
I was young, about 19 at the time. I could have handled it different and trust me, with hindsight, I would have. I thought I was doing the right thing and it left me very scared to do anything else at the time. I'm not that way any more and I'm willing to stand up to them if nothing else but to get my chastising them onto the public record.
The country I live is is really corrupt (well it appears that way). When I was a kid, the sheriff had his house blown up by some Mob associates because he decided to close down a gambling hall and run it himself. He quit and his replacement has lost an election some 10 years later because drug dealers were complaining that they didn't touch drugs until the sheriff recruited them to do sting operations in which all traces of the drugs except those used to convict them disappeared. Evidently the sheriff was framing people in order to show results at a time people were demanding others to be tough on crime. The sheriff after that is currently serving time in federal prison for embezzlement and something else. The then 30 year tenure chief of police of the nearest town and county seat resigned without pension to avoid charges of embezzlement, improper allocations of public resources and systematic mistreatment of prisoners along with a few allegations of planting evidence made on a couple officers who resigned also.
It appears to have taken about a 8 year lapse in corruption but I was recently (2 years ago) threatened by a police officer in the lobby of the police station over wanting to file a complain for misconduct against another officer. I handled that entirely different and went to the mayor, the state and federal attorney generals office, and even called the FBI who was investigating another corrupt sheriff a county or two away. I can't really do anything to him for it because he didn't act on the threats which he kept vague and the audio to the surveillance system was somehow turned off ten minutes before I got there and turned back on a half hour after I left. The video shows anger on both out faces but he kept his back to the cameras when speaking. But I am privy to an internal disciplinary action on the officer who was order to take an anger management class on his own time and a refresher course on dealing with the public on the department's dime. I also got an apology from the deputy director of the police force and the mayor went to bat with me to make sure that no threats would be followed through with.
You didn't give an answer, you just repeated some snide remarks that were probably told to you at one point in time without you ever understanding it. Here is an example of an answer. It's also more competent and inteligent then anything you have said to date.
You also didn't address the question that was asked making your first comment unimportant. You may be proud that you observed me living down to my user name but shouldn't you be concerned that you have yet to live up to it?
You said not to piss off their customers. The official act would be keeping the contract and content exclusive to flickr. That's what is at stake, you offered your explanation as an alternative to my point that the content needs to be moved. It still needs to be moved.
I provided the definition relevant here because it is encoded into the fucking law. You finding or thinking something different because of something not written into law is completely fucking meaningless in this respect. The law is what is legaly binding, I provided the definition as used by the law and I provided the actual fucking law. If you still want to pretend it doesn't mean it or it means something else because you want to look everywhere but the law that makes the definition legally binding, then you can remain ignorant all you want. It simply does not make you right.
Here is a hint, there is no roof on the atmosphere. Heat energy radiates out without anything containing it. There is no coated glass roof or anything keeping it there. The scale of a greenhouse is also different then the scale of the entire world. In fact, the same Co2 and heat retention observations in a green house utterly fail when computed in a model of the world.
As I said, in a lab doesn't necessarily mean in the real world.
Slashdot Mirror
You actually made the accusation, I was saying it was an inside political hit job and you put it out there that they did it is stop a customer from getting pisses off and keep the contract. That is an official act and you claiming it is a lie is a fallacy on your own undertaking.
The action fits under the law, it's exactly what you said when attempting to remove the politicl portions of my position and you either stand by what you said or shut up. Either way, it doesn't remotely address that fact that Flickr has to go.
If the burners were needed during the course of business, it may have been impossible to disable them without costing more in the long run.
I find it funny when people say "they should have disabled it" instead of the employee knows the rules and shouldn't have done X. I mean is it the employers fault that the employee was surfing porn at work because the sites he visited wasn't blocked by the content controls? Is it the employers fault for not putting the printing paper or pens under lock and key when the employees start taking it home for personal use? No, it's the employees fault for not following the rules. When employees cannot follow the rules, they need to become ex-employees instead of having the employer jump though hoops locking crap down.
Actually, it was probably more like they checked a log or cache on the PC used and determined the files to be the same as on the CD. Even if it was just a hash, it doesn't mean they would know what was burned, just that they could identify the actual CD when the hash was checked.
As for not having burning software and burners in the PCs, there could be legitimate reasons for them to exist and be functional. You can't pretend to know how they are doing something and present a false dichotomy because it works in your mind or you lack experience. There were controls in place and they worked.
I'm not exactly sure how uploading it to a free hosting site in germany just to download it again got around any of the limitations of having to download it again. That is unless having it all in one repository was the key to the decision.
