Toyota pays taxes on their American operations to the Japanese government because they're a Japanese company
No, actually, tbey don't.
Toyota USA makes a profit, and declares a dividend. Toyota (parent company in Japan), being the owner of the shares, receives the dividends.
The dividends are then declared as income for Toyota (parent company), and taxes are paid as per local, Japanese law.
It isn't a seperate company in any meaningful sense.
it is an incorporated US company. It has a board of directors. It has a corporate charter. Yadda yadda yadda. It is a separate company in EVERY sense.
They have to follow US laws for their US operations (including following American labor laws and paying American taxes at plants in Kentucky), but they're still part of a Japanese company.
They are an American company that just happens to be wholly owned by a Japanese company.
Lt. Col. John McCrae was a doctor with the Canadian Army in WW I. He wrote the poem "In Flander's Fields" after the battle of Ypres. Poem is as follows:
IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Bad example and it keeps getting repeated. Whatever road you drive on, you are expected to follow the rules of that particular road
Actually, it's a perfect example.... you think a state trooper should have the right ticket somebody for going over 55 on the M-1? Of course not.
BECAUSE THE M-1 IS IN ENGLAND, NOT THE USA.
It doesn't *matter* if there are equivalent laws in both jurisdictions or not - American law simply doesn't apply in other countries.
A better example would be getting extradited for vehicular manslaughter as that is more general and not specific to any one road.
Regardless of how much people think Tony Blair is up Bush's butt, try extraditing somebody from England so they can be charged for vehicular manslaughter in Jersey the next time somebody runs over somebody else in London. Any bets how long it would take you to be laughed out of the country?
That's a bad example. Most people would support the US government trying to force US owned foreign companies to conform with US laws.
Most people in the US, maybe..... we're funny, but us folk in other countries tend to think that we have this little thing called "soverignity" over our own territory that means we can do what we can, without having to worry about what laws OTHER soverign countries pass.
If a US company goes over to that country and does business, they are expected to obey US laws and any businesses that they buy and own should be run as much as possible under US law.
I'll remind you that you said that the next time an employee of a Saudi-owned company in New York tells the US Justice department to get stuffed when they try to charge them for insider trading because insider trading isn't a crime in Saudi Arabia.
You are bitching and moaning because the US is trying to get its foreign owned, but based in "first world" countries like Canada, UK, EU, or Au to follow US law. Hey, for the most part I don't blame you because their existing laws should be very similiar to US law any way.
Similarity of laws has nothing to do with it. You can do what you want in your country, and nobody here in Canada has any right to tell you differently. The reverse is also true.... and the location of the "other country" has exactly the square root of fuck all do to with anything.
Why the US does this is for places like the Middle East, Africa, and Asia (think China) so that they'd confirm to US law and not have their individuals in serfdom/ near slavery.
USA: All Chinese companies owned by Americans SHALL pay a minimum of $X/hour, not employ children under 14, and not require them to work more than 40 hours/week.
China: fuck off and die, you capitalist, imperialist running-dog pigs.
USA: All goods produced by companies that pay less than $X/hour, employ children under the age of 14, or require them to work more than 40 hours/week SHALL be subject to duties of 2,000 percent.
China: Hmmmm..... Here, guys, have a raise. And take tomorrow off.
While it is true that it's not purely a problem with Bush / Clinton, the visibility of the powerpower of lobbying groups and corporations has increased at an accelerated pace under their terms.
Fixed that for you.
As I said, it's a very, very old practice on behalf of the US government. There's nothing new about it whatsoever, nor is it accelerating - and as a matter of fact, I would say that it tends to happen less often now (here in Canada, at least) then it has in the past - directly contrary to your statements
You can check my posting history if you want, and you'll find that I am not, in any way, one of the US bashers here..... but in this area, American arrogance is impressive, to say the least.
If they "happen to be owned by American companies" how are they Canadian companies?
It's easy. It's a company, incorporated under the laws of Canada, based in Canada, who's owners just happen to be American - either private or coporate. I didn't think it would be that difficult a concept.
