Actually, your almost right but still wrong. I will correct it for you.
"What is driving "offshoring" is not justtaxes, it's pure free-market forces. Costs invluding labor is more expensive here than it is there, so companies attempt to cut costs by moving the labor and coststhere.
Companies don't increase presence in China because the US raises taxes 5%. They move to China because they can hire a college educated engineer there for $15k a year.
Actually, the 5% is worth it to some companies. It adds up to the total differences in costs. It makes companies who would only save 15% on labor end up saving 20% over all. There is not one single factor involved by usually many.
It's not racism at all in the way it was used. The obvious point was the joker as a villain not someone dressing up as an opposite race in attempts to make fun of them. Quit manufacturing racism.
Bullshit. Also your personal definition of kickback in the fantasy conversation far above doesn't match the dictionary or any usage I've heard of.
The definition in some dictionary doesn't matter, the law defines the term in question and while you want to ignore it, you cannot because it's what makes something legal and illegal. We are talking right and wrong and a violation of the law.
Attaching your own meaning that nobody else uses onto an existing word is a barrier to communication.
If you would have bothered with just a cursory examination of the law I cited or followed the links I presented to view it yourself and read it, you would know that you are absolutely wrong proven by empirical evidence- the fucking law.
You know, you keep going on and on about me being a bully because I called you dense, stupid and claimed you are making shit up. And here you are ignoring things and attempting to assert your own views into it. Wake the fuck up or shut the hell up. You are also selectively forgetting that you started the name calling and what you consider bullying.
I really can't swallow your "biased political hitjob" story where some sort of psychic mind control or other bullshit gets the message that nobody is f*ing communicating to Flickr across and I can't see how you can believe it either.
Boy, you are a work of art, you are the one who injected the psychic mind control or other bullshit. You said
"Flickr do not want to have to deal with any hassles that might crop up from hosting this image. You may be able to find dozens of photoshopped Bushes, Palins, Newts or whatever but nobody really cares a great deal so there is no real hassle for them to deal with."
"I have seen a government cancel an advertising contract worth millions when they were upset with a newspaper and this is a million miles from that (several of that government later went to prison). This is instead the sort of self censorship that occurs daily when businesses do not want to upset potential or current clients."
and rehashed the same damn thing numerous times throughout this thread. Now do you believe this or not? If not, then why did you even inject it knowing you didn't support it. It is after all, what you are attempting to deny right now. As for the content, Flickr is legally immune from Time or DC commics actions surrounding the images and has not bothered to cleanse any other images using Time or DC Comic's images from their system. The only thing left is the administration with the government contract who is currently having this image and adaptation of it damage their agenda and image.
You can't believe how someone sees it because you are ignoring your own words, the fucking law when it was posted right in front of you as well as when it was linked to.
So the government is telling them what to do without any form of communication and this is the same as handing over a bribe? It makes no sense on any level you are just trying to bury people under bullshit you could not possibly believe either, otherwise you would have come up with something that makes sense.
We aren't talking about the government telling Flickr what to do. we are talking about flickr doing something outside the contract to influence keeping the contract and the exclusiveness of it as as you specifically described. That is against the law and wrong.
The law you posted as a bit of padding to look important and intimidate the clueless has nothing to do with this unless you invent new meanings of words to make things fit. It's funny, you've now accused me of making shit up just as you have to others replying to your posts where you have made shit up:
Really, lets look at it and see what is going on and you can tell me specifically where
When you are pusposely ignoring facts and inserting your own reality while acting as if you are totally clueless, it's not bullying, it's a fucking observation. Quit that and magically all the fucking observations disappear.
OK then, who from the government said pull the photo? Obviously no-one. Therefore you are just building a pyramid of bullshit on a lie.
Damn, is your reading comprehension that bad? No one from the government has to say a damn word for your kickback scam to be illegal, someone just has to do something to influence the official action and it's obvious what that action is because the only benefit for removing the image was to Obama and his agenda and Flickr does still have exclusive content despite alternatives readily availible including government servers. You made that case, not me.
Why are you doing this when you know that none of this is true?
Not true? You are the one who insisted it was this way and not the biased political hitjob as I originally outlines. Fuck dude, pick a story and stick with it. I already pasted the entirety of one of your attempts to make that case and you completely ignored your very own words in an attempt to claim it's all false. I'm sorry that what you want isn't matching reality. You can't live in a fallacious world
What are the rules of this little game? Is this some Republican vs Democrat tribalism bullshit where you have to defend even the most stupid actions of your own team? Why are you saying read the quote which obviously is not related? It's not going to magically change into something that is. Why are you pretending kickback and bribe mean something that no dictionary says they do?
Ok, your acting all fucking stupid is getting idiotic. The rules of the game is to take the availible facts and discern the truth using logic and reasoning. You are the one who insisted it was one way over another and I pasted the link to not only the dictionary that defined a kickback, But I pasted the link to the fucking law that makes it illegal for it to be there and I even pasted the definition the fucking law gives. If you are wanting to claim no dictionary gives that definition, they you are totally ignoring not only the posts you are replying to, but the entire god damned law in which the legal system is using. That's no cool.
I really do not understand what is going on and find the bullying which assumes the reader is very poorly educated quite offensive - it's the lowest form of debate arguing by intimidation (if you don't know it's the "just trust me I know better" bullshit). It may work where you are but other places have not let education standards slip so badly that people would assume you are intelligent and sincere just because you can string a sentence together when they can't.
First of all, pointing out your failings is not bullying. It does not assume a you are poorly educated, it's an observation of your own fucking actions. If you act retarded, ignore point that even you brought up yourself as soon as they damage your position, and arbitrarily make shit up in order to push your view, then don't be surprised or offended when someone calls you on it because what you are doing isn't even legitimate debate at all.
