Most Europeans I have met personally label themselve that way too. It's as if they don't want to be limited to the expectations of just one culture when they are the product of many and frequently move around within them.
It's almost a badge of honor with them. I can see someone not liking it when they live in the same place all their life without really going outside that country. I really think that's the main difference.
For Americans, we have, and historically have had (at least since WWII and the cold war) so many multilateral agreements and operations encompassing Western Europe that it is almost second nature to just generalize. Either we were working with them or they were working with us as a whole and not really as a country.
If you read the article, you would have noticed that it wasn't an operating nuclear plant and the fuel wasn't in the reactors, they were being decommissioned in a cooling pond.
The chief inspector for the NII said a fire was not at risk because the rods were partly decayed and would have remained submerged in 2 feet of water. The only risk of a Chernobyl type accident here was the fear the information created to people not paying attention.
BTW, it's easy to engineer a fail safe on something like this, just place the coolant lines above the bottom of the pond so as it can't be emptied by them. The most it can be drained by the lines is to the level of the lines. It looked like that was already in place and I stand by me statement.
The need for pirated files would dry up over night if everyone was content with low grade files or pirated for the purpose of testing the music. That's the problem, some don't want to ever buy the stuff even though they can afford it and some won't want to appear as the poor kid on the block jamming to scratchy music. While others just want a quality reproduction of CDs, Tapes, or records they already own without having to buy them again or to take the time to rip them all. The later case, I would see as legitimate reasons for it being there.
I agree with your premise, I just have doubts on it's success.
As for the lawsuit, I don't pretend to understand insane people. I can't tell you why other then EGO and fear tactics. Your right in that they are missing out on one most efficient distribution channels to ever present itself, but it isn't my place to force them to use it. They can suffer and go extinct by their own hands just fine without me forcing them to stay in business.
I see your point now but I think it is largely already accounted for.
The extra protections, then safety switches and procedures, actual lock out tag out and demanding on site compliance is all an expense that can be built into the plant and operating costs rather then account for a disaster. So I guess what we could ask in addition would be could any of the expense of handling something like a Chernobyl scale disaster be either accounted for with the extra safety protections or would those protections be in addition to any disaster. If I could guarantee that when X, Y, and Z are followed, no accident on that scale would happen, then would that be in addition to the costs of an incident if it did happen or could the costs of it not happening be considered the costs of it happening.
I guess that pretty important because from a cost benefit analysis, it would seem the prevention would be the most beneficial route. Most of Chernobyl is tolerable as far as radioactivity is concerned as long as you stay away from the concrete and metal. Well, maybe not exactly at ground zero but there are people living since one year after the disaster less then 8-10 miles away with no obvious effects. The original evacuation zone was 30km or about 18 miles in diameter. They evacuated about 200,000 people, now I believe the total number is more around 330,000. The Ukraine claimed to have spent about $100 billion US by 200 and planed on another 6 billion in 2000 with 6.4 of it's annual budget allocated thereafter. This doesn't include the almost 1 billion dollars in donations from other countries and private aid organizations or the costs of direct assistance given during and immediately after the incident. Also not included in that is 1 billion US in changed to other plants in either safety mechanisms or training brought about with foreign aid or the costs of the new containment domes planned to be placed over the failing concrete domes made in the heat of the issue. I don't have links but I believe one is supposed to costs of around 505 million US for the one containment dome and 200 million for the other. As rough guess would be something close to around 3-6 billion dollars total not counting the costs of lands lost. Personal and real property losses, health treatment from the effects of radiation and relocation costs.
However, it should be stressed that something like Chernobyl can't really happen today because of differences in core designs as well as physical safety measures built into the plant that cause a safe fail shutdown instead of a run away reactor. It's one of the requirements of the IAEA which is followed by almost every country now. Section 5.40. of IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS (PDF warning) states that:
"The principle of fail-safe design shall be considered and incorporated into the design of systems and components important to safety for the plant as appropriate: if a system or component fails, plant systems shall be designed to pass into a safe state with no necessity for any action to be initiated."
6.2 states, "The reactor core and associated internal components located within the reactor vessel shall be designed and mounted in such a way that they will withstand the static and dynamic loading expected in operational states, design basis accidents and external events to the extent necessary to ensure safe shutdown of the reactor, to maintain the reactor subcritical and to ensure cooling of the core."
This design consideration has been designed from the start or has been or is in the process of being retrofitted into almost every nuclear plant. We can talk about if an incident could happen or it this design would fail on the premise of a terrorist strike or war or something of the sort but we would have bigger problems then a Chernobyl type incident when that comes around.
There is one sentence about pirating. It actually says "We pledge stronger action to protect intellectual property rights against pirating and will aggressively oppose the direct and indirect subsidies by which some governments tilt the world playing field against American producers." mixed in with protecting consumers against tainted food, bad trade and so on. While intellectual property would include copyright, it isn't singling it out.
I don't consider that a core platform issue, and as the parent said, it still doesn't mean that he speaks for every republican. People can disagree with parts of a party platform and still not leave the party. For Instance, I think John McCain was a mistake to put up for president. He made a lot of friends with the other side early on in the run up to the 2000 primaries and couldn't shut his mouth after that by pissing the party and party supporters off. It wasn't a gain in his support, it was just a small shift from one party to another. However, it didn't mean that I ran out and voted against him even though I didn't like his positions on a lot of things. There simply was no one who had better positions on what I liked.
That's a good point, but I refuse to affiliate with any party. I loathe politicians on an individual basis.
I don't identify with a party either. I have found myself siding with the republicans a lot though.
Chernobyl was really only possible at Chernobyl. It wouldn't effect modern plants around the world.
If I remember right, it had something to do without the same safety concerned and most every where else implemented along with half of the plant not knowing what the other half was doing so they reacted incorrectly when people were running a drill or a test on parts of the system.
It really isn't repeatable. At best, we will get minute leakage somewhere that will most likely be detected soon and contained.
I have to wonder if those who are critical of Amazon here have ever experienced a direct lightning strike? I doubt it.
Just so people know, this can be a real bitch.
I took a direct lightning strike at one site I work with that entered the corner of the building, traveled down the inside wall leaving a scorch mark on two levels and into the basement where all the servers and switches were located. The lightening then traveled through the electrical service main lines to an encased transformer located in the parking lot next door causing it to explode with enough force that is shattered the windows of the bank building next door and a door panel was found on a rood about a block away. It appears that one half of the electrical system was grounded properly through a specific ground rod and the other half was tied into the plumbing that ran inches away from the lightning rod grounds. When they purchased the building, they didn't redo all the electrical on the side of the building that wasn't remodeled and that way of grounding was normal.
We lost 3 of the 5 servers instantly and couldn't keep the other two stable. Both switches were down, 20 of the 44 workstations along with the tape backup machine, copiers, and networked printers were completely dead when we got there. The entire building had a lightning/surge protector with battery backup and natural gas generator on the mains so they weren't too concerned over in house specific protections. Only the systems with UPS on them directly survived with the exceptions of the servers which I'm not sure if they died from the lightning strike or from getting soaked by the fire sprinklers that was set off by the strike. (surprisingly, there was no fire).