It doesn't say you can't edit. It just legitimatizes the secrete editing squads who serve their own purposes. All this means is that if you edit and it says something they do not like, no one else will ever see it.
You have obviously missed everything of worth. If you just can't show where I was wrong, then it's time you moved on and trolled somewhere else. I made the case and it was your job to show how that case was wrong and that the law didn't apply. You failed doing that miserably and you cannot salvage it by shouting liar or insults.
TO put the law into context, nothing has to change between two parties and there isn't a requirement for two parties to be involved in order to be in violation of the law. Just go back and check for yourselves.
You were tasked with a duty to put up or shut up. You failed in doing so. It isn't about the last word, it's about right and wrong and you are simply wrong.
I can't believe someone hasn't mentioned that this was a marketing commercial from the American fast food restaurant Burger King.
Here is just the commercial in case anyone wants to skip the blog post. I'm not sure who's blog it is or if they have bandwidth restrictions or not.
I can see how someone moderated this as redundant because the song was half assed mentioned in the summery, but it's actually informative. This is because although I know who Johny Cash is, I do not listen to him and had no idea he actually had a song named one piece at a time or what it said. The article summery said "took Johny Cash's advice", this could have been something offered in an interview sometime, he could of had some reality TV program or something before he died, he could have been talking about something else entirely, and it could have been a completely different Johny Cash for all I knew.
Not everyone lives in the same world. What was posted cleared up a lot if you ask me. It may be redundent to someone who knew what Johny Cash's advice was, but the post was informative to all of us who drum to a different beat.
When it's a public interest. However, in this case, it was a private interest and I don't see where anything was handled wrongly.
You aren't looking at the entire picture here. Calling someone a skank isn't really a problem until her reputation is a strong part of their work prospective.
Assaulting the reputation of a model can stop her from working. It's equivalent to one engineer saying another civil engineer doesn't know the tensile strength of steel and caused bridges to collapse. It's more of a professional hit job then an insult. In this case, exposing the person to be some unqualified student-nobody was enough to negate the damages and she left it at that. If it had been someone inside the industry she worked with, it could have devastated her career.
As soon as, no. You seem to be forfeiting it when someone presents the defamation to a judge and the judge determines that disclosing your identity is prudent to pursuing justice. This means that the judge actually saw the potential of defamation if not actual defamation and determined it was beyond hurt feelings to some extent.
In this model case however, the situation had some preconditions to it. The model thought the anonymous person was someone specific and had intent to sue that person. When it was determined to be just some fashion student with no money, the model stopped pursuing it because enough damage had already been done and it wouldn't be likely to recover any of the expenses. The student is going to have a hard time finding a job in the chosen field after it was found he was behind these actions. His future employers will see him as a liability. Losing a lawsuit for defimation would probaby be over board because it would pretty much lock him out of the field for any job with a potential of paying her back.
I think the model did the right thing here. Going ahead with the lawsuit and getting a 192 million dollar settlement on a student would have spiraled her career into serving coffee at RIAA executive functions. Had it been who she thought it was, she probably would have taken it further. But for now, she got as much justice as she thinks is appropriate. What she thinks is extremely important here because it was her who was defamed. She would set the terms to be made whole again in a court and unless they were ridiculous, the court would likely follow them.
I doesn't really matter that it's 1%. The problem is that you and I were sold a service at a network speed. Granted, it may have said speeds up to a certain limit but even that becomes bait and switch and a flat out lie when the ISP purposely limits speeds to any number below that.
The real issue here is getting what you paid for. Network conditions outside of the ISP's control can limit the speeds and that makes a case for the "up to" clause. But when the ISP limits your speed to 3 megs, then how in the world can you justify paying for the more expensive 6 meg connection knowing you will only get 3 megs because the ISP is limiting your speed?
With the ISP limiting the speeds, it shows that they clearly cannot deliver the faster speeds they are advertising. This is in effect, the very same thing as a car company saying their car will do 200 MPH or 321 km/h when it can only do 80 MPH or 128 km/h. It doesn't matter that an outside entity put up a speed limit below that, what matters is a misrepresentation of what you are purchasing.
Even with the "UP TO" clause, as soon as the ISP limits your traffic to below that number, they have falsly advertised the service. There is no way in the world that you can get up to any amount of speeds when the ISP had you throttled to below it.
I see this all the time where people want to claim "umm, that's up to that speed, it isn't a guarantee of it". Well, if the up to speed is 6 megs and the ISP has it throttles to 1.5 megs, then they totally misrepresented what they sold because there is no way to get 6 megs with them puting the breaks on.
