Sigh.. the law defines what cannabis is not you. You cannot claim a hammer and pribar is a key so you didn't break and enter. Calling something by a different name doesn't change what it is. A rose by any other name....
Its not interpreting federal law, it is interpreting the circumstances.
I don't know what you are talking about and evidently neither do you. Congress has voted to remove that wording several times now. Even Obama references those attempts.
And no. Congress was definitely not ambiguous in the wording on this. Supports made mention of it as a tool to force republican governors to create state exchanges when promoting the law to supporters.
This is twice now that scotus has changed plain language wording or ignored it altogether in this law in order to keep it alive.
Seriously, There would be no cars if that was not true. Life is full of acceptable losses and acceptable risks. You just try to mitigate them as much as possible or practical.
Not really. Gasoline is much more like a utility than a commodity in its demand. There is somewhat of a captive market controlled by an oligopoly. In a normal market what you say is completely true but with oil it becomes distorted.
First there is the sunken costs. Someone who pays $20k for a car doesn't have the luxury of abandoning it when oil prices jump. The same is true with home heating and such. Second, even if they could, the alternatives are even more costly and it would seriously disrupt the lifestyle of most people. Getting to and from work or the store is essential to most people and public transport (where available ) doesn't eliminate the usages - it just transfers who pays the costs. Finally, population growth and urban sprawl means more usages even with conservation efforts and increasing efficiency. You could say it is somewhat of a captive market.
While there are limits to some of this like collapsing the economy,(like leading up to 2008) there is a lot of room before that happens. There is almost a guaranteed volume of sales and increases over time. Efficiency and alternatives slow the increase but have yet to replace it.
Repossession companies use this a lot. You can take static locations (the cam car was sitting still ) and narrow down the likely location of an asset to within about ten or twenty minutes of searching.
The real problem is with who has access to the info. The repo companies will generally only be able to identify vehicles they are actively looking for. But just like a general warrant which the fourth amendment was addressing, you can build a significant circumstantial case against someone or expose personal information for malicious reasons. For instance, suppose you logged taking some friends home after a few drinks. Some businesses get robbed in that area but they get robbed all the time because it is a bad area. A year later, you help the campaign of some local politician trying to unseat the longstanding mayor and all the sudden you are being investigated for connections to those robberies. You forgot you were even in the area and after proclaiming how preposterous the investigation is, the cam data makes you appear to be lying. Or even worse, suppose you saw a shrink after the loss of a loved one and the cam data shows you in the parking lot of the shrink. You are running for office and now it's revealed that you have mental issues.
What if this anonymous speaker turns out to be the staff of his political opposition? Certainly election law comes into play. Does that change anything for you?
You mean like you who beats your spouse, goes on drunken tirades and molests your own children?
Now i understand you don't want to respond to those allegations because it might appear as if you have some reason to be sensitive to them. And not responding to them doesn't mean you acknowledge they are true but we all know the truth.
If the ISP was notified about the lawsuit - they kept the logs. Destroying evidence or failure to take steps to preserve evidence in your possession can cost them some serious bank if it no longer exists.
Sure they do. Here is just one, there are many others. They have been calling for opening cuba for quite a while now. Rumor was it was going to happen in 2009 but Cuba arrested and USAID worker delivering communications equipment.
And there is a lot of money involved in there too. Corporate farming spends a lot of money on politics and cargill is one of them.
Dude, you remember ACTA? How Obama said "I don't need to get this ratified because it's already enacted in statutes?"
Same thing applies. There's no statute sending you to jail now for violating copyright then a treaty agreeing to send you to jail for violating copyright is a dead letter until Congress passes a statute.
And you do not think that would happen if they pass the treaty? In fact, the treaty would be law of the land, they would have to. The DMCA was the result of the WTP and WPPT treaties passed. It's also why so many other countries are trying to pass DMCA style laws that get shot down all the time. Their treaty obligations require it.
And posts like this are another reason I think the EFF is great in theory, but stupid in practice. People go to their website, read a comprehensive description of the issue, and come away spouting obvious nonsense..