It took us two days at almost 20 hours a day among 5 people with a lot of borrowing from other sites, about 20 trips to five or six computer stores in the surrounding counties, and a generator to come back on line and be operational again. We even had a make shift phone system in place while waiting on a new Avaya to come in. We did this all before the electric company got the transformer replaced and service back on. Until we replaced the other machines that were thought not to be effected, we experienced all sorts of weird behavior on the network and I'm still not confident with the cabling even though it passed the testing. Of course I didn't run the certification so it might just be me not trusting others.
If you get a direct strike, you might as well count on replacing everything in a production environment. When I say direct strike, I mean evidence it actually hit the building and not something down the road and traveled to the building. It will be easier and cheaper in the long run. Now, I have as part of the catastrophe plan, a means to replace every computer and component on the network at one time just to be safe. If it wasn't for two other sites having the same tape drives, we would have had to wait a week for a replacement to come in and start the data recovery process. Thank god for off-site tape storage.
To set aside legalize for a bit though, it's just a big extortion racket, and one that will eventually implode. Congress passed the Copyright Act early on in this country's history to make sure that there was incentive for artists, writers, musicians, to produce. That's probably a false conclusion because there's no shortage of "starving artists", but nonetheless, this fiat "monopoly" (the exclusive right to copy) is actually counter productive, because if you can't copy or perform works of others, they lose their ability to "advertise" their works and the artists end up with worthless, underutilized monopolies to keep all to themselves. That's why congress later introduced "compulsory licensing" to the Copyright Act. It gave radio and then television access to copyrighted materials without having to negotiate prices or get explicit permission.
The artist wouldn't lose the right to advertise, they always had the right to allow copying. It's just their exclusive right. The compulsory licensing additions were more or less means to fight de facto monopolies due to existing copyright laws.
My main contention with Lawyers that represent the labels is that the artists' remuneration is not their true agenda, but rather the survival of the cartel which was never the intent of the Copyright Act. I predict it will someday in the near future unravel because not only are the cartels disenfranchising their paying customers, but disaffecting their suppliers (musicians and movie studios). When the benefit of a label is outweighed by the burdensome cost, a new format or structure will rise to replace the rotting RIAA and MPIG.
I don't disagree here. In fact, I think you stole the sentiment right from my mind. Joking aside, I do agree.
For flooding the pipe, you suggested that it failed, but it was probably more the approach. Give people 128bit and those that want 256 bit will hear it, like it, and buy it while those that are satisfied with 128 bit never were their paying customers. Indistinguishable from AM radio's usefulness in promoting music. Don't give them bad files, that just perpetuates the toxic approach of suing your customers.
The concept sounds good but as with the bad files, some will still work around it. It's probably more worth a shot pf trying then rejecting based on past performances. I do hear that the experiments with free album downloads with a donation option turned out somewhat well for the artists who tried it.
Ooooh I see, Sort of like the stock market, or any other business. People have found ways to be skillful at buying food for the restaurant, but if the headlines shout swine flu and you just bought a bunch of pork for your restaurant - whoops - chance just bit you in the ass.
That's not what I said and you know it. I said poker is gambling and because people have become skillful at it, it doesn't make it not gambling. You then attempted to turn that into the opposite and make the claim my point was if there is skill it's gambling which is no where close. The only thing that bit me on the ass was expecting some intelligence in the people replying.
Come on - you are playing with words here like so many lawyers do all the time.
Actually, it's you who is playing with words. I didn't say what you think I said.
The real money vs play money thing was to point out that everyone playing the game is not looking for big winnings, some just like the game!
And that seems to be fine, however, that isn't the topic of the article and my comment was addressing the article. You can roll dice for tooth picks and do it for the enjoyment for all I care, it still gambling. But when real money is involved, the laws and the government get involved, then seizing those winning stops the gambler from breaking that law.
BTW - poker sites go to great lengths to make sure you can't really buy anything with the money.
That's fine and dandy but not on topic with my point or the story. We are talking about people gambling on foreign casinos where real money is used and real money was frozen in order to stop it from being distributed. I don't think the government is worried or capable of worrying about your gambling for entertainment until such time real money becomes involved or fake money is treated as real money.
e last thing - As mentioned above, there has been a court case of a professional poker player vs the IRS - The IRS taking your position, that poker is a game of chance, and the IRS lost. It was shown that if you or I play against that professional we will lose. Therefor the person (google it, it is a well documented case) was not in arrears on taxes on money earned on a game of chance. So even the courts agree that poker is not a game of chance.
Why don't you cite it. I'm not sure why the IRS would be concerned over poker being gambling or not, it isn't their position as long as taxes are being paid. Gambling is largely state laws and only when it crosses state lines in the actual act does it become federal jurisdiction. In fact, all of the US federal gambling laws with the exception of areas congress has exclusive jurisdiction over like DC, military forts and territories, specifically mention it's up to the state either directly in the statute or by defining the gambling terms to means gambling legal within one state and another. As to the territories, gambling isn't explicitly illegal either, there are just requirements that need to be met. Maybe your thinking of the Pennsylvania and Colorado criminal cases in which the judges ruled poker met the exception to the law as a game of chance and didn't posses enough chance to fall under a law.
It really doesn't matter because the federal laws prohibit only what is not consistent with state laws as far as gambling goes. If it's legal within the state, it's legal according to the federal law. If it crosses state lines and is legal in both, certain requirements have to be met to ensure laws of both states allow it, age is verified and financial information isn't disclosed to third parties. In Ohio, Gambling is codified as a game of chance and outlawed under the gambling regulation when real money is transferred in most situations. So the federal law doesn't apply to games of chance, it applies to what is already
Yes, Unjust enrichment was the term I was looking for.
OWEVER, this is NOT the case with copyright infringement. (C) infringement involves "Statutory" and "Provable" damages. Statutory damages are stated as say, $1,000 per incident (it's actually MUCH higher, but just for argument's sake, let's use $1000). No material evidence backing the claim, just it being written up in the statutes of the Copyright Act. Provable damages might involve an industry loss like those stated by Hatch. These are bogus and untenable claims because they aren't based on actual sales. They use obtuse and vague metrics and if every industry totaled their annual losses to this or that, it would be more than the entire planet makes or consumes in the same time period. As a judge, the only claim I would accept is demonstrable changes that could be directly attributed to a factor. For example, the RIAA shows it made $x in one year and $y the next. It coincides with server logs at Napster showing n files downloaded. ($x - $y)/n is the amount lost per download. But there must be some evidence and testimony that it wasn't because RIAA introduced crappy music or put rootkit on the CDs, or some other negligence on their part. Now, if they can prove Jane or Grandma Doe UPloaded 200 songs, they can calculate the actual damages or statistically valid anecdotal damages.
Two main points first, then I will explain. In unjust enrichment, the owner is entitled to either actual costs as would be charged normally or any increased the law provides for. The second was that I'm in no way attempting to validate Hatches or anyone else' numbers, that was never my intent. My intent was always to show that because someone used something to their benefit, the concept of "I wouldn't have purchased it anyways" doesn't negate a loss of entitled exchange.
Now, to get a little more detailed about it. If you normally charge X for a products and someone is considered to be unjustly enriching themselves (taking the benefit without proper payment) then you are entitled to X in return. But when the state says this is a problem and bumps X to Y where Y = Costs+fine+Penalty, the concept hasn't changed, just the process in which you seek justice and the reward. The owner is still entitles to restitution based on the new state formula C+F+P. The effect is that after the fact of the piracy, something is expected to be owed regardless of anyone's intent of ever purchasing it because of the unjust enrichment. However illegitimacy C+F+P or anything in between is doesn't negate that expectation.
