No, the fast track just means that when passed to congress for vote it's a "all or nothing" situation. Congress can't selectively approve or reject parts of the bill, they have to accept it in it's entirety, or reject it in it's entirety.
However, prior to it being voted on in congress, there's nothing stopping the executive from pulling the deal and renegotiating it.
Also, even if it has been voted on, there's nothing stopping the executive from negotiating a new deal that supercedes the current one, and then submitting the new deal under fast track to replace the existing one.
While his history as treasurer that you've pointed out might indicate he's a numpty when it comes to actual trade, finances and business, his history in politics, that you also pointed out, means he's perfectly placed to have an understanding of the politics of getting a trade deal passed. Which is exactly what we have here, the politics of it.
freeze the competitor out of the market with lower prices and superior marketing
In itself is not an anti-trust violation. For it to be an anti-trust violation you'd have to be accomplishing those ends via illegal means, e.g. false advertising, illegal tie-in contracts/cartels (e.g. Apple and it's attempt to corner the e-book market), and so on.
If you can make the same product cheaper because you have better manufacturing, then it is not an anti-trust violation to sell it cheaper, still making a profit, even to the point of forcing your competitor out of business.
And that's what I take to be the point of the article, that using a patent you are not entitled to (patent infringement) is not an anti-trust violation, because the source of the information for your product isn't a component of anti-trust violations.
I think you meant Sauron. With his all-seeing eye (NSA), his armies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. The Nazgul (CIA) poking their noses in and destabilising his foreign opponents and chasing down his enemies, kidnapping them and returning them to him for torture.
Assuming the warrant is upheld, it should give immunity to the FBI agents from US-based legal consequences.
However, a US-based warrant is not valid in other countries.
Therefore we have a group of people who are known to have distributed child pornography in 120 foreign countries/territories for 10(?) days. We (or at least the courts/FBI if the actual agents names who were involved has been kept confidential) know who they are. They have admitted in court filings to have distributed child pornography. Therefore there is no question of fact as to who has distributed child pornography to those 120 countries for that period.
Surely the authorities of those countries should be issuing arrest warrants, international arrest warrants, for those FBI agents/staff who conducted this operation?
I mean, the Swedish authorities issued an international arrest warrant for questioning on suspicion of rape (Asange), but here we know for a fact of people distributing child pornography to 120 countries, over 8000 IP addresses, for 10 days?
I am not condoning the actions of the ATF, however there is a world of difference.
The legal and moral arguments behind making the distribution of even known, decades old images of child porn is that even tho the act of making the porn has passed, therefore the initial crime has been done, there is continuing harm to the victim even after that initial act. There is continuing emotional distress to the victim of having the porn distributed. It's mere existence is a harm to the victim. And each time it is distributed or re-distributed, another harm is inflicted on the victim.
However, selling guns only creates a victim if the guns are actually used. Same with drugs. The product can be sold/given to the targets, then re-claimed later in a raid of some sort, and as long as the product hasn't been further distributed or used (the drugs are still there, the weapons are still there and haven't been used etc.), then there has been no harm created.
So the drugs/guns only potentially creates victims, however there is a chance to re-claim it without creating any victims. But with child porn this cannot be said, distributing it creates or further harms the victims.
"googol" is the name of a number, 10^100, or written out in full: 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000.
Which I'm pretty sure could easily be classified as 'oodles'.
It has been documented that the founders of Google meant to name it Googol (the number 10^100), but misspelled it (maybe they should have Googled for a dictionary first ! ;) ) as Google instead.
Hence the above posters comment playing on the number and the intended name 'googol' with the mistakenly named Google.
On the post: Legacy Recording Industry To Trump: Please Tell Tech Companies To Nerd Harder To Censor The Internet
Re:
Well, he is a successful business man, therefore he is carrying on as a business man, instead of as a President.
On the post: A Nasty New Twist In Ransomware: To Decrypt Your Files Without Paying, Spread The Infection To Others
Re:
But they have nerded harder. There has been much tech progress in the ransonware game.
On the post: A Nasty New Twist In Ransomware: To Decrypt Your Files Without Paying, Spread The Infection To Others
Re: Re:
Amway, is that you?
On the post: Why It's Pointless For Trump To Renegotiate TPP, Even If He Wanted To, And Even If He Could
Re:
No, the fast track just means that when passed to congress for vote it's a "all or nothing" situation. Congress can't selectively approve or reject parts of the bill, they have to accept it in it's entirety, or reject it in it's entirety.
However, prior to it being voted on in congress, there's nothing stopping the executive from pulling the deal and renegotiating it.
Also, even if it has been voted on, there's nothing stopping the executive from negotiating a new deal that supercedes the current one, and then submitting the new deal under fast track to replace the existing one.
On the post: Why It's Pointless For Trump To Renegotiate TPP, Even If He Wanted To, And Even If He Could
Re:
I'd be happy to do it for $100K. I'm sure he can afford it.
On the post: Why It's Pointless For Trump To Renegotiate TPP, Even If He Wanted To, And Even If He Could
Re: Poor people don't drive
While his history as treasurer that you've pointed out might indicate he's a numpty when it comes to actual trade, finances and business, his history in politics, that you also pointed out, means he's perfectly placed to have an understanding of the politics of getting a trade deal passed. Which is exactly what we have here, the politics of it.
