That will not happen. Europe is meeting a lot of their Kyoto compliance through offshoring to china and India. The US has regulated most of it's manufacturing offshore too.
Any efforts to stop trading with China or India or any other country developing will either result in the same pollution going elsewhere or seriously hurt the US and EU hard. And the ability to change that will not be met in 20 years nor will the ability to go green happen at the same time.
You missed my point completely - wackos like Jesus, Paul, John, Abraham, Moses, David and the rest., were also convinced that the lie was the truth. There is NO evidence to support their superstitions, and plenty of evidence that the universe doesn't work the way they believed. Christianity is just one in a long line of syncretic religions - a pastiche of fables taken from earlier myths.
Lol.. OK, so who convinced them that something not true was true? And why was that person not recorded in the same history stories that they were recorded with?
You see, here is where your point breaks down, Those people are recorded as and accepted by those around them as either starting an aspect of the religion or furthering it to some degree. That means that either someone had to convince them that something untrue was true or that they knew it not to be true and in some cases suffered a long, cruel, and torturous death in hiding that lie.
And another thing, you calling their beliefs superstitions just shows how little you know about those beliefs. It's one thing to speak from knowledge, your your really making an ass of yourself with this comment.
They were so psychologically invested in their narcissistic version of their "special place" in the world order that they could never admit to reality - easier to die. That's to be expected - they were nuts. And like many nuts and demagogues, they attracted a following, same as Hitler, and with the same disastrous results - the creation of "us" and "not us", with "us" being "special", whether it's "saved" or "racially pure" or "god's faithful" or "special knowledge" , it's about power and control and getting others to suspend their critical thinking by panderng to their egos and insecurities.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Paul in prison had no power yet he continued to write letters and preaching his faith. Jesus accepted no power, the others are primarily note worthy only because they were in power already. You see, if there wasn't a record of most of their claims and the claims history put on them, I could agree with you. But there is a record and it shows something completely different then what you are talking about.
Same as Waco and Jonestown and the Solar Temple and the Raliens and Scientologists and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses and Baptists and Catholics and Muslims and Pentecostals and Hindus and Jews and every other willfully-deluded person who believes in one or more gods and other childish superstitions. All religions are cults. Just some are bigger than others. Even the main-stream ones marginalize their followers.
And here you are letting your own delusions dictate that everyone else is false. This is what I find funny about atheists who need to make sure people know of it, they push their BS onto other just as much as religious do. In fact, they are almost identical to religions. Here you are saying everything you don't believe is false, not because you have proof or hard facts, but because you haven't been convinced like they were.
Now I personally don't care if you believe or not in anything including that the sun will rise again tomorrow. What I do care about is you using half baked assumptions that are grounded more in your mind then life or reality to argue against something that you are purposely overlooking the details of. Suppose all those other people were deluded and 11 people who believed that someone named Jesus (which was actually a Greek transliteration) was alive, led them around for a while, and then killed by the Romans (BTW, the Jews and Muslims admit/agree to this much) after performing countless miracles. Now what would have convince those 11 people that Jesus rose from the dead, talked to them, foretold the misery they would see in the future, then take that believe enough not to wavier to a long, cruel and excruciating death? Remember, these are people saying something new about someone else who is no longer with them, they as you say, either know it's a lie, or experienced something to make them believe that what was so different was true. What was that?
Well, the government passing tax and trade caps and artificially driving up energy costs will just make Toyota's patents assets that much more valuable. They will be able to recoup their costs and then some several times over in the next 20 years.
Your not going to effect climate change within the next 20 years. I'm not trolling or anything but the reality is that every small or third world country that is going to benefit from the tax and trade the US is getting will be adding roughly 8-9 times the amount of carbon we can offset by their increased standards of living. Further more, no one is addressing China which is out polluting the US or India which is growing to be right up there.
Nothing the US or Europe does will cancel out this effect (in the next 20-50 years) unless they cause a massive starvation or die off of their populations.
How many thing were invented and patented in the last 20 years? That is after all, the length of a patent. Not everything or every concept is covered by a patent that is currently valid.
Actually, he is right and you are wrong. You need faith to not believe in anything.
You can justify it all you want but atheism is pretty much the same as religion in this respect. His definition is also the reasoning why the UN and many other world organizations including countries accept atheism as a human right just the same as christianity, islam or any other religion.