I don't think you are actually arguing over whether or not they are entitled to something as much as how much now they are entitled to. I never attempted to address that nor will I.
Going back to "Unjust Enrichment", the North Dakota Supreme Court came up with a 5 point test for the case. 1. Enrichment by Defendant, 2. Impoverishment by Plaintiff, and I forget 3 ad 4, but they were basically a requirement to prove that 1 and 2 were connected and 5 is that the claim cannot proceed based on Statute. But demonstrating IMPOVERISHMENT was part of the weight of the claim.
So, with that definition, unless you can prove the "impoverishment" (actual damages), you have no case. You have "conceptual" losses, but that's only compared against "conceptual enrichment". If people are selling bootleg CDs, that's one thing, but listening to music has no direct tangible benefit. It may actually have a cost if you are using local storage.
Well, I'm not sure if that is a local (state) precedence or if that carry across the country. Anyways, that's true that they can't show a loss until you set up hit squads who change the model of business from offering quality entertainment for a fee to suing anyone you think isn't paying then settling for another large fee. That shows a loss as in a loss of sales because all of those who settled more or less agreed that they would have normally p
Hatch is a copyright holder and most of his positions concerning copyright stem from his wanting to protect his own interest.
I also just checked and copyright isn't anywhere near the republican platform and hasn't been in a while. It was back in the late 1990's when the DMCA was coming around because it was created out of the ratification of two WIPO treaties , the WPPT and WCT which were designed to protect foreign copyright in any country. This mean that other countries with laxed rules would have to honor the other countries copyrights and that meant more money coming into the US. After the DMCA was created, other countries started backing off of thier commitments.
As for agreeing with his speech but not him, that's propably because this has been largely a bipartisan issue for a long time. When RIAA lobies congress, they don't lobby one party more then another outside the majority in the respected houses. They lobby all the congress critters.
Anyway, I used to like Hatch, but I don't like Hatch's stance on any of this, he's really scraping the bottom of the barrel with his lies, damn lies, and statistics. If the economy lost 300,000 jobs and $16B, then where did it go? Nowhere you hack! People pay what they're willing to pay after they bought what was most important to them. Pirates don't buy software, music, and movies! Stop them from pirating, they still won't buy it.
There is a legal concept called enrichment (if I remember correctly) which basically says you can't use someone else's property to your benefit without their permission. The premises of this concept is not in denying the use of the property but in you gaining something illegitimately. An example of this might be where I know your going to be out of town, use the key you left me to look after your home and find your season hockey tickets and goto a game without your permission even though you have offered to let me use the tickets in the past for $20. A more penalizing example might be me taking your lawnmower and mowing other people's yards for profit while you are at work even if I rebuilt the engine, replaced the blades and removed all forms of wear and tear and you had no clue it was happening.
What this concept does is presents the premise that by using the product offered for sale or rent, regardless if the intent to ever purchase it or otherwise pay for it, then the owner is entitled to normal costs for the duration of your use or possession. It doesn't really matter if it is tangible, digital or deprives anyone of a physical possession or not, it's that once you became enriched, you owe the normal fees. Using this concept, then all pirated movied, software, whatever is considered a loss and is how they compute the figures.
When you say where did the money go, you are right in that it went no were but you aren't right in that the owners are not entitled to it, because conceptually, they are.
Don't take this as indication of my support for or against anything happening. I'm just explaining how they come up with those numbers and justify them. Piracy can be seen as a lost sale because whoever pirated it or received it from a pirate was enriched without the proper compensation to the owners. What would be interesting is to actually see the situation where there was no piracy. I'm betting they spend millions to fight against it and if no piracy existed, their sales would probably drop by more then that amount making it more of a actual operating loss to them if piracy never existed.
Oh, you mean I should know that despite having all the information at your fingertips I shouldn't be surprised when you refuse to examine any of it and instead troll..
No, I'm not surprised, and I'm not surprised that you are refusing to address any of the actual information presented other then saying "nuh-uh". However, other people read this and showing them you ignorance does help set the record straight and prevent the fictional reality that has cropped into the real world.
Yes. In fact, having admitted in the first war that Iraq under Saddam was criminal we never should have stopped until he was removed.
I think it was the UN being scared that if we ousted Saddam in the first war that all of Iraqs neighbors would have swooped in to claim the resulting territory causing a middle east equivilent of a world war. This is also a reason why Bush concentrated on rebuilding Iraq and stating it was "regime change" and not punishment.
Yeah, it's like FOX news all over again.
Dude, just read the UN quarterly reports to the security counsel. Fox news has nothing to do with that, it's all in there and it was all reported under Hans Blix even though he was one of the loudest screamers of antiwar and claims that Iraq had no WMDs. i actually have a document I create from them which points out to ever statement between 2000 and 2003 that contradicts Hans Blix's public statements but it's lengthy. You should be able to scan through them and find it all on your own.
I think Bush had this image of a quick little war and being welcomed in Iraq as a liberator as the international coalition was seen to be during the first war (until they packed up and left, people unsaved). So I don't think it takes a lot to explain his calls for war. If you think we'll win handily and quickly you don't need to gain as much.
Nah, I don't think Bush thought much about it. The length of the war was pretty much caused by all the stalling we did which allowed protest in turkey to force us out of entering from there. The original plan was to use small amounts of troops with large reserves in order to keep the footprint small and entice battles out of Iraq. This would have killed most of the people who later became insurgents while allowing the reserves to come in, mop up and stabilize the security. But without the two front assault, we had to enter from the south with a large overwhelming force which caused the opposite effect and lead to the situations where we had no support in place to keep the peace and effect a transition. It was literally two different wars with two different outcomes because of the two different tactics.
But what does the USA gain from Iraq?
More oil available/less hoarded by our 'enemies', more oil processed by western companies, and more oil sold in dollars.
Here is where your argument breaks down. First, the EU had already implemented Kyoto which meant their oil use was going to drop. Second, there was never any oil shortages and therfore never any need for oil. The price hikes we saw was from hedge investors taking stock in oil futures in attempts to place the valuation of the dollar. They could literally sell the futures for spot price at a loss and profit because of changes in the value of the dollar. The problem with that is when normal companies who use oil attempt to secure long term runs, it drives the price up because even though there is more then enough physical oil, the amount of buyers doubled with people who could never take possession of the oil. And of course this also drove the spot prices up. When OPEC decides to raise production and the cost of oil increases as what happened several times during this period, you can see the disconnect between supply and demand of the actual product.
There was never any shortage of oil and Iraq'a production wouldn't have made a difference.
Even right there it probably enough to make it worth while. Then consider that Bush and his advisors have connections to the companies doing much of the work, getting oil contracts, etc and it's pretty easy to see how they could all be a bit biased.
That's nothing more then speculation on your part. The fact is that the companies used at the time were the only ones large enough to offer the range of services needed. No other
Poker is gambling. It's gambling that people have found ways to be skilled at more then others but it is gambling that relies on chance. And it doesn't matter if real money is present or not because in this case, we are talking about real money being frozen by the feds that was supposed to go to some of the players participating in it.
