http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
No, they really can.
Prior to the passage of that act, the IRS sued offshore banks with US incorporations for information about US customers. Again, a US jurisdiction can be compelled to give up information as required by US law, that order can be extended to include an offshore subsidiary or even parent company. The offshore incorporation can of course say no, but the US incorporation of that same entity will suffer the sanctions for it.
Several entities have popped up that try to cache it before it goes away. Why are you making shit up?
Again, no, TPB is non-relevant. Foreign entity attempting to compel a foreign entity to produce data when there is no incorporation in any jurisdiction of party A. Full Stop. You're just making shit up.
I'm sure the location is absolutely printed upon the warrant/subpoena.
If the authorities here cannot obtain it (they can't, they lack jurisdiction), and MS can (who does not lack jurisdiction, having a functioning entity in control of the data), then MS can be compelled to produce it.
So yes, it matters- in that it be printed on the order compelling the defendant/plaintiff to produce the data for discovery/otherwise.
And it was.
Ya, I know they are:/
I felt it was prudent to point out just how technically within reach practically infinite clean power was, even if the economics are still complicated.
Also- to clarify, I'm also no fan of the old designs. They suck. But I have trouble envisioning something worse than concentrating highly toxic metals and radioisotopes into ash and blowing it into the fucking air as a part of the actual accepted generation process. It'd be like if PWBRs were designed to vent off their heavy coolant into the atmosphere constantly and replace it with fresh, instead of isolating the loops. So I just mean that coal sucks *even more* than even old reactor designs.
That's the great thing about nuclear. Not only do we already have better designs, there's still tons of room for improvement and progress toward making them even safer, and it's far easier to sequester spent nuclear fuel (politics aside) than spent coal ash (if we decided it was worth the cost to sequester it, instead of blowing it into the air and holding it in massive leaking open-air containment "reservoirs")
Nuclear is not only the safest, but it's also the cleanest non-renewable. Both by ultra-long shots, and with even more room for improvement.
The real issue is people prefer to roll the dice, living with the chance of dying of a coal-caused pathology (cancer, heavy-metal poisoning, particulate inhalation) that's spread very wide amongst the general population, rather than being anywhere near a reactor that *will kill them* if it goes Chernobyl on their ass, simply by virtue of being near it. I think it's a lot akin to the risk of driving, and the risk of flying, and the bizarre fear of the safer of the two.
Thanks for the historical disaster reading material!
No argument from me! You were definitely dead-on when you said it had no software, and I was only adding clarification for the benefit of all, that it potentially had a simple analog computer on it, so it wasn't necessarily *completely* archaic. I love the W123. That car will be in running shape the day humanity runs out of affordable hydrocarbons to power it, whether that be 50 years from now, or 150.
I'd argue that even the older ones are better than coal, as long as they don't pop. But I'm betting the deaths over the last century due to cancer caused by coal-ash carcinogens dumped into the atmosphere *by the metric ton* far outweigh combined Nuclear Plant accident cancers.
Of course, the seriousness with which nuclear plants pop as opposed to the slow irradiation provided by coal skews things, but there has to be a point in the amount of coal burned where you start weighing the other option as safer.
Or a 50x50 mile stretch of Arizona if you felt like powering the entire peak demand of the US with it.
We'd have to surrender a lot of really, really useful dirt down there for it though, and probably have to divert a year of our defense spending.
The closest it's got is perhaps the analog electronics in the cruise control brain (I've rebuilt one). Ze Germans were notorious for doing awesome things with mechanical and analog computers.
Eh, I think Karl Schwarzschild is the name you're looking for... with due credit to Albert Einstein for deriving the field equations that Schwarzschild used to extrapolate the prediction of the existence of the astronomical object.
Hawking gets credit for helping reconcile the existence of bodies smaller than their Schwarzschild Radius with Quantum Mechanics, since it doesn't mesh well with the concept of mathematical spacetime singularities, and thermodynamics since General Relativity doesn't lend us much insight on how black holes don't violate the second law.
Weighted grams per minute is more a testament to the efficiency of the overall power plant, not the vehicle it's moving. So definitely a bit disingenuous if they're trying to claim the Ford is a more efficient vehicle.
You are sadly right on.