In your example, you are pointing to people who believed what they were doing was true. The point was why would someone who knows they are lieing die for that lie when they could easily walk away from it?
Now Waco and Jamestown doesn't really connect here because they weren't working under the assumption that they were following a lie. They were convinced that the lie was the truth.
Your still missing the entire point, the people there believed what was being said was true. It doesn't matter that we know they were wrong. Koresh believed what he was saying was true too, he had a mental problem.
You can show no evidence that anyone in Waco dies because of a lie they created and knew to be a lie. Their actions happened because they thought it was true.
Lol.. Your kind of missing the point. People go to the grave defending things in which they believe in. Whether they are true or false is immaterial because in order to believe in it, you must believe it is true.
You surely can't count the people who would have known the resurrection was a lie into that group. Knowing it is a lie excludes you from the believe group. So try and start that over with a little context sitting with the times and the persons in question.
Actually, most of the slavery was carried out by the Africans. In fact, Africa is the only continent that still has legal slavery to this day. And the so called Anglo Saxons consisted or Portuguese ans Spanish who purchased the slaves from African tribes and sold them to settlements under the British crown.
As for reparations, they have already been paid in both the loss of life in gaining the freedoms of the slaves and in the welfare and housing benefits given to minorities and the special treatment they got starting with the civil rights legislation of 1964. Every descendant of a slave has had the opportunity to be more then anything that the slavery took away. Even if you attach the Jim crow laws that were around as late as the early 1960, this means that almost every distressed minority is at least 1 generation out if not 2 or more. There is no need for a cash payment or anything because the people who were harmed and their families directly effected are no longer alive.
The entire reason there are enough weapons to destroy the enemy many times over is because if I strike your nuke sites first, you can't retaliate.
That's what MAD was all about and why we have so many of them. With less and less weapons, it's possible that one day a Nuclear war will be on the table as a conventional way of winning a war as long as one country can get first strike in the right places. It wouldn't really matter if your country got hit once or twice before taking their nukes out as you would have them at your mercy by then.
The courts also said at one time that seperate but equal was fine and dandy.
And you point is what? I didn't say I sided with them, it's just a fact that we have to live by until sanity prevails. Quit looking for an argument that hasn't been made.
I'd like to see records of their discussion. Posting stories about a child molester has nothing to do with political speech, yet its protected as well.
First, so a search for the federalist papers, then read them. After that, look at the letters between members of the constitutional confederation to derive their intent.
And do you really think that child molesters isn't political speech? I mean the very act is against the law, a law that was created through political processes.
Oh, I'm sorry, I actually read the fucking article, dipshit. You know, the one this thread is about, where people are being jailed for sending obscene material over the internet AND THROUGH THE MAIL. My rights end when they interfere with yours? Please explain how something YOU NEVER SEE interferes with your rights? And you say I'm trolling?
As I said, pay fucking attention. I said several god damned times now that I didn't support the fucking law and I didn't think the fucking government had a right to prosecute these people on it. Where in the hell is your major malfunction, again you are looking for an argument that does not fucking exist. Do I have to draw you a picture or something? And yes, your rights do end when they interfere with mine, and in no place have I said that sending things through the mail interfered with my rights.
You are trolling, asshat. You are fucking with the context of what was said in order to support your own idea just to argue something that hasn't been argues. Go back under your bridge and count flies.
You've made it clear you believe the first amendment only applies to political speech. To me, that's limiting it, because it certainly doesn't contain the words "political speech" anywhere... simply speech. Don't call me stupid when you aren't articulating yourself very well.
Here you are doing it again, are you an idiot or a complete fucking imbecile? I said that currently it is X and it needs to be Y. And everything is political when there is a law for or against it. Why, because laws are made by political processes- moron.
BTW, I am articulating myself completely find for normal people to understand. You seem to be the only one with a problem keeping it in the context of how it was presented. This implies a problem with you, not me. And yes, I already discussed that in case your comprehension is that bad. You can ask you mom to help you understand where it was.
Actually, there is an air of being retarded there.
The judge should be schooled in the constitution in order to even sit on the bench. When someone is punished by a law, the entire trial becomes a criminal case and not a civil trial. Due process was missing by applying that judgment. The law allows for a high penalty because of situation where commercial infringement means more profit then the damages and to discourage the idea of just keeping the profit.