Anyways, the difference between real money and fake money is one of a legal definition. Some fake money can be considered real money if the fake money could be used to purchase goods or services that are also availible for real money transactions. of course that will vary from state to state but it's the law in my state. An example of this is where a skeet ball game at one of those pizza party game room places was legally considered gambling because the prizes were availible for purchase as well as the tickets could have been traded in for game tokens and food items. The particular store I know of had to change their operation and only allow the tickets to be exchanged for prizes separate from anything that could be purchased there as well as pay a hefty fine. I think the fine was a little anal from the state but they didn't distinguish between not knowing the law and knowing it.
I would say it's just as much sovereignty as it is contract because the contract limits sovereignty and the interpretations are making new limits that we didn't agree to thereby removing sovereignty. If the terms of the treaty was followed, then it would be impossible for the ruling to come out the way it did. They ultimately used the interstate horse race betting law to justify Federal approved gambling that doesn't exist. All those laws do, and did for 20 years before we signed on to the agreements, is say that if states allow off track gambling that crosses a state line, the devices and races have to be from an approved and regulated organization and track meeting the standard of certain semi-private nation wide or otherwise prominent organization.
The interesting part is that the specific justification was never brought up in the arbitration, it was just piled on without response at the end with the ruling but was never a point of complaint or justification during the proceedings. In other words, there was never any chance to competently respond to it or explain what the law meant or how the states rights and the limits on the constitution work, they more or less pulled it out of thin air. You can easily see why something like this would happen, it's because someone was looking for something on the arbitration panel instead of just mitigating the original complains which was completely dismissed. The effect is that someone went out on their own who was supposed to be deciding the validity of complains and more or less created their own complaint based around the incorrect interpretation of a law and the lack of understanding in how the US governing structure works. This is why US senators on both sides said they would start a trade war and withdraw from the WTO before following the ruling.
et's see. Who do I trust more? An Ed Lolington random wannabe on the internet whose first recourse is to hurl childish insults, or the decisions of several rounds of hearings, arbitration, and appeals of an international legal body with representation from around the world and across the political spectrum?
Fuck dude, it's all there in black and white. Read the damn shit and figure it out on your own and trust yourself. It isn't rocket science or some obscure brand of astrophysics, it's right there. You can't read it, understand it, and not come to the same conclusion I did. All the shit I pasted was out of the treaty and the rulings along with the appeals. The stuff is publicly availible and on line so the only thing stopping you is laziness.
You lose. Sorry.
No, you lose and yes, you are sorry. Your not even looking at the information availible at your finger tips and instead taking the word of others through blind trust because you want to support that outcome. You are intellectually lazy and a moron. If you invested just a few minutes into verifying what I said, you would be in total agreement with me. If you actually look at the treaty, the dispute process and the arbitration ruling and somehow find I am in error, then bring that up based on what you found, not your own preconceived idea of something that isn't even relevant.
Upon reflection, the servers are not based in the US. The DNS resolvers are not based in the US. The depository banks are not based in the US. The players, however, are based in the US, and are exercising their freedom to trade internationally. The US is now intervening to retard the transfer of capital with very little in the way of excuses other than "Do what we say, not what we do" to its citizens.
The citizens of each country are subject to the laws of that country. You can't argue any different because that is a simple fact. It appears that you aren't even arguing facts but whatever you can think of to support offshore gambling. The casino's are doing business in the US, when the payouts, and US citizens enter the online casino's, they are subject to US laws and the laws of the states or jurisdiction in which they reside.
The Ruling never should have been made the way it was, it was either severe incompetence or malicious activity that caused it. It's based on nothing that's true in reality, and it ignore the damn treaties in which it attempts to base the ruling from.
Do you work for a US casino?
No, not that it matters. What the topic right is about isn't whether it should or should be legal to gamble, it's about the WTO dispute process being severely broken, ignoring reality, taking US law out of context, and ignoring the entire treaty that it was attempting to enforce. Words have meanings for a reason, it's so people understand what is being communicated and the law they cited didn't do what they claimed it did as well as specific wording in the treaty made exceptions for the states rights as with how the US is set up.
Again, if you can read the shit without ignoring things, find something I am wrong on, then bring it up and we can discuss it. Until then, you wanting things to be a certain way doesn't change any of the realities I pointed out. All it does is make you look like a moron.
I just gave you the citation, I told you his theory-gimmick.
Sounds like more bogus numerology. I *very* highly doubt they make the lottery tickets that way...
They spread the winning out throughout the roll. Each roll has a set amount of winner in it and the clerk usually can tell you if the big hits have been cashed in. Scratch off tickets are a scam anyways. They sell the store the entire roll of tickets for a certain amount. Of those tickets, there will be a certain amount paid and of that certain amount there will be so many in incremental denominations. IF they randomly placed the winners all up front, then the store would have a more difficult time selling the rest of the role and making their money back.
Anyways, go in and talk to the clerks at the gas stations. They have a good idea when the rolls will start hitting. Many of them do the same as this guy and if your not a dick and yell citation needed over some theory some guy I know created to justify his gambling odds, they might just tell you.
I believe it was a Texas state law but because it was broad cast in TX, it applied. I'm not sure if it was all congress or not.
Anyways, the intent of the law is so that people can't ruin farmers by telling lies and making their crop/product spoil or lose to much value before being sold. Farmers work from a very small margin with tons of capitol at stake. A run away from some specific markets has the potential of bankrupting quite a few of them.
Ted Turner on the PBS Charlie Rose program (and no I don't have the link but it's true), said that his biggest fear in starting CNN was that if a right leaning or centered 24 hour news Chanel started up before they started making it really go, it would have ended CNN altogether.
This wasn't the first time he has said something like that. It is the first time I personally heard him say it. People have claimed CNN to be left leaning for years and it appears that the founder designed it that way.
I know you guys are joking, but you might want to sort of be careful in doing so.
The law that Oprah was sued on over the mad cow disease case is still in effect. She only got off because her show attempted to inform people of he issue and not effect prices or the market (well, it's more technical then that but it can be boiled down to that).
Anyways, your comments are specifically addressing one of the points that got her off but in the opposite direction which would have convicted her.
Just so you know. I don't think anyone thought about that in the heat of the "joke and fun".
An interesting side note. Roosevelt, the guy who started the welfare state, specifically knew that his policies were unconstitutional before he was ever president but refused to back down even after the US supreme court ruled most of them unconstitutional when he was president. As governor of New York, on March 2 1930 (printed in March 3 1930 in the NY Times) he said in a speech on state's rights concerning the Volstead Act and the 18th amendment
"As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely, people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to legislate on this particular subject1, but this is not the case in the matter of a great number of other vital problems of government, such as the conduct of public utilities, of banks, of insurance, of business, of agriculture, of education, of social welfare and of a dozen other important features. In these, Washington must not be encouraged to interfere." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1930
Most people don't know that he believed this way. Especially when they look at what he did and raise him as a champion.
The one about not creating an artificial barrier to free trade.
There was no barrier to free trade. The only barrier was that foreign companies had to follow the same rules as US companies.
Which banning only FOREIGN internet gambling (not domestic) is.
This is not what happened at all. You need to look at the facts, perhaps post under a normal account so I can educate you on them.
So your sovereignty is broken the same as Saddam's.
Man, you are a fucking idiot aren't you? Your equating something that didn't happen but you think it did which revolves around trade as the invasion of an allied countries and the armistice agreement imposing specific obligations on Saddam and Iraq as a condition to end the war? That takes a stretch so far out there that it more likely you made it out of ignorance then any intellectual thought process. No wonder you posted as AC.