Let's get back to reality: Ordinary investors and advertisers vote and get pissed off by political propaganda ridiculing those they vote for. That is VERY different to influencing any official act.
So now you are claiming it's back to removing a criticism on Obama. Sweet, you just spent several posts attempting to say it didn't happen and now that I proved your logic to still be wrong, you are attempting to jump back to the lest of the evils. Here is the thing, it was either political motivation like I mentioned, or it's kickbacks like you mentioned. Pick a story and stick with it.
The government is not f*ing involved at all so your pointless spouting of a pile of offtopic quotes is an annoying smokescreen to manipulate people.
The government is by default involved. It has an exclusive contracts with flickr and it holds exclusive content published by the government. This photo is about Obama, it's his picture, it's his defacement, it's his causes being damaged by it.
It's very sad that you wish to manipulate people like this and quite sad that you are assuming all the readers here are so incredibly stupid that doing it so incompetantly would work.
No, what's sad is that you are ignoring facts, ignoring your own argument, and substitution your own alternate reality. It's sad that you are doing this in order to accomplish the very same goal you fallaciously accuse me of.
The insults are a another little bullying touch (ask your mom? Are you f*ing 5 and still arguing in the sandpit? You are supposed to grow out of such things) as well as the interesting little touch of accusing the other person of doing exactly what you are attempting.
It was right there in black and white and you still insisted it never occurred. It was your damn argument in the first place and you changed it when you realized your apology was still wrong. You are acting like a pissy little 5 year old, you are acting like an apologist who has to make the story up as he goes, and and you are acting like someone who isn't smart enough to simply pay attention to not only what was said to you but what you said yourself. If you think calling you on that is bullying, then you obviously need some more sessions with your shrink. Fuck, your worse then the Bush apologist. At least they acknowledge the facts and attempted to mold them. Your just closing your eyes to pretend they don't exist and substituting your own reality.
Why bother with all this bullshit when you know it isn't real? Have I stumbled into some little game of Democrat baiting or something and don't understand the rules because I'm not in the USA? Or have I stumbled upon some batshit insane sophilist group that think the government is responsible for everything good and evil and that the CIA blew up the twin towers?
You stumbled into something you know nothing about, somthing you are refusing to look at, and you are attempting to substitute an alternative realty as if everyone should be cool with it.
You are the one who said it was Flickr doing things for their customers. Did you or did you not say "I have seen a government cancel an advertising contract worth millions when they were upset with a newspaper and this is a million miles from that (several of that government later went to prison). This is instead the sort of self censorship that occurs daily when businesses do not want to upset potential or current clients."?
The only customer who benefited from the one thing was the administration and his policies that favor Flickr over other competent services. Otherwise flickr would have removed all the joker images and all the time images. Those aren't what they were concerned with,
Isn't it logical to think that society as we know it is shaped because of feelings and pain we as a species experience? Your reality would be entirely different if that wasn't true. It is an intended outcome.
OMG, do you have a problem following along? You are the one who said they did something in order to influence their customer. The only customer involved who had an interest that they actually did something about was the administration. Time images are still all over the place, Joker images are still all over the place. The only person who benefited was obama because it's a current and effective criticism of him.
Now I linked to the law, you can read it. It does not have to be the government making the action, a company making the action influencing a government action is just fine. You made the case yourself for that happening when attempting to claim the administration was completely clean. It's no secrete that Flickr has an exclusive contract for exclusive content given to them by Obama.
Now instead of expecting scary little government people whispering into someone ear about knowing where children are, you should read the fucking law that was linked to, attempt to understand it. Maybe even ask your mom or someone if it gets a little hard for you, and then point out where it is wrong. You ignoring the law, ignoring your own words, and attempting to make shit up and claim you don't understand the definitions, does not change anything. It's either as I said and wrong, or as you said and still wrong. Well, unless you are closing your eyes to the facts availible and want to impose your own reality.
The D.O.D and NSA are forward thinking because many of their secrets can be potentially damaging well into the future. They aren't just looking at making them not readable today, but hopefully not readable 25 or more years into the future when new technology may be availible to obsolete the current limitations to our technology.
Making several passes attempts to increase the likelihood of that not being possible.
Oh yea, I quoted the wrong section but here is the right one.
(b) Whoever--
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent-- (A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
It seems that removing an image effectivly being used and critical of the president for the purpose of keeping the government contracts falls directly into violation of that law. So even if what you said it true, you have kickbacks under your belt which carries a fine of up to 3 times the actual value and/or 15 years imprisonment plus a ban from holding any any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
F*ing hell - in the land of blatant corruption by lobbyists you are seeing this thing as a kickback?
Actually, I see it as a little more then kickbacks. It was only when you insisted all of that was irrelevent that I had to lower it to kickbacks. And yes, it is a kickback by the lowest possible standard, the government is using only Flickr for certain services and all the sudden images that are effectivly critical of Obama is remover while you are offering the excuse that they did it only to make sure they didn't offend a client. Now, if the client was anyone other then the government and the client was using more then just this service, then I can see it as attempting to please the customer. But when the customer is the government and they have an exclusive arrangement, then you can't deny it was done to benefit that arrangement. Especially when photo's of the Joker as well as Time Magazine remain on the service completely unaffected.
Is this the trick we see so often in the USA of redefining a word to mean something completely different in an attempt to pull a fast one over the reader/listener which works so well due to twenty years of declining education?
I provided my source for the definition of a kickback. If you have a problem with it, then counter the definition. Insinuating that it's been altered somehow in order to stretch a point without any specifics is nothing more then attempting to ignore it because you don't want to believe it's true. But hey, a cursory search of the law would have revealed that the definition I posted is Near Identical to the one codified by law.