Toyota is Japanese company. How long do you think it would take Americans to get their knickers in a knot if the Japanese government decided to try to enforce Japanese labour laws, and ignore American laws, in a Toyota plant in Kentucky? (Hint: Toyota USA is an American company owned by the parent company in Japan.
And assuming you're American, would you want someone to be able to blatantly flaunt our laws and cause harm to Americans and American interests simply because they aren't on our soil? Extradition treaties exist for this very purpose.
I'm a Canuck. Every time I light a Cuban cigar, I'm "blatantly flaunting American law". Tough noogies.
Every time a Dutch citizen avails himself of a prostitute, he's "blatantly flaunting American law". Tough noogies.
Every time a British citizen drives on the left side of the road, they're "blatantly flaunting American law". Tough noogies.
How many more examples do you want?
Extradition treaties exist for this very purpose.
Extradition treaties exist to get people who committed a crime IN a country, BACK TO the country, if they've since left. This guy has never been in the USA, and broke no laws in the USA.
I don't think people should be focusing on the USA here in any case - you can't really blame them for trying. The party people SHOULD be pissy with is the Australian government, for going along with this shit and not telling the Americans to go hump a roo.
Welcome to the new world order, Bush (Sr., Jr.) and Clinton style.
This has nothing to do with Clinton or either of the Bushes. The USA has been trying to assert it's laws over other countries for a very, very long time. Take any number of attempts by the USA to tell Canadian companies that they can't have business dealings with Cuba, just because they happen to be owned by American companies. Other examples would be the (attempted) enforcement of American policies regarding exportation of goods to certain countries, etc.
This "New World Order" goes back at LEAST 60 years.... and without having done any research on the topic, I'm willing to bet I could find examples going much farther back.
I will say, however, that this is the first time I've heard of anything involving extradition for violating US law when the person involved has never set foot in the US, and the crimes never took place on US soil.
Re:This is actually my HOPE for the future
on
Censoring a Number
·
· Score: 1
So what your saying is the MPAA should hire us all escorts.......I like it
Or, they could hire one escort, have her do a webcast, and all of us geeks would have something *else* on our hands.......
I would be a pretty dumb lawyer if I allowed the RIAA to bring this guy anywhere near a courtroom.
Personally, I don't think that letting him near a courtroom would make you a dumb lawyer - I think it would make you dumb, PERIOD.
Even without any technical knowledge - just analyzing his statements using logic - there are so many inconsistencies in what he says that it is impossible to conclude that he has any "expert" knowledge even within the field he's claiming to be an expert in.... his confusion regarding the whole MAC/IP thing, and his meanderings around the whole one computer/router/multiple computers connected to an IP is so severely contradictory that it's sad.
Now - if you have any domain knowledge regarding the technical issues themselves, it's even worse. I wasn't laughing while I read the deposition - my jaw was sitting on my lap, and it stayed there during the whole read. I haven't read worse fiction since I tried to read....... well, I can't think of anything worse. Sorry.
And, not being a lawyer (dumb or otherwise), NYCL, I'm sure you'll correct me if my summary is wrong, but this is what I get out of it:
1) The facts he is supposed to be testifying about are not, as far as the court is concerned, facts, because they have not been established via any known, vetted, and peer-reviewed procedure generally agreed upon by practitioners in the area.
2) Since there are no facts to testify ABOUT, his testimony is invalid/inadmissable and a waste of time.
3) Since his testimony is inadmissible, UMG has no expert testimony - they have no "facts" that can be used to identify Ms Lindor.
4) Since they cannot identify Ms Lindor, there is no basis for the suit.
5) Since the "facts" used in ALL cases by the RIAA are collected in the same manner, granting this motion would have the effect of preventing the same methods being used in any OTHER cases.... effectively ending these lawsuits as they are now (until, of course, they are independently analyzed and verified... and good luck on that
I seem to remember hearing the phrase "The truth absolutely protects a person against libel and slander," a while back when my wife had Judge Judy on in the background. (Yes, she watches that from time to time.)
Fact: John is the father of an 8 year old little girl
Fact: John, when he was 13, dated a 12 year old.
Somehow, I don't think telling everybody that John has dated 12 year old girls in spite of the fact that he has an 8 year old himself would protect me in a court of law.