We may or may not agree on whether or not it is a major issue (my reading of the evidence, without regard for models, and undergraduate physics and thermodynamics knowledge tells me it has very real potential to be a very serious problem, especially when demographics and population migration is brought into play)
So that being said, what do we do without feeding the shit bags who have found a way to profit off of what I consider a very major necessity (drastically reducing CO2 emissions, or drastically increasing Earth's sinking capacity)?
It won't with my manual transmission... and it does indeed lose speed going up the hill, but it definitely gives it more gas than it needs trying to get the speed back up... But it also doesn't slow it down on the way back down the other side, and neither to do because I'm a rebel like that, so I get a nice gravity boost there to help even that out.
While I agree with your main point, overall, in my experience, cruise control has absolutely netted higher overall mileage for me.
I do leave my computer on 24/7. However, being I moved to an area that is predominantly powered with clean energy, it's likely my computer use has far less environmental impact than your limited use. Doesn't detract from your overall point, just adds something else to consider.
http://economics.about.com/od/...
As you can see, gas price does in fact affect driving, and thus emissions. Though, I'm not an intellectually dishonest person, and will gladly emit that cars aren't the major driver of CO2 emissions.
No- that's not accurate. Clean burning doesn't get you past combustion byproducts. In this instance, carbon dioxide, which is still very fatal in concentration. He just didn't stay there long enough;)
To add to that, clean burning doesn't mean not much CO2, it means not much other nasty pollutants. CO2 is still a very really problem, however.
Localized disasters can be a real problem at times. Ask the okies, and the states that tried to handle their flux during the dust bowl. Could you imagine if climate change rendered mesoamerica uninhabitable? Where do you think those people are going? Hopefully you guys got your wall with machine guns, right?
The economy can adapt to the needs of the environment and our aggregate needs as a people. The climate didn't collapse when tetraethyllead was outlawed, it didn't collapse when CFCs were, it didn't collapse when sulfur emissions were regulated, it didn't collapse when companies were no longer allowed to dump shit in rivers.
It is what we're talking about though. Microsoft-USA has control over the data. Whether it be directly on-shore or via an off-shore subsidiary is entirely irrelevant. What's relevant is that the US incorporated entity has control over the data. This is no different than the ECJ levying sanction against the EU incorporation of Google and forcing it to do things with its servers on American soil that aren't subject to its jurisdiction. Google is free to flip it the bird, if it can handle the sanctions that will be levied against Google-EU.
And yes, the Irish court *does* have the right to ask that. If it's against US law, then the Irish bank needs to re-think its policies and multi-national status.
Regarding dichotomy between the laws, that is certainly valid- I wouldn't argue that. However, where the data resides now, or always isn't relevant. All that is relevant is that the US incorporated entity has control over it.
If MS is torn between the laws governing the US incorporation vs. the laws governing the Ireland incorporation, it's got some shitty decisions to make.
Many multi-national corporations are faced with this, all the time.
It *still* isn't an instance of the US overreaching.
The link you provided isn't even remotely analogous to this situation.
No, I did not imply might makes right, I said, quite simply, that an incorporated entity is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction it operates under.
The ECJ can order Google to delete data not stored on European servers because Google operates in Europe. Google can always say "fuck off", just like MS can, but then sanctions will be brought against the entity incorporated *in that jurisdiction*, in accordance with law.
Your remarkably disingenuous or ignorant TPB citation has to do with foreign jurisdictions trying to force a foreign entity to do something.
The court in this instance isn't ordering MS-Ireland to turn over data, it's ordering MS-USA to do it. If MS-USA has the ability to do so (by owning MS-Ireland), then it can be compelled to do so within its jurisdiction, like any company in any other jurisdiction.
That's an unfortunate side effect to those banks going business in the US jurisdiction.
Just like Google can be (and have been) forced by European courts to remove data that may be held on American servers.
Google can always say No, just like Microsoft can. But then they can't do business in this jurisdiction, and better get all the execs the hell out of dodge before someone comes to put them in jail for contempt.
I'm going to start linking to this comment. I've been struggling to say exactly this all over this goddamn commentary, but have failed to put it so clearly. You're 100% spot-on.
Slashdot Mirror
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
No, they really can.
Prior to the passage of that act, the IRS sued offshore banks with US incorporations for information about US customers. Again, a US jurisdiction can be compelled to give up information as required by US law, that order can be extended to include an offshore subsidiary or even parent company. The offshore incorporation can of course say no, but the US incorporation of that same entity will suffer the sanctions for it.