So again, if you disagree with the definition, then bring valid points to it and not insinuations of manipulation because you don't want it to be true.
I suggest paying attention instead of inventing things to make the party you hate look bad.
Were you looking in the mirror when making that comment? Because I'm simply going to suggest that you practice what you preach, it seems to be the most relevant way for your comment to apply.
If you look hard enough you will find plenty of real Democrats that are really on the take instead of this imagined bullshit. Look at the health care "debate" for instance and you will see a few examples.
It does not matter how is on the take. Or are you actually saying that one crime, because you think it might be smaller then another should be over looked? I mean fuck, that's how government gets corrupted in the first place. People say, well at least it's not what he is doing, and excuse their actions. However, the bigger point here isn't Obama doing it, but a company that has exclusive access to provide an exclusive service is doing it (assuming your Obama is innocent claim is real), and we shouldn't be benefiting them by continuing to do business with them. As you said, Flickr remover innocent and otherwise allowable speech from their site because they didn't want to piss off their clients. And of course seeing the shear numbers of Time Covers as well as Joker images, then the only other offensive portion that can be seen is Obama. So if it is as you say, it's only reasonable to conclude that it was intended to aid the administration, otherwise all the other joker or Time images would have been removed too.
I'm having a hard time linking race to this in any way. Please show me where the N-word comes into play at all. I mean being critical of Obama doesn't automatically invoke race in any way. The original author said he was learning to use Photoshop and picked the photo because it was one he had.
When the other people removed time's logo and placed Socialism on it, it still doesn't touch racism. The obvious interpretation is that Obama was a villain and the crime was socialism. The joker is a well known villain in the batman and robbin commics as well as their old TV shows. It's even more obvious seeing how the Dark Night is a modern movie depicting the Joker as an unstable villain. This is compounded by all the press coverage over Keith Ledger making it an iconic character.
Please tell me where racism comes into play here. I'm not away of the original author or the socialism tagged author calling Obama a nigger or anything. I'm not aware of anyone on Flickr or who is using the socialism poster making racist comments over the image. I hope your entire racism argument isn't one of those "we will just label it racism so anyone defending it will be called a racist and lose the argument by default" tactics that seems to be the crux of a lot of Obama defenders. Resorting to race and racism to win arguments completely devoid of it will actually encourage racism and is wrong.
If you'd bother to RTActualFA you'd have noticed that he was, in fact, contacted by Flickr which is one of the provisions of the DMCA: that the operator notify the "infringer" of the takedown. For all you know, that contact was a DMCA notice. If you'd bothered to read the rest of this thread, you'd also know that DMCA angle is speculation on the motivation based on Flickr's statement of copyright concerns. The difference between my speculation and yours is that mine is much more likely to be accurate.
I did RTfuckingA. The actual fucking article mentions nothing about the DMCA or a DMCA notice at all. IF it were involve, it would have, hell, the interview with the author of the picture would have mentioned it. Why do I know this is true, because the law states that the DMCA take down notice is to be passed on to the user responsible for the posting. That's the law and it's that way so the user can reply stating they have rights to use the content as the fucking law states.
For all I know, is all that was stated in both articles. The user was contacted by Flickr, not given a DMCA take down notice. If was, he would have stated that either Time or DC commics pulled the picture, not Flickr.
Like I said, enjoy your crazy conspiracy theory. Since that's all you have, I'm not going to keep wasting time arguing with you anymore than I would a birther, flat-earther, or moon landing hoax nut. The unfortunate part of this behavior, though, is that someday somebody like you really will be unfairly targeted for your political beliefs in a situation like this, and nobody's going to believe you because you and the entire right in this country are just absolutely hellbent on treating the Boy Who Cried Wolf like an instruction manual rather than a cautionary tale.
Like I said, they would not be crazy if you paid attention to the facts and stopped making shit up that you don't understand. A DMCA take down request requires notice to be given in the form of a DMCA take down request to the user responsible for the content being on the site. When they don't then Flickr becomes liable for any damages from taking the material off line.
The facts are that one image with two potentially infringing elements which was broadcast all over the world and used to create an image that become internationally notorious via major media outlets was removed from a site that continues to host thousands if not tens of thousands of anti-Obama anti-democrat images.
Like I said, when you ignore the facts. It's nice how you conveniently leave some out there. It's also nice how you make shit up to further your cause.
There is no conspiracy, no political hit job going on here. Somebody got a takedown notice or got too touchy over the possibility of getting one and removed a piece of parody work they shouldn't have. Same thing that's happened hundreds, if not thousands of times before on all sorts of different media-rich websites like Flickr, DeviantArt, and Youtube which allow users to upload content. Even Slashdot has fallen victim to DMCA claims and removed user posts as a result.
Why are you making shit up? No one connected to the case said there was a take down notice. The DMCA would require the take down notice to have been passed on to the person responsible for the image, that has not happened and no one connected to the situation has claimed a take down notice was issues. All they have claimed is that Flickr took the image down citing copyright concerns. This was an independent act of flickr, not time or DC comics. They even cited something they obviously are unconcerned about from other users.
Don't make shit up in order to validate your contrived worldviews. Don't ignore the facts in order to validate your contrived worldview. And definitely do not make shit up while ignoring factual content in order to support your worldview. You are being a text book example of delusional.
You go ahead and run with this crazy "Flickr is a bunch of lefties" conspiracy theory though. Let me know how it works out for you. Maybe you can get some birthers or some screaming town hall rioters to join you on this.
Like I said before, if you looked at all the facts and don't make shit up to filter through your own bias, you wouldn't think it's so crazy. In fact, maybe if you did the same with the teabaggers and birthers, you would see a different perspective entirely. But hey, it's your choice to remain ignorant and delusional.
Actually, creating a flying car isn't beyond our reach. There have been several of them. What is beyond our reach is creating one that is economical and safe enough for the average joe to use.
