Slashdot Mirror

Prices do indeed constitute communication, but they are in the open. Something done openly is not collusion.

https://definitions.uslegal.co... "Such agreements are usually secretive". The fact that the definition includes the word "usually" implies that collusion is not always secret.

But really we should be looking at the actual anti-trust law, rather than the definition of collusion:

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi...
Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal

When two business have algorithms, and they key off of each other's behavior to result in both picking a higher price -- (Q1) do the two business or their two algorithms constitute a combination? (Q2) does it restrain trade/commerce?

Well, really we should be looking at the anti-trust case law rather than the statute. Here I have no idea.

So, apparently he's not done a very good study of law either.

Sex Trafficking != Prostitution

The latter is legal in (parts of) Nevada, the former certainly isn't. The former also cannot, by definition, involve informed consenting adults.

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDi...

International treaties is the key. Why do you think all copyright legislation has started as treaties? Because no voter in sane mind would force such law upon it's country. But voter doesn't understand, doesn't bother him - at least it's regular thinking of politicians these days. So they agree to treaty, then just come home and say "we done anything we could, but this must be a law now".

And? If, by popular demand, the law is amended so that gets incompatible with the signed treaty, you think is impossible for the country to walk back from that treaty? Think again

Another important distinction between a treaty and a conventional contract is that a treaty lacks any enforcement teeth.

It is not like US never broke a treaty.

Yes it is, it's called contempt to court, and in this case can be taken as an attempt to influence the jury

Read the Groklaw article:

3. The materials were already publicly released, some by Apple and the rest because this very court forced the parties to unseal documents. (See Docket 1256, the judge's order: "The whole trial is going to be open." Also the order, docket 1269: "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.”)

In harmony with those orders, Samsung released the materials, attached to Joby Martin's Declaration, Exhibits 5, 6, and 8 [PDFs].

4. Apple released some of the information itself, in Docket Numbers 1428-1, 1438-2 (Tucher Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion to Enforce), 1429-13 (Walker Declaration in support of Samsungs Opposition to Motion to Enforce), and 1451 (Cashman Declaration in Support of Motion for Leave).

5. There were, as a result multiple articles about the materials already in the media, *before* the jury was even chosen, in the New York Times, the L.A. Times, Huffington Post and CNET. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/technology/apple-samsung-trial-highlights-patent-wars.html

7. It can't influence the jury in any way now, because they are not allowed to read any coverage of this litigation. "Moreover, Apple's baseless and public assertions that Samsungs transmission to the media of public information constituted contempt of court and that these actions were intended to pollute the jury were themselves glaring falsehoods, highlighting why Samsung has every right to defend itself in the public domain from unfair and malicious attacks."

8. Attorneys have a First Amendment right to speak. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already so ruled, in Standing Comm. on Discipline of U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist. of Cal. v. Yagman, 55 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995), where the court held that "truth is an absolute defense" and a "statement of opinion based on fully disclosed facts can be punished only if the stated facts are themselves false and demeaning."

Which of those arguments do you think is incorrect? What law do you think can be used to punish Quinn for exercising his First Amendment right to republish information that is already in the public domain?

you can't appeal a jury's decision without being able to claim mistrial

A mistrial and an appeal are two completely different legal concepts. Mistrial is when the court is disbanded before concluding its business. Appeal is something that happens after the original trial is concluded.

Companies don't get to arbitrarily make laws. They could add a provision that you'll give them your first born son, but I'm pretty sure that wouldn't stand if challenged in court.

There are contractual provisions that a court will simply refuse to enforce:

Contracts encouraging immorality such as selling a daughter for marriage, seeking to interfere with the administration of justice or injurious to the state, transacting in goods known to be stolen, to commit torts or crimes or to promote sedition or mutiny or, in time of war, enemy attacks have all been held to be unenforceable as against public policy, or seeking to enforce a contract obtained by fraud.

Public Policy

But you have to be realistic.

Freedom of Contract is also public policy.

