I don't think those terrorist in france were laying in wait when they killed those two cops- both of which,, had they been armed could have not only lived but stopped the deaths of innocent civilians that happened after the execution of the cops.
I think maybe you wish life was a hollywood movie as reality has recently showed the failures of your fallacy. But i guess something like that will not stop you. You see, i said when they are required to be ready fir duty- you tried to change it to defendibg from an ambush. If we cannot addresss the statements actualky said without perverting it to fit the world as you want it, we cannot have a conversation.
The seats up for election- outside a special election to fill a premature vacancy, is set in the constitutions of the US and states. They are not subject to manipulations.
Better? I think the question of how a large outside the constitution- government controlled and subject to ever changing political whims- alternative is actually the standard in which you can define better from?
Oh, and bonus points if you can defend the position of ever expanding government without regard to the constitutional role of government while expecting government to follow the constitution in matters of search and seizure, due process, and other freedoms and rights the people expect to enjoy.
There really isn't an equivalent law in Canada just fraud. Canada does break it down for telemarketing it appears but this would just be fraud in Canada and only a 10 year sentence.
However, Canada can push the US to prosecute and they likely will. That's where the 20 years is good. These guys did not go to Canada, send the letters, and come back. They did it in interstate commerce and are just as subject to US law as Canada's.
A cop needs to be armed any time he is expected to be ready for duty which include taking a piss or eating a meal on his shift.the idea that this somehow encourages abuse of power is completely moronic and you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you disarm cops, you will end up with them begging for their lives just before being murdered like in france instead of taking the murderous thugs down and preventing them from killing more innocent civilians.
I think your 2 cents has suffered from inflation. I cannot tell if you are trolling or seriously think your old and outdated impresons of linux is worth anything at all. The names you mention are alnost ten years changed. It sort of like exclaiming that windows sucks because you had WindowsME installed.
Anyways, unless you are some die hard windows or Mac fanboy, i suggest you dust off a partition and look at a modern distro. Judging from the names you mentioned, i would advise staying away from a debian based system but i know there are competent ones out there. I personally like netrunner but felt uncomfortable with it at first due to my earlier use of redhat type systems.
Anyways, you will find something a lot different than what you remenber.
Google did not support anything in this case. The only reason the name is brought up is because it is attached to a fund Google agree to create years ago to escape legal problems in france. Google has no say in how it is used or the present use.
I was thinking the same thing. When i first saw the headlines i thought "why in the hell would they do something like this for a company like that?". Then i realized that the only connection to google was that they agreed to pay the french years ago and that money is being used now.
You should look up thighing. Its not safe for work but given the knowledge of that, what you present doesn't surprise me. Make sure you search youtube for it too. There was a cool video where a female news repirter went off on some guy who was describing it as if it was manly or something.
I've talked with several Arabs and Persions who say they were disgusted at the idea so it should not be assumed they all are like that.
Is your reading comprehension broken? Do you even know what that is? He did not get any purple hearts while stationed on the USS Gridely. The ship was anchored in a safe port in the Vietnam theater and his duty did not take him into unsafe areas while serving on it. He did not go into harms way until he transfered to the swift boats where he recieved all his purple hearts for reletively minor injuries.
I don't know how to spell it out ant more clearly. Perhaps if you still do not understand, you can ask your mom to draw you a picture or something.
There comes a point and time in life when you just got to say "fuck it" and just kill the bastards advocating you be killed. If not, you will lose your opportunity forever.
Typically, I would reserve that sentiment for the times when someone carrying a weapon is headed for you saying you are dead now, but I do not really see the difference between the thug in charge passing orders to his minions or the thug actually coming after me if the result is more than likely to be serious bodily harm or death. It's sort of like car jackings, you are likely to suffer serious bodily harm or death if one happens to you, the same is likely when some idiot trying to follow the scam of some illiterate pedophile who created a religion based on drunken ramblings of other religions declares you should be dead because you offended their imagined view of the illiterate pedophile.
I say when they demonstrate that bad speech might kill you, you just kill them instead.