A superconducting network is no more necessary for one type of power than another. Losses are acceptable.
Nice. Didn't know. Thank you.
No, they most definitely delete it.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetw...
Several entities have popped up that try to cache it before it goes away. Why are you making shit up?
Again, no, TPB is non-relevant. Foreign entity attempting to compel a foreign entity to produce data when there is no incorporation in any jurisdiction of party A. Full Stop. You're just making shit up.
I'm sure the location is absolutely printed upon the warrant/subpoena.
If the authorities here cannot obtain it (they can't, they lack jurisdiction), and MS can (who does not lack jurisdiction, having a functioning entity in control of the data), then MS can be compelled to produce it.
So yes, it matters- in that it be printed on the order compelling the defendant/plaintiff to produce the data for discovery/otherwise.
And it was.
Ya, I know they are :/
I felt it was prudent to point out just how technically within reach practically infinite clean power was, even if the economics are still complicated.
Also- to clarify, I'm also no fan of the old designs. They suck. But I have trouble envisioning something worse than concentrating highly toxic metals and radioisotopes into ash and blowing it into the fucking air as a part of the actual accepted generation process. It'd be like if PWBRs were designed to vent off their heavy coolant into the atmosphere constantly and replace it with fresh, instead of isolating the loops. So I just mean that coal sucks *even more* than even old reactor designs.
That's the great thing about nuclear. Not only do we already have better designs, there's still tons of room for improvement and progress toward making them even safer, and it's far easier to sequester spent nuclear fuel (politics aside) than spent coal ash (if we decided it was worth the cost to sequester it, instead of blowing it into the air and holding it in massive leaking open-air containment "reservoirs")
Nuclear is not only the safest, but it's also the cleanest non-renewable. Both by ultra-long shots, and with even more room for improvement.
The real issue is people prefer to roll the dice, living with the chance of dying of a coal-caused pathology (cancer, heavy-metal poisoning, particulate inhalation) that's spread very wide amongst the general population, rather than being anywhere near a reactor that *will kill them* if it goes Chernobyl on their ass, simply by virtue of being near it. I think it's a lot akin to the risk of driving, and the risk of flying, and the bizarre fear of the safer of the two.
Thanks for the historical disaster reading material!
No argument from me! You were definitely dead-on when you said it had no software, and I was only adding clarification for the benefit of all, that it potentially had a simple analog computer on it, so it wasn't necessarily *completely* archaic. I love the W123. That car will be in running shape the day humanity runs out of affordable hydrocarbons to power it, whether that be 50 years from now, or 150.
I'd argue that even the older ones are better than coal, as long as they don't pop. But I'm betting the deaths over the last century due to cancer caused by coal-ash carcinogens dumped into the atmosphere *by the metric ton* far outweigh combined Nuclear Plant accident cancers.
Of course, the seriousness with which nuclear plants pop as opposed to the slow irradiation provided by coal skews things, but there has to be a point in the amount of coal burned where you start weighing the other option as safer.
Or a 50x50 mile stretch of Arizona if you felt like powering the entire peak demand of the US with it. We'd have to surrender a lot of really, really useful dirt down there for it though, and probably have to divert a year of our defense spending.
The closest it's got is perhaps the analog electronics in the cruise control brain (I've rebuilt one). Ze Germans were notorious for doing awesome things with mechanical and analog computers.
Meritocracies are much worse than aristocratic plutocracies... Agreed.
Eh, I think Karl Schwarzschild is the name you're looking for... with due credit to Albert Einstein for deriving the field equations that Schwarzschild used to extrapolate the prediction of the existence of the astronomical object.
Hawking gets credit for helping reconcile the existence of bodies smaller than their Schwarzschild Radius with Quantum Mechanics, since it doesn't mesh well with the concept of mathematical spacetime singularities, and thermodynamics since General Relativity doesn't lend us much insight on how black holes don't violate the second law.
Weighted grams per minute is more a testament to the efficiency of the overall power plant, not the vehicle it's moving. So definitely a bit disingenuous if they're trying to claim the Ford is a more efficient vehicle.
Bah,
*The economy didn't collapse
Always proof-read.
You are sadly right on.