It's a different story if the network is congested or something outside of their direct control is limiting your speeds. But as soon as they take steps to do so, then they simply are not delivering what they sold. In any other business this would be considered fraud and I'm not sure why people are giving them a pass on it now. They would be severely pissed if they went to the car dealership and purchased a Corvette Stingray and was delivered a Ford Pinto instead. They would be completely pissed if they ordered lobster for dinner and received a burrito containing all the left over breakfast items and still had to pay for the lobster price. I simply do not see how people are willing to let this happen with their internet service.
It's irrelevant at this point. We were obviously lies to by our politicians and what they were saying wasn't reality. You and so many other people have made this clear now. I guess it helps having the government stacked with former employees.
Please explain to me how this is. The way I see it and everyone else I know of, they see it as the joker is a villain in a popular comic and movie series and Obama pushing socialism is bad just like the villain. I'm interested in how it's politically seized that makes it racism.
NO, I am not seeing it. Criticizing Obama does not automagically equal racism. His race does not isolate him from criticism nor should it. Hell, his race is not even a defining factor in his policy. He's a socialist that can't even practice what he preaches (just look at his own family). Please explain how this is about racism outside of being manufactured that way.
I already did. actually, I already did twice. I spelled it out completely in the linked post. Were you not paying attention? Or were you ignoring it in order to press your view?
Well then move on. It's not hard to do. The argument for the tarp find was the banks are failing right? Goldman sachs took 12 billion didn't they? Failing- bankrupt- tell me, what's the difference?
And yes, you can be bankrupt with a profit. They are two different things.
I actually was bitching about the spending. Bush 43 was no fiscal conservative and even after the democrats took control in 2006, spending still increased.
I'm not sure I would lay a claim to Democrats being better on the economy either. While I'm only a year older then you are, I do remember the rampent inflation of Carter and watched things like candybars go from 15 cents to 75 cents while my parents bitched that even while getting 8% raises per year, they still didn't have enough to do much more then get by.
During the 90's, we had a few things going which fueled the surplus. Y2k sparked a lot of spending as well as mores law surpassing programing limitations on computers. The Dot com bubble was a real problem too. It also stemmed from the y2k type of hype. In fact, most of the progress under Clinton was due to cheap fuel and hype. I would say mostly cheap fuel too. There is not one thing in the country that doesn't touch oil. The cheaper it is, the cheaper it is to make products, transport them and material to make them and the cheaper it is for people to live their daily lives to make them. In the 1970's, oil and fuel prices caused a lot of the inflation. In the 1980's, we were basically recovering from it. In the late 1990's, America was put back on the world markets in oil (carter took us off to combat the oil embargo), since then our oil prices rose steadily causing some strain on the economy. However low interest rates fought off inflation and finally, in 2006, oil went from $2.50 something a gallon to almost $5 at times. This was stronger then interest rates could balance and caused lots of problems leading to the issues we saw in 2008.
The point of that was that the different presidents were in different times with different problems. Most of them were related to oil/energy prices but they all presented unique situations that will not be repeated and you can't really say one way or another which party handles the economy better. Clinton got lucky and had a congress that was willing to halt spending. That was replaced by a bunch of democrats and republicans who couldn't say no to someone from their own party like they did in the late 90's. Perhaps if anything can be said, it would be that the economy is best handled when the administration is of a different party then congress. At least that was the case with the most viable times in the last 30 years.
What you described here is highly illegal. All of the SEC filings are public information too. What holly wood seems to do is have 20 sister companies that should be doing the workd of one company and each sister company subs it out to the other for a finders fee. This delutes the profit making it next to nothing as far as the actual feature is concerned. However, certain members or players in the game will own most of the sister companies and ectually benefit well beyond what they should have. This is borderline illegal too but the accountants can keep most of it off the illegal side.
But I get to exclude the cost of doing business. I also get a lump deduction for a personal living expense and an expense for all my claimed dependents. Personal income taxes just are not the same as business taxes in the sense your attempting to make it. Standard accounting says that profit is what's left after costs. Businesses pay taxes on profit not gross receipts. Most businesses only make 10-15% profit to begin with so taxing them on gross receipts could cripple them.
Show me in the law where it says anything about having to accept anything. The intent is an action against the law, the offer is against the law. You are the one that said they did it in order not to piss the government off and lose thier business. You are the one who put the argument together. Read the law and show me where in the law it doesn't apply. Otherwise shut up about it.
And no, it doesn't take two sides for it to violate the law, what it takes is someone to offer an action to influence an official government action and it's a violation that could land you 15 years in prison.