There likely is no difference. The use of guns was likely used because the GP used the term which was likely in reference to the the situation in France last week which this article is about and is still on a lot of people's mind.
What are the problems and what are the steps to "prevent the re-occurrence of the same problem in the future"? Killing them all and letting God sort it out doesn't seem practical to me. Passing laws seem to well, end up just like in France where they ignored the gun laws and the murder laws, a lot of traffic laws.
Is there some way to actually deal with the problem that in and of itself is not also a problem?
A cop should not have to disarm to use the pisser or walk into a bathroom to wash his hands where you might be using it. A cop should not have to disarm to eat lunch at a diner and his mere presence should not mandate that your conversations about not being able to find a girl friend or whatever in the booth behind him is being recorded and subject to public FOIA requests.
How about having the arrest warrants issued for Extortion, and applying to have the CEO of Rightscorp extradited to Canada for trial and 10 years imprisonment?
Why not just call it what it is under US law and make a strong complaint to US government officials requesting prosecution.
I think it is possible to say that they devised a scheme to obtain money by false pretenses and representations (listing the wrong penalties of law) and caused to be transmitted by wire in foreign commerce and could be imprisoned for 20 years and fined under the wire fraud statutes.
But, understand that a summary judgment will also stop at the 49th, as well.
Unless the Canadian has US assets, mind you.
Not necessarily.
The distinguishing issue here is copyright. Current treaty law allows one to enforce copyright registered in one country in other member countries. The exact process for this is somewhat convoluted as the treaties (more specifically the WCT, WPPT, and the Berne Convention) have provisions included that require the signatory countries to set up processes for this enforcement and if there isn't, then the process in the registered country will be substituted as far as the requirements under the treaty allow (Berne Convention).
Under this scenario, if someone violated a provision under the treaty- like copyright infringement- the author or recognized rights holder would have to use the system set up in the country the infringement took place and that system would have to suffice unless there is no protection in place. At that point, the authors home country protections (where the copyright was first recognized) could be enforced. So a lawsuit in the US could be enforced in another country if they signed the treaties and those governments should/could allow the "Enforcement of the judgements" to the extent as they comply with their own laws using a process called lex fori and Comity.
Clearly here in this current situation, only Canadian law can be enforced under the treaty so an American company could only suit for infringement in Canadian courts under Canadian law. However, if Canada had no law concerning this or it was another country without a law, then a suit in US court would/could proceed and once the judgement is final, they would go to a Canadian (or other country if it happened in another country) court and ask for enforcement of a foreign judgement. The Canadian court would look at the reasons for the judgement, local law as well as the treaties claimed to be governing them, and if they found enough cause, would enter a judgement of the same without hearing the merits of the case. Now this judgement is enforceable under Canadian law in any way normally allowed in Canada (or other country).
But it should be noted that most foreign countries refuse this quite a lot based on excessive punitive damages which means if a case proceeded in absentia (the defendant wasn't present) and the maximum legal damages were awarded, the foreign court would most likely laugh it away.
So there is a way for a judgement to be enforced in Canada even though it is unlikely and would violate the copyright treaties.
lol.. Looks to me like you posted AC because you essentially attempted countered his request for empirical validation with misdirection and unsupported accusations.
He is right thought. It is political in nature. If there was empirical validation, the only question would be what, if anything, to do about it. But so far, it appears that the only thing being offered is to impose taxes and strict controls which oppress the people on developed nations while ignoring developing and undeveloped nations and possibly exploiting them for their lack of restrictions. But if you actually saw Climate Change or more specifically Anthropogenic Climate Change as a valid threat, it would appear the answers would be to create a working group with the goals of developing the technology to make existing energy sources cleaner as well as clean alternatives and to make this information available to all parties concerned so they could implement it as it becomes reliable and economically feasible. But political control and transfer of wealth seems to be the current solutions which should always be met with strict opposition.
