Why would he? Bill Gates is much more wealthy than Armand Hammer was. And Bill Gates has donated more money than Armand Hammer was worth. One thing lacking is all the medals Hammer was awarded, however the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation could bring Gates more. The only other is all the friends Hammer had, all the people he knew, however the foundation could help there too.
Both had or have oil interests, Hammer with Oxy and the Gates Foundation is invested in the Italian petroleum giant Eni.
nothing in your arguments means very much. They're still very weak. And yes, any administration would have acted the same. And no, there's no evident that the CDC was supplying checmical weapons.
MS can say whatever they like within the bounds of the law which is pretty liberal in the western world, especially in the US where you don't have our horribly broken but occasionally useful libel laws.
Yea, corporations have rights citizens don't. The US Supreme Court even allows corporations political speech, when they aren't people. And if I'm a stockholder of a corporation that supports a politician I oppose I can't prevent it. I have to put up with it or sell my stocks. Thomas Jefferson's warning about corporations didn't go far enough. Instead of the corporate aristocracy disregarding laws, they buy the politicians who make the laws and the judges who enforce them.
I wouldn't say its the stated goal of Linux to take over desktops,
It may not be a stated goal of the Linux community as a whole but there are some who want it.
I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro and I plan on installing Ubuntu, not Windows, on it as well. I will not buy another MS product if I don't have to unless MS stops the crap it uses. However I don't call for Microsoft to be driven out of business. What I want is more competition than just between Linux distros and other Unices. Competition benefits users.
It's like saying that your microwave oven is broken because a can of tomato soup sitting on the counter isn't getting hot. You have to open the can of soup and put it in the microwave, and then turn the microwave on, before you can expect the soup to get hot.
There's a big, huge, massive difference between them. You have to put the can in the oven, then watch it explode. Teens on the other hand have to agree to abstinence, which most will not. Even those who sign an abstinence pledge don't keep the pledge. Studies support this: Final Nail in the Coffin
"In the most recent study, researchers compared teens who had taken the virginity pledge to those who had not taken a pledge. The researchers found results similar to the aforementioned studies.'
"First, the rate of the teens taking part in sex was the same. Those taking the virginity pledge were just as likely to have intercourse. The only positive, statistically small, was that those taking the pledge had 0.1 fewer sex partners over the five year study than did those who did not take such a pledge. "
The Problem With Virginity Pledges"
"...The problem is that even when these sex ed programs are effective in encouraging teens to remain virginal, "effective" may only mean that the programs have convinced teenagers to avoid vaginal intercourse. But vaginal intercourse is not the only sexual activity that can be hazardous to a person's physical and emotional health; oral and anal sex may not lead to pregnancy, but they can spread sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as gonorrhea, herpes, and HIV."
Are virginity pledges effective?
"Although they were once the sole province of religious organizations, many secular groups and schools now host events where students sign "virginity pledges" as a way to promote pre-marital abstinence. Today, virginity pledges are also part of most abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula and programs. Research has found that under certain conditions these pledges may help some adolescents delay sexual intercourse. When they work, pledges help this select group of adolescents delay the onset of sexual intercourse for an average of 18 months--far short of marriage. However, the studies also found that those young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged. These teens are therefore more vulnerable to the risks of unprotected sexual activity such as unintended pregnancy and STDs, including HIV/AIDS. Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers are more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among "virgins," male and female pledgers are six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers are four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged. And, the research has confirmed that, although some students who take pledges delay intercourse, ultimately they are equally as likely to contract an STD as their non-pledging peers. In fact, researchers found that the STD rates were higher in communities where a significant proportion (over 20%) of the young people had taken virginity pledges. Clearly, virginity pledges are not an effective strategy for keeping young people healthy."
I wouldn't argue that the USA has made no mistakes, but your examples are mostly VERY weak.
Very weak? I don't know what your definition of weak is, but there are photos of Donald Rumsfeld meeting and shaking hands with Saddam as part of Reagan's admin. It was confirmed by 1989 Saddam was using chemical weapons but Bush Sr didn't stop supporting him until he invaded the monarchy led country of Kuwait. Before aid to Saddam ever ended Israel had already sent jets to bomb and destroy a nuclear reactor of Saddam's. That's not very weak.
any administration would have handled these cases the same.
I sincerely hope not. Here the US was supposedly spreading the word about and trying to get countries to become democracy when it opposed it in some nations.
Your "sources" for the US supplying chemical weapons say nothing more than the US having knowledge that Iraq was importing biological samples.
More than just importing, the CDC was supplying him.
As usual, you're making things up and ignoring or excusing facts to suit your own wants. I see no reason to continue this.
The government in the USA is a representative democracy. If the government is doing something, 'we the people' of the USA are doing it.