Anyways, the fine is unreasonable given the circumstances and the judge should have not only recognized that, but also saw that the intent was punishment instead of retribution of losses which under the current system of law means the trial should have been a criminal trial with the protections offered in a criminal trial.
Losing my protection against unreasonable search isn't immediate harm?
you haven't lost that or anything of the sort.
Oh, and none of those plots foiled were done so using the "new tools," it was all done with laws in place prior to 9/11. I suggest you do some research.
The new tools in the patriot act is primarily the old tools adapted to different scenarios. Please explain what your talking about here.
Oh right because people are mindless sheep that blindly do whatever they are told, and therefore are not responsible for their own actions, you are.
That's not what I am saying at all and you know it. If people do something at your direction, you are just as responsible and liable for those actions.
Stop with your garbage pleas to emotion, its incredibly transparent. To fully answer you question, I would blame the retards that actually listened to you, since they should no better. I'm going to go do something just become someone tells me to, sorry that you have no will of your own though.
Lol.. OK so when the CEO tells an employee who should know better to ignore the environmental safety laws and just dump those toxic chemicals in the city water reservoir, that CEO is completely innocent because the employee should have known better. Got ya there. I think your extremely fucking wrong but hey, you are the one making the point.
And the garbage pleas to emotion was nothing but pointing something out. If you don't like it, it is probably because you are fucked in the head.
Ya, and you call me a troll?
No, I left the option of you being a complete and total idiot instead of a troll. As I said, I believe you are a bit of both.
Nothing has to be all this way or all that way. In the past, there was this term called working together in order to achieve the best possible outcome. Now this is important because the oil drilling is just an energy security issue, it can be ignored in the context of GHG's. Now the Nuclear options, mandates on emissions, changes to existing laws that allow plume stacks to receive incremental upgrades to industry or government standards instead of having to redo everything all at once, creating prizes for open tech that everyone can use royalty free and so on can all replace GHG emissions just as effectivly as a cap and trade.
But here is the catch.. You can take the best of both world, create a bill that isn't disproportionately harsh of those who can least afford to deal with it, come to the same ends and not have the massive expansion of government. Hell, part of the republican plan involves investing 7% chunks of the energy budget (not just 7% but 7% for each program) into programs designed to be carbon neutral.
While I was at a republican coffee social in my area recently, we got into conversations about using an AC FOX reclamation systems for sewage treatment and using the power generated from it to power some low speed steam turbines to power the city street lights and buildings. There are literally hundreds of ideas floating around that can be used if the goal wasn't to limit what free people can do by creating massive taxes and government encroachment.
It can be both. I think the gist is that they want to be able to retain the ability to not have be sued for someone elses implementation of the tech. They essentially are saying that they are retaining ownership so someone else doesn't claim it and use it against them.
This is important because the community promise applies to patents as well as copyright. Someone could attempt to backdoor a patent in covering the tech and lock MS (and everyone else) out. While MS keeps the Claims and lets the tech lose, they have the ability to thwart efforts like that.
Keep in mind that this is MS we are talking about. They are a target for several reasons. Most notably might be their size and volume creating a shit ton of royalties if someone could sneak a patent in on them. Another reason is MS's previous and probably current business practices in which they have screwed a lot of people over. Revenge is a pretty good motivator.
Lol.. The 8 hour work day and 40 hour weeks was the communist platform that Roosevelt adopted in his new deal before WWII. It was an attempt to combat unemployment by restricting how much a person could work in an effort to make more jobs availible to more people. Roosevelt attempted to organize unions and have them implement that because the US supreme court said that the federal government had no right dictating hours of work.
Also, how is that "protecting the worker" working out when GM is almost gone, Chrysler is in bankruptcy and pretty much gone, the American steel industry is all but gone, almost all of our factory production has either went off shore or closed up shop or automated all the union employees out. It seems to me that keeping the company around is just as important as protecting the worker because without the company, there are no fucking workers. Perhaps someone needs to get some priorities in order.
But the mere speech itself isn't what needs to be prohibited. Consider hiring a hitman. If you do that, you'll be convicted of murder. It's not your speech that's being convicted, it's the act, merely conveyed by the speech.