His tour of duty in Vietnam was for 4 months and ended at his request to be transferred back to the states. Well, that is if you discount the the 3 or 4 months on the USS Gridley which was stationed in a safe port launching helicopters and rescue missions to retrieve downed pilots. Kerry never was in harms way as he didn't go on those missions or was the ship under fire. His third purple heart was awarded for what was described as slightly injured and bruising.
The op you are responding to said "his tour of duty in Vietnam was ridiculously short " not his total length of service. One might also argue that his service in the Gulf of Tonkin on the USS Gridely wouldn't count as a tour of duty in Vietnam but I think it is technically close enough to actually count.
How about you retaliate or report the problems ti the site owners getting them a ban. Or perhaps you could draw a cartoon with them holding hands with the prophit mohomed while a jew sodomizes a pig and Jesus marries them?
Or better yet, just do something else for a while? Its not like using different accounts or email addresses or visiting people face to face instead of online, going to the park or something is going to kill you/them/anyone. Why do we need laws for something so easily dealt with knowing those laws will eventually be morphed into encroachments on free speech and likely make that cartoon idea illegal because it bothers people.
First, the OP and GP set the groups- not me. However, I do not see how you can fail to have groups when the discussion is about two groups or people defined by their religion.
And yes, the argument specifically was something to do with Islam. The GP said
The resulting legacy of Islam is that for 1600 years, it has destroyed civilizations it has infiltrated.
which the parent actually quoted. His reply was not a well constructed argument into why or how that was incorrect, but simply to show other groups do it to which raised my comment about how stupid it is to accept the atrocities of the present because they at one time happened in the past.
Now, this next part sort of makes it appear as if you have your ears plugged and hands over your eyes.
start acknoledging that everyone is an induvidual who is responsible for his/her own actions (and no-one else's)
When those individuals claim to be acting on behalf of a group, when that group defines itself by the same sources as the hate the perpetrators used to justify their actions, when the overwhelming majority of others within the group fail to denounce the acts and instead cheer it on, it is safe to say it is more than a couple of crazy people acting out of turn.
You may not like that, you may even need to look a little further than the two members of the group you personally know, but if you continue to ignore it, things will only get worse.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think those terrorist in france were laying in wait when they killed those two cops- both of which ,, had they been armed could have not only lived but stopped the deaths of innocent civilians that happened after the execution of the cops.
I think maybe you wish life was a hollywood movie as reality has recently showed the failures of your fallacy. But i guess something like that will not stop you. You see, i said when they are required to be ready fir duty- you tried to change it to defendibg from an ambush. If we cannot addresss the statements actualky said without perverting it to fit the world as you want it, we cannot have a conversation.
Sigh.. why are you surprised that when you expect government to be in charge of science that the politicians who run the government end up in charge?
Lol.. i can see why you posted anonymously.
The seats up for election- outside a special election to fill a premature vacancy, is set in the constitutions of the US and states. They are not subject to manipulations.
You cannot gerrymander the senate which was the premise and where Cruz is seated.
Better? I think the question of how a large outside the constitution- government controlled and subject to ever changing political whims- alternative is actually the standard in which you can define better from?
Oh, and bonus points if you can defend the position of ever expanding government without regard to the constitutional role of government while expecting government to follow the constitution in matters of search and seizure, due process, and other freedoms and rights the people expect to enjoy.
There really isn't an equivalent law in Canada just fraud. Canada does break it down for telemarketing it appears but this would just be fraud in Canada and only a 10 year sentence.
However, Canada can push the US to prosecute and they likely will. That's where the 20 years is good. These guys did not go to Canada, send the letters, and come back. They did it in interstate commerce and are just as subject to US law as Canada's.
A cop needs to be armed any time he is expected to be ready for duty which include taking a piss or eating a meal on his shift.the idea that this somehow encourages abuse of power is completely moronic and you should be ashamed of yourself.
If you disarm cops, you will end up with them begging for their lives just before being murdered like in france instead of taking the murderous thugs down and preventing them from killing more innocent civilians.
I think your 2 cents has suffered from inflation. I cannot tell if you are trolling or seriously think your old and outdated impresons of linux is worth anything at all. The names you mention are alnost ten years changed. It sort of like exclaiming that windows sucks because you had WindowsME installed.