Not at all, I consistently vote against laws and the politicians who support them. If they support them they do not represent me. As a matter of fact, I am very disappointed I voted for Obama as he does not represent me. I was one of those swing voters he counted on but now I know he's not trustworthy. Back them McCain scared me, though not as much as Hillary did, but now Obama scares me.
Oh, tell Pelosi the US is a representative democracy, she's the one trying to use deem and scam.
IANAL, but I believe most District Attorneys that file these sorts of charges are claiming that their hands are tied and they HAVE to because laws regarding child pornography are so strict.
Neither am I but I know what's right from wrong and using "it's the laws" as an excuse should not work. It didn't in Nuremberg and shouldn't here. Bad laws are to be opposed.
What, you mean the Texas board of education hasn't already required condom buyers to prove their 18? Actually because the only acceptable birth control is abstinence, using condoms is a sin, I'm surprised they haven't outlawed them.
Id say he presumes he has the responsability for what the child does because, hell, its the law.
Sure, parents are supposed to be responsible, but with laws being enforced like this the nanny state has taken over responsibility. It's the parents' responsibility to teach their children what's good and bad. Laws without unwilling victims are laws that should not exist. At least there are none I can think of that should exist.
we're prosecuting them for pictures which they didn't take, and they may not have even known existed.
We? You may be prosecuting them, or agree with their prosecution, but not me. And some of the photos were of people wearing clothes. For instance one girl is wearing a bathing suit in the photo and she was charged because she was posing "provocatively."
You sure as hell *better* interfere with your 16-17 year old's sex life. Teenagers are stupid fuckers, and can get HIV or become pregnant as easily as 30-somethings.
Then teach them safe sex. Many teens have sex yet their lives don't fall apart after that. And abstinence only does not work.
That's Jewish though Christians say it too. However they add you can only multiply when granted a church license called marriage. Muslims along with some Christian sects also allow males to have more than one spouse, but females can only have one. Which is called polygyny not polygamy. Now if they allowed females to have more than one spouse as well as males then it would be polygamy.
Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting." It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.
All about appearance? Not quite, those parents don't want to parent, instead they want the nanny state to parent. And soft on crime? What crimes? Victimless crimes? They should never have been added to the law books.
As long as Microsoft keeps talking about patent FUD, it's just talk.
Yes, it's talk but talk that scares some people away. Just like when SCO's rhetoric scared businesses that used Linux to pay SCO a licensing fee. These businesses that paid for licenses were already invested in Linux and it's possible switching systems would have cost more than paying for licenses. But SCO's talk could very well have scared others away.
So as long as it's the goal of the Linux community to take over, or even gain a large market share of, the desktop talk can keep people away something has to be done. To stop MS FUD.
When you factor in all the people involved in media (music, movies, books, etc) production, they probably number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. That's a lot of voters.
And they're all of the same mind? I don't think so. Nor are the investors.
I'm sure Microsoft are taking notice though, because if Apple can enforce those patents, it can enforce those patents against everyone, including Microsoft, and not even necessarily just on phones, because most if not all the patents in Apple's claim actually seemed very generic, enough so to be applicable against desktop Windows too.
The problem here is that MS's Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel supports Apple not opposes them.
I have a hard time seeing how an unchallengeable government is desirable, even with a supporting quote from Jefferson.
That's why Thomas Jefferson wanted a small government. Small governments don't have much power.
As for the corporate aristocracy, they don't need to challenge government, they just buy it. Then they buy laws and regulations that reduce if not eliminate new competitors.
There is no patent system equivalent to "trademark dilution" whereby lack of enforcement can jeopardise validity. In fact the longer the patent troll--er...holder--waits to litigate the more dramatic the impact.
But there is the Doctrine of Laches.
"Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another."
Now I don't know whether it can be used as a defense if Microsoft were to finally sue.
Slashdot Mirror
Armand Hammer?
Why would he? Bill Gates is much more wealthy than Armand Hammer was. And Bill Gates has donated more money than Armand Hammer was worth. One thing lacking is all the medals Hammer was awarded, however the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation could bring Gates more. The only other is all the friends Hammer had, all the people he knew, however the foundation could help there too.
Both had or have oil interests, Hammer with Oxy and the Gates Foundation is invested in the Italian petroleum giant Eni.
Falcon
nothing in your arguments means very much. They're still very weak. And yes, any administration would have acted the same. And no, there's no evident that the CDC was supplying checmical weapons.
I supply evidence but you supply nothing.
Falcon
MS can say whatever they like within the bounds of the law which is pretty liberal in the western world, especially in the US where you don't have our horribly broken but occasionally useful libel laws.