First, sorry about your great uncle, I didn't expect the comment to hit so close to home.
The problem with the speech isn't that it needs to be prohibited, there needs to be known consequences. I'm not suggesting that someone be denied the right to speak because of what they might say, but that they know what they do say can have consequences. Now most inciting a riot laws are either misdemeanors of low grade felonies but they are used as connector crimes to place someone else' actions at your direction into your responsibility.
In your example of hiring a hit man, lets look at the situation a little and I think we might be on the same page. Asking someone to hurt someone else or destroy property even if for a fee, is just speech. But because someone did it, it intended to do it, and you knew there was that intention, your speech has just come back with the actions it caused. Suppose I stand up in a bar and say free beer to whoever kicks someone's ass and five people do it. Now suppose that the guy died from injuries because of what I said. I didn't ask for him to be killed but my speach resulted in his death. I have to bear the consequences. It's the same for inciting a riot, it's that little part of making something illegal in order to shove the responsibility of the resulting actions into you. You are not prevented from making the speech in most cases, you just have to suffer the consequences of it. An obvious example of this would be standing up in front of an angry crowd and yelling "kill whity".
Even if it were worth condemning, does it have an effect? Did the people who were convicted in Cincinnati know it was illegal to say those things? If so, it didn't prevent them. If not, it's not terribly effective - those who might participate in riots are likely those least aware of the mala prohibita laws.
Yea, it does have an effect. The people charged and convicted were professional troublemakers. They went to hot spots and attempted to inflame the populous to a point of riot. They are now serving time and when they get out, will have to report to a probation officer and live by a set of rules that will hopefully stop any future actions by them. Of course people have free will and laws against murder do not stop murder from happening. But what they do is provide a vehicle in which the people doing the murdering can be taken away from the ability to murder others. The same with inciting a riot, it more or less allows those responsible, who knew full well what was happening, to be restricted from the ability to do it again and again.
The inciting a riot laws aren't really there to stop speech, it's to stop people attempting to cause harm, damage, and civil unrest through their speech.
The point is, the solar industry is doing pretty well right now. The bottom has fallen out of the silicon market, thanks to all the new capacity that has just come on line. Solar panels are getting cheaper to make, and demand for them is increasing faster than supply. The photovoltaics industry could continue to supply the market, and probably even expand slowly, even if government subsidies were ratcheted down.
i guess I have to draw a picture for you.
If things are getting cheaper to make, if it is more competitive then existing energy, and this is happening from normal existing demands, then there is no need for cap and trade. If the problem is that the raw materials isn't there then a cap and trade isn't going to do anything but allow the prices to be jacked up at the expense of the people. Cap and trade isn't about getting green energy in place, it's about limiting what the majority of people can do.
But we don't need it to expand slowly. We need it to scale up quickly, into the multi-gigawatt-per-year range, and we need it to scale up fast. Human civilization needs this to happen, and that trumps letting the Glorious Free Market do whatever is profitable in the short term while the planet burns up.
Lol... It isn't about the free market. The free market seems to be working btw, your comment and this story and this entire thread is proof of that. Anyways, we don't need to expand anything for human civilization, that's nothing but a crock of crap. The planet isn't burning up, and ever the liberal estimates say we have until the middle or end of this century before it's a serious problem. Quit fear mongering and making crap up. If it was really about the planet burning up, then China, India and every other country would have limits too.
Now for the free market, who fucking cares. This is about creating unnecessary hardships on the poor and middle class people that are designed to limit their quality of life. The same goals that cap and trade are purportedly attempting to accomplish can be done by mandating the replacement and addition of energy generation without causing the same hardships on the majority of Americans. But that's not the goal is it? The goal seems to be to place limits and hardships onto people and tax the piss out of them for living a comfortable life. It's about lowering our standard of living while increasing someone else' and idiots like you are lapping it up without question because global warming has become your religion. Don't force your religion onto me. And when you start preaching about the end of the world, you better read from the real science books that aren't making the same fear mongering statements that you are.
Almost all profitable businesses that go beyond mediocre small time operations know you have to compensate and retain your employees or the product/service will suffer and costs increase due to the lack or employee retention. Unions are a dieing breed and if it wasn't for union only shops, they probably would have went the way of the dodo bird a long time ago. a good majority of union shops that have been around since before the 1950 has been either forced off shore, replaced largely by automation, or closed down because of their practices.