The delusional comment wasn't meant to be an insight, it was means to get you to look at the situation a little closer.
The problem is that when you do something like that in order to not piss off the government or people in the government and it helps them, it is called a kickback. A kickback is any money, fee, commission, credit, gift, gratuity, thing of value or compensation of any kind which is provided, directly or indirectly, to agency procurement or program officials by any prime contractor employee, subcontractor or subcontractor employee for the purpose of improperly obtaining or receiving favorable treatment in connection with obtaining a contract.
Now this doesn't even have to be because of somebody from a government department or the party. All it has to do is benefit them and be done in an attempt to gain or keep their business. Imagine the conversation when it comes time to renew some contracts.
IT Drone: Why use Flickr when Google's Picassa or other sites are around Administration: Because they delete images giving us and our agenda problems. IT Drone: They do? How did you manage that? Administration: Umm.. we didn't really, it's just something they do and why we use them. It's not illegal if you split this hair and look in that direction. IT Drone: Ahh, a kickback. Obama supporters: Quit being a racist jerk, apologize for your comments you bigot.
Even if it is as you say, it's still a kickback and something the government shouldn't be involved in at all. Imagine if the only way you can get a government contract is to protect the image of the president and his agenda. Flickr has an exclusive deal with the white house for photos, you have to ask, is the only way other sites get part of that action going to be actively defending the president and his agenda by deleting the effective criticisms of him?
Riddle me this, Batman. If this is all about hating on Obama detractors and right-wingers, why is Flickr still hosting thousands of anti-Obama and anti-Democrat images that can easily be found with these simple search terms:
Perhaps because those are played out and the joker-bama poster is significant of a current criticism. I mean, yea, Why worry about the crap that failed before the government made the contracts with Flickr, Worry about what is being used now in rallies around the US to show Obama as an evil villain. Worry about what is being effective currently.
I mean that is the current situation right? Someone took the picture, erased the time stuff and put socialism on it then pasted it all over a city only to have it grab a grass roots holding with people all over the country using it in these town hall meeting when speaking out against Obama care and other government programs/actions.
In fact, there are a bunch of derivative works of the Obama joker image in those results. You know what the main difference between those and the one that gotten taken down is? The one that gotten taken down was being plastered all over causways, bridge abuttments, national TV and the internet, and those weren't.
Actually, no it wasn't. The one that was plastered was altered to look different then the one taken down. If you would have read the summery let alone the article, you would have knew that.
Maybe, just maybe you can set aside all the insanely irrational conspiracy theories for one moment and think about why an image that's been duplicated hundreds of thousands of times and gained international notoriety might attract a little more negative attention from a copyright holder than a bunch of images that never left a site that only a subset of internet users ever visit.
Maybe, just Maybe, if you had all the facts availible and didn't insist on looking at it through biased glasses, you wouldn't think the conspiracy is irrational. The attention is attracts is nothing but ad revenue, Flickr is immune from damages because of it. It's enshrined in the law concerning copyright which they stated was the reason for pulling it.
Now you are here attempting to apologize for the action by making something up that _no_one_directly_connected_to_the_art is claiming and you are calling me irrational. All I can so it look at the known facts and draw a conclusion. the facts are, the image is being used to effectivly criticize Obama, Flickr just got government contracts and Obama paved that way as well as started using them, Flickr pulled the image _citing_copyright_concerns_ but do not have any concerns over any other copyright connected to it individually when used by other users. Flickr is also legally isolated from the image due to copyright law in which they claimed their concerns were about. You're attempting to claim all that is meaningless and something you just made up that no one else connected to the situation has made a claim of trumps it all. Don't you think that's a little delusional?
I don't know why the right thinks that being perpetually offended and outraged at things that don't exist is a good way to go about rebuilding its influence in America, and, frankly, at this point, I don't even care anymore.
Lol.. The only way you can claim this doesn't exist is if you close your eyes and ignore the facts surounding the situation. You are attempting to do that and impose your own reality. You might think this allows you to not alter your world view, but it makes you end up looking like a delusional idiot who will stick up for Obama no matter what. That's fine if you want to construct an alternate reality but don't expect other people to join it willingly and don't expect to be free of criticism because of it. The reason you don't know why is because it only exists in your mind.
Yea, I don't know. The point of drugging him wasn't to make him look like he was on drugs but to create a difference in his actions that seem out of the normal. It would have to be a small difference, something he wouldn't necessarily notice but make him sort of clumsy or anxious to other onlookers. The idea is to get people to wonder if something was wrong with him so when he's accused of murder a couple days later, they go "oh, that's why he was acting weird"
Whatever the drug, it would pretty much need to be non-obvious to others and maybe slightly more obvious to the cop.
Sort of. I was leaving the option open to non typical fuel cell type designs that act more like a battery.
The problem with energy density as I see it is that with chemicals like Gasoline, the entire energy envelope is consumed in the reaction that provides power. How this differs from an energy cell is that you need devices in place to create the energy that isn't consumed or part of the power use process. This provide a lot of overhead that can't really be put forward to the total energy output and decreases the overall density. Take something like hydrogen peroxide and cobalt/nickel catalyst. Granted a lot of the power is lost in the form of heat, but you could power a V8 motor with someone of the same compression ratios and power output as if it was ruining on gasoline.
Another approach would be to use elements in the atmosphere as part of the process like current internal combustion engines do. Imagine a holding tank with a chemical that reacts with nitrogen and produces electrical flows as a process. The tank itself could be the anode and the electrode could be a simple air pump and submerged vein that diffuses air into the system. This would more closely rival gasoline and other fuels because because the system is mostly usable in the reaction with the nitrogen in the atmosphere being accessed on demand.