As someone wiser than me has pointed out, having to "grow a thick skin" shouldn't be the price of living in an information-based society.
Agreed. To illistrate the point: let's pretend that my daughter's class pools their money and takes out a full-page add in the local newspaper making insulting & deriding one of their classmates, a teacher, or the principal. Show of hands, please, from all of you who think that they shouldn't be punished and/or sued for libel.
Nobody? Didn't think so.
Now - will somebody please tell me the difference between that full-page add, and a video posted to youtube?
There *is* none. It's the same act.
"Information-based society" is a cop-out. It's still libel, and it's about bloody time the law started CATCHING UP to the "information-based" society. I don't give a damn about the technology that is or is not involved - People still should be held responsible for their actions.
The point is the result of the moderation system has nothing to do with who is right, wrong, insightful, or flamebait. It's all about the personal whims of whoever has the ability to moderate at the time. So whether it works or not is relative to your personal feelings about the results of said moderation.
I've got a lot of problems with that. Basically, what you're saying is that the majority of people who moderate haven't got either the intelligence or ethics to even TRY to be objective in how they moderate.
I'm no utopian idealist by any stretch of the imagination, but come on - please give people SOME credit. Not everybody is knee-jerk, be they left OR right.
Carleton is very, very different from most universities. Last time I saw statistics, around 3/4 of the students were part-time students.... that, btw, is one of the major reasons why it used to do so horribly in the MacLain's annual university ratings.
Carleton is generally geared more towards continuing and part-time education, rather than simply being a "standard" undergraduate university. You'll have people taking their 2nd & 3rd degrees, upgrading their qualifications, or just taking interest courses.
Many of it's services are (were?) geared towards these students. And I suspect that the nature of the students - people with real-world experience, and thus more awareness of these issues - may have something to do with this.
I wish "wisdom of crowds" were actually fallacious as you say it is. Because if it was, I sure should be able to guess a lot better than the "crowd" whether a stock will go up or down, and I should be a billionairre in a few years.
That doesn't mean wisdom of the crowds is true... it just means that intelligence is not a (the?) factor when trying to pick stocks.
To say the moderation system works is to say the groupthink here is well-aligned with your own personal values.
The inverse of that would be to say that if the moderation system *doesn't* work, then it's just poorly aligned with your own personal values.... somehow, I doubt you'd agree with that one
Or maybe - just maybe - the moderation system's relationship with your personal beliefs is totally unrelated to how well it does (or does not) work.
I moderate a fair bit, and I also meta-moderate whenever I'm offered the chance. When I'm meta-moderating, *maybe* 1 time in 100, I'll disagree with how something's been moderated - and trust me, I do NOT always agree with what's posted.
Mostly interviews with retired intelligence officials - most notably the former head of ASIO and retired high ranking members of the military who expessed grave doubts about the quality of the shared intelligence in general terms without mentioning any specifics apart from some of the more stupid lies proir to the current Iraq operation.
First - information sharing is usually done on a much lower level then the head of organisations. And the political bullshit is *usually* confined to the higher levels, where intelligence - and any other government matter - *is* politicised.
Second - we're talking about information sharing between Canada and the USA, both of which DO have professional intelligence organizations, not fly-by-night operations in countries that are still socially in the dark ages.
And third - please, don't mistake incorrect conclusions based on faulty or incomplete intelligence with intentionally lying.
Many competent analysts came to the conclusion, based on how they assessed the intelligence at their disposal at the time, that there were, in fact, WMDS in Iraq... and many other equally competent analysts came to the conclusion that there were not. It is up to the politicians to decide which assessments are correct. And if the politicians play games with what they're given, don't blame the noob sitting behind a desk.
As to the other point - I would expect them to behave in a professional manner - other countries expect that of their intelligence agencies.
They do. Please don't confuse grunts or military policemen interrogating prisoners with professional intelligence operators.
It is true - just fairly one way since it is very difficult to trust US intelligence information from what I have read.
What you read is not necessarily the truth.... or even remotely resembling it. Anybody who has been involved in the operational side of intelligence collection, analysis, and/or sharing will tell you the same thing.