We may or may not agree on whether or not it is a major issue (my reading of the evidence, without regard for models, and undergraduate physics and thermodynamics knowledge tells me it has very real potential to be a very serious problem, especially when demographics and population migration is brought into play)
So that being said, what do we do without feeding the shit bags who have found a way to profit off of what I consider a very major necessity (drastically reducing CO2 emissions, or drastically increasing Earth's sinking capacity)?
It won't with my manual transmission... and it does indeed lose speed going up the hill, but it definitely gives it more gas than it needs trying to get the speed back up... But it also doesn't slow it down on the way back down the other side, and neither to do because I'm a rebel like that, so I get a nice gravity boost there to help even that out.
While I agree with your main point, overall, in my experience, cruise control has absolutely netted higher overall mileage for me.
I do leave my computer on 24/7. However, being I moved to an area that is predominantly powered with clean energy, it's likely my computer use has far less environmental impact than your limited use. Doesn't detract from your overall point, just adds something else to consider.
;)
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=...
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=...
(Arizona does get kudos for being predominantly nuclear powered, though)
http://economics.about.com/od/...
As you can see, gas price does in fact affect driving, and thus emissions. Though, I'm not an intellectually dishonest person, and will gladly emit that cars aren't the major driver of CO2 emissions.
No- that's not accurate. Clean burning doesn't get you past combustion byproducts. In this instance, carbon dioxide, which is still very fatal in concentration. He just didn't stay there long enough
To add to that, clean burning doesn't mean not much CO2, it means not much other nasty pollutants. CO2 is still a very really problem, however.
Localized disasters can be a real problem at times. Ask the okies, and the states that tried to handle their flux during the dust bowl. Could you imagine if climate change rendered mesoamerica uninhabitable? Where do you think those people are going? Hopefully you guys got your wall with machine guns, right?
The economy can adapt to the needs of the environment and our aggregate needs as a people. The climate didn't collapse when tetraethyllead was outlawed, it didn't collapse when CFCs were, it didn't collapse when sulfur emissions were regulated, it didn't collapse when companies were no longer allowed to dump shit in rivers.
It is what we're talking about though. Microsoft-USA has control over the data. Whether it be directly on-shore or via an off-shore subsidiary is entirely irrelevant. What's relevant is that the US incorporated entity has control over the data. This is no different than the ECJ levying sanction against the EU incorporation of Google and forcing it to do things with its servers on American soil that aren't subject to its jurisdiction. Google is free to flip it the bird, if it can handle the sanctions that will be levied against Google-EU.
And yes, the Irish court *does* have the right to ask that. If it's against US law, then the Irish bank needs to re-think its policies and multi-national status.
I don't think we disagree?
Regarding dichotomy between the laws, that is certainly valid- I wouldn't argue that. However, where the data resides now, or always isn't relevant. All that is relevant is that the US incorporated entity has control over it.
If MS is torn between the laws governing the US incorporation vs. the laws governing the Ireland incorporation, it's got some shitty decisions to make.
Many multi-national corporations are faced with this, all the time.
It *still* isn't an instance of the US overreaching.
Yes, it is.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
The link you provided isn't even remotely analogous to this situation.
No, I did not imply might makes right, I said, quite simply, that an incorporated entity is subject to the laws of the jurisdiction it operates under.
The ECJ can order Google to delete data not stored on European servers because Google operates in Europe. Google can always say "fuck off", just like MS can, but then sanctions will be brought against the entity incorporated *in that jurisdiction*, in accordance with law.
Your remarkably disingenuous or ignorant TPB citation has to do with foreign jurisdictions trying to force a foreign entity to do something.
The court in this instance isn't ordering MS-Ireland to turn over data, it's ordering MS-USA to do it. If MS-USA has the ability to do so (by owning MS-Ireland), then it can be compelled to do so within its jurisdiction, like any company in any other jurisdiction.
Yawn.
That's an unfortunate side effect to those banks going business in the US jurisdiction.
Just like Google can be (and have been) forced by European courts to remove data that may be held on American servers.
Google can always say No, just like Microsoft can. But then they can't do business in this jurisdiction, and better get all the execs the hell out of dodge before someone comes to put them in jail for contempt.
Please. Educate yourself.
I'm going to start linking to this comment. I've been struggling to say exactly this all over this goddamn commentary, but have failed to put it so clearly. You're 100% spot-on.