Unions aren't even good for the people in them sometimes either. I know of at least 5 equipment operators who claim to be making $22-$28 per hour. I laughed at them when I found they have only worked 2 out of the last 6 months and probably less then 3 months of the last year total. The say they can't take non-union jobs or they lose their union membership. I know of several equipment operator jobs that came open during that time span paying at least $16-$18 an hour and they had consistent work over 10 months of the last year and look to be busy the rest of the summer. So you end up with non-union employees making $30k a year while the union employees can't $10k. Oh sure, some of those union employees are getting more work then others, but tell that to the guy who would make more working at burger king then his skilled profession because of union rules.
You know, it might be flash video. Usually I get it after following a link from one site to another or something. Sometimes it's when surfing porn but now that you mentioned it, it couldn't really be html video if the spec isn't there yet.
Well, actually, no. I didn't sweep up, I swept it out of my road. The sweep guy still had plenty to do (wherever he was) as it all was around the perimeter of my workspace. My guess he was the one gluing the boxes together on the line before me because they were all fcked up. And I'm not going to risk personal injury to protect someone's job who wasn't doing it. That's a lot to ask of a person and it never should be done in a work place around conveyor belts, sharp knives, and moving machinery.
If it wasn't his job and he did it, then the union could have bashed him for it. As I said before, not all unions are the same but I have seen nothing indicating they wouldn't cause a fuss over something like this.
Slashdot Mirror
That will not happen. Europe is meeting a lot of their Kyoto compliance through offshoring to china and India. The US has regulated most of it's manufacturing offshore too.
Any efforts to stop trading with China or India or any other country developing will either result in the same pollution going elsewhere or seriously hurt the US and EU hard. And the ability to change that will not be met in 20 years nor will the ability to go green happen at the same time.
Sounds to me that a fix to the patent system is a compulsory licensing scheme similar to the copyright royalties board.
Lol.. OK, so who convinced them that something not true was true? And why was that person not recorded in the same history stories that they were recorded with?
You see, here is where your point breaks down, Those people are recorded as and accepted by those around them as either starting an aspect of the religion or furthering it to some degree. That means that either someone had to convince them that something untrue was true or that they knew it not to be true and in some cases suffered a long, cruel, and torturous death in hiding that lie.
And another thing, you calling their beliefs superstitions just shows how little you know about those beliefs. It's one thing to speak from knowledge, your your really making an ass of yourself with this comment.
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Paul in prison had no power yet he continued to write letters and preaching his faith. Jesus accepted no power, the others are primarily note worthy only because they were in power already. You see, if there wasn't a record of most of their claims and the claims history put on them, I could agree with you. But there is a record and it shows something completely different then what you are talking about.
And here you are letting your own delusions dictate that everyone else is false. This is what I find funny about atheists who need to make sure people know of it, they push their BS onto other just as much as religious do. In fact, they are almost identical to religions. Here you are saying everything you don't believe is false, not because you have proof or hard facts, but because you haven't been convinced like they were.
Now I personally don't care if you believe or not in anything including that the sun will rise again tomorrow. What I do care about is you using half baked assumptions that are grounded more in your mind then life or reality to argue against something that you are purposely overlooking the details of. Suppose all those other people were deluded and 11 people who believed that someone named Jesus (which was actually a Greek transliteration) was alive, led them around for a while, and then killed by the Romans (BTW, the Jews and Muslims admit/agree to this much) after performing countless miracles. Now what would have convince those 11 people that Jesus rose from the dead, talked to them, foretold the misery they would see in the future, then take that believe enough not to wavier to a long, cruel and excruciating death? Remember, these are people saying something new about someone else who is no longer with them, they as you say, either know it's a lie, or experienced something to make them believe that what was so different was true. What was that?
You can not like it all you want, it doesn't make you right on the subject.
Well, the government passing tax and trade caps and artificially driving up energy costs will just make Toyota's patents assets that much more valuable. They will be able to recoup their costs and then some several times over in the next 20 years.
Your not going to effect climate change within the next 20 years. I'm not trolling or anything but the reality is that every small or third world country that is going to benefit from the tax and trade the US is getting will be adding roughly 8-9 times the amount of carbon we can offset by their increased standards of living. Further more, no one is addressing China which is out polluting the US or India which is growing to be right up there.