Yes, I do. Do you even remotely know the terms of this contract? It doesn't look like it. Do you even remotely know the conditions of the ruling or the justifications of it or the finding in the appellate panel or the appellate board before it got screwed over in arbitration? Again, it doesn't look like it.
You sign a contract, and stick by the rules, and if you break the rules, you suffer the consequences outlined in the contract.
The ruling by the arbitration panel is what is ignoring the rules, the offshore sites are specifically asking to violate US and state law in their course of trade which is not free trade or free access. Free Trade is where all parties are subject to the same rules and regulations. Try learning a little about the situation before going off half cocked. I will provide a link to some of the relevant parts but I suggest you actual learn more about this then what you favorite headline news flashed before you.
The US signed the WTO contract, then violated them by making foreign gambling illegal, while keeping US gambling legal. The WTO used the power granted them to punish the US. Among the powers of WTO is they handle international IP (imaginary property). If the US leaves the WTO, the US loses their IP right internationally. In this case WTO is being nice, and only offers two small countries hurt by the illegal US rules to ignore US IP.
No it did not. In your fist statement, there are two false concepts right off the bat, first is in the violation of the contract in which it didn't and the second is in making foreign gambling illegal in which it didn't. The WTO didn't use power granted to them, they invented concepts that were inconsistent with reality and the laws in place. They interpreted a regulatory law as something more then it was and ignored specific exceptions and limitation imposed by the Gats treaty as well a the limitations to binding obligations. If you would have spent a small attempt at understanding what was happening, this would be obvious.
Here is a link where I outlined it more closely and no, I didn't pull the information from Wikipedia, I pulled it directly from the WTO treaty and decisions. Fuck, if it was as simply as your making it out to be, I would agree with you, but it's something entirely different and they made shit up, misconstrued facts, and made a ruling that isn't supported by either the treaty provisions or the textual and common interpretations of US law within the United States.!
Agreeing to membership within the WTO is a sovereignty compromise designed to promote economic exports. As a result of membership, the USA gets protection for its exports against unfair tariffs, duties, or other illegal restraints of trade designed to exclude US exports from foreign markets. Given that until recently, the USA was a huge net exporter of manufactured goods, services, and copyrighted material, obviously WTO membership was a big deal designed to open foreign markets for US companies.
That's all fine and dandy when the dispute isn't using made up crap. We didn't give up sovereignty over this and if you read the treaty as well as the ruling you can clearly see shit was made up, taken out of context and rule on inconsistent with the reality it resides in. The US is only bound to the agreement's that it approved, not delusional interpretations that ignore the treaty, the governing structure of the US and everything else involved. Take a look at the treaty and ruling yourself. Here is the meat of it with some comments to why it is absurd. And yes, read all of it especially the end.
Maybe the current emotional, illogical campaign by several US politicians and political wannabes against international gaming has come about because by now the US has seen several decades of increasingly insular economic development and has become relatively decoupled from international export trade, WTO membership is no longer seen as so essential to US economic interest. Or maybe it's because the US is electing more dumb-as-a-plank politicians? Either way, the US has gained tremendously from its membership in the WTO and other countries' compliance with its market-opening directives. For the US now to turn around and persist in imposing illegal trade restraints is simply hypocritical.
This has nothing to do with internet gambling and everything to do with states rights, existing laws, and foreign companies excluding themselves from US law. Internet gambling is availible in the US under a specific set of rules and all foreign companies have to follow those rules. If they don't then it's their move, not ours, that is restricting their access.
Now it seems that not only are you severely challenged mentally in this conversation (you have no clue about the text of the treaty, the rulings, or the laws justifying the ruling that was taken out of context), that you are also letting political ideals and biased dictate your incorrect understanding of the events. Please stop this, take a couple of minutes to learn what the hell your talking about, and we can have a competent discussion if you want.
Slashdot Mirror
Most Europeans I have met personally label themselve that way too. It's as if they don't want to be limited to the expectations of just one culture when they are the product of many and frequently move around within them.
It's almost a badge of honor with them. I can see someone not liking it when they live in the same place all their life without really going outside that country. I really think that's the main difference.
For Americans, we have, and historically have had (at least since WWII and the cold war) so many multilateral agreements and operations encompassing Western Europe that it is almost second nature to just generalize. Either we were working with them or they were working with us as a whole and not really as a country.
If you read the article, you would have noticed that it wasn't an operating nuclear plant and the fuel wasn't in the reactors, they were being decommissioned in a cooling pond.
The chief inspector for the NII said a fire was not at risk because the rods were partly decayed and would have remained submerged in 2 feet of water. The only risk of a Chernobyl type accident here was the fear the information created to people not paying attention.
BTW, it's easy to engineer a fail safe on something like this, just place the coolant lines above the bottom of the pond so as it can't be emptied by them. The most it can be drained by the lines is to the level of the lines. It looked like that was already in place and I stand by me statement.
The need for pirated files would dry up over night if everyone was content with low grade files or pirated for the purpose of testing the music. That's the problem, some don't want to ever buy the stuff even though they can afford it and some won't want to appear as the poor kid on the block jamming to scratchy music. While others just want a quality reproduction of CDs, Tapes, or records they already own without having to buy them again or to take the time to rip them all. The later case, I would see as legitimate reasons for it being there.
I agree with your premise, I just have doubts on it's success.
As for the lawsuit, I don't pretend to understand insane people. I can't tell you why other then EGO and fear tactics. Your right in that they are missing out on one most efficient distribution channels to ever present itself, but it isn't my place to force them to use it. They can suffer and go extinct by their own hands just fine without me forcing them to stay in business.
I see your point now but I think it is largely already accounted for.
The extra protections, then safety switches and procedures, actual lock out tag out and demanding on site compliance is all an expense that can be built into the plant and operating costs rather then account for a disaster. So I guess what we could ask in addition would be could any of the expense of handling something like a Chernobyl scale disaster be either accounted for with the extra safety protections or would those protections be in addition to any disaster. If I could guarantee that when X, Y, and Z are followed, no accident on that scale would happen, then would that be in addition to the costs of an incident if it did happen or could the costs of it not happening be considered the costs of it happening.
I guess that pretty important because from a cost benefit analysis, it would seem the prevention would be the most beneficial route. Most of Chernobyl is tolerable as far as radioactivity is concerned as long as you stay away from the concrete and metal. Well, maybe not exactly at ground zero but there are people living since one year after the disaster less then 8-10 miles away with no obvious effects. The original evacuation zone was 30km or about 18 miles in diameter. They evacuated about 200,000 people, now I believe the total number is more around 330,000. The Ukraine claimed to have spent about $100 billion US by 200 and planed on another 6 billion in 2000 with 6.4 of it's annual budget allocated thereafter. This doesn't include the almost 1 billion dollars in donations from other countries and private aid organizations or the costs of direct assistance given during and immediately after the incident. Also not included in that is 1 billion US in changed to other plants in either safety mechanisms or training brought about with foreign aid or the costs of the new containment domes planned to be placed over the failing concrete domes made in the heat of the issue. I don't have links but I believe one is supposed to costs of around 505 million US for the one containment dome and 200 million for the other. As rough guess would be something close to around 3-6 billion dollars total not counting the costs of lands lost. Personal and real property losses, health treatment from the effects of radiation and relocation costs.