They cannot do that when they are contracting for the government. It's really that simple. This is no different then Flickr firing all the republicans working there in order to keep a government contract. IF they allow free speech and contract with the government then they must not bias it with political agendas even if they are their own single ended agendas and the government has no part of the bias. I have a right to not have to entertain a political bias to access information published by the government of my own country. Imagine is you had to go to Carl Rove's website to get official government information.
As I said before, show me where I am wrong. Simply saying it isn't getting you anywhere because I specifically showed where the law supports me. So show me where the law says something different or where I misrepresented it. This isn't the first time I asked you to do this and to date you answer seems to be the law doesn't matter, we need to look in the dictionary. Well, nice try but the law is what is legally binding, not your pocket version of Websters dictionary.
Actually, it's you that has nothing. You are the one who ignored the relevant facts and imposed your interpretation based around your one anecdotal experience and then you attempted back out of that when I pointed out it made it worse. I showed where in the law it's a violation and instead of referring to the law, you are insisting that a dictionary reference means more then the legally binding laws on the books. You are then avoiding all this and calling me a liar and a bully to back up your unfounded assertions.
And no, this is not crying wolf, I have a right as a citizen of the United States of America to not be subject to a politically bias in order to reach government published information. Flickr has an exclusive arrangement with the government and hosts exclusive content. There can be no political bias coming from them at all even if it's just a kickback scheme attempting to keep the lucrative exclusive deal.
Or do you think it would be proper to have to go to only Rupert Murdock's sites as the only source for government published information? The information needs to be released in an area with no political bias whatsoever at all.
Why in the hell would you expect me to know the answer to the question I was asking? If I knew I would not have asked it. Fuck man, think sometime won't you?
I was young, about 19 at the time. I could have handled it different and trust me, with hindsight, I would have. I thought I was doing the right thing and it left me very scared to do anything else at the time. I'm not that way any more and I'm willing to stand up to them if nothing else but to get my chastising them onto the public record.
The country I live is is really corrupt (well it appears that way). When I was a kid, the sheriff had his house blown up by some Mob associates because he decided to close down a gambling hall and run it himself. He quit and his replacement has lost an election some 10 years later because drug dealers were complaining that they didn't touch drugs until the sheriff recruited them to do sting operations in which all traces of the drugs except those used to convict them disappeared. Evidently the sheriff was framing people in order to show results at a time people were demanding others to be tough on crime. The sheriff after that is currently serving time in federal prison for embezzlement and something else. The then 30 year tenure chief of police of the nearest town and county seat resigned without pension to avoid charges of embezzlement, improper allocations of public resources and systematic mistreatment of prisoners along with a few allegations of planting evidence made on a couple officers who resigned also.
It appears to have taken about a 8 year lapse in corruption but I was recently (2 years ago) threatened by a police officer in the lobby of the police station over wanting to file a complain for misconduct against another officer. I handled that entirely different and went to the mayor, the state and federal attorney generals office, and even called the FBI who was investigating another corrupt sheriff a county or two away. I can't really do anything to him for it because he didn't act on the threats which he kept vague and the audio to the surveillance system was somehow turned off ten minutes before I got there and turned back on a half hour after I left. The video shows anger on both out faces but he kept his back to the cameras when speaking. But I am privy to an internal disciplinary action on the officer who was order to take an anger management class on his own time and a refresher course on dealing with the public on the department's dime. I also got an apology from the deputy director of the police force and the mayor went to bat with me to make sure that no threats would be followed through with.
You didn't give an answer, you just repeated some snide remarks that were probably told to you at one point in time without you ever understanding it. Here is an example of an answer. It's also more competent and inteligent then anything you have said to date.
You also didn't address the question that was asked making your first comment unimportant. You may be proud that you observed me living down to my user name but shouldn't you be concerned that you have yet to live up to it?
You said not to piss off their customers. The official act would be keeping the contract and content exclusive to flickr. That's what is at stake, you offered your explanation as an alternative to my point that the content needs to be moved. It still needs to be moved.
I provided the definition relevant here because it is encoded into the fucking law. You finding or thinking something different because of something not written into law is completely fucking meaningless in this respect. The law is what is legaly binding, I provided the definition as used by the law and I provided the actual fucking law. If you still want to pretend it doesn't mean it or it means something else because you want to look everywhere but the law that makes the definition legally binding, then you can remain ignorant all you want. It simply does not make you right.
Here is a hint, there is no roof on the atmosphere. Heat energy radiates out without anything containing it. There is no coated glass roof or anything keeping it there. The scale of a greenhouse is also different then the scale of the entire world. In fact, the same Co2 and heat retention observations in a green house utterly fail when computed in a model of the world.
As I said, in a lab doesn't necessarily mean in the real world.