Absent evidence to the contrary, a court will treat you as a responsible adult who has learned to live with the choices he makes. Not every clause of the contract you sign with Sony has to be to your liking. That doesn't make it unconscionable as a matter of law.

Matthew 5:37, "But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

It's from the sermon on the mount, no less, so it's, you know, from the big JC himself.

If that's not an endorsement of binary code, I don't know what is :p

How about the Code of Hammurabi? Those are clearly a one and a zero he's handing down. :-)

Well, I may be dumb, but I'm really not your God, and at least I'm smart enough to know the difference between literal and figurative meanings, do my research and provide citations.

You must be thinking of the figurative meaning of tyranny. As such, it does indeed mean cruel and oppressive government or rule. However, since this article is about governance (right?), I am talking about tyranny, form of government, which literally is rule by a single tyrant [6].

There is no such form of government as Tyranny by the Majority [1]. There is one named tyranny [6] and there is majority rule [2] usually seen in democracy. Tyranny by the Majority is a concept, a theory, a criticism of democracy and majority rule [3]. As a form of government it would be an oxymoron. How on earth could a single tyrant, the smallest minority possible, ever be the majority? I do understand the concept, but imo the term is poorly chosen. A better one would be "oppression by the majority" since that wouldn't be so ambiguous.

There's also no form of government called Tyranny by Oligarchy [1]. In fact, there's very little google can find about that. About the only search results are about "the replacement of tyranny by oligarchy" [4, 5]. And this term would also be an oxymoron.

Your statement "A monarchist system is tyranny by oligarchs (the nobles/lords)" is pure nonsense. A monarchy is ruled by a monarch [9] which can be, but not necessarily is, a tyrant. I should know, because where I'm from, is a parliamentary democratic constitutional monarchy [10] and in fact one of the top ten democratic countries in the world [11], far from a tyranny.

To summarize: tyranny is rule by a single tyrant, oligarchy is rule by a few, democracy is rule by the people and monarchy is rule by a monarch.

References:

1. [1] List of forms of government
2. [2] Majority rule
3. [3] Tyranny of the Majority
4. [4] Google search on "tyranny by oligarchy"
5. [5] google search on "tyranny by oligarchy", excluding "replacement of tyranny by oligarchy"
6. [6] Legal definition of tyranny"
7. [7] Legal definition of democracy
8. [8] Legal definition of oligarchy
9. [9] Legal definition of monarchy
10. [10] The Netherlands
11. [11] Democracy Index

PS: If you were really as smart as you were implying, you would know about literal and figurative meanings and that I was talking about the literal meaning of the word. And yes, I'm implying something here.

Well, I may be dumb, but I'm really not your God, and at least I'm smart enough to know the difference between literal and figurative meanings, do my research and provide citations.

You must be thinking of the figurative meaning of tyranny. As such, it does indeed mean cruel and oppressive government or rule. However, since this article is about governance (right?), I am talking about tyranny, form of government, which literally is rule by a single tyrant [6].

There is no such form of government as Tyranny by the Majority [1]. There is one named tyranny [6] and there is majority rule [2] usually seen in democracy. Tyranny by the Majority is a concept, a theory, a criticism of democracy and majority rule [3]. As a form of government it would be an oxymoron. How on earth could a single tyrant, the smallest minority possible, ever be the majority? I do understand the concept, but imo the term is poorly chosen. A better one would be "oppression by the majority" since that wouldn't be so ambiguous.

There's also no form of government called Tyranny by Oligarchy [1]. In fact, there's very little google can find about that. About the only search results are about "the replacement of tyranny by oligarchy" [4, 5]. And this term would also be an oxymoron.

Your statement "A monarchist system is tyranny by oligarchs (the nobles/lords)" is pure nonsense. A monarchy is ruled by a monarch [9] which can be, but not necessarily is, a tyrant. I should know, because where I'm from, is a parliamentary democratic constitutional monarchy [10] and in fact one of the top ten democratic countries in the world [11], far from a tyranny.