Like any endeavor, there are good stories and bad stories - but when it really comes down to it, we all work together pretty well.
Also look at news items like the complaints of sacked translators to see how amataur and politically driven some sections are - pointless bullying and power games and very little accountability do not get anything useful done.
No more than any other large groups of organisations - and probably less than most.
When the conservatives are in power, the Canadian government HELPS the US spies.
I've got news for you.... it's got nothing to do with the Tories. Canada, the USA, England, Australia & New Zealand have had formal intelligence sharing and analysis mechanisims in place for at least 40 years, to my direct knowledge.
Well, I *was* going to get into a detailed rebuttal, but then I saw this and realised I'd just be wasting my time
The truth is there for you to ignore as you wish.
Let me fix that for you:
The truth is out there
Yet Another Grand Conspiracy (tm) Theory from the tin-foil hat set.
Let's get real people. The law evolves, and it's never in a state of perfection. Every time you get a bad law, it gets fixed - eventually. But being able to point to what are, in the grand scheme of things, isolated examples of injustices is NOT the same has having lost free speech.
Go to Cuba, Saudi Arabia. China. Zimbabwe. Myanmar. Pakistan. Pretty well any South American or sub-sahara African Country. Most Muslim countries.
Stand on a street corner THERE and criticize the political leaders. THEN come back (if you are still mobile, if you are still even alive) and I promise I will listen to you bitch, moan and complain about your lack of free speech rights in the USA as long as you want me to.
That why our heroes are Anonymous Cowards. Only they can speak freely. Word to the wise, cover your tracks.
And if what you say is/was EVER true in the USA, you'd be in jail by now.
It really pisses me off when Americans bitch, moan and complain about how everybody is - or SHOULD be - afraid to speak their mind.
And if there was any truth to ANYTHING these tin-foil-hat-wearers claimed, I'd be annoyed a lot less - because they'd all be in jail with a roommate named Bubba, being corn-holed, and way too busy to complain about their lack of freedom.
By using the technique I described, I'm not telling my users that they're wrong.
By ignoring THEIR preferences.... how are you NOT telling them they're wrong?
I'm using a size that I think is appropriate for the majority of users, and allowing anybody that disagrees to resize it to their taste.
The "majority of users" are more than capable of figuring out for themselves what the appropriate size for them is. You just choose to ignore it.
If you want to view sites as purely functional pieces of text, then turn off your CSS. A decent designer should allow their website to degrade so that at least all information can be read and navigated if CSS is off.
There is a lot more to laying out a website than just font size selection. You're essentially telling me that if I'm too lazy to change MY preferences - MY choices - that I should forgo any site layout or formatting because you know better than me what's appropriate for me?
I'm sorry, but I find that arrogant in the extreme
A lot of web designers/developers (professional ones at that) seem to disagree with you, as they set their font sizes, and they're the ones that have been studying/practicing/testing what we're talking about, so I think they know what they're doing (see http://www.alistapart.com/ for an example).
Oddly enough, I just went there. You DO realize, of course, that the page doesn't resize properly (well - it doesn't resize at all, actually) if you change the size of your browser window? I guess those professionals must know better than me how to make good use of my screen real estate.
Let's remember - the only thing that's necessarily different between a professional and an amateur is that one gets paid for what they do. Competence is implied, but not required.
If you're going to ctrl+w any website that sets their font size (that would include slashdot), then you're going to be missing out on a LOT of the web.
Unless of course, the site in question just happens to have picked the same size that my defaults are set to - in which case I wouldn't have noticed.
But then again, I don't exactly scroll through pages and pages of HTML and CSS to determine if a website is "worthy" of being read.
I just don't bother with that particular site if I have to work in order to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only were the British still here afterwards, you lot had to rebuild the White House after we'd burned it down.
You didn't meet your objectives
Toyota USA makes a profit, and declares a dividend. Toyota (parent company in Japan), being the owner of the shares, receives the dividends.