Nothing the US or Europe does will cancel out this effect (in the next 20-50 years) unless they cause a massive starvation or die off of their populations.
How many thing were invented and patented in the last 20 years? That is after all, the length of a patent. Not everything or every concept is covered by a patent that is currently valid.
Actually, he is right and you are wrong. You need faith to not believe in anything.
You can justify it all you want but atheism is pretty much the same as religion in this respect. His definition is also the reasoning why the UN and many other world organizations including countries accept atheism as a human right just the same as christianity, islam or any other religion.
In your example, you are pointing to people who believed what they were doing was true. The point was why would someone who knows they are lieing die for that lie when they could easily walk away from it?
Now Waco and Jamestown doesn't really connect here because they weren't working under the assumption that they were following a lie. They were convinced that the lie was the truth.
Your still missing the entire point, the people there believed what was being said was true. It doesn't matter that we know they were wrong. Koresh believed what he was saying was true too, he had a mental problem.
You can show no evidence that anyone in Waco dies because of a lie they created and knew to be a lie. Their actions happened because they thought it was true.
Lol.. Your kind of missing the point. People go to the grave defending things in which they believe in. Whether they are true or false is immaterial because in order to believe in it, you must believe it is true.
You surely can't count the people who would have known the resurrection was a lie into that group. Knowing it is a lie excludes you from the believe group. So try and start that over with a little context sitting with the times and the persons in question.
Actually, most of the slavery was carried out by the Africans. In fact, Africa is the only continent that still has legal slavery to this day. And the so called Anglo Saxons consisted or Portuguese ans Spanish who purchased the slaves from African tribes and sold them to settlements under the British crown.
As for reparations, they have already been paid in both the loss of life in gaining the freedoms of the slaves and in the welfare and housing benefits given to minorities and the special treatment they got starting with the civil rights legislation of 1964. Every descendant of a slave has had the opportunity to be more then anything that the slavery took away. Even if you attach the Jim crow laws that were around as late as the early 1960, this means that almost every distressed minority is at least 1 generation out if not 2 or more. There is no need for a cash payment or anything because the people who were harmed and their families directly effected are no longer alive.
The entire reason there are enough weapons to destroy the enemy many times over is because if I strike your nuke sites first, you can't retaliate.
That's what MAD was all about and why we have so many of them. With less and less weapons, it's possible that one day a Nuclear war will be on the table as a conventional way of winning a war as long as one country can get first strike in the right places. It wouldn't really matter if your country got hit once or twice before taking their nukes out as you would have them at your mercy by then.
Perhaps if this was a crime and in a criminal court, the fine wouldn't have been so high.
There is no crime here, there is a civil infringement being treated as a crime hence the lack of due process claim.
And you point is what? I didn't say I sided with them, it's just a fact that we have to live by until sanity prevails. Quit looking for an argument that hasn't been made.
First, so a search for the federalist papers, then read them. After that, look at the letters between members of the constitutional confederation to derive their intent.
And do you really think that child molesters isn't political speech? I mean the very act is against the law, a law that was created through political processes.
As I said, pay fucking attention. I said several god damned times now that I didn't support the fucking law and I didn't think the fucking government had a right to prosecute these people on it. Where in the hell is your major malfunction, again you are looking for an argument that does not fucking exist. Do I have to draw you a picture or something? And yes, your rights do end when they interfere with mine, and in no place have I said that sending things through the mail interfered with my rights.
You are trolling, asshat. You are fucking with the context of what was said in order to support your own idea just to argue something that hasn't been argues. Go back under your bridge and count flies.
Here you are doing it again, are you an idiot or a complete fucking imbecile? I said that currently it is X and it needs to be Y. And everything is political when there is a law for or against it. Why, because laws are made by political processes- moron.
BTW, I am articulating myself completely find for normal people to understand. You seem to be the only one with a problem keeping it in the context of how it was presented. This implies a problem with you, not me. And yes, I already discussed that in case your comprehension is that bad. You can ask you mom to help you understand where it was.
Actually, there is an air of being retarded there.
The judge should be schooled in the constitution in order to even sit on the bench. When someone is punished by a law, the entire trial becomes a criminal case and not a civil trial. Due process was missing by applying that judgment. The law allows for a high penalty because of situation where commercial infringement means more profit then the damages and to discourage the idea of just keeping the profit.