To summarize: tyranny is rule by a single tyrant, oligarchy is rule by a few, democracy is rule by the people and monarchy is rule by a monarch.

References:

1. [1] List of forms of government
2. [2] Majority rule
3. [3] Tyranny of the Majority
4. [4] Google search on "tyranny by oligarchy"
5. [5] google search on "tyranny by oligarchy", excluding "replacement of tyranny by oligarchy"
6. [6] Legal definition of tyranny"
7. [7] Legal definition of democracy
8. [8] Legal definition of oligarchy
9. [9] Legal definition of monarchy
10. [10] The Netherlands
11. [11] Democracy Index

PS: If you were really as smart as you were implying, you would know about literal and figurative meanings and that I was talking about the literal meaning of the word. And yes, I'm implying something here.

Well, I may be dumb, but I'm really not your God, and at least I'm smart enough to know the difference between literal and figurative meanings, do my research and provide citations.

You must be thinking of the figurative meaning of tyranny. As such, it does indeed mean cruel and oppressive government or rule. However, since this article is about governance (right?), I am talking about tyranny, form of government, which literally is rule by a single tyrant [6].

There is no such form of government as Tyranny by the Majority [1]. There is one named tyranny [6] and there is majority rule [2] usually seen in democracy. Tyranny by the Majority is a concept, a theory, a criticism of democracy and majority rule [3]. As a form of government it would be an oxymoron. How on earth could a single tyrant, the smallest minority possible, ever be the majority? I do understand the concept, but imo the term is poorly chosen. A better one would be "oppression by the majority" since that wouldn't be so ambiguous.

There's also no form of government called Tyranny by Oligarchy [1]. In fact, there's very little google can find about that. About the only search results are about "the replacement of tyranny by oligarchy" [4, 5]. And this term would also be an oxymoron.

Your statement "A monarchist system is tyranny by oligarchs (the nobles/lords)" is pure nonsense. A monarchy is ruled by a monarch [9] which can be, but not necessarily is, a tyrant. I should know, because where I'm from, is a parliamentary democratic constitutional monarchy [10] and in fact one of the top ten democratic countries in the world [11], far from a tyranny.

To summarize: tyranny is rule by a single tyrant, oligarchy is rule by a few, democracy is rule by the people and monarchy is rule by a monarch.

References:

1. [1] List of forms of government
2. [2] Majority rule
3. [3] Tyranny of the Majority
4. [4] Google search on "tyranny by oligarchy"
5. [5] google search on "tyranny by oligarchy", excluding "replacement of tyranny by oligarchy"
6. [6] Legal definition of tyranny"
7. [7] Legal definition of democracy
8. [8] Legal definition of oligarchy
9. [9] Legal definition of monarchy
10. [10] The Netherlands
11. [11] Democracy Index

PS: If you were really as smart as you were implying, you would know about literal and figurative meanings and that I was talking about the literal meaning of the word. And yes, I'm implying something here.

Well, I may be dumb, but I'm really not your God, and at least I'm smart enough to know the difference between literal and figurative meanings, do my research and provide citations.

You must be thinking of the figurative meaning of tyranny. As such, it does indeed mean cruel and oppressive government or rule. However, since this article is about governance (right?), I am talking about tyranny, form of government, which literally is rule by a single tyrant [6].

There is no such form of government as Tyranny by the Majority [1]. There is one named tyranny [6] and there is majority rule [2] usually seen in democracy. Tyranny by the Majority is a concept, a theory, a criticism of democracy and majority rule [3]. As a form of government it would be an oxymoron. How on earth could a single tyrant, the smallest minority possible, ever be the majority? I do understand the concept, but imo the term is poorly chosen. A better one would be "oppression by the majority" since that wouldn't be so ambiguous.

There's also no form of government called Tyranny by Oligarchy [1]. In fact, there's very little google can find about that. About the only search results are about "the replacement of tyranny by oligarchy" [4, 5]. And this term would also be an oxymoron.

