Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Insurance (Score 2) 937

by vt0asta (#45908531) Attached to: Who Is Liable When a Self-Driving Car Crashes?

Agreed. It's the same as if you were driving. However, there could be a safe auto driver discount for your insurance if you allow the vehicle to do the driving more than you do...and if there is an added fee for driving a vehicle with auto drive that too will dictate it's adoption and incorporate liability costs. Further, there are these things called courts and they've been known to settle grey areas like these. "What did the manufacture know and when did they know it?" Also, as per usual...the life you save may be your own. As per usual, your life and property value will be reduced down to a number provided by an actuarial. The difference will be...that your responsibility and negligence may come down to software maintenance or lack thereof...instead of how many beers you were drinking prior...which will now have had no impact on the way the vehicle was driving.

Comment: Re:yes but... (Score 0) 1251

by vt0asta (#35532096) Attached to: Texas Bill Outlaws Discrimination Against Creationists In Academia

Stalin abolished all the unions. After all, under Communist rule they were "no longer necessary." And yet somehow the Retardicans say "Unions are communism."

Heh. Hyperbole at it's finest.

Tell me, Moryath, was there anything else or anyone else in Soviet Russia that did something with trade unions? Did say, Lenin, write any letters to America or Europe? What was the intention? The audience was?

Is it impossible to imagine why some would have concerns about certain elements that appear to be ignorant of this historical fact or disingenuous about it's potential roles in American politics for the worse?

Some in this country are not in a hurry to deploy a failure prone implementation of Government.

Retardicans. How precious.

The Courts

Court Rules Against Woman Who Didn't Like Search Results 173

Posted by samzenpus
from the beverly-by-any-other-name dept.
The Seventh Circuit Court has ruled that Beverly Stayart can't sue Yahoo! because she did not like what she saw on the results page after searching for her name. Stayart claimed that her "internet presence" was damaged by Yahoo! because results for a search of her name showed listings which included pharmaceuticals and adult oriented websites. The court disagreed. From the article: "Stayart had sued under Section 43(a) of the federal Lanham Act, which prohibits false advertising, false implications of endorsement, and so on. Her problem was that a Lanham Act claim requires a showing that the plaintiff has a 'commercial interest' to protect, and Stayart did not have a commercial interest in her own name."

Comment: Re:The same government that... (Score 1) 162

by vt0asta (#32913756) Attached to: Deported Russian (Spy?) Worked At Microsoft

When Saddam decided he was going to publicly sympathize with the Taliban post-9/11, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right. When Saddam decided to up the payout to suicide bomber's families that attacked Israel post 9/11, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

These two points are inconclusive. You are a dictator who lost a war to a foreign country. That same country is actively pursuing its interests in your area. People from your area attack that country. You do not sympathize with them? You HAVE TO, in front of the domestic audience, while being careful not to appear officially responsible in front of the rest of the world.

Well, I guess by that logic, if you are in the business of sending messages to a domestic audience YOU HAVE to do what YOU HAVE to do.

I'll await your implication that we should be smarter than that...

Comment: Re:The same government that... (Score 1) 162

by vt0asta (#32913450) Attached to: Deported Russian (Spy?) Worked At Microsoft

Nobody's arguing that. We are, however arguing that a) that didn't amount to a hill of beans, and b) boy, was that ever the mother of overreactions.

So you are arguing it...

a) Embassies, WTC, Cole, WTC again, Pentagon b) I guess relying on smart weapons was the proper continued reaction in your mind. You're of course welcome to your opinion...however, conversely, I wouldn't trust you to walk my dog down the street.

There's also the corollary argument that if the US (and other western countries) weren't so enamored with fucking around with these dipshit little countries in the first place, many of these problems simply wouldn't exist in the first place.

Perhaps.

Congrats on being technically correct and absolutely useless.

If I knew what this meant, I would respond.

Comment: Re:The same government that... (Score 1) 162

by vt0asta (#32906936) Attached to: Deported Russian (Spy?) Worked At Microsoft

Oh, yes, it was quite obvious.

When Saddam decided he was going to publicly sympathize with the Taliban post-9/11, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When Saddam decided to up the payout to suicide bomber's families that attacked Israel post 9/11, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When Saddam decided to play shell games with the UNSC resolutions, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When European and Russian contractors were found selling dual use and prohibited items, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When Europe decided to the throw a colossal hissy fit over the end of food for oil, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When Europe was no longer calling for action of the humanitarian crisis being caused by food for oil, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When Europe then wanted to claim that the dual use items were broken, defective, etc., that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When American liberals seized on the opportunity to finally be mad at Bush again for losing what they felt was a stolen election, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When everyone in the world and especially at the UN who previously didn't trust Saddam, started to say he's not so bad, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When Osama Bin Laden was ranting a raving about American air bases in holy land (Saudi Arabia), the same bases being used to police no fly zones in Iraq, and people were trying to downplay the Ba'athist's intelligence agency's comfort with consorting with the pre-cursor to Al Qaeda - Egyptian Islamic Jihad, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

When a post-war inspection team took 18 months to scour a defeated Iraq, which I like to call "Iraq and Saddam at their most cooperative", only then were they able to confirm that their were no weapons and that Saddam only had breakout capacity for bio/chemical weapons, that should have been a tip off that something wasn't right.

---

Seriously. Responsible adults had to take the information they had at the time, and make a decision. I continue to agree that keeping the Ba'athist around, trusting bitter partisan enemies of the US administration, trusting UNSC nations that were financially hurt by the end of the food for oil program, and keeping a tentative situation of sanctions and containment, we're exactly top priority.

It may be true that the second war fomented terrorism. However, it is absolutely true that the Ba'athist containment/sanction process as agreed upon by the UN fomented terrorism at the expense of US security.

"Here at the Phone Company, we serve all kinds of people; from Presidents and Kings to the scum of the earth ..."

Working...