161–170 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its been 'fast tracked' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) ).
Why would Congress pass legislation saying that it's not allowed to amend trade agreements? Why don't they just not amend trade agreements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not quite so simple as considering all leaks of government information heroic. For instance, would it have been heroic to leak news that U.S. code breakers had cracked enemy codes in WW2?
Even better, what if the government was closing in a child pornographer with chemical weapons and a nuke, and the leak allowed him to rape more children while nuking a nunnery and poisoning an orphanage?
Do even approximations to such boogieman figures even exist?
The content isn't interesting[1] because bilateral free trade agreements are public[0], and having the USA force partners into accepting patent enforcement, copyright laws like the DMCA etc. are well known What is a little interesting is the negotiations and diplomacy at work. You can see how each country is trying to further its own position and interest. Looking at this version of the document, it is impossible to…
My understanding is that the TPP is not public (yet?), and parties involved are not allowed to discuss it for 4 years. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/11/house-pushing-back-on...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about the several-hundred-member body of people whose very job is to argue with each other? The one whose membership is up for modification every few years? The one whose purpose it is to create rules that persist across changes in membership? That Congress?
But the new Congress can just as easily pass legislation to invalidate the previous legislation.
Also, we rewrite the Constitution because Amendments allow us to. It's just that we do it so fast and then change it back that you don't even notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems that we're fated to see every conspiracy theory on hn eventually. Wikipedia covers the SIGINT available prior to Pearl Harbor pretty well[1]. There is no evidence that anyone in the entire U.S. civilian or military hierarchy had advance knowledge of the attack. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on...
Well I guess if Wikipedia doesn't mention it, it didn't happend, right? Awesome argument ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always liked the idea of making income tax filings public. Seems like it would make catching people who are dodging tax and the relevant discussions around it a lot easier.
also, makes it easier to figure out who to kidnap and also who to blackmail.
>[US propose; AU/NZ/VN/BN/CL/PE/MY/SG/CA/MX oppose: shall make patents available for inventions for the following] [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: may also exclude from patentability]: Made me laugh. You're on your own there, USA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I guess if Wikipedia doesn't mention it, it didn't happend, right? Awesome argument ...
There's a much easier point to be made: If (i) Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and (ii) it's important enough that it would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia to mention it if there were evidence, then you should at least provide a citation as to why you believe such a thing. Otherwise, why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis?
The typical line of thinking with conspiracy theories seems to be the less substantiated the theory, the more credence it should be lent, under the logic that the government is suppressing evidence.
So basically the less evidence, the more believable. Beautiful, isn't it?
Now it's become apparent from this that the government wants to throw all of that under the bus and is supporting transcontinental IP laws that are almost entirely in US interests and serve to screw over our citizens and go against high court rulings. All to be a lap dog to the US and appease their taskmasters.
I have nothing but hatred for our government for conducting themselves in such a miserable, self-serving sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a much easier point to be made: If (i) Wikipedia doesn't mention it, and (ii) it's important enough that it would be reasonable to expect Wikipedia to mention it if there were evidence, then you should at least provide a citation as to why you believe such a thing. Otherwise, why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis?
why should your readers accept your unsubstantiated hypothesis The typical line of thinking with conspiracy theories seems to be the less substantiated the theory, the more credence it should be lent, under the logic that the government is suppressing evidence. So basically the less evidence, the more believable. Beautiful, isn't it?