The dividends are then declared as income for Toyota (parent company), and taxes are paid as per local, Japanese law.
it is an incorporated US company. It has a board of directors. It has a corporate charter. Yadda yadda yadda. It is a separate company in EVERY sense. They are an American company that just happens to be wholly owned by a Japanese company.
Just FYI, for all you non-Canucks out there .....
Lt. Col. John McCrae was a doctor with the Canadian Army in WW I. He wrote the poem "In Flander's Fields" after the battle of Ypres. Poem is as follows:
IN FLANDERS FIELDS the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.
We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
BECAUSE THE M-1 IS IN ENGLAND, NOT THE USA.
It doesn't *matter* if there are equivalent laws in both jurisdictions or not - American law simply doesn't apply in other countries.
Regardless of how much people think Tony Blair is up Bush's butt, try extraditing somebody from England so they can be charged for vehicular manslaughter in Jersey the next time somebody runs over somebody else in London. Any bets how long it would take you to be laughed out of the country?
Similarity of laws has nothing to do with it. You can do what you want in your country, and nobody here in Canada has any right to tell you differently. The reverse is also true
USA: All Chinese companies owned by Americans SHALL pay a minimum of $X/hour, not employ children under 14, and not require them to work more than 40 hours/week.
China: fuck off and die, you capitalist, imperialist running-dog pigs.
USA: All goods produced by companies that pay less than $X/hour, employ children under the age of 14, or require them to work more than 40 hours/week SHALL be subject to duties of 2,000 percent.
China: Hmmmm
See how that works?
As I said, it's a very, very old practice on behalf of the US government. There's nothing new about it whatsoever, nor is it accelerating - and as a matter of fact, I would say that it tends to happen less often now (here in Canada, at least) then it has in the past - directly contrary to your statements
You can check my posting history if you want, and you'll find that I am not, in any way, one of the US bashers here
Toyota is Japanese company. How long do you think it would take Americans to get their knickers in a knot if the Japanese government decided to try to enforce Japanese labour laws, and ignore American laws, in a Toyota plant in Kentucky? (Hint: Toyota USA is an American company owned by the parent company in Japan.
Every time a Dutch citizen avails himself of a prostitute, he's "blatantly flaunting American law". Tough noogies.
Every time a British citizen drives on the left side of the road, they're "blatantly flaunting American law". Tough noogies.
How many more examples do you want?
Extradition treaties exist to get people who committed a crime IN a country, BACK TO the country, if they've since left. This guy has never been in the USA, and broke no laws in the USA.
I don't think people should be focusing on the USA here in any case - you can't really blame them for trying. The party people SHOULD be pissy with is the Australian government, for going along with this shit and not telling the Americans to go hump a roo.
This "New World Order" goes back at LEAST 60 years
I will say, however, that this is the first time I've heard of anything involving extradition for violating US law when the person involved has never set foot in the US, and the crimes never took place on US soil.
Personally, I don't think that letting him near a courtroom would make you a dumb lawyer - I think it would make you dumb, PERIOD.
Even without any technical knowledge - just analyzing his statements using logic - there are so many inconsistencies in what he says that it is impossible to conclude that he has any "expert" knowledge even within the field he's claiming to be an expert in
Now - if you have any domain knowledge regarding the technical issues themselves, it's even worse. I wasn't laughing while I read the deposition - my jaw was sitting on my lap, and it stayed there during the whole read. I haven't read worse fiction since I tried to read
And, not being a lawyer (dumb or otherwise), NYCL, I'm sure you'll correct me if my summary is wrong, but this is what I get out of it:
1) The facts he is supposed to be testifying about are not, as far as the court is concerned, facts, because they have not been established via any known, vetted, and peer-reviewed procedure generally agreed upon by practitioners in the area.
2) Since there are no facts to testify ABOUT, his testimony is invalid/inadmissable and a waste of time.
3) Since his testimony is inadmissible, UMG has no expert testimony - they have no "facts" that can be used to identify Ms Lindor.
4) Since they cannot identify Ms Lindor, there is no basis for the suit.
5) Since the "facts" used in ALL cases by the RIAA are collected in the same manner, granting this motion would have the effect of preventing the same methods being used in any OTHER cases
How's that?