However, it should be stressed that something like Chernobyl can't really happen today because of differences in core designs as well as physical safety measures built into the plant that cause a safe fail shutdown instead of a run away reactor. It's one of the requirements of the IAEA which is followed by almost every country now. Section 5.40. of IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS (PDF warning) states that:
"The principle of fail-safe design shall be considered and incorporated into the
design of systems and components important to safety for the plant as appropriate: if
a system or component fails, plant systems shall be designed to pass into a safe state
with no necessity for any action to be initiated."
6.2 states, "The reactor core and associated internal components located within the reactor
vessel shall be designed and mounted in such a way that they will withstand the static
and dynamic loading expected in operational states, design basis accidents and external
events to the extent necessary to ensure safe shutdown of the reactor, to maintain the
reactor subcritical and to ensure cooling of the core."
This design consideration has been designed from the start or has been or is in the process of being retrofitted into almost every nuclear plant. We can talk about if an incident could happen or it this design would fail on the premise of a terrorist strike or war or something of the sort but we would have bigger problems then a Chernobyl type incident when that comes around.
There is one sentence about pirating. It actually says "We pledge stronger action to protect intellectual property rights against pirating and will aggressively oppose the direct and indirect subsidies by which some governments tilt the world playing field against American producers." mixed in with protecting consumers against tainted food, bad trade and so on. While intellectual property would include copyright, it isn't singling it out.
I don't consider that a core platform issue, and as the parent said, it still doesn't mean that he speaks for every republican. People can disagree with parts of a party platform and still not leave the party. For Instance, I think John McCain was a mistake to put up for president. He made a lot of friends with the other side early on in the run up to the 2000 primaries and couldn't shut his mouth after that by pissing the party and party supporters off. It wasn't a gain in his support, it was just a small shift from one party to another. However, it didn't mean that I ran out and voted against him even though I didn't like his positions on a lot of things. There simply was no one who had better positions on what I liked.
I don't identify with a party either. I have found myself siding with the republicans a lot though.
Chernobyl was really only possible at Chernobyl. It wouldn't effect modern plants around the world.
If I remember right, it had something to do without the same safety concerned and most every where else implemented along with half of the plant not knowing what the other half was doing so they reacted incorrectly when people were running a drill or a test on parts of the system.
It really isn't repeatable. At best, we will get minute leakage somewhere that will most likely be detected soon and contained.
Just so people know, this can be a real bitch.
I took a direct lightning strike at one site I work with that entered the corner of the building, traveled down the inside wall leaving a scorch mark on two levels and into the basement where all the servers and switches were located. The lightening then traveled through the electrical service main lines to an encased transformer located in the parking lot next door causing it to explode with enough force that is shattered the windows of the bank building next door and a door panel was found on a rood about a block away. It appears that one half of the electrical system was grounded properly through a specific ground rod and the other half was tied into the plumbing that ran inches away from the lightning rod grounds. When they purchased the building, they didn't redo all the electrical on the side of the building that wasn't remodeled and that way of grounding was normal.
We lost 3 of the 5 servers instantly and couldn't keep the other two stable. Both switches were down, 20 of the 44 workstations along with the tape backup machine, copiers, and networked printers were completely dead when we got there. The entire building had a lightning/surge protector with battery backup and natural gas generator on the mains so they weren't too concerned over in house specific protections. Only the systems with UPS on them directly survived with the exceptions of the servers which I'm not sure if they died from the lightning strike or from getting soaked by the fire sprinklers that was set off by the strike. (surprisingly, there was no fire).
It took us two days at almost 20 hours a day among 5 people with a lot of borrowing from other sites, about 20 trips to five or six computer stores in the surrounding counties, and a generator to come back on line and be operational again. We even had a make shift phone system in place while waiting on a new Avaya to come in. We did this all before the electric company got the transformer replaced and service back on. Until we replaced the other machines that were thought not to be effected, we experienced all sorts of weird behavior on the network and I'm still not confident with the cabling even though it passed the testing. Of course I didn't run the certification so it might just be me not trusting others.
If you get a direct strike, you might as well count on replacing everything in a production environment. When I say direct strike, I mean evidence it actually hit the building and not something down the road and traveled to the building. It will be easier and cheaper in the long run. Now, I have as part of the catastrophe plan, a means to replace every computer and component on the network at one time just to be safe. If it wasn't for two other sites having the same tape drives, we would have had to wait a week for a replacement to come in and start the data recovery process. Thank god for off-site tape storage.
The artist wouldn't lose the right to advertise, they always had the right to allow copying. It's just their exclusive right. The compulsory licensing additions were more or less means to fight de facto monopolies due to existing copyright laws.
I don't disagree here. In fact, I think you stole the sentiment right from my mind. Joking aside, I do agree.
The concept sounds good but as with the bad files, some will still work around it. It's probably more worth a shot pf trying then rejecting based on past performances. I do hear that the experiments with free album downloads with a donation option turned out somewhat well for the artists who tried it.
That's not what I said and you know it. I said poker is gambling and because people have become skillful at it, it doesn't make it not gambling. You then attempted to turn that into the opposite and make the claim my point was if there is skill it's gambling which is no where close. The only thing that bit me on the ass was expecting some intelligence in the people replying.
Actually, it's you who is playing with words. I didn't say what you think I said.
And that seems to be fine, however, that isn't the topic of the article and my comment was addressing the article. You can roll dice for tooth picks and do it for the enjoyment for all I care, it still gambling. But when real money is involved, the laws and the government get involved, then seizing those winning stops the gambler from breaking that law.
That's fine and dandy but not on topic with my point or the story. We are talking about people gambling on foreign casinos where real money is used and real money was frozen in order to stop it from being distributed. I don't think the government is worried or capable of worrying about your gambling for entertainment until such time real money becomes involved or fake money is treated as real money.
Why don't you cite it. I'm not sure why the IRS would be concerned over poker being gambling or not, it isn't their position as long as taxes are being paid. Gambling is largely state laws and only when it crosses state lines in the actual act does it become federal jurisdiction. In fact, all of the US federal gambling laws with the exception of areas congress has exclusive jurisdiction over like DC, military forts and territories, specifically mention it's up to the state either directly in the statute or by defining the gambling terms to means gambling legal within one state and another. As to the territories, gambling isn't explicitly illegal either, there are just requirements that need to be met. Maybe your thinking of the Pennsylvania and Colorado criminal cases in which the judges ruled poker met the exception to the law as a game of chance and didn't posses enough chance to fall under a law.
It really doesn't matter because the federal laws prohibit only what is not consistent with state laws as far as gambling goes. If it's legal within the state, it's legal according to the federal law. If it crosses state lines and is legal in both, certain requirements have to be met to ensure laws of both states allow it, age is verified and financial information isn't disclosed to third parties. In Ohio, Gambling is codified as a game of chance and outlawed under the gambling regulation when real money is transferred in most situations. So the federal law doesn't apply to games of chance, it applies to what is already
Yes, Unjust enrichment was the term I was looking for.
Two main points first, then I will explain. In unjust enrichment, the owner is entitled to either actual costs as would be charged normally or any increased the law provides for. The second was that I'm in no way attempting to validate Hatches or anyone else' numbers, that was never my intent. My intent was always to show that because someone used something to their benefit, the concept of "I wouldn't have purchased it anyways" doesn't negate a loss of entitled exchange.