Yea, corporations have rights citizens don't. The US Supreme Court even allows corporations political speech, when they aren't people. And if I'm a stockholder of a corporation that supports a politician I oppose I can't prevent it. I have to put up with it or sell my stocks. Thomas Jefferson's warning about corporations didn't go far enough. Instead of the corporate aristocracy disregarding laws, they buy the politicians who make the laws and the judges who enforce them.
I wouldn't say its the stated goal of Linux to take over desktops,
It may not be a stated goal of the Linux community as a whole but there are some who want it.
I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro and I plan on installing Ubuntu, not Windows, on it as well. I will not buy another MS product if I don't have to unless MS stops the crap it uses. However I don't call for Microsoft to be driven out of business. What I want is more competition than just between Linux distros and other Unices. Competition benefits users.
Falcon
You're the imbecile.
Falcon
It's like saying that your microwave oven is broken because a can of tomato soup sitting on the counter isn't getting hot. You have to open the can of soup and put it in the microwave, and then turn the microwave on, before you can expect the soup to get hot.
There's a big, huge, massive difference between them. You have to put the can in the oven, then watch it explode. Teens on the other hand have to agree to abstinence, which most will not. Even those who sign an abstinence pledge don't keep the pledge. Studies support this:
Final Nail in the Coffin
"In the most recent study, researchers compared teens who had taken the virginity pledge to those who had not taken a pledge. The researchers found results similar to the aforementioned studies.'
"First, the rate of the teens taking part in sex was the same. Those taking the virginity pledge were just as likely to have intercourse. The only positive, statistically small, was that those taking the pledge had 0.1 fewer sex partners over the five year study than did those who did not take such a pledge. "
Here are more:
"...The problem is that even when these sex ed programs are effective in encouraging teens to remain virginal, "effective" may only mean that the programs have convinced teenagers to avoid vaginal intercourse. But vaginal intercourse is not the only sexual activity that can be hazardous to a person's physical and emotional health; oral and anal sex may not lead to pregnancy, but they can spread sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) such as gonorrhea, herpes, and HIV."
"Although they were once the sole province of religious organizations, many secular groups and schools now host events where students sign "virginity pledges" as a way to promote pre-marital abstinence. Today, virginity pledges are also part of most abstinence-only-until-marriage curricula and programs. Research has found that under certain conditions these pledges may help some adolescents delay sexual intercourse. When they work, pledges help this select group of adolescents delay the onset of sexual intercourse for an average of 18 months--far short of marriage. However, the studies also found that those young people who took a pledge were one-third less likely to use contraception when they did become sexually active than their peers who had not pledged. These teens are therefore more vulnerable to the risks of unprotected sexual activity such as unintended pregnancy and STDs, including HIV/AIDS. Further research found that, among those young people who have not had vaginal intercourse, pledgers are more likely to have engaged in both oral and anal sex than their non-pledging peers. In fact, among "virgins," male and female pledgers are six times more likely to have had oral sex than non-pledgers, and male pledgers are four times more likely to have had anal sex than those who had not pledged. And, the research has confirmed that, although some students who take pledges delay intercourse, ultimately they are equally as likely to contract an STD as their non-pledging peers. In fact, researchers found that the STD rates were higher in communities where a significant proportion (over 20%) of the young people had taken virginity pledges. Clearly, virginity pledges are not an effective strategy for keeping young people healthy."
There's plent
I wouldn't argue that the USA has made no mistakes, but your examples are mostly VERY weak.
Very weak? I don't know what your definition of weak is, but there are photos of Donald Rumsfeld meeting and shaking hands with Saddam as part of Reagan's admin. It was confirmed by 1989 Saddam was using chemical weapons but Bush Sr didn't stop supporting him until he invaded the monarchy led country of Kuwait. Before aid to Saddam ever ended Israel had already sent jets to bomb and destroy a nuclear reactor of Saddam's. That's not very weak.
any administration would have handled these cases the same.
I sincerely hope not. Here the US was supposedly spreading the word about and trying to get countries to become democracy when it opposed it in some nations.
Your "sources" for the US supplying chemical weapons say nothing more than the US having knowledge that Iraq was importing biological samples.
More than just importing, the CDC was supplying him.
As usual, you're making things up and ignoring or excusing facts to suit your own wants. I see no reason to continue this.
Falcon
The government in the USA is a representative democracy. If the government is doing something, 'we the people' of the USA are doing it.
Not at all, I consistently vote against laws and the politicians who support them. If they support them they do not represent me. As a matter of fact, I am very disappointed I voted for Obama as he does not represent me. I was one of those swing voters he counted on but now I know he's not trustworthy. Back them McCain scared me, though not as much as Hillary did, but now Obama scares me.
Oh, tell Pelosi the US is a representative democracy, she's the one trying to use deem and scam.
Falcon
soft on "crime" either way it is using the state's power to enforce some politician's personal morality on others.
Correction, it's easier on the politician but harder on those who disagree.