I think the main difference between system like that and a fuel cell is that fuel cells more or less store energy similar to batteries. I wouldn't be so concerned with that as much as finding a chemical reaction that creates a surplus energy on board as it resolves itself. This process would be more similar to using the chemicals involved like with internal combustion engines where you can extract quite a bit of the energy released in the reaction.
You can live in a delusional world. Deleting the photo has caused the Streisand effect that pretty much everyone online knows about. This story is being picked up in larger press print like the LA times and New York times. This isn't the first time that Flickr appears to be protecting Obama. And Obama seems to be the only president you cannot criticize on flikr.
Maybe it was the rogue act of a single employee, maybe the management at Flickr is completely ignorant of the Streisand effect, maybe the evidence does point to the wrong conclusion. What we do know is that Obama supporters are bending over backwards in an attempt to excuse this behavior as something it doesn't appear to be. Often they are lacking in judgment or inferring effects and reasons not stated by anyone connected to the situation.
Let me ask you something about the reasoning though. If they cited copyright "concerns" for the removal as the account holder as author of the photo claimed, what are those concerns if not over Obama being the subject. Keep in mind that Flickr is protected from lawsuits and prosecution for the actions of third party members using their service by an exemption in the law created by the DMCA. Also keep in mind that Flickr is not concerned with images of the cover of time magazine or images of the Joker being on their site as is shown by the sheer number of other images present.
I can't buy the story of copyright concerns. If the law didn't insulate them from action, I might. There was no DMCA notice filed as the author would have received a copy of it by law. Given the number of other copyright concerns directly relating to Time or the joker which they seem to be unconcerned with, I don't see how anyone can find that as a legitimate reasoning. This also isn't the first time Flickr has deleted content critical of Obama. Keep in mind, they were completely fine with that last idiot as long as he was critical of Bush.
Maybe I am attempting to put 2 and 2 together. But after looking around, it seems to be the only obvious solution.
I like the humor in your post but I think the parent comment wasn't really concerning not being able to refill the gas tank, it was about the density of the batteries compared to the bulk of the containment. If batteries could be consumed completely much like Gasoline could be, then the energy density could increase greatly. Again, your concept of a hole with a door covering it comes in real hand for refueling the batteries too.
Now to make sure you understand this concept, I'm going to ask you to imagine something. what if you could make a battery by combining two liquids that react with each other producing electricity and some waste product like water. Now imagine a tank, much like a gas tank, in which these two liquids could be pumped into on demand with perhaps a circulation system that filters the byproduct out and dumps it either onto the ground or into another tank. You could possible derive the same amounts of energy density without the need for an internal combustion engine. Now imagine that the process is self regulated as a build up of stored energy halts the reaction until it's somehow released. You would have the power of a chemical reaction like with internal combustion engines but without the combustion.
I don't buy that. The worst that can happen to Flickr over the image is that they have to comply with a DMCA take down notice. They are exempt by law from any actions pertaining to third parties who use their service.
As searched for "Time cover" and "Joker" reveal many copyrighted images on their site, they seem to be unconcerned with. They are exempt from liability for the image being there. So what is the concern for the business decision other then ties to the administration and Obama being the subject of the picture?
Oh I get it. the hassles that might crop up is Obama moving the government's business to another provider. It all makes sense now, however it's still about speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, your almost right but still wrong. I will correct it for you.
"What is driving "offshoring" is not justtaxes, it's pure free-market forces. Costs invluding labor is more expensive here than it is there, so companies attempt to cut costs by moving the labor and coststhere.
Actually, the 5% is worth it to some companies. It adds up to the total differences in costs. It makes companies who would only save 15% on labor end up saving 20% over all. There is not one single factor involved by usually many.
I hope the "we" you are talking about isn't the US. We actually have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
Perhaps Google would have helped you a little.
It's not racism at all in the way it was used. The obvious point was the joker as a villain not someone dressing up as an opposite race in attempts to make fun of them. Quit manufacturing racism.
The definition in some dictionary doesn't matter, the law defines the term in question and while you want to ignore it, you cannot because it's what makes something legal and illegal. We are talking right and wrong and a violation of the law.
If you would have bothered with just a cursory examination of the law I cited or followed the links I presented to view it yourself and read it, you would know that you are absolutely wrong proven by empirical evidence- the fucking law.
You know, you keep going on and on about me being a bully because I called you dense, stupid and claimed you are making shit up. And here you are ignoring things and attempting to assert your own views into it. Wake the fuck up or shut the hell up. You are also selectively forgetting that you started the name calling and what you consider bullying.
Boy, you are a work of art, you are the one who injected the psychic mind control or other bullshit. You said
When you are pusposely ignoring facts and inserting your own reality while acting as if you are totally clueless, it's not bullying, it's a fucking observation. Quit that and magically all the fucking observations disappear.
Damn, is your reading comprehension that bad? No one from the government has to say a damn word for your kickback scam to be illegal, someone just has to do something to influence the official action and it's obvious what that action is because the only benefit for removing the image was to Obama and his agenda and Flickr does still have exclusive content despite alternatives readily availible including government servers. You made that case, not me.
Not true? You are the one who insisted it was this way and not the biased political hitjob as I originally outlines. Fuck dude, pick a story and stick with it. I already pasted the entirety of one of your attempts to make that case and you completely ignored your very own words in an attempt to claim it's all false. I'm sorry that what you want isn't matching reality. You can't live in a fallacious world
Ok, your acting all fucking stupid is getting idiotic. The rules of the game is to take the availible facts and discern the truth using logic and reasoning. You are the one who insisted it was one way over another and I pasted the link to not only the dictionary that defined a kickback, But I pasted the link to the fucking law that makes it illegal for it to be there and I even pasted the definition the fucking law gives. If you are wanting to claim no dictionary gives that definition, they you are totally ignoring not only the posts you are replying to, but the entire god damned law in which the legal system is using. That's no cool.