Anyways, the fine is unreasonable given the circumstances and the judge should have not only recognized that, but also saw that the intent was punishment instead of retribution of losses which under the current system of law means the trial should have been a criminal trial with the protections offered in a criminal trial.
you haven't lost that or anything of the sort.
The new tools in the patriot act is primarily the old tools adapted to different scenarios. Please explain what your talking about here.
That's not what I am saying at all and you know it. If people do something at your direction, you are just as responsible and liable for those actions.
Lol.. OK so when the CEO tells an employee who should know better to ignore the environmental safety laws and just dump those toxic chemicals in the city water reservoir, that CEO is completely innocent because the employee should have known better. Got ya there. I think your extremely fucking wrong but hey, you are the one making the point.
And the garbage pleas to emotion was nothing but pointing something out. If you don't like it, it is probably because you are fucked in the head.
No, I left the option of you being a complete and total idiot instead of a troll. As I said, I believe you are a bit of both.
Ok, here is the point you are missing.
Nothing has to be all this way or all that way. In the past, there was this term called working together in order to achieve the best possible outcome. Now this is important because the oil drilling is just an energy security issue, it can be ignored in the context of GHG's. Now the Nuclear options, mandates on emissions, changes to existing laws that allow plume stacks to receive incremental upgrades to industry or government standards instead of having to redo everything all at once, creating prizes for open tech that everyone can use royalty free and so on can all replace GHG emissions just as effectivly as a cap and trade.
But here is the catch.. You can take the best of both world, create a bill that isn't disproportionately harsh of those who can least afford to deal with it, come to the same ends and not have the massive expansion of government. Hell, part of the republican plan involves investing 7% chunks of the energy budget (not just 7% but 7% for each program) into programs designed to be carbon neutral.
While I was at a republican coffee social in my area recently, we got into conversations about using an AC FOX reclamation systems for sewage treatment and using the power generated from it to power some low speed steam turbines to power the city street lights and buildings. There are literally hundreds of ideas floating around that can be used if the goal wasn't to limit what free people can do by creating massive taxes and government encroachment.
It can be both. I think the gist is that they want to be able to retain the ability to not have be sued for someone elses implementation of the tech. They essentially are saying that they are retaining ownership so someone else doesn't claim it and use it against them.
This is important because the community promise applies to patents as well as copyright. Someone could attempt to backdoor a patent in covering the tech and lock MS (and everyone else) out. While MS keeps the Claims and lets the tech lose, they have the ability to thwart efforts like that.
Keep in mind that this is MS we are talking about. They are a target for several reasons. Most notably might be their size and volume creating a shit ton of royalties if someone could sneak a patent in on them. Another reason is MS's previous and probably current business practices in which they have screwed a lot of people over. Revenge is a pretty good motivator.
Lol.. The 8 hour work day and 40 hour weeks was the communist platform that Roosevelt adopted in his new deal before WWII. It was an attempt to combat unemployment by restricting how much a person could work in an effort to make more jobs availible to more people. Roosevelt attempted to organize unions and have them implement that because the US supreme court said that the federal government had no right dictating hours of work.
Also, how is that "protecting the worker" working out when GM is almost gone, Chrysler is in bankruptcy and pretty much gone, the American steel industry is all but gone, almost all of our factory production has either went off shore or closed up shop or automated all the union employees out. It seems to me that keeping the company around is just as important as protecting the worker because without the company, there are no fucking workers. Perhaps someone needs to get some priorities in order.
First, sorry about your great uncle, I didn't expect the comment to hit so close to home.
The problem with the speech isn't that it needs to be prohibited, there needs to be known consequences. I'm not suggesting that someone be denied the right to speak because of what they might say, but that they know what they do say can have consequences. Now most inciting a riot laws are either misdemeanors of low grade felonies but they are used as connector crimes to place someone else' actions at your direction into your responsibility.