Signing the Declaration of Independence makes him one of your founding fathers - it doesn't make him a God.
Nobody? Didn't think so.
Now - will somebody please tell me the difference between that full-page add, and a video posted to youtube?
There *is* none. It's the same act.
"Information-based society" is a cop-out. It's still libel, and it's about bloody time the law started CATCHING UP to the "information-based" society. I don't give a damn about the technology that is or is not involved - People still should be held responsible for their actions.
I'm no utopian idealist by any stretch of the imagination, but come on - please give people SOME credit. Not everybody is knee-jerk, be they left OR right.
Disclaimer: Carleton is my Alma Mater
.... that, btw, is one of the major reasons why it used to do so horribly in the MacLain's annual university ratings.
Carleton is very, very different from most universities. Last time I saw statistics, around 3/4 of the students were part-time students
Carleton is generally geared more towards continuing and part-time education, rather than simply being a "standard" undergraduate university. You'll have people taking their 2nd & 3rd degrees, upgrading their qualifications, or just taking interest courses.
Many of it's services are (were?) geared towards these students. And I suspect that the nature of the students - people with real-world experience, and thus more awareness of these issues - may have something to do with this.
Or maybe - just maybe - the moderation system's relationship with your personal beliefs is totally unrelated to how well it does (or does not) work.
I moderate a fair bit, and I also meta-moderate whenever I'm offered the chance. When I'm meta-moderating, *maybe* 1 time in 100, I'll disagree with how something's been moderated - and trust me, I do NOT always agree with what's posted.
Second - we're talking about information sharing between Canada and the USA, both of which DO have professional intelligence organizations, not fly-by-night operations in countries that are still socially in the dark ages.
And third - please, don't mistake incorrect conclusions based on faulty or incomplete intelligence with intentionally lying.
Many competent analysts came to the conclusion, based on how they assessed the intelligence at their disposal at the time, that there were, in fact, WMDS in Iraq
They do. Please don't confuse grunts or military policemen interrogating prisoners with professional intelligence operators.
Like any endeavor, there are good stories and bad stories - but when it really comes down to it, we all work together pretty well. No more than any other large groups of organisations - and probably less than most.
The Tories just don't lie about it.
Some people really do work with large datasets.
Let's get real people. The law evolves, and it's never in a state of perfection. Every time you get a bad law, it gets fixed - eventually. But being able to point to what are, in the grand scheme of things, isolated examples of injustices is NOT the same has having lost free speech.
Go to Cuba, Saudi Arabia. China. Zimbabwe. Myanmar. Pakistan. Pretty well any South American or sub-sahara African Country. Most Muslim countries.
Stand on a street corner THERE and criticize the political leaders. THEN come back (if you are still mobile, if you are still even alive) and I promise I will listen to you bitch, moan and complain about your lack of free speech rights in the USA as long as you want me to.
It really pisses me off when Americans bitch, moan and complain about how everybody is - or SHOULD be - afraid to speak their mind.
And if there was any truth to ANYTHING these tin-foil-hat-wearers claimed, I'd be annoyed a lot less - because they'd all be in jail with a roommate named Bubba, being corn-holed, and way too busy to complain about their lack of freedom.
The "majority of users" are more than capable of figuring out for themselves what the appropriate size for them is. You just choose to ignore it.
There is a lot more to laying out a website than just font size selection. You're essentially telling me that if I'm too lazy to change MY preferences - MY choices - that I should forgo any site layout or formatting because you know better than me what's appropriate for me?
I'm sorry, but I find that arrogant in the extreme Oddly enough, I just went there. You DO realize, of course, that the page doesn't resize properly (well - it doesn't resize at all, actually) if you change the size of your browser window? I guess those professionals must know better than me how to make good use of my screen real estate.
Let's remember - the only thing that's necessarily different between a professional and an amateur is that one gets paid for what they do. Competence is implied, but not required. Unless of course, the site in question just happens to have picked the same size that my defaults are set to - in which case I wouldn't have noticed.
But then again, I don't exactly scroll through pages and pages of HTML and CSS to determine if a website is "worthy" of being read.
I just don't bother with that particular site if I have to work in order to do so.