Anyways, unless you are some die hard windows or Mac fanboy, i suggest you dust off a partition and look at a modern distro. Judging from the names you mentioned, i would advise staying away from a debian based system but i know there are competent ones out there. I personally like netrunner but felt uncomfortable with it at first due to my earlier use of redhat type systems.
Anyways, you will find something a lot different than what you remenber.
Well, they were on double super secret probation after all.
Google did not support anything in this case. The only reason the name is brought up is because it is attached to a fund Google agree to create years ago to escape legal problems in france. Google has no say in how it is used or the present use.
I was thinking the same thing. When i first saw the headlines i thought "why in the hell would they do something like this for a company like that?". Then i realized that the only connection to google was that they agreed to pay the french years ago and that money is being used now.
You should look up thighing. Its not safe for work but given the knowledge of that, what you present doesn't surprise me. Make sure you search youtube for it too. There was a cool video where a female news repirter went off on some guy who was describing it as if it was manly or something.
I've talked with several Arabs and Persions who say they were disgusted at the idea so it should not be assumed they all are like that.
Is your reading comprehension broken? Do you even know what that is? He did not get any purple hearts while stationed on the USS Gridely. The ship was anchored in a safe port in the Vietnam theater and his duty did not take him into unsafe areas while serving on it. He did not go into harms way until he transfered to the swift boats where he recieved all his purple hearts for reletively minor injuries.
I don't know how to spell it out ant more clearly. Perhaps if you still do not understand, you can ask your mom to draw you a picture or something.
There comes a point and time in life when you just got to say "fuck it" and just kill the bastards advocating you be killed. If not, you will lose your opportunity forever.
Typically, I would reserve that sentiment for the times when someone carrying a weapon is headed for you saying you are dead now, but I do not really see the difference between the thug in charge passing orders to his minions or the thug actually coming after me if the result is more than likely to be serious bodily harm or death. It's sort of like car jackings, you are likely to suffer serious bodily harm or death if one happens to you, the same is likely when some idiot trying to follow the scam of some illiterate pedophile who created a religion based on drunken ramblings of other religions declares you should be dead because you offended their imagined view of the illiterate pedophile.
I say when they demonstrate that bad speech might kill you, you just kill them instead.
Free to do anything except to live which I think is a prerequisite for the ability to do just about anything else they may want to do.
There likely is no difference. The use of guns was likely used because the GP used the term which was likely in reference to the the situation in France last week which this article is about and is still on a lot of people's mind.
I'm curious.
What are the problems and what are the steps to "prevent the re-occurrence of the same problem in the future"? Killing them all and letting God sort it out doesn't seem practical to me. Passing laws seem to well, end up just like in France where they ignored the gun laws and the murder laws, a lot of traffic laws.
Is there some way to actually deal with the problem that in and of itself is not also a problem?
I thought BSD died?
That's just silly.
A cop should not have to disarm to use the pisser or walk into a bathroom to wash his hands where you might be using it. A cop should not have to disarm to eat lunch at a diner and his mere presence should not mandate that your conversations about not being able to find a girl friend or whatever in the booth behind him is being recorded and subject to public FOIA requests.
Why not just call it what it is under US law and make a strong complaint to US government officials requesting prosecution.
In the US, it is considered wire fraud to -
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
I think it is possible to say that they devised a scheme to obtain money by false pretenses and representations (listing the wrong penalties of law) and caused to be transmitted by wire in foreign commerce and could be imprisoned for 20 years and fined under the wire fraud statutes.
Not necessarily.
The distinguishing issue here is copyright. Current treaty law allows one to enforce copyright registered in one country in other member countries. The exact process for this is somewhat convoluted as the treaties (more specifically the WCT, WPPT, and the Berne Convention) have provisions included that require the signatory countries to set up processes for this enforcement and if there isn't, then the process in the registered country will be substituted as far as the requirements under the treaty allow (Berne Convention).
