"The us has the LEAST backward government of others"
If you're saying that the US is a shining beacon of progressiveness when it comes to destroying dangerous toys I might agree since I don't have much of an opinion on that. If this is meant as a general statement meaning that in all things the US is the least backward, then I can only assume you meant it as satire or you have no clue what happens in other countries.
The last 2 or 3 decades the US has been moving backward, not forward. This last government seems intent on speeding things up in that regard.
"but USA is a super power for a reason!" Again, not sure what is the connection to toys but if you are looking for the reason how about spending more on defense than the next 6 countries combined? Would that do it? Is that your definition of being "the least backward"? I thought that our utopian future entailed less wars, not more?
Wow... Even though I see where you're coming from your statements are scary.
"If he is innocent he needs only to go ti court and prove it". So let's see where this can lead...
Say you have a website that allows other people to sell T-shirts. Obviously your website is accessible everywhere so now your liability has gone worldwide. One of your customers makes a nice Erdogan=Gollem T-shirt.
So if I read your statements correct you would be fine with Turkey taking all of your stuff and you would be willing to personally go to court in Turkey to explain that you're innocent of insulting the Mustache in Chief?
Hi land of the free and home of the brave, commie country here (sometimes colloquially referred to as "Western Europe").
I pay 70 Euros a month and for that I get: - Cable TV (most channels HD) - I'm allowed to connect 5 TV's using cards directly in the TV, so no set top box (15 Euro one time cost for a card) - Additional 5 screens where I can stream all TV channels with an app (tablet or laptop) - HBO - 300 Mb/s internet (no data caps) - Landline for phone (convenient for screening sales calls)
"Literally, that’s the standard. No helicopters hovering overhead."
I'm confused about this statement. If a helicopter is hovering overhead, I think the conclusion that the police is knocking is more logical since I don't know many criminal gangs that employ helicopter coverage. So then what, they exceeded the knock and talk and you're free to shoot them?
Exactly. I buy all my e-books because I enjoy supporting the writer but I make conscious decisions. If a book costs more than 10 $, I'm thinking really hard and will usually not buy unless it's a more business oriented book. If the digital copy is more expensive than the physical copy I'm not buying.
It's not a matter of money. I can pay. It's more that you don't want to be ripped off.
"So if you have a site called "download free hollywood movies" and you provide links to 1000 files of pirated material on someone else's servers, you should still be liable because your website as a whole functions as pirate site."
But that's not what this ruling says. If you don't put ads on the site and make no money of it, you're perfectly fine it seems.
As far as I know rents have always been rising. It's simple economics caused by inflation and the fact that most people want to live in the same places (The old real estate mantra: Location, Location, Location). Living space in New York, for example, will always be desirable and scarce.
It stands to reason that Airbnb is not helping reduce the prices but the economy is growing so it's logical the rent goes up anyway. If you want to point the finger at Airbnb as the main factor you would need to have some really hard data to back that up, especially since their "inventory" is fairly limited.
Look at London. Real estate prices are sky-rocketing because rich oil-sheiks and Russion oligarchs are buying everything that comes on the market at ridiculous prices. That will for sure impact the rental market as well.
Of course it's always nice to point at something to blame but it's rarely that simple.
I'm worried about this rhetoric but I'm just as much worried, or possibly more, about what other countries could do with statements like that.
If the US says: "I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just like any other attack" what will stop other countries for doing the exact same thing? They'd even be justified doing so.
This remark basically say: Stuxnet is (retroactively) a declaration of war!
Do we want Russia to follow that logic? China or North Korea? I think this would be a very dangerous escalation of day to day activities. I'm sure the CIA (or another agency) is routinely trying to hack whatever country they have on their shitlist and probably most that are not as well.
So, what do you think happened first? The University thought that this well-known gesture fit their branding perfectly and they made a conscious effort to get it adapted by their fans OR the fans just started using it organically and the University adapted it in their branding by selling merchandise?
I don't know but I think the 2nd option is more likely. Assuming that is the case they're now violating their fan's trademark gesture.
Disclaimer: I'm neither American nor do I live in the U.S.
Looking from a distance I wonder how anybody can say that Hillary is anywhere close to being as bad as Trump is. Sure, I don't like her and thinking about her the words "Power hungry" are my first association.
However, she is practically political royalty. So she knows the system, has worked within the system and will follow the system. Which means that most likely her presidency will be boring and average. Kind of like Obama's presidency was boring and average despite the high expectations he managed to whip up.
Trump? Trump is a spoiled child that surrounds himself with flatterers and yes-men. He's what happens to people when your whole life everybody tells you you're the second coming of Christ: You start to believe it.
I must say though that if it wasn't so scary, it would be very entertaining to see a Trump presidency.
"Crestor is the company’s best-selling drug, accounting for $5 billion of its $23.6 billion in product sales last year"
It's clear the patents make the companies lazy and averse to innovation. No sane company would make their business so dependent on one product that it accounts for more than 20% of their sales if they didn't think they could keep that position.
It's not like high cholesterol is the last disease in the world and there is nothing else to research. There exist plenty opportunities to diversify the portfolio a bit.