You can bury you head in the sand all you want, it will not make things different. The EFF is not the only source for this crap, hell, even slashdot have articles posted on it.
And how could we have stayed in?
lol.. by not demanding rediculous concessions that removed their sovereignty and walking away from negotiations when they were baulked at. The Iraqis were willing to renew the bush era SOFA agreement but Obama and team decided that wasn't good enough. He had to put his own brand of stink on it.
Bush recognized them as sovereign with a Parliamentary system. Their PM wanted us out. What was Obama supposed to do? Magic psychic powers?
Leon Panneta seems to think Obama through Iraq under the bus. Iraq's PM did say that exempting US soldiers from Iraqi law was something parliament had to debate and approve, and guess what, they did just that. But Obama kept pushing for more and they couldn't do it in time. This has been discussed to death and the consensus to anyone paying attention is we got out and abandoned Iraq for Obama's political promises. But it's even worse, Obama wanted to distance the US from Iraq so much, he even ignored pleas for airstrikes on ISIS.
At least Obama's failed wars cost less then $1 Trillion, he didn't tank the economy, and his domestic policy got us universal health care.
Yes, the slowest recovery on record and most economist agree that Obama's policies was part of that. Your right, he didn't spend 1 trillion in wars, he thinks leading from behind- so far behind that even people in his own party questions his leadership, is the right thing to do. You see the hell hole the world is in today because of it. The Ukraine was invaded, Iran is about to get nukes and we are mentally masturbating over giving them the abilities to do so while the secretary of state is breaking his legs fucking off at the meetings. ISIS has almost taken over Iraq, Israel doesn't trust us, Turkey is starting an arms race because they do not think NATO will aid them if ISIS makes it past the their borders, Libya is a hell hole that Hillary thought would be a great accomplishment- you know, overthrowing a dictator who already surrendered his WMDs to Bush and red lin
You opened with "It is as if he just decided to reward some rich donors by opening trade to exploit a new poor country." If he wanted to do that he wouldn't be opening trade with Cuba at all. You get more donors (and much more consistant donors) by threatening to bomb Havana back into the stone age.
No you do not. Most of those donors (older Cuban Americans) are republican and would not donate to Obama or the democrats anyways.
He's focusing on things he can do without GOP help that will make him look like a smart, important leader in the history books. The President who ended the dispute with Cuba looks good in the history books.
So this is for show? You mean like how we got our of Iraq was more or less just for show too.. That turned out well. One thing for certain though, the democrats tried to claim Iraq was another Vietnam, now they have turned it into one... Advisers out the ass.. I'm sure this will go swimmingly well too.
With something like this the 'spec' is going to have to be highly changeable, because it's a bilateral relationship. That means they get to change their minds.
He hasn't even been able to articulate a coherent goal. It's like there is no spec at all. You even had to say wait until it is done- then it should make sense and the most you can provide as proof is your faith that he might actually accomplish something that is not a complete failure.
I'll tell you the same thing I told all those idiotic Aanti-NSA Activists trying to fix the problem through the Courts: You need Congress to pass a statute. I love the Electronic Frontier Foundation in theory, but the only thing they actually seem to be good at is convincing people to give them money and then wasting it on things that are not Congress.
If these countries want to freely trade with us our copyright laws and theirs have to match. Otherwise they'd send up DVDs of public domain Mickey Mouse in Fantasia, and Disney would freak out, and everyone who had their 401k in Disney would freak out, and Congress has never ever ever disobeyed the orders of people who own 401ks. Since we're fucking huge we're not gonna change our law to comply with Singapore's.
Did you miss the part where the treaty changes our law and puts jail time for sharing copyrights material? For fucks sake, Napster or whatever is popular now would have half you idiots in jail now. You would be convicted felons had this TPP became law of the land. And you think it's the right thing to do because of investments?
Now all we can do is embarrass Obama right before he steamrolls us on his way to get the "largest free trade deal ever signed" ticket punched for that history book I mentioned.
You are way too optimistic and seem to ignore the obvious. This might be for show again, but if his history has showed us anything, the TPP will be a gigantic failure just like his middle east policy, his Libya policy, Russia and so on. Rome is burning and he wants to look good in a history book.. Wow.