Now, to get a little more detailed about it. If you normally charge X for a products and someone is considered to be unjustly enriching themselves (taking the benefit without proper payment) then you are entitled to X in return. But when the state says this is a problem and bumps X to Y where Y = Costs+fine+Penalty, the concept hasn't changed, just the process in which you seek justice and the reward. The owner is still entitles to restitution based on the new state formula C+F+P. The effect is that after the fact of the piracy, something is expected to be owed regardless of anyone's intent of ever purchasing it because of the unjust enrichment. However illegitimacy C+F+P or anything in between is doesn't negate that expectation.
I don't think you are actually arguing over whether or not they are entitled to something as much as how much now they are entitled to. I never attempted to address that nor will I.
Well, I'm not sure if that is a local (state) precedence or if that carry across the country. Anyways, that's true that they can't show a loss until you set up hit squads who change the model of business from offering quality entertainment for a fee to suing anyone you think isn't paying then settling for another large fee. That shows a loss as in a loss of sales because all of those who settled more or less agreed that they would have normally p
Actually, no he doesn't.
Hatch is a copyright holder and most of his positions concerning copyright stem from his wanting to protect his own interest.
I also just checked and copyright isn't anywhere near the republican platform and hasn't been in a while. It was back in the late 1990's when the DMCA was coming around because it was created out of the ratification of two WIPO treaties , the WPPT and WCT which were designed to protect foreign copyright in any country. This mean that other countries with laxed rules would have to honor the other countries copyrights and that meant more money coming into the US. After the DMCA was created, other countries started backing off of thier commitments.
As for agreeing with his speech but not him, that's propably because this has been largely a bipartisan issue for a long time. When RIAA lobies congress, they don't lobby one party more then another outside the majority in the respected houses. They lobby all the congress critters.
There is a legal concept called enrichment (if I remember correctly) which basically says you can't use someone else's property to your benefit without their permission. The premises of this concept is not in denying the use of the property but in you gaining something illegitimately. An example of this might be where I know your going to be out of town, use the key you left me to look after your home and find your season hockey tickets and goto a game without your permission even though you have offered to let me use the tickets in the past for $20. A more penalizing example might be me taking your lawnmower and mowing other people's yards for profit while you are at work even if I rebuilt the engine, replaced the blades and removed all forms of wear and tear and you had no clue it was happening.
What this concept does is presents the premise that by using the product offered for sale or rent, regardless if the intent to ever purchase it or otherwise pay for it, then the owner is entitled to normal costs for the duration of your use or possession. It doesn't really matter if it is tangible, digital or deprives anyone of a physical possession or not, it's that once you became enriched, you owe the normal fees. Using this concept, then all pirated movied, software, whatever is considered a loss and is how they compute the figures.
When you say where did the money go, you are right in that it went no were but you aren't right in that the owners are not entitled to it, because conceptually, they are.
Don't take this as indication of my support for or against anything happening. I'm just explaining how they come up with those numbers and justify them. Piracy can be seen as a lost sale because whoever pirated it or received it from a pirate was enriched without the proper compensation to the owners. What would be interesting is to actually see the situation where there was no piracy. I'm betting they spend millions to fight against it and if no piracy existed, their sales would probably drop by more then that amount making it more of a actual operating loss to them if piracy never existed.
Oh, you mean I should know that despite having all the information at your fingertips I shouldn't be surprised when you refuse to examine any of it and instead troll..
No, I'm not surprised, and I'm not surprised that you are refusing to address any of the actual information presented other then saying "nuh-uh". However, other people read this and showing them you ignorance does help set the record straight and prevent the fictional reality that has cropped into the real world.
I think it was the UN being scared that if we ousted Saddam in the first war that all of Iraqs neighbors would have swooped in to claim the resulting territory causing a middle east equivilent of a world war. This is also a reason why Bush concentrated on rebuilding Iraq and stating it was "regime change" and not punishment.
Dude, just read the UN quarterly reports to the security counsel. Fox news has nothing to do with that, it's all in there and it was all reported under Hans Blix even though he was one of the loudest screamers of antiwar and claims that Iraq had no WMDs. i actually have a document I create from them which points out to ever statement between 2000 and 2003 that contradicts Hans Blix's public statements but it's lengthy. You should be able to scan through them and find it all on your own.
Nah, I don't think Bush thought much about it. The length of the war was pretty much caused by all the stalling we did which allowed protest in turkey to force us out of entering from there. The original plan was to use small amounts of troops with large reserves in order to keep the footprint small and entice battles out of Iraq. This would have killed most of the people who later became insurgents while allowing the reserves to come in, mop up and stabilize the security. But without the two front assault, we had to enter from the south with a large overwhelming force which caused the opposite effect and lead to the situations where we had no support in place to keep the peace and effect a transition. It was literally two different wars with two different outcomes because of the two different tactics.
Here is where your argument breaks down. First, the EU had already implemented Kyoto which meant their oil use was going to drop. Second, there was never any oil shortages and therfore never any need for oil. The price hikes we saw was from hedge investors taking stock in oil futures in attempts to place the valuation of the dollar. They could literally sell the futures for spot price at a loss and profit because of changes in the value of the dollar. The problem with that is when normal companies who use oil attempt to secure long term runs, it drives the price up because even though there is more then enough physical oil, the amount of buyers doubled with people who could never take possession of the oil. And of course this also drove the spot prices up. When OPEC decides to raise production and the cost of oil increases as what happened several times during this period, you can see the disconnect between supply and demand of the actual product.
There was never any shortage of oil and Iraq'a production wouldn't have made a difference.
That's nothing more then speculation on your part. The fact is that the companies used at the time were the only ones large enough to offer the range of services needed. No other
Poker is gambling. It's gambling that people have found ways to be skilled at more then others but it is gambling that relies on chance. And it doesn't matter if real money is present or not because in this case, we are talking about real money being frozen by the feds that was supposed to go to some of the players participating in it.
Anyways, the difference between real money and fake money is one of a legal definition. Some fake money can be considered real money if the fake money could be used to purchase goods or services that are also availible for real money transactions. of course that will vary from state to state but it's the law in my state. An example of this is where a skeet ball game at one of those pizza party game room places was legally considered gambling because the prizes were availible for purchase as well as the tickets could have been traded in for game tokens and food items. The particular store I know of had to change their operation and only allow the tickets to be exchanged for prizes separate from anything that could be purchased there as well as pay a hefty fine. I think the fine was a little anal from the state but they didn't distinguish between not knowing the law and knowing it.
I would say it's just as much sovereignty as it is contract because the contract limits sovereignty and the interpretations are making new limits that we didn't agree to thereby removing sovereignty. If the terms of the treaty was followed, then it would be impossible for the ruling to come out the way it did. They ultimately used the interstate horse race betting law to justify Federal approved gambling that doesn't exist. All those laws do, and did for 20 years before we signed on to the agreements, is say that if states allow off track gambling that crosses a state line, the devices and races have to be from an approved and regulated organization and track meeting the standard of certain semi-private nation wide or otherwise prominent organization.
The interesting part is that the specific justification was never brought up in the arbitration, it was just piled on without response at the end with the ruling but was never a point of complaint or justification during the proceedings. In other words, there was never any chance to competently respond to it or explain what the law meant or how the states rights and the limits on the constitution work, they more or less pulled it out of thin air. You can easily see why something like this would happen, it's because someone was looking for something on the arbitration panel instead of just mitigating the original complains which was completely dismissed. The effect is that someone went out on their own who was supposed to be deciding the validity of complains and more or less created their own complaint based around the incorrect interpretation of a law and the lack of understanding in how the US governing structure works. This is why US senators on both sides said they would start a trade war and withdraw from the WTO before following the ruling.