In your example of hiring a hit man, lets look at the situation a little and I think we might be on the same page. Asking someone to hurt someone else or destroy property even if for a fee, is just speech. But because someone did it, it intended to do it, and you knew there was that intention, your speech has just come back with the actions it caused. Suppose I stand up in a bar and say free beer to whoever kicks someone's ass and five people do it. Now suppose that the guy died from injuries because of what I said. I didn't ask for him to be killed but my speach resulted in his death. I have to bear the consequences. It's the same for inciting a riot, it's that little part of making something illegal in order to shove the responsibility of the resulting actions into you. You are not prevented from making the speech in most cases, you just have to suffer the consequences of it. An obvious example of this would be standing up in front of an angry crowd and yelling "kill whity".
Yea, it does have an effect. The people charged and convicted were professional troublemakers. They went to hot spots and attempted to inflame the populous to a point of riot. They are now serving time and when they get out, will have to report to a probation officer and live by a set of rules that will hopefully stop any future actions by them. Of course people have free will and laws against murder do not stop murder from happening. But what they do is provide a vehicle in which the people doing the murdering can be taken away from the ability to murder others. The same with inciting a riot, it more or less allows those responsible, who knew full well what was happening, to be restricted from the ability to do it again and again.
The inciting a riot laws aren't really there to stop speech, it's to stop people attempting to cause harm, damage, and civil unrest through their speech.
i guess I have to draw a picture for you.
If things are getting cheaper to make, if it is more competitive then existing energy, and this is happening from normal existing demands, then there is no need for cap and trade. If the problem is that the raw materials isn't there then a cap and trade isn't going to do anything but allow the prices to be jacked up at the expense of the people. Cap and trade isn't about getting green energy in place, it's about limiting what the majority of people can do.
Lol... It isn't about the free market. The free market seems to be working btw, your comment and this story and this entire thread is proof of that. Anyways, we don't need to expand anything for human civilization, that's nothing but a crock of crap. The planet isn't burning up, and ever the liberal estimates say we have until the middle or end of this century before it's a serious problem. Quit fear mongering and making crap up. If it was really about the planet burning up, then China, India and every other country would have limits too.
Now for the free market, who fucking cares. This is about creating unnecessary hardships on the poor and middle class people that are designed to limit their quality of life. The same goals that cap and trade are purportedly attempting to accomplish can be done by mandating the replacement and addition of energy generation without causing the same hardships on the majority of Americans. But that's not the goal is it? The goal seems to be to place limits and hardships onto people and tax the piss out of them for living a comfortable life. It's about lowering our standard of living while increasing someone else' and idiots like you are lapping it up without question because global warming has become your religion. Don't force your religion onto me. And when you start preaching about the end of the world, you better read from the real science books that aren't making the same fear mongering statements that you are.
Actually, no.
Almost all profitable businesses that go beyond mediocre small time operations know you have to compensate and retain your employees or the product/service will suffer and costs increase due to the lack or employee retention. Unions are a dieing breed and if it wasn't for union only shops, they probably would have went the way of the dodo bird a long time ago. a good majority of union shops that have been around since before the 1950 has been either forced off shore, replaced largely by automation, or closed down because of their practices.
Unions aren't even good for the people in them sometimes either. I know of at least 5 equipment operators who claim to be making $22-$28 per hour. I laughed at them when I found they have only worked 2 out of the last 6 months and probably less then 3 months of the last year total. The say they can't take non-union jobs or they lose their union membership. I know of several equipment operator jobs that came open during that time span paying at least $16-$18 an hour and they had consistent work over 10 months of the last year and look to be busy the rest of the summer. So you end up with non-union employees making $30k a year while the union employees can't $10k. Oh sure, some of those union employees are getting more work then others, but tell that to the guy who would make more working at burger king then his skilled profession because of union rules.
You know, it might be flash video. Usually I get it after following a link from one site to another or something. Sometimes it's when surfing porn but now that you mentioned it, it couldn't really be html video if the spec isn't there yet.
Well, actually, no. I didn't sweep up, I swept it out of my road. The sweep guy still had plenty to do (wherever he was) as it all was around the perimeter of my workspace. My guess he was the one gluing the boxes together on the line before me because they were all fcked up. And I'm not going to risk personal injury to protect someone's job who wasn't doing it. That's a lot to ask of a person and it never should be done in a work place around conveyor belts, sharp knives, and moving machinery.
If it wasn't his job and he did it, then the union could have bashed him for it. As I said before, not all unions are the same but I have seen nothing indicating they wouldn't cause a fuss over something like this.