Your statement "A monarchist system is tyranny by oligarchs (the nobles/lords)" is pure nonsense. A monarchy is ruled by a monarch [9] which can be, but not necessarily is, a tyrant. I should know, because where I'm from, is a parliamentary democratic constitutional monarchy [10] and in fact one of the top ten democratic countries in the world [11], far from a tyranny.

To summarize: tyranny is rule by a single tyrant, oligarchy is rule by a few, democracy is rule by the people and monarchy is rule by a monarch.

References:

1. [1] List of forms of government
2. [2] Majority rule
3. [3] Tyranny of the Majority
4. [4] Google search on "tyranny by oligarchy"
5. [5] google search on "tyranny by oligarchy", excluding "replacement of tyranny by oligarchy"
6. [6] Legal definition of tyranny"
7. [7] Legal definition of democracy
8. [8] Legal definition of oligarchy
9. [9] Legal definition of monarchy
10. [10] The Netherlands
11. [11] Democracy Index

PS: If you were really as smart as you were implying, you would know about literal and figurative meanings and that I was talking about the literal meaning of the word. And yes, I'm implying something here.

The 4th amendment is specifically worded to prevent that sort of abuse. (before this, in England, probable cause was "required", but refusal WAS probable cause in the law's eyes, so it didn't matter) I don't see why simply having a judge on site changes anything. Actually I don't see why they can even do that do you once they haul you off to jail for refusal. It probably comes back to your agreeing to the test as a condition for receiving your state-issued drivers' license?

Sir –

As a matter of interest, I understand many of the amendments (including the 4th) were crafted by British law firms. Whether that was in response to the problem (in the eyes of the law firm) of refusal constituting probable cause in England is a matter of some debate, as the British didn't have at the time a written constitution giving rights to refusal (i.e. it was in the eyes of the House of Lords what constituted the constitution, and such constitution was ... ephemeral).

The act of a Florida Judge being on site is probably, I speculate, for for two reasons: 1. to determine character as appropriate, and 2. vivo voce evidence. Both of these reasons are to circumvent procedural issues in the execution of Florida's criminal law -- which procedure arises from long-standing common law protections; an effort to lead to greater useful convictions as an act of deterrence by the state. Whether such is the outcome is to be seen.

While I may be wrong, I suspect the matter of satisfying "probable cause" for the purpose of search or seizure may be at most incidental to the real issue, which is circumventing or obviating procedural requirements by having a Judge present -- in terms of writing a decision that accords with the facts at the incident, by way of character assessment and vivo voce evidence the Judge can assess and conclude at the scene.

In other words, this is not about searching, seizing, or issuing warrants (4th amendment rights/protections), but about achieving conviction based on "evidence" (a stronger sentiment legally than statements or testimony of police officers) at the scene by way of a Judge who may "determine" (a specific word leading to conclusion, legally at first instance) such facts as based on observations and statements made in the presence of a Judge.

I make no speculation or conclusion about the efficacy of such presence by Judges, though it is interesting, but perhaps not for reasons alluded to elsewhere in the comments -- which unalluded-to reasons I thought to mention, above.

I also reserve opinion on the appropriateness of Judges being present at the scene, though their separation from convictions as a statistic (viz. sin-qua-non, unlike many police districts) could potentially alleviate expense for wrongful convictions.

As a matter of policy, such acts of presence may perhaps serve to erode either the separation of Judges from their (perceived) impartiality or the public from expected (perceived) impartiality.

CHRT has no teeth ... If [CHRT] was a real court ... [immune to] actual laws of the land ... pisses me off

Surprised you find the mechanism of the court so perfect in every way that no other judicial mechanism should even exist, even ones sanctioned by parliamentary legislation.

From About the CHRT

The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) was created in 1977 by an Act of Parliament.
_...
Parliament finally enshrined the Tribunal's independence in law and the Canadian Human Rights Act was amended to formalize the CHRT's independence.
_...
As an administrative tribunal, the CHRT has more flexibility than regular courts.