Their choices, since they ran out of good ideas long ago (when beta was overwhelmingly rejected), was to sit there and masturbate or screw with you. It appears they did both at the same time and this is what we have for proof of it.
The easiest way to maximize political donations is find a group with lots of money who only really care about one issue, and be their guy. In extreme cases the "group" can be one guy. Just ask Newt Gingrich about Sheldon Adelson.
By opening up to Cuba Obama pretty much guarantees that Cubans of a certain generation (ie: the one most likely to have $2,500 to donate to a campaign) hate him, and doesn't court anyone else.
I'm lost, if he makes them hate him, how does that prevent them from donating to anyone else? Or do you mean by doing what they don't want, they will not be able to undo it so their interest in politics will dwindle?
If I understand what you are trying to say here, wouldn't it be the same as saying opening relations with Cuba and removing the embargo was done just to damage republicans?
We're talking about while they're finalizing the details. They can;'t even give us the broad strokes of the eventual agreement yet because they don;t know exactly what will work for both sides at the negotiating table. That's the equivalent of judging a software program by how it looks halfway through Alpha when nobody is even sure what the final featureset will be.
Very few people even bother writing software without a spec that lists goals and concepts. People do no sit down and start writing code in hopes that it turns into something useful. There is a spec they aspire to, a goal in mind and it is generally clearly articulate-able before any coding starts. Government policy should be no different. It's bad form to just enter into something hoping it turns out good. But after seeing his leading from behind strategy that brought us ISIS and Ukraine, I understand why you think so. I just don't think you should be so optimistic about the outcomes. Nothing he has approached like this has turned out well for anyone involved so far.
Which is a lot easier to do with fast-track authority then without.
But it wouldn't be a free trade deal then..lol.
Most business today is information, and information is what's protected by copyright. So you need both copyright and patents in the deal.
Yes and strict jail time and so on too I guess. Some things are just wrong.
The free speech zones are not about your message being liked or not, it's about your message interrupting others in their message and your message becoming violent and disruptive.
If you don't like it citizen, you can run for office and change it.
Or you could come in the middle of the night covering your face and put up signs and posters saying the same and come morning it will be there.
Let's stop pretending that all public places have no means or anonymity. Someone recently went around placing notes about some KKK group and candy on people's porches in my area. The candy I suppose was to entice children to read the notes if they saw them before their parents I guess.
Of course my porch was skipped. I have a couple very large dogs and signs saying "trespassers will be violated" and "hidden fence, dogs run loose on property".
I have two facebook accounts for things just like that. One is a political leaning account and the other is a random IT like account where I only look at or view interests of those nature on each account. I don't post anything or mark anyone friends or participate outside of that. I probably spend more time trying to remember the log in and passwords for the accounts than I do on them. but in the rare occasion some idiot thinks it's the only way to get their message out, I do end up being about to see it just before I email blast their PR department about how much of an unprofessional idiot a facebook only thing makes them appear.
If he wanted to maximize donations he'd keep the embargo in place. There's a lot of wealthy Cubans in Miami.
What does wealthy cubans have to do with it? The amount of people who donate is much larger than a sub groups of people who typically swing republican anyways.
I suspect that once the deals with Cuba are finalized his policy towards them will look a lot more coherent.
Maybe it is a bad policy to begin with if you have to wait until it's finished before seeing how it comes together. It's like a kid trying to repair a computer thinking if he clicks on enough buttons or runs scandisk enough times, it will eventually appear to be running better. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut I guess.
Before that it was smog created in the countryside by Mao's disasterous attempt to turn every farm into a steel mill.
So we shouldn't worry about smog when outsourcing to third world countries?
You don't get people who can afford to care about the environment until you get a certain level of economic development, and you don't get that amount of development without a lot of international trade.
Or you can make it a condition of trade and have your cake and eat it too.
But it is less trade, and you do have a lot less influence with countries you have no free trade agreement with.
