Elon Musk is in “Bonkersland”?

Wow, Stan Lee from up top.

I am legit curious to see who has the balls to attack either Elon Musk or Stan Lee....much less both.

 

Yes, that's why I said a little wrong. Two wrongs and all that.

I guess today is just who is less wrong, rather than who is doing right.

 

The guy literally removed the information as ordered by the state department and lost the lawsuit fighting against it. He wasn't charged for violating ITAR but could have if the State Department had chosen to.

 

Several businesses have lost their license by exporting items banned under export control. I've given you an example of someone unknowingly violating the law and you dismiss it out of hand because it goes against your narrative. As an American citizen I am subject to every law on the books. Export control is nothing magical or special, we're all subject to it. Ignorance of the law has never been a valid excuse for violating it.

 

This is the point (there is no narrative, it is this simple, and has been for several pages): the business has more to lose than the individual, by your own admission that licenses were lost, than the individual, when the individual unknowingly violates export control, because they won't be charged. That is trouble.

We are all subject to traffic laws; have you gotten in trouble every time you violated? We are all subject to traffic laws; have you always gotten in trouble for car accidents? We are all subject to traffic laws; have you always had to pay a fine when stopped?

The point continues to be simply this: subject to the law or not, the business is ultimately responsible when it comes to a loosely associated individual (of which a journalist would be one) who unknowingly violates, because though that person is subject to the law, the business is supposed to have governance, and maintain compliance AND is subject to the law, while the individual is only subject to the law.

The example given proves the point very well; the individual was not charged for unknowingly violating the law. He would have been had he not removed, but he complied, and though he violated the law, and could have been charged, he was not. Because he unknowingly violated the law. And though ignorance of the law is not an excuse, it is often a factor because of a single word: intent. You're familiar with that word, or should be, because of a high profile thing not too long ago involving an email server of some kind, and a political figure.

Losing the lawsuit was not about the violation, but about whether his 1st Amendment right trumps national security; and it generally does not. It does not have any bearing on whether he was in violation or not; had he won, he still would have been in violation of that law at the time. It is literally two distinct cases. It's why people are still serving prison time for position of amounts of drugs that are CURRENTLY legal to possess.

This is not a narrative. It is simply logic and evidence, not feelings.

 

You've moved the goal posts to the 50. You original point was that an individual citizen was not subject to ITAR.

I have proven that is most certainly not the case so you've moved the point to well a business has more to lose and a private citizen won't be charged (they can). You then talk about intent. Intent doesn't change the fact that a law was broken or not. Whether someone is charged or not is immaterial to the fact that, yes, they are subject to those laws, regulations, and statutes and could be charged for violating those laws, regulations, or statutes at any given time. I assume the reason this guy wasn't given anything other than a cease or desist was because it was blueprints for a single fire weapon. If he posts blueprints for a fully automatic rifle, it most likely ends differently.

Since you're struggling with the concept I'll try one last final time to make this clear. It is illegal to export anything subject to US export control without proper authorization. That's it, there's no nuance, what ifs, or what have yous. It is illegal. Period. It's illegal for me to speed whether I'm given a ticket or not. It's illegal for me to murder your mom whether I get away with it or not.

In our original example of SpaceX and the clueless journalist. SpaceX did her a solid and was a good corporate citizen by reviewing her article to make sure no ITAR violations were present. She and her publisher would have been the ones responsible if that information was ultimately published whether SpaceX reviewed the work or not as they would have been the ones violating the law intentionally or not.

 

Never have the goal posts moved; you are not paying attention to what is being said.

I said, and have said: trouble. Trouble. Trouble.

Not lawfully required, not responsible, not applicable, not illegal or legal not anything else: trouble. That was the word.

And no, the journalist nor the publisher would have been in trouble. If they unknowingly violated, the same thing as your examples provided would have happened.

1. A request for removal would have been done.
2. The publication would have been removed.
3. An investigation might have been done to determine why the violation occurred.
4. If an investigation was done, it would have reflected poorly on the business, ie: Space X
5. That business might lose future business.

That’s it.

 

Hold up. What's ITAR?

 

It’s Apple’s version of a viscous hydrocarbon.

 

Not bonkers, just cool.

 

At least she gets a free Tesla Roadster out of it.

 

Mid-life crisis, or has Musk just gone crazy?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-JOINT-live-Joe-Rogan-Experience-podcast.html

 

He's wealthy and bored.

 

Whisky and a joint? The horror!

He's an odd duck. Eccentric. Not unusual for a genius, which I believe him to be. He's an innovator at his core and can be most effective as CEO only with a strong COO in place—see Gwynne Shotwell at SpaceX. He needs the same level COO at Tesla.

 

I knew that would get him back here!

HAHA!

 

That said, he seems to be even more out there than normal for him as of late.

 

I don't disagree. It's all the Tesla stress, imo. He's stretched way too thin and has taken on too much of the work. And a good chunk of it he simply isn't the best equipped to do. Needs a strong COO badder than a hog needs slop.

 

Welcome back gcb

 

How goes it, Lyls?