One of the reasons given for this is that the defendant does not need to follow rules of evidence in his/her defence. Following the rules of evidence is an expensive process, maybe more so than the fines if convicted.

From Legal Definition of Administrative Tribunal

Between routine government policy decision-making bodies and the traditional court forums lies a hybrid, sometimes called a "tribunal" or "administrative tribunal" and not necessarily presided by judges.

These operate as a government policy-making body at times but also exercise a licensing, certifying, approval or other adjudication authority which is "quasi-judicial" because it directly affects the legal rights of a person.

This authority does not amount to hard biting surfaces?

From About the CHRT - The Vice-Chairperson

Mr. Hadjis received his Bachelor Degree in Civil Law together with his Bachelor Degree in Common Law from McGill University in Montreal, in 1986. He was called to the Quebec Bar in 1987.

That's as much training as most judges prior to their appointment. How many lawyers have equal training in both of Canada's legal traditions?

When I was eight years old I rode my bike on my way to school across the corner of someones lawn which in my small town was rather indistinct from the gravel boulevard which surrounded it. An elementary school classmate witnessed this and and yelled at me "get off my lawn or my dad will sue you".

That has ever since been my psychological template for people who regard human rights as a "shout off my lawn" free card.

I believe in absolute protection against unpopularity. In my eyes "abortion should be permitted until halfway through the third trimester" is protected speech. "Jews are verminous scum and should be gassed by the millions" is not.

Somehow we need to define a line between these speech acts. It's not going to be an easy task, we'll make many mistakes, and there will be much wailing and outrage.

Nevertheless, suck it up: it must be done. The only question is how to do it better rather than worse. The courts surely aren't perfect, and neither are tribunals. A tribunal leaves more scope for fine tuning than the formal court system.

If a person is cursing the scope for fine tuning the system (the flexibility of the tribunal) in my experience it's likely because the person doesn't wish to see the job done right in the first place. It's a bit of a straw man tactic. Once you lock this up with the inflexibility of the courts under the rubric of fairness, it becomes a simple matter to advance the case that the courts in their rigidness can't ever get this right. And that would likely be true in a generational time frame.

The fallacy of the slippery slope is the presumption that objects only ever slide down hill. If nothing ever went up the hill, we'd have no traditions worth respecting whatsoever.

If anything is important enough to push uphill, for as long as it takes, this would be it.

our laws don't permit the prosecution of someone for a crime committed outside of the country

With the notable exception for war crimes of course. And a quick look brought up other interesting examples such as PART II.1 Section 83.18(3)(c)(ii) of your Criminal Code relating to committing an offense "... an act or omission outside Canada that, if committed in Canada, would be a terrorism offence;". Now, I'm not a Canadian lawyer but I would hazard a guess that there are more examples.

The Canadian Nazi won't be "held accountable" in Canada

And according to PART XIV on Jurisdiction, Section 481.2 says: "... where an act or omission is committed outside Canada and the act or omission, when committed in those circumstances, is an offence ... proceedings in respect thereof may, whether or not the accused is in Canada, be commenced, and an accused may be charged, tried and punished within any territorial division in Canada in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in that territorial division.".

And its unconstitutional to extradite for something that isn't an offense in Canada.

Actually that's not the whole truth after the Extradition Act of 1999 the crime no longer has to pass the same "duality test". I quote: "The new process instead requires a analysis of the alleged offense for which extradition is sought and if a similar offense prevails in Canada, ... the test will have been met".

Also extradition is probably subject to the long line of treaties with individual countries that Canada has with most the Western world at least. I found this article on the subject very interesting.

In conclusion the answer has be that it certainly appears as though Canada can prosecute crimes committed abroad however as always certain conditions have to be met. I won't press my point further as I am not familiar with Canadian law and I might also be plain wrong :)

Sometimes, only one party will be in error. If the other party is aware of the misperception or should have been aware of the mistake, the contract may not be enforceable, even if the enlightened party did not cause the mistake. The law books call this a "unilateral mistake."