You mean we can exploit countries we have a free trade agreement with easier. Like with ford moving jobs to Mexico because it's cheaper which wouldn't be possible without NAFTA. It's like this, if they want to trade, they will either just trade or negotiate deals in order to do so. If it's a matter of exploiting those countries to offshore out pollution and take advantage of the cheaper labor, then free trade is a must else you lose all benefits of off-shoring trying to deal with duties and so on reimporting the crap.
That's what this is really about. And I wouldn't call it exactly free trade either. from what we can tell from the leaked documents so far, there is quite a lot of baggage like encryption laws, copyright and patent laws and so on that are wrapped up in this.
Why swipe your thumb for free food when they can allow you to pay with your phone and have not only the receipt of what you purchased but time and location, friends in your contact info who are near you and so on without making anything free. Hell, you will end up paying them to do it.
But I suppose there's a difference between private companies and government.
Hindering process of war can often lead to more death and suffering. Take for instance the estimated casualty rates and time an invasion of Japan was said to cost compared to dropping the A-bombs. Some estimates say it saved 35 million lives and we know the process of war is hell- not that nuking is much better.
Explosives have been used in farming for a long time. They are not as common now because of the availability of heavy machinery. Your state laws are probably similar and no licensing is needed. The permit restrictions i know about in my area are within municipal city limits in surrounding cities. I can understand that because there's more people closer by. But it's not like they can deny the use. Just ensure certain precautions are taken.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure it is to a degree. There was something about a court case in which they inverted it and said that the feds can only withhold additional funds.
But if the point is true and legal, it shows that the court got it wrong.
Sigh.. the law defines what cannabis is not you. You cannot claim a hammer and pribar is a key so you didn't break and enter. Calling something by a different name doesn't change what it is. A rose by any other name. ...
Its not interpreting federal law, it is interpreting the circumstances.
I don't know what you are talking about and evidently neither do you. Congress has voted to remove that wording several times now. Even Obama references those attempts.
And no. Congress was definitely not ambiguous in the wording on this. Supports made mention of it as a tool to force republican governors to create state exchanges when promoting the law to supporters.
This is twice now that scotus has changed plain language wording or ignored it altogether in this law in order to keep it alive.
He didn't say it was too hot, he said there was no snow. In my area we have cold without snow quite often.
The good of the many outweigh the good of one?
Seriously, There would be no cars if that was not true. Life is full of acceptable losses and acceptable risks. You just try to mitigate them as much as possible or practical.
Did their snow machinery break or something? I'm consistently skiing in areas before the first snowfall of the year because they make the snow.
Not really. Gasoline is much more like a utility than a commodity in its demand. There is somewhat of a captive market controlled by an oligopoly. In a normal market what you say is completely true but with oil it becomes distorted.
First there is the sunken costs. Someone who pays $20k for a car doesn't have the luxury of abandoning it when oil prices jump. The same is true with home heating and such. Second, even if they could, the alternatives are even more costly and it would seriously disrupt the lifestyle of most people. Getting to and from work or the store is essential to most people and public transport (where available ) doesn't eliminate the usages - it just transfers who pays the costs. Finally, population growth and urban sprawl means more usages even with conservation efforts and increasing efficiency. You could say it is somewhat of a captive market.
While there are limits to some of this like collapsing the economy,(like leading up to 2008) there is a lot of room before that happens. There is almost a guaranteed volume of sales and increases over time. Efficiency and alternatives slow the increase but have yet to replace it.
Repossession companies use this a lot. You can take static locations (the cam car was sitting still ) and narrow down the likely location of an asset to within about ten or twenty minutes of searching.
The real problem is with who has access to the info. The repo companies will generally only be able to identify vehicles they are actively looking for. But just like a general warrant which the fourth amendment was addressing, you can build a significant circumstantial case against someone or expose personal information for malicious reasons. For instance, suppose you logged taking some friends home after a few drinks. Some businesses get robbed in that area but they get robbed all the time because it is a bad area. A year later, you help the campaign of some local politician trying to unseat the longstanding mayor and all the sudden you are being investigated for connections to those robberies. You forgot you were even in the area and after proclaiming how preposterous the investigation is, the cam data makes you appear to be lying. Or even worse, suppose you saw a shrink after the loss of a loved one and the cam data shows you in the parking lot of the shrink. You are running for office and now it's revealed that you have mental issues.
