You're quite sarcastic, Mike, but what the fuck would you do if you faced the nation with the biggest military budget, and is known for bombing political enem... I mean Terrorists without a second thought?
Would you not thread carefully?
You're mocking the little guy for not daring to whack the bodybuilder bully.
Re: Re: Re: And you expect this corporation to do ... what?
Since you didn't bother to provide citation, I'll resort to the one I found.
The mine was closed after the approval of an amendment to the mining law which banned open-pit mining in the country.
Tough luck. Many bars and pubs were shut down under the Probation, just for one example. You couldn't expect to excepted from law just because you begun operating _before_ the law passed.
The company has already invested $92 million and it claims to have lost $1 billion in potential profit.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. The company should (somewhat) rightly claim on the 92M investment it _already_ done. But what the fuck is this about the 1b it _expected_ to gain?! They did not done the work. They did not spend the money on the work, so why are they want to be paid for the resources they did not produce? Because it would have been nice?
Returning to the previous example: A liqueur shop should've sued the govt for lost profits too? They made investment, they expected profits, and they denied it because of a change in laws. If yes, how much profit are they entitled? 1 years? 2? Would that estimation include price fluctuations and other economical variables, or we should accept the word of the company that they didn't pulled the amount from their back side?
Re: Re: Re: Re: And you expect this corporation to do ... what?
It's indifferent how valuable the location is, or how much profit they _could_ make.
The only thing that counts is the real work they done. If the government take the test drill results, that's expropriation, and is cause for ISDR. If the government takes over their mine site, taking their equipment and buildings, that's expropriation.
Denying them permission to destroy the environment and health of people is not expropriation, and environmental and healthcare laws should always be enforced, regardless of corporate profits.
Re: Re: And you expect this corporation to do ... what?
What I find ridiculous is this is not about losing infrastructure, factories etc to an unlawful government.
This is about losing "expected profits", which is ridiculous. They go there, say "we have gold ore here, we expect to gain 1b$ from it (amount pulled from thin air), and if you don't ignore your laws and let us do what we want, we sue you for it.
I mean, this is as ridiculous as a bank robber suing the country for lost expected profits when he get caught.
Their only reason to exist is renting recording equipment. Multiplication and distribution is far too easy with the current technology to have to be outsourced to a recording company. This also imply that the label-owned-copyrights should come to an end asap.
Not necessarily. He were probably naive and thought he can change things. Then got into office and were whipped in line with his predecessors.
Notice this: despite the change in presidents in the US, even political sides (R/D), certain policies remained the same. Like the foreign policy in general, or the foreign intelligence policy.
This suggest that another interest group from the background has the real control of the government, while the presidents remain PR puppets.
The next step: corporations (big enough) declared sovereign nations. Then: When a corporation can't buy the laws, they rely on deniable assets to do the dirty work. These assets are called Shadowrunners...
"To release that code would make the government's website vulnerable to attack"
Security flaws make the website vulnerable. Releasing the code would only make it public. Familiarize yourself with the term Security through obscurity
On the post: UK Officials Argue That David Miranda Was, In Fact, A Terrorist
Re: It's worse than that...
What they conveniently left out is there is no internationally accepted and precise definition of "Terrorist".
What they did is twisting a few requirements to their taste, and left out the rest that didn't apply. (Like, I don't know, "violent")
On the post: Getting Fired 101, The Ohio Teacher's Edition: Go Full Racist On Facebook
Re:
On the post: 'Predictive Policing' Company Uses Bad Stats, Contractually-Obligated Shills To Tout Unproven 'Successes'
Re:
"Obligatory PR" really? No kidding?!
On the post: Building Good Will: The Witcher 3 Team Promises Absolutely No DRM For PC Release
Re: DRM ag... Wait What The!!!
On the post: Antigua Still Threatening To Launch Its WTO-Endorsed Legal Piracy Site, But We've Heard That Before
Sarcastic
Would you not thread carefully?
You're mocking the little guy for not daring to whack the bodybuilder bully.
On the post: How Much Does Gold-Plated Corporate Sovereignty Cost? $1 Billion Or About 2% Of A Developing Country's GDP
Re: Re: Re: And you expect this corporation to do ... what?