Under this scenario, if someone violated a provision under the treaty- like copyright infringement- the author or recognized rights holder would have to use the system set up in the country the infringement took place and that system would have to suffice unless there is no protection in place. At that point, the authors home country protections (where the copyright was first recognized) could be enforced. So a lawsuit in the US could be enforced in another country if they signed the treaties and those governments should/could allow the "Enforcement of the judgements" to the extent as they comply with their own laws using a process called lex fori and Comity.
Clearly here in this current situation, only Canadian law can be enforced under the treaty so an American company could only suit for infringement in Canadian courts under Canadian law. However, if Canada had no law concerning this or it was another country without a law, then a suit in US court would/could proceed and once the judgement is final, they would go to a Canadian (or other country if it happened in another country) court and ask for enforcement of a foreign judgement. The Canadian court would look at the reasons for the judgement, local law as well as the treaties claimed to be governing them, and if they found enough cause, would enter a judgement of the same without hearing the merits of the case. Now this judgement is enforceable under Canadian law in any way normally allowed in Canada (or other country).
But it should be noted that most foreign countries refuse this quite a lot based on excessive punitive damages which means if a case proceeded in absentia (the defendant wasn't present) and the maximum legal damages were awarded, the foreign court would most likely laugh it away.
So there is a way for a judgement to be enforced in Canada even though it is unlikely and would violate the copyright treaties.
lol.. Looks to me like you posted AC because you essentially attempted countered his request for empirical validation with misdirection and unsupported accusations.
He is right thought. It is political in nature. If there was empirical validation, the only question would be what, if anything, to do about it. But so far, it appears that the only thing being offered is to impose taxes and strict controls which oppress the people on developed nations while ignoring developing and undeveloped nations and possibly exploiting them for their lack of restrictions. But if you actually saw Climate Change or more specifically Anthropogenic Climate Change as a valid threat, it would appear the answers would be to create a working group with the goals of developing the technology to make existing energy sources cleaner as well as clean alternatives and to make this information available to all parties concerned so they could implement it as it becomes reliable and economically feasible. But political control and transfer of wealth seems to be the current solutions which should always be met with strict opposition.
His tour of duty in Vietnam was for 4 months and ended at his request to be transferred back to the states. Well, that is if you discount the the 3 or 4 months on the USS Gridley which was stationed in a safe port launching helicopters and rescue missions to retrieve downed pilots. Kerry never was in harms way as he didn't go on those missions or was the ship under fire. His third purple heart was awarded for what was described as slightly injured and bruising.
The op you are responding to said "his tour of duty in Vietnam was ridiculously short " not his total length of service. One might also argue that his service in the Gulf of Tonkin on the USS Gridely wouldn't count as a tour of duty in Vietnam but I think it is technically close enough to actually count.
How about you retaliate or report the problems ti the site owners getting them a ban. Or perhaps you could draw a cartoon with them holding hands with the prophit mohomed while a jew sodomizes a pig and Jesus marries them?
Or better yet, just do something else for a while? Its not like using different accounts or email addresses or visiting people face to face instead of online, going to the park or something is going to kill you/them/anyone. Why do we need laws for something so easily dealt with knowing those laws will eventually be morphed into encroachments on free speech and likely make that cartoon idea illegal because it bothers people.
First, the OP and GP set the groups- not me. However, I do not see how you can fail to have groups when the discussion is about two groups or people defined by their religion.
And yes, the argument specifically was something to do with Islam. The GP said
which the parent actually quoted. His reply was not a well constructed argument into why or how that was incorrect, but simply to show other groups do it to which raised my comment about how stupid it is to accept the atrocities of the present because they at one time happened in the past.
Now, this next part sort of makes it appear as if you have your ears plugged and hands over your eyes.
When those individuals claim to be acting on behalf of a group, when that group defines itself by the same sources as the hate the perpetrators used to justify their actions, when the overwhelming majority of others within the group fail to denounce the acts and instead cheer it on, it is safe to say it is more than a couple of crazy people acting out of turn.
You may not like that, you may even need to look a little further than the two members of the group you personally know, but if you continue to ignore it, things will only get worse.