What if this anonymous speaker turns out to be the staff of his political opposition? Certainly election law comes into play. Does that change anything for you?
The same guy who told Harry Reid that Romney didn't pay taxes told me about it.
You mean like you who beats your spouse, goes on drunken tirades and molests your own children?
Now i understand you don't want to respond to those allegations because it might appear as if you have some reason to be sensitive to them. And not responding to them doesn't mean you acknowledge they are true but we all know the truth.
If the ISP was notified about the lawsuit - they kept the logs. Destroying evidence or failure to take steps to preserve evidence in your possession can cost them some serious bank if it no longer exists.
Sure they do. Here is just one, there are many others. They have been calling for opening cuba for quite a while now. Rumor was it was going to happen in 2009 but Cuba arrested and USAID worker delivering communications equipment.
http://farmfutures.com/story-g...
And there is a lot of money involved in there too. Corporate farming spends a lot of money on politics and cargill is one of them.
And you do not think that would happen if they pass the treaty? In fact, the treaty would be law of the land, they would have to. The DMCA was the result of the WTP and WPPT treaties passed. It's also why so many other countries are trying to pass DMCA style laws that get shot down all the time. Their treaty obligations require it.
You can bury you head in the sand all you want, it will not make things different. The EFF is not the only source for this crap, hell, even slashdot have articles posted on it.
lol.. by not demanding rediculous concessions that removed their sovereignty and walking away from negotiations when they were baulked at. The Iraqis were willing to renew the bush era SOFA agreement but Obama and team decided that wasn't good enough. He had to put his own brand of stink on it.
Leon Panneta seems to think Obama through Iraq under the bus. Iraq's PM did say that exempting US soldiers from Iraqi law was something parliament had to debate and approve, and guess what, they did just that. But Obama kept pushing for more and they couldn't do it in time. This has been discussed to death and the consensus to anyone paying attention is we got out and abandoned Iraq for Obama's political promises. But it's even worse, Obama wanted to distance the US from Iraq so much, he even ignored pleas for airstrikes on ISIS.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06...
Yes, the slowest recovery on record and most economist agree that Obama's policies was part of that. Your right, he didn't spend 1 trillion in wars, he thinks leading from behind- so far behind that even people in his own party questions his leadership, is the right thing to do. You see the hell hole the world is in today because of it. The Ukraine was invaded, Iran is about to get nukes and we are mentally masturbating over giving them the abilities to do so while the secretary of state is breaking his legs fucking off at the meetings. ISIS has almost taken over Iraq, Israel doesn't trust us, Turkey is starting an arms race because they do not think NATO will aid them if ISIS makes it past the their borders, Libya is a hell hole that Hillary thought would be a great accomplishment- you know, overthrowing a dictator who already surrendered his WMDs to Bush and red lin
No you do not. Most of those donors (older Cuban Americans) are republican and would not donate to Obama or the democrats anyways.
So this is for show? You mean like how we got our of Iraq was more or less just for show too.. That turned out well. One thing for certain though, the democrats tried to claim Iraq was another Vietnam, now they have turned it into one... Advisers out the ass.. I'm sure this will go swimmingly well too.
He hasn't even been able to articulate a coherent goal. It's like there is no spec at all. You even had to say wait until it is done- then it should make sense and the most you can provide as proof is your faith that he might actually accomplish something that is not a complete failure.
Did you miss the part where the treaty changes our law and puts jail time for sharing copyrights material? For fucks sake, Napster or whatever is popular now would have half you idiots in jail now. You would be convicted felons had this TPP became law of the land. And you think it's the right thing to do because of investments?
You are way too optimistic and seem to ignore the obvious. This might be for show again, but if his history has showed us anything, the TPP will be a gigantic failure just like his middle east policy, his Libya policy, Russia and so on. Rome is burning and he wants to look good in a history book.. Wow.
Their choices, since they ran out of good ideas long ago
(when beta was overwhelmingly rejected), was to sit there and masturbate or screw with you. It appears they did both at the same time and this is what we have for proof of it.