The mine was closed after the approval of an amendment to the mining law which banned open-pit mining in the country.
Tough luck. Many bars and pubs were shut down under the Probation, just for one example. You couldn't expect to excepted from law just because you begun operating _before_ the law passed.
The company has already invested $92 million and it claims to have lost $1 billion in potential profit.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
The company should (somewhat) rightly claim on the 92M investment it _already_ done.
But what the fuck is this about the 1b it _expected_ to gain?! They did not done the work. They did not spend the money on the work, so why are they want to be paid for the resources they did not produce? Because it would have been nice?
Returning to the previous example: A liqueur shop should've sued the govt for lost profits too? They made investment, they expected profits, and they denied it because of a change in laws. If yes, how much profit are they entitled? 1 years? 2? Would that estimation include price fluctuations and other economical variables, or we should accept the word of the company that they didn't pulled the amount from their back side?
On the post: How Much Does Gold-Plated Corporate Sovereignty Cost? $1 Billion Or About 2% Of A Developing Country's GDP
Re: Re: Re: Re: And you expect this corporation to do ... what?
The only thing that counts is the real work they done. If the government take the test drill results, that's expropriation, and is cause for ISDR. If the government takes over their mine site, taking their equipment and buildings, that's expropriation.
Denying them permission to destroy the environment and health of people is not expropriation, and environmental and healthcare laws should always be enforced, regardless of corporate profits.
"Your not an idiot", no, you're not an idiot..
On the post: How Much Does Gold-Plated Corporate Sovereignty Cost? $1 Billion Or About 2% Of A Developing Country's GDP
Re: Re: And you expect this corporation to do ... what?
This is about losing "expected profits", which is ridiculous.
They go there, say "we have gold ore here, we expect to gain 1b$ from it (amount pulled from thin air), and if you don't ignore your laws and let us do what we want, we sue you for it.
I mean, this is as ridiculous as a bank robber suing the country for lost expected profits when he get caught.
On the post: Swedish Artists Looking To Take Labels To Court Over Spotify Royalties
Re: Re:
This also imply that the label-owned-copyrights should come to an end asap.
On the post: European Court Of Justice Hands Down Big Win For Transparency in Europe
On the post: How NSA Spying On Angela Merkel May Scuttle TAFTA/TTIP Trade Agreement
Re:
Also, I wouldn't call depleted uranium rounds and explosives delivered by drones "foreign aid"
On the post: If All These Countries Are So Outraged By Revelations Of US Spying On Them, Why Aren't They Offering Snowden Asylum?
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Major New Anti-NSA Bill Dropping Next Week With Powerful Support
Re: Re:
On the post: Trade Agreements Are Designed To Give Companies Corporate Sovereignty
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That, or we're pretty much fucked.
On the post: The Real 'Danger' Of Snowden And Manning: The US Can't Get Away With Its Powerful Hypocrisy Anymore
Re: Re: No one is pretending anymore?
Notice this: despite the change in presidents in the US, even political sides (R/D), certain policies remained the same. Like the foreign policy in general, or the foreign intelligence policy.
This suggest that another interest group from the background has the real control of the government, while the presidents remain PR puppets.
On the post: Trade Agreements Are Designed To Give Companies Corporate Sovereignty
Re: Re: Re:
Then:
When a corporation can't buy the laws, they rely on deniable assets to do the dirty work. These assets are called Shadowrunners...
On the post: US Free Trade Agreements Are Bad Not Just For The Economy, But For The Environment, Too
Re: Re:
On the post: Petition Launched To Get The White House To Open Source Healthcare.gov Code
Re:
"To release that code would make the government's website vulnerable to attack"
Security flaws make the website vulnerable. Releasing the code would only make it public.
Familiarize yourself with the term Security through obscurity
On the post: Petition Launched To Get The White House To Open Source Healthcare.gov Code
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Another US 'Secure' Service Shuts Down: CryptoSeal VPN Goes Dark To Protect Against US Surveillance
Re: Re: Offshore it
Next >>