Sometimes, only one party will be in error. If the other party is aware of the misperception or should have been aware of the mistake, the contract may not be enforceable, even if the enlightened party did not cause the mistake. The law books call this a "unilateral mistake."

Man, hard to find a good link to a legal concept. This one should do: http://www.duhaime.org/Tort/ca-negl.aspx.

In contract law, there is a concept known as 'consideration', which basically means says that each member of a contract has to get something out of it in order for it to be valid. This is why you sometimes hear about very expensive things being sold for a dollar: it is in order to legally distinguish it from a gift.

So in the case of contractual restrictions on an employee after the employment relationship ends, these may not be binding unless the employer provides some consideration, monetary or otherwise, to the employee; ie, legally you gotta pay to play. In some cases non-competition agreements have been found to be non-binding because the former employee was not getting paid to not compete.

While you are employed and being paid is a bit of a grayer area, and most lawyers I know wouldn't make a quick judgement on it, so I won't even try. Here's one link I found discussing contract law and consideration in general.

"UKers'" do actually have freedom of speech through piecemeal laws and through pan-European treaty. The UK doesn't have a bill of rights that is similar to the US one but that doesn't mean common and other laws don't give rights.

You've changed the context of your challenge:

You forgot that the only place that had political history (in the last 500 years), as a Representative Republic, was the United States.

You then changed your argument to this:

I'm just taking the dates that each one of the Constitutions was initially enacted, not the date they won their independence, for good reason.

It seems that the only "good reason" is that your previous argument was indefensible. Changing the argument does not strengthen you position, nor does implying that your opponent is supporting Stalinism by drawing inapropriate examples into the argument as you did here:

Remember the 80's, when the USSR was touted as having the best health care system in the world, since it was all free? I mean, the government paid for it, but it was free! And all the doctors were women! It was like a democrat's wet dream. But then the Berlin wall came down, and the USSR collapsed in on itself... and we learned the truth. They had third-world style hospitals and most people never got the care they needed. But obviously that was something that was specific to the USSR, and the same thing would never happen here, right?

While I agree with you in your dissaproval of Stalinism (and Marxism in general), I would rather not be associated with your implication that a health care garauntee would lead to the same result, nor would I agree with your (implied) assumption that all forms of Liberalism would lead to such a totalitarian state. Many Liberal movements are not anti-capitolist, but are anti-authoritarian and are just as fearful of a new Stalin as they are of a new Mussolini.

But back to the post that I'm responding to:

The United States Constitution is the oldest document in the world that governs a country.Magna Carta which was enacted as the supreme governing act in 1215, during the rule of King John. A Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689, as was "the Act of Toleration" (I haven'yt found an accessable copy, if you find one I'd apreciate a link). The Trennial Act of 1691 further solidified the rule of law over the government.

Unfortunately, there's no good legal way to say, "Put up or shut up!"

Sure there is. It's called defamation.

True. My point was, however, that the threat of revealing something that is true _can_ be extortion.

Duhaime's Online Law Dictionary has the following definition:

Extortion: Forcing a person to give up property in a thing through the use of violence, fear or under pretense of authority.

IMAO (and IANAL), trying to get paid back for being ripped-off is not extortion. Threatening to expose a "rip-off" to the world, when it can be proven that you were not, in fact, ripped off, _is_ extortion. (No, I am not directly paralleling this particular case. I am using an example. I do not have any sort of insider knowledge as to the particulars in this case.)

Kierthos

Citizen? Aren't you folks in GB subjects? God save the Queen, and all that.

No. See, for example, this page on the site of the Australia British embassy.

You are right. In the UK, the government can outlaw people with red hair if it wants, and there is not a thing that anyone can do about it. There is no supreme court to go to to fight bad laws.