I'm lost, if he makes them hate him, how does that prevent them from donating to anyone else? Or do you mean by doing what they don't want, they will not be able to undo it so their interest in politics will dwindle?
If I understand what you are trying to say here, wouldn't it be the same as saying opening relations with Cuba and removing the embargo was done just to damage republicans?
Very few people even bother writing software without a spec that lists goals and concepts. People do no sit down and start writing code in hopes that it turns into something useful. There is a spec they aspire to, a goal in mind and it is generally clearly articulate-able before any coding starts. Government policy should be no different. It's bad form to just enter into something hoping it turns out good. But after seeing his leading from behind strategy that brought us ISIS and Ukraine, I understand why you think so. I just don't think you should be so optimistic about the outcomes. Nothing he has approached like this has turned out well for anyone involved so far.
But it wouldn't be a free trade deal then..lol.
Yes and strict jail time and so on too I guess. Some things are just wrong.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
look up a song calls "paging Richard smoker".
You will find a couple good ideas.
The free speech zones are not about your message being liked or not, it's about your message interrupting others in their message and your message becoming violent and disruptive.
If you don't like it citizen, you can run for office and change it.
Or you could come in the middle of the night covering your face and put up signs and posters saying the same and come morning it will be there.
Let's stop pretending that all public places have no means or anonymity. Someone recently went around placing notes about some KKK group and candy on people's porches in my area. The candy I suppose was to entice children to read the notes if they saw them before their parents I guess.
Of course my porch was skipped. I have a couple very large dogs and signs saying "trespassers will be violated" and "hidden fence, dogs run loose on property".
I have two facebook accounts for things just like that. One is a political leaning account and the other is a random IT like account where I only look at or view interests of those nature on each account. I don't post anything or mark anyone friends or participate outside of that. I probably spend more time trying to remember the log in and passwords for the accounts than I do on them. but in the rare occasion some idiot thinks it's the only way to get their message out, I do end up being about to see it just before I email blast their PR department about how much of an unprofessional idiot a facebook only thing makes them appear.
What does wealthy cubans have to do with it? The amount of people who donate is much larger than a sub groups of people who typically swing republican anyways.
Maybe it is a bad policy to begin with if you have to wait until it's finished before seeing how it comes together. It's like a kid trying to repair a computer thinking if he clicks on enough buttons or runs scandisk enough times, it will eventually appear to be running better. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut I guess.
So we shouldn't worry about smog when outsourcing to third world countries?
Or you can make it a condition of trade and have your cake and eat it too.
You mean we can exploit countries we have a free trade agreement with easier. Like with ford moving jobs to Mexico because it's cheaper which wouldn't be possible without NAFTA. It's like this, if they want to trade, they will either just trade or negotiate deals in order to do so. If it's a matter of exploiting those countries to offshore out pollution and take advantage of the cheaper labor, then free trade is a must else you lose all benefits of off-shoring trying to deal with duties and so on reimporting the crap.
That's what this is really about. And I wouldn't call it exactly free trade either. from what we can tell from the leaked documents so far, there is quite a lot of baggage like encryption laws, copyright and patent laws and so on that are wrapped up in this.
Why swipe your thumb for free food when they can allow you to pay with your phone and have not only the receipt of what you purchased but time and location, friends in your contact info who are near you and so on without making anything free. Hell, you will end up paying them to do it.
But I suppose there's a difference between private companies and government.
Hindering process of war can often lead to more death and suffering. Take for instance the estimated casualty rates and time an invasion of Japan was said to cost compared to dropping the A-bombs. Some estimates say it saved 35 million lives and we know the process of war is hell- not that nuking is much better.
No. The sheriff cannot say no.
Explosives have been used in farming for a long time. They are not as common now because of the availability of heavy machinery. Your state laws are probably similar and no licensing is needed. The permit restrictions i know about in my area are within municipal city limits in surrounding cities. I can understand that because there's more people closer by. But it's not like they can deny the use. Just ensure certain precautions are taken.
Without your knowledge is pretty key here. This kid was fully aware of what he was doing and that it was intended to aid terrorist.