On the post: Why It's Pointless For Trump To Renegotiate TPP, Even If He Wanted To, And Even If He Could
Re: Re: Small side question
Photo's or it never happened, it's just a rumour!
On the post: Why It's Pointless For Trump To Renegotiate TPP, Even If He Wanted To, And Even If He Could
Re: Re: Re: Good!
I think perhaps that what AC was referring to with:
Is that if it is 'RIP' and left in peace, then it will be forgotten. If it is forgotten, then "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it."
If, however, it lies restlessly, it will be a constant reminder of how bad it is and to not do it again.
On the post: Appeals Court Reminds Everyone: Patent Infringement Is Good For Competition
Re:
In itself is not an anti-trust violation. For it to be an anti-trust violation you'd have to be accomplishing those ends via illegal means, e.g. false advertising, illegal tie-in contracts/cartels (e.g. Apple and it's attempt to corner the e-book market), and so on.
If you can make the same product cheaper because you have better manufacturing, then it is not an anti-trust violation to sell it cheaper, still making a profit, even to the point of forcing your competitor out of business.
And that's what I take to be the point of the article, that using a patent you are not entitled to (patent infringement) is not an anti-trust violation, because the source of the information for your product isn't a component of anti-trust violations.
On the post: Turkey Using US Border Agents' Harassment Of Canadian Journalist To Defend Jailing Over 100 Journalists
Re: Re: Turkey and other authoritarian regimes?
On the post: Turkey Using US Border Agents' Harassment Of Canadian Journalist To Defend Jailing Over 100 Journalists
Re: But...
The US Customs agent conclusion to that sentence:
On the post: Turkey Using US Border Agents' Harassment Of Canadian Journalist To Defend Jailing Over 100 Journalists
Re:
Yes, it's called base-jumping ;)
On the post: Border Patrol Stops Journalist From Heading To Dakota Pipeline Protests, Searches All Of His Electronic Devices
Re: US Border Crossing 101
Unfortunately they would claim that any of the above is suspicious.
Cheap new phone - suspicious.
New journal that is entirely or mostly empty is suspicious.
I mean, breathing is suspicious.
And anyone who is not a US citizen wanting to enter the US is suspicious in the current climate...
On the post: FBI's NIT Hit 8,000 Computers In 120 Countries... As Did The Child Porn It Was Redistributing
Where are the international arrest warrants?
So, let me get this straight.
Assuming the warrant is upheld, it should give immunity to the FBI agents from US-based legal consequences.
However, a US-based warrant is not valid in other countries.
Therefore we have a group of people who are known to have distributed child pornography in 120 foreign countries/territories for 10(?) days. We (or at least the courts/FBI if the actual agents names who were involved has been kept confidential) know who they are. They have admitted in court filings to have distributed child pornography. Therefore there is no question of fact as to who has distributed child pornography to those 120 countries for that period.
Surely the authorities of those countries should be issuing arrest warrants, international arrest warrants, for those FBI agents/staff who conducted this operation?
I mean, the Swedish authorities issued an international arrest warrant for questioning on suspicion of rape (Asange), but here we know for a fact of people distributing child pornography to 120 countries, over 8000 IP addresses, for 10 days?
On the post: FBI's NIT Hit 8,000 Computers In 120 Countries... As Did The Child Porn It Was Redistributing
Re:
The legal and moral arguments behind making the distribution of even known, decades old images of child porn is that even tho the act of making the porn has passed, therefore the initial crime has been done, there is continuing harm to the victim even after that initial act. There is continuing emotional distress to the victim of having the porn distributed. It's mere existence is a harm to the victim. And each time it is distributed or re-distributed, another harm is inflicted on the victim.
However, selling guns only creates a victim if the guns are actually used. Same with drugs. The product can be sold/given to the targets, then re-claimed later in a raid of some sort, and as long as the product hasn't been further distributed or used (the drugs are still there, the weapons are still there and haven't been used etc.), then there has been no harm created.
So the drugs/guns only potentially creates victims, however there is a chance to re-claim it without creating any victims. But with child porn this cannot be said, distributing it creates or further harms the victims.
On the post: Manhattan DA Cy Vance Wraps Up 2016 With Another Call For Gov't-Mandated Encryption Backdoors
On the post: Comcast Takes Heat For Injecting Messages Into Internet Traffic
Re: Re: It's all okay, because we posted a public notice
On the post: Senior Brazilian Court Says 'Right To Be Forgotten' Cannot Be Imposed On Search Engines
Re: tactical clothing usa
Thanks for playing.
On the post: President Obama Claims He Cannot Pardon Snowden; He's Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Federal Judge Now Taking A Closer Look At Bogus Libel Lawsuits Filed By Unscrupulous Reputation Management Companies
Re: Re:
10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000.
Which I'm pretty sure could easily be classified as 'oodles'.
It has been documented that the founders of Google meant to name it Googol (the number 10^100), but misspelled it (maybe they should have Googled for a dictionary first ! ;) ) as Google instead.
Hence the above posters comment playing on the number and the intended name 'googol' with the mistakenly named Google.
Next >>