First of all, pointing out your failings is not bullying. It does not assume a you are poorly educated, it's an observation of your own fucking actions. If you act retarded, ignore point that even you brought up yourself as soon as they damage your position, and arbitrarily make shit up in order to push your view, then don't be surprised or offended when someone calls you on it because what you are doing isn't even legitimate debate at all.
Name one thing I said that was a lie?
So now you are claiming it's back to removing a criticism on Obama. Sweet, you just spent several posts attempting to say it didn't happen and now that I proved your logic to still be wrong, you are attempting to jump back to the lest of the evils. Here is the thing, it was either political motivation like I mentioned, or it's kickbacks like you mentioned. Pick a story and stick with it.
The government is by default involved. It has an exclusive contracts with flickr and it holds exclusive content published by the government. This photo is about Obama, it's his picture, it's his defacement, it's his causes being damaged by it.
No, what's sad is that you are ignoring facts, ignoring your own argument, and substitution your own alternate reality. It's sad that you are doing this in order to accomplish the very same goal you fallaciously accuse me of.
It was right there in black and white and you still insisted it never occurred. It was your damn argument in the first place and you changed it when you realized your apology was still wrong. You are acting like a pissy little 5 year old, you are acting like an apologist who has to make the story up as he goes, and and you are acting like someone who isn't smart enough to simply pay attention to not only what was said to you but what you said yourself. If you think calling you on that is bullying, then you obviously need some more sessions with your shrink. Fuck, your worse then the Bush apologist. At least they acknowledge the facts and attempted to mold them. Your just closing your eyes to pretend they don't exist and substituting your own reality.
You stumbled into something you know nothing about, somthing you are refusing to look at, and you are attempting to substitute an alternative realty as if everyone should be cool with it.
You are the one who said it was Flickr doing things for their customers. Did you or did you not say "I have seen a government cancel an advertising contract worth millions when they were upset with a newspaper and this is a million miles from that (several of that government later went to prison). This is instead the sort of self censorship that occurs daily when businesses do not want to upset potential or current clients."?
The only customer who benefited from the one thing was the administration and his policies that favor Flickr over other competent services. Otherwise flickr would have removed all the joker images and all the time images. Those aren't what they were concerned with,
Isn't it logical to think that society as we know it is shaped because of feelings and pain we as a species experience? Your reality would be entirely different if that wasn't true. It is an intended outcome.
OMG, do you have a problem following along? You are the one who said they did something in order to influence their customer. The only customer involved who had an interest that they actually did something about was the administration. Time images are still all over the place, Joker images are still all over the place. The only person who benefited was obama because it's a current and effective criticism of him.
Now I linked to the law, you can read it. It does not have to be the government making the action, a company making the action influencing a government action is just fine. You made the case yourself for that happening when attempting to claim the administration was completely clean. It's no secrete that Flickr has an exclusive contract for exclusive content given to them by Obama.
Now instead of expecting scary little government people whispering into someone ear about knowing where children are, you should read the fucking law that was linked to, attempt to understand it. Maybe even ask your mom or someone if it gets a little hard for you, and then point out where it is wrong. You ignoring the law, ignoring your own words, and attempting to make shit up and claim you don't understand the definitions, does not change anything. It's either as I said and wrong, or as you said and still wrong. Well, unless you are closing your eyes to the facts availible and want to impose your own reality.
The D.O.D and NSA are forward thinking because many of their secrets can be potentially damaging well into the future. They aren't just looking at making them not readable today, but hopefully not readable 25 or more years into the future when new technology may be availible to obsolete the current limitations to our technology.
Making several passes attempts to increase the likelihood of that not being possible.
Taco bell? In some parts of the country, there is a place called White Castles. And let me tell you, they don't call them slyders for nothing.
Oh yea, I quoted the wrong section but here is the right one.
(b) Whoever--
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent--
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
It seems that removing an image effectivly being used and critical of the president for the purpose of keeping the government contracts falls directly into violation of that law. So even if what you said it true, you have kickbacks under your belt which carries a fine of up to 3 times the actual value and/or 15 years imprisonment plus a ban from holding any any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Actually, I see it as a little more then kickbacks. It was only when you insisted all of that was irrelevent that I had to lower it to kickbacks. And yes, it is a kickback by the lowest possible standard, the government is using only Flickr for certain services and all the sudden images that are effectivly critical of Obama is remover while you are offering the excuse that they did it only to make sure they didn't offend a client. Now, if the client was anyone other then the government and the client was using more then just this service, then I can see it as attempting to please the customer. But when the customer is the government and they have an exclusive arrangement, then you can't deny it was done to benefit that arrangement. Especially when photo's of the Joker as well as Time Magazine remain on the service completely unaffected.
I provided my source for the definition of a kickback. If you have a problem with it, then counter the definition. Insinuating that it's been altered somehow in order to stretch a point without any specifics is nothing more then attempting to ignore it because you don't want to believe it's true. But hey, a cursory search of the law would have revealed that the definition I posted is Near Identical to the one codified by law.
So again, if you disagree with the definition, then bring valid points to it and not insinuations of manipulation because you don't want it to be true.
Were you looking in the mirror when making that comment? Because I'm simply going to suggest that you practice what you preach, it seems to be the most relevant way for your comment to apply.