Falcon
Dang it, it's likely they're dead links.
Falcon
I still have gopher sites in my bookmarks, it's likely their dead links though.
Falcon
IANAL, but I believe most District Attorneys that file these sorts of charges are claiming that their hands are tied and they HAVE to because laws regarding child pornography are so strict.
Neither am I but I know what's right from wrong and using "it's the laws" as an excuse should not work. It didn't in Nuremberg and shouldn't here. Bad laws are to be opposed.
Falcon
No, on it's bald face it sounds horrible. It only smells worse and worse the deeper you get.
Falcon
It would likely depend on how these pics were found. If they were found on a phone confiscated at school, where's the search warrant?
Students on campus don't have rights. That's how school are able to get away with forcing drug testing of students.
Falcon
first up, Kansas, followed by Oklahoma and Texas
What, you mean the Texas board of education hasn't already required condom buyers to prove their 18? Actually because the only acceptable birth control is abstinence, using condoms is a sin, I'm surprised they haven't outlawed them.
Falcon
Id say he presumes he has the responsability for what the child does because, hell, its the law.
Sure, parents are supposed to be responsible, but with laws being enforced like this the nanny state has taken over responsibility. It's the parents' responsibility to teach their children what's good and bad. Laws without unwilling victims are laws that should not exist. At least there are none I can think of that should exist.
Falcon
we're prosecuting them for pictures which they didn't take, and they may not have even known existed.
We? You may be prosecuting them, or agree with their prosecution, but not me. And some of the photos were of people wearing clothes. For instance one girl is wearing a bathing suit in the photo and she was charged because she was posing "provocatively."
I'm glad this prosecutor lost his job.
Falcon
You sure as hell *better* interfere with your 16-17 year old's sex life. Teenagers are stupid fuckers, and can get HIV or become pregnant as easily as 30-somethings.
Then teach them safe sex. Many teens have sex yet their lives don't fall apart after that. And abstinence only does not work.
Falcon
That's Jewish though Christians say it too. However they add you can only multiply when granted a church license called marriage. Muslims along with some Christian sects also allow males to have more than one spouse, but females can only have one. Which is called polygyny not polygamy. Now if they allowed females to have more than one spouse as well as males then it would be polygamy.
Falcon
Maybe so but there are a lot of parents that don't want naked pictures of their perfect child floating around the school and would like to use rule of law to discourage "sexting." It's all about appearances; the parents don't want to look like they raised their kids poorly and the state doesn't want to look like they're soft on crime.
All about appearance? Not quite, those parents don't want to parent, instead they want the nanny state to parent. And soft on crime? What crimes? Victimless crimes? They should never have been added to the law books.
Falcon
As long as Microsoft keeps talking about patent FUD, it's just talk.
Yes, it's talk but talk that scares some people away. Just like when SCO's rhetoric scared businesses that used Linux to pay SCO a licensing fee. These businesses that paid for licenses were already invested in Linux and it's possible switching systems would have cost more than paying for licenses. But SCO's talk could very well have scared others away.
So as long as it's the goal of the Linux community to take over, or even gain a large market share of, the desktop talk can keep people away something has to be done. To stop MS FUD.
Falcon
When you factor in all the people involved in media (music, movies, books, etc) production, they probably number in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. That's a lot of voters.
And they're all of the same mind? I don't think so. Nor are the investors.
Falcon
I keep pointing out there is only APPLE menu on the left
Your left is different than mine then, mine has Linux too. But I have often wondered why there isn't a Microsoft section.
Falcon
I'm sure Microsoft are taking notice though, because if Apple can enforce those patents, it can enforce those patents against everyone, including Microsoft, and not even necessarily just on phones, because most if not all the patents in Apple's claim actually seemed very generic, enough so to be applicable against desktop Windows too.
The problem here is that MS's Corporate Vice President and Deputy General Counsel supports Apple not opposes them.
Falcon
I have a hard time seeing how an unchallengeable government is desirable, even with a supporting quote from Jefferson.
That's why Thomas Jefferson wanted a small government. Small governments don't have much power.
As for the corporate aristocracy, they don't need to challenge government, they just buy it. Then they buy laws and regulations that reduce if not eliminate new competitors.
Falcon
There is no patent system equivalent to "trademark dilution" whereby lack of enforcement can jeopardise validity. In fact the longer the patent troll--er...holder--waits to litigate the more dramatic the impact.
But there is the Doctrine of Laches.
"Based on the maxim that equity aids the vigilant and not those who procrastinate regarding their rights; Neglect to assert a right or claim that, together with lapse of time and other circumstances, prejudices an adverse party. Neglecting to do what should or could, have been done to assert a claim or right for an unreasonable and unjustified time causing disadvantage to another."
Now I don't know whether it can be used as a defense if Microsoft were to finally sue.
Falcon