Fuck dude, it's all there in black and white. Read the damn shit and figure it out on your own and trust yourself. It isn't rocket science or some obscure brand of astrophysics, it's right there. You can't read it, understand it, and not come to the same conclusion I did. All the shit I pasted was out of the treaty and the rulings along with the appeals. The stuff is publicly availible and on line so the only thing stopping you is laziness.
No, you lose and yes, you are sorry. Your not even looking at the information availible at your finger tips and instead taking the word of others through blind trust because you want to support that outcome. You are intellectually lazy and a moron. If you invested just a few minutes into verifying what I said, you would be in total agreement with me. If you actually look at the treaty, the dispute process and the arbitration ruling and somehow find I am in error, then bring that up based on what you found, not your own preconceived idea of something that isn't even relevant.
The citizens of each country are subject to the laws of that country. You can't argue any different because that is a simple fact. It appears that you aren't even arguing facts but whatever you can think of to support offshore gambling. The casino's are doing business in the US, when the payouts, and US citizens enter the online casino's, they are subject to US laws and the laws of the states or jurisdiction in which they reside.
The Ruling never should have been made the way it was, it was either severe incompetence or malicious activity that caused it. It's based on nothing that's true in reality, and it ignore the damn treaties in which it attempts to base the ruling from.
No, not that it matters. What the topic right is about isn't whether it should or should be legal to gamble, it's about the WTO dispute process being severely broken, ignoring reality, taking US law out of context, and ignoring the entire treaty that it was attempting to enforce. Words have meanings for a reason, it's so people understand what is being communicated and the law they cited didn't do what they claimed it did as well as specific wording in the treaty made exceptions for the states rights as with how the US is set up.
Again, if you can read the shit without ignoring things, find something I am wrong on, then bring it up and we can discuss it. Until then, you wanting things to be a certain way doesn't change any of the realities I pointed out. All it does is make you look like a moron.
I just gave you the citation, I told you his theory-gimmick.
They spread the winning out throughout the roll. Each roll has a set amount of winner in it and the clerk usually can tell you if the big hits have been cashed in. Scratch off tickets are a scam anyways. They sell the store the entire roll of tickets for a certain amount. Of those tickets, there will be a certain amount paid and of that certain amount there will be so many in incremental denominations. IF they randomly placed the winners all up front, then the store would have a more difficult time selling the rest of the role and making their money back.
Anyways, go in and talk to the clerks at the gas stations. They have a good idea when the rolls will start hitting. Many of them do the same as this guy and if your not a dick and yell citation needed over some theory some guy I know created to justify his gambling odds, they might just tell you.
I believe it was a Texas state law but because it was broad cast in TX, it applied. I'm not sure if it was all congress or not.
Anyways, the intent of the law is so that people can't ruin farmers by telling lies and making their crop/product spoil or lose to much value before being sold. Farmers work from a very small margin with tons of capitol at stake. A run away from some specific markets has the potential of bankrupting quite a few of them.
Ted Turner on the PBS Charlie Rose program (and no I don't have the link but it's true), said that his biggest fear in starting CNN was that if a right leaning or centered 24 hour news Chanel started up before they started making it really go, it would have ended CNN altogether.
This wasn't the first time he has said something like that. It is the first time I personally heard him say it. People have claimed CNN to be left leaning for years and it appears that the founder designed it that way.
I know you guys are joking, but you might want to sort of be careful in doing so.
The law that Oprah was sued on over the mad cow disease case is still in effect. She only got off because her show attempted to inform people of he issue and not effect prices or the market (well, it's more technical then that but it can be boiled down to that).
Anyways, your comments are specifically addressing one of the points that got her off but in the opposite direction which would have convicted her.
Just so you know. I don't think anyone thought about that in the heat of the "joke and fun".
I would have to totally agree.
An interesting side note. Roosevelt, the guy who started the welfare state, specifically knew that his policies were unconstitutional before he was ever president but refused to back down even after the US supreme court ruled most of them unconstitutional when he was president. As governor of New York, on March 2 1930 (printed in March 3 1930 in the NY Times) he said in a speech on state's rights concerning the Volstead Act and the 18th amendment
Most people don't know that he believed this way. Especially when they look at what he did and raise him as a champion.
There was no barrier to free trade. The only barrier was that foreign companies had to follow the same rules as US companies.
This is not what happened at all. You need to look at the facts, perhaps post under a normal account so I can educate you on them.
Man, you are a fucking idiot aren't you? Your equating something that didn't happen but you think it did which revolves around trade as the invasion of an allied countries and the armistice agreement imposing specific obligations on Saddam and Iraq as a condition to end the war? That takes a stretch so far out there that it more likely you made it out of ignorance then any intellectual thought process. No wonder you posted as AC.
Yes, I do. Do you even remotely know the terms of this contract? It doesn't look like it. Do you even remotely know the conditions of the ruling or the justifications of it or the finding in the appellate panel or the appellate board before it got screwed over in arbitration? Again, it doesn't look like it.
The ruling by the arbitration panel is what is ignoring the rules, the offshore sites are specifically asking to violate US and state law in their course of trade which is not free trade or free access. Free Trade is where all parties are subject to the same rules and regulations. Try learning a little about the situation before going off half cocked. I will provide a link to some of the relevant parts but I suggest you actual learn more about this then what you favorite headline news flashed before you.
No it did not. In your fist statement, there are two false concepts right off the bat, first is in the violation of the contract in which it didn't and the second is in making foreign gambling illegal in which it didn't. The WTO didn't use power granted to them, they invented concepts that were inconsistent with reality and the laws in place. They interpreted a regulatory law as something more then it was and ignored specific exceptions and limitation imposed by the Gats treaty as well a the limitations to binding obligations. If you would have spent a small attempt at understanding what was happening, this would be obvious.
Here is a link where I outlined it more closely and no, I didn't pull the information from Wikipedia, I pulled it directly from the WTO treaty and decisions. Fuck, if it was as simply as your making it out to be, I would agree with you, but it's something entirely different and they made shit up, misconstrued facts, and made a ruling that isn't supported by either the treaty provisions or the textual and common interpretations of US law within the United States.!
That's all fine and dandy when the dispute isn't using made up crap. We didn't give up sovereignty over this and if you read the treaty as well as the ruling you can clearly see shit was made up, taken out of context and rule on inconsistent with the reality it resides in. The US is only bound to the agreement's that it approved, not delusional interpretations that ignore the treaty, the governing structure of the US and everything else involved. Take a look at the treaty and ruling yourself. Here is the meat of it with some comments to why it is absurd. And yes, read all of it especially the end.
This has nothing to do with internet gambling and everything to do with states rights, existing laws, and foreign companies excluding themselves from US law. Internet gambling is availible in the US under a specific set of rules and all foreign companies have to follow those rules. If they don't then it's their move, not ours, that is restricting their access.
Now it seems that not only are you severely challenged mentally in this conversation (you have no clue about the text of the treaty, the rulings, or the laws justifying the ruling that was taken out of context), that you are also letting political ideals and biased dictate your incorrect understanding of the events. Please stop this, take a couple of minutes to learn what the hell your talking about, and we can have a competent discussion if you want.