It does not matter how is on the take. Or are you actually saying that one crime, because you think it might be smaller then another should be over looked? I mean fuck, that's how government gets corrupted in the first place. People say, well at least it's not what he is doing, and excuse their actions. However, the bigger point here isn't Obama doing it, but a company that has exclusive access to provide an exclusive service is doing it (assuming your Obama is innocent claim is real), and we shouldn't be benefiting them by continuing to do business with them. As you said, Flickr remover innocent and otherwise allowable speech from their site because they didn't want to piss off their clients. And of course seeing the shear numbers of Time Covers as well as Joker images, then the only other offensive portion that can be seen is Obama. So if it is as you say, it's only reasonable to conclude that it was intended to aid the administration, otherwise all the other joker or Time images would have been removed too.
I'm having a hard time linking race to this in any way. Please show me where the N-word comes into play at all. I mean being critical of Obama doesn't automatically invoke race in any way. The original author said he was learning to use Photoshop and picked the photo because it was one he had.
When the other people removed time's logo and placed Socialism on it, it still doesn't touch racism. The obvious interpretation is that Obama was a villain and the crime was socialism. The joker is a well known villain in the batman and robbin commics as well as their old TV shows. It's even more obvious seeing how the Dark Night is a modern movie depicting the Joker as an unstable villain. This is compounded by all the press coverage over Keith Ledger making it an iconic character.
Please tell me where racism comes into play here. I'm not away of the original author or the socialism tagged author calling Obama a nigger or anything. I'm not aware of anyone on Flickr or who is using the socialism poster making racist comments over the image. I hope your entire racism argument isn't one of those "we will just label it racism so anyone defending it will be called a racist and lose the argument by default" tactics that seems to be the crux of a lot of Obama defenders. Resorting to race and racism to win arguments completely devoid of it will actually encourage racism and is wrong.
I did RTfuckingA. The actual fucking article mentions nothing about the DMCA or a DMCA notice at all. IF it were involve, it would have, hell, the interview with the author of the picture would have mentioned it. Why do I know this is true, because the law states that the DMCA take down notice is to be passed on to the user responsible for the posting. That's the law and it's that way so the user can reply stating they have rights to use the content as the fucking law states.
For all I know, is all that was stated in both articles. The user was contacted by Flickr, not given a DMCA take down notice. If was, he would have stated that either Time or DC commics pulled the picture, not Flickr.
Like I said, they would not be crazy if you paid attention to the facts and stopped making shit up that you don't understand. A DMCA take down request requires notice to be given in the form of a DMCA take down request to the user responsible for the content being on the site. When they don't then Flickr becomes liable for any damages from taking the material off line.
Like I said, when you ignore the facts. It's nice how you conveniently leave some out there. It's also nice how you make shit up to further your cause.
Why are you making shit up? No one connected to the case said there was a take down notice. The DMCA would require the take down notice to have been passed on to the person responsible for the image, that has not happened and no one connected to the situation has claimed a take down notice was issues. All they have claimed is that Flickr took the image down citing copyright concerns. This was an independent act of flickr, not time or DC comics. They even cited something they obviously are unconcerned about from other users.
Don't make shit up in order to validate your contrived worldviews. Don't ignore the facts in order to validate your contrived worldview. And definitely do not make shit up while ignoring factual content in order to support your worldview. You are being a text book example of delusional.
Like I said before, if you looked at all the facts and don't make shit up to filter through your own bias, you wouldn't think it's so crazy. In fact, maybe if you did the same with the teabaggers and birthers, you would see a different perspective entirely. But hey, it's your choice to remain ignorant and delusional.
Actually, creating a flying car isn't beyond our reach. There have been several of them. What is beyond our reach is creating one that is economical and safe enough for the average joe to use.
The delusional comment wasn't meant to be an insight, it was means to get you to look at the situation a little closer.
The problem is that when you do something like that in order to not piss off the government or people in the government and it helps them, it is called a kickback. A kickback is any money, fee, commission, credit, gift, gratuity, thing of value or compensation of any kind which is provided, directly or indirectly, to agency procurement or program officials by any prime contractor employee, subcontractor or subcontractor employee for the purpose of improperly obtaining or receiving favorable treatment in connection with obtaining a contract.
Now this doesn't even have to be because of somebody from a government department or the party. All it has to do is benefit them and be done in an attempt to gain or keep their business. Imagine the conversation when it comes time to renew some contracts.
IT Drone: Why use Flickr when Google's Picassa or other sites are around
Administration: Because they delete images giving us and our agenda problems.
IT Drone: They do? How did you manage that?
Administration: Umm.. we didn't really, it's just something they do and why we use them. It's not illegal if you split this hair and look in that direction.
IT Drone: Ahh, a kickback.
Obama supporters: Quit being a racist jerk, apologize for your comments you bigot.
Even if it is as you say, it's still a kickback and something the government shouldn't be involved in at all. Imagine if the only way you can get a government contract is to protect the image of the president and his agenda. Flickr has an exclusive deal with the white house for photos, you have to ask, is the only way other sites get part of that action going to be actively defending the president and his agenda by deleting the effective criticisms of him?
Perhaps because those are played out and the joker-bama poster is significant of a current criticism. I mean, yea, Why worry about the crap that failed before the government made the contracts with Flickr, Worry about what is being used now in rallies around the US to show Obama as an evil villain. Worry about what is being effective currently.
I mean that is the current situation right? Someone took the picture, erased the time stuff and put socialism on it then pasted it all over a city only to have it grab a grass roots holding with people all over the country using it in these town hall meeting when speaking out against Obama care and other government programs/actions.
Actually, no it wasn't. The one that was plastered was altered to look different then the one taken down. If you would have read the summery let alone the article, you would have knew that.
Maybe, just Maybe, if you had all the facts availible and didn't insist on looking at it through biased glasses, you wouldn't think the conspiracy is irrational. The attention is attracts is nothing but ad revenue, Flickr is immune from damages because of it. It's enshrined in the law concerning copyright which they stated was the reason for pulling it.
Now you are here attempting to apologize for the action by making something up that _no_one_directly_connected_to_the_art is claiming and you are calling me irrational. All I can so it look at the known facts and draw a conclusion. the facts are, the image is being used to effectivly criticize Obama, Flickr just got government contracts and Obama paved that way as well as started using them, Flickr pulled the image _citing_copyright_concerns_ but do not have any concerns over any other copyright connected to it individually when used by other users. Flickr is also legally isolated from the image due to copyright law in which they claimed their concerns were about. You're attempting to claim all that is meaningless and something you just made up that no one else connected to the situation has made a claim of trumps it all. Don't you think that's a little delusional?
Lol.. The only way you can claim this doesn't exist is if you close your eyes and ignore the facts surounding the situation. You are attempting to do that and impose your own reality. You might think this allows you to not alter your world view, but it makes you end up looking like a delusional idiot who will stick up for Obama no matter what. That's fine if you want to construct an alternate reality but don't expect other people to join it willingly and don't expect to be free of criticism because of it. The reason you don't know why is because it only exists in your mind.
Yea, I don't know. The point of drugging him wasn't to make him look like he was on drugs but to create a difference in his actions that seem out of the normal. It would have to be a small difference, something he wouldn't necessarily notice but make him sort of clumsy or anxious to other onlookers. The idea is to get people to wonder if something was wrong with him so when he's accused of murder a couple days later, they go "oh, that's why he was acting weird"
Whatever the drug, it would pretty much need to be non-obvious to others and maybe slightly more obvious to the cop.
Sort of. I was leaving the option open to non typical fuel cell type designs that act more like a battery.
The problem with energy density as I see it is that with chemicals like Gasoline, the entire energy envelope is consumed in the reaction that provides power. How this differs from an energy cell is that you need devices in place to create the energy that isn't consumed or part of the power use process. This provide a lot of overhead that can't really be put forward to the total energy output and decreases the overall density. Take something like hydrogen peroxide and cobalt/nickel catalyst. Granted a lot of the power is lost in the form of heat, but you could power a V8 motor with someone of the same compression ratios and power output as if it was ruining on gasoline.
Another approach would be to use elements in the atmosphere as part of the process like current internal combustion engines do. Imagine a holding tank with a chemical that reacts with nitrogen and produces electrical flows as a process. The tank itself could be the anode and the electrode could be a simple air pump and submerged vein that diffuses air into the system. This would more closely rival gasoline and other fuels because because the system is mostly usable in the reaction with the nitrogen in the atmosphere being accessed on demand.
I think the main difference between system like that and a fuel cell is that fuel cells more or less store energy similar to batteries. I wouldn't be so concerned with that as much as finding a chemical reaction that creates a surplus energy on board as it resolves itself. This process would be more similar to using the chemicals involved like with internal combustion engines where you can extract quite a bit of the energy released in the reaction.
You can live in a delusional world. Deleting the photo has caused the Streisand effect that pretty much everyone online knows about. This story is being picked up in larger press print like the LA times and New York times. This isn't the first time that Flickr appears to be protecting Obama. And Obama seems to be the only president you cannot criticize on flikr.
Maybe it was the rogue act of a single employee, maybe the management at Flickr is completely ignorant of the Streisand effect, maybe the evidence does point to the wrong conclusion. What we do know is that Obama supporters are bending over backwards in an attempt to excuse this behavior as something it doesn't appear to be. Often they are lacking in judgment or inferring effects and reasons not stated by anyone connected to the situation.
OK, I see what you were saying now.
Let me ask you something about the reasoning though. If they cited copyright "concerns" for the removal as the account holder as author of the photo claimed, what are those concerns if not over Obama being the subject. Keep in mind that Flickr is protected from lawsuits and prosecution for the actions of third party members using their service by an exemption in the law created by the DMCA. Also keep in mind that Flickr is not concerned with images of the cover of time magazine or images of the Joker being on their site as is shown by the sheer number of other images present.
I can't buy the story of copyright concerns. If the law didn't insulate them from action, I might. There was no DMCA notice filed as the author would have received a copy of it by law. Given the number of other copyright concerns directly relating to Time or the joker which they seem to be unconcerned with, I don't see how anyone can find that as a legitimate reasoning. This also isn't the first time Flickr has deleted content critical of Obama. Keep in mind, they were completely fine with that last idiot as long as he was critical of Bush.
Maybe I am attempting to put 2 and 2 together. But after looking around, it seems to be the only obvious solution.
I like the humor in your post but I think the parent comment wasn't really concerning not being able to refill the gas tank, it was about the density of the batteries compared to the bulk of the containment. If batteries could be consumed completely much like Gasoline could be, then the energy density could increase greatly. Again, your concept of a hole with a door covering it comes in real hand for refueling the batteries too.
Now to make sure you understand this concept, I'm going to ask you to imagine something. what if you could make a battery by combining two liquids that react with each other producing electricity and some waste product like water. Now imagine a tank, much like a gas tank, in which these two liquids could be pumped into on demand with perhaps a circulation system that filters the byproduct out and dumps it either onto the ground or into another tank. You could possible derive the same amounts of energy density without the need for an internal combustion engine. Now imagine that the process is self regulated as a build up of stored energy halts the reaction until it's somehow released. You would have the power of a chemical reaction like with internal combustion engines but without the combustion.
I don't buy that. The worst that can happen to Flickr over the image is that they have to comply with a DMCA take down notice. They are exempt by law from any actions pertaining to third parties who use their service.
As searched for "Time cover" and "Joker" reveal many copyrighted images on their site, they seem to be unconcerned with. They are exempt from liability for the image being there. So what is the concern for the business decision other then ties to the administration and Obama being the subject of the picture?
Oh I get it. the hassles that might crop up is Obama moving the government's business to another provider. It all makes sense now, however it's still about speech.