Just because it's not called the Supreme Court doesn't mean there isn't a highest court of appeal (which is all the US Supreme Court is). There is. It's the House of Lords. Like every other court of appeal in Britain and America, its job is primarily to decide on matters of law, not on the merits of legislation or the verdict reached in the case (unless there was a problem with procedure or there is new evidence).

And (notwithstanding the present government's efforts to do away with them) we have Jury trials and the principle of double jeopardy.

No written constitution. No bill of rights.

No we don't have a single codified document called a Constitution. But, we do have a Bill of Rights, passed in 1689 during the Glorious Revolution, on which the american Bill of Rights was in part based. It mainly concerns itself with defining the separation of power between monarch and parliament (and limiting the monarch's power). In addition we have Magna Carta which guarantees some basic rights like due process.

Only recently has the UK been forced to obey some kind of written code on human rights, by virtue of its being a part of the EEC.

Wrong again. Britain acceded to the Council of Europe (the treaty organization from which the European Court of Human Rights derives - note that this is NOT the same as the European Union, EEC or any of its predecessors) nearly 50 years ago (the treaty came into effect on 3rd September 1953). Furthermore we are a signatory to the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

All this having been said, the UK is more free than the USA. Its hard to believe, but it really is true. Statring with the absence of an SSN here, the british are free to travel, theier driving licences dont have pictures, and you can say whatever you want, whenever you want.

The driving licenses do have pictures - and have had since (if memory serves me correctly) 1998. The new photocard driving licenses are almost always considered good enough ID to prove you are of legal age to drink (18). Many people saw them as the beginning of a national ID card scheme by the back door.

We do have social security numbers - everyone is supposed to be sent a number on their 16th birthday or before if they ask (you need one to work legally and to claim benefits; and also for some other things like reciprocal healthcare arrangements in the EU).

And of course we still have laws against treason, the various incitement laws, very prosecution-friendly libel and slander laws, the blasphemy law (still on the books but not sucessfully used since the early 20th century), and the Official Secrets Act to name but a few which have effects on free speech. In my memory at least once a year a major newspaper has had a High Court injunction put on it by the government to prevent it publishing a story considered embarrassing to the government (although these have often later been removed on appeal), and several important trials are effectively conducted in secret due to reporting restrictions - eg the David Shayler case.

Until the 1960s if you wanted to publicly show a play the Lord Chamberlain's office had to approve it and could first censor it (a tradition which went back at least as far as Shakespeare's time).

The compromises here are gentlemens agreements. There is a flexibility here that doesnt exist in other countries. Britain doesnt look free on paper, but in reality, its a very, very good place to live.

I would have to disagree here. Britain is a free country because it is a stable country. There has not been a successful invasion since 1066. The laws and systems of government have evolved and many hard-fought battles for freedom centuries and decades ago have been allowed to settle in over time. We have a pretty independent judiciary and had a very independent upper house (although it will in future be all-appointed by Blair from what I hear), and a constancy in our current long-serving monarch who has seen 10 Prime Ministers in her time. We have a reasonably competent and professional (if perhaps self-serving) civil service. We have had relatively good economic fortune over the last two centuries or so (as a nation), 500 years of falling levels of crime and have been a major player on the international stage meaning we could shape the world more to suit us.

In America, these things are simply not there - so there are things like the constitution to protect the people from their politicians instead.

Apart from that, its people are the most cultured and tolerant speakers of english on the planet.

Why thankyou!

Company
A legal entity, allowed by legislation, which permits a group of people, as shareholders, to create an organization, which can then focus on persuing set objectives, and empowered with legal rights which are usually only reserved for individuals, such as to sue and be sued, own property, hire employees or loan and borrow money.

dictionary

a brief review of canadian history shows that initially, there was legal slavery, you ignorant maple syrup eating turd.

http://www.duhaime.org/cahista.htm

Also, if the prices are really low, be aware that you may be buying stolen or otherwise less-than-legal components. And, even if you don't know that the parts are stolen and are innocent of any crime, you may be liable for the civil tort of conversion.

I am not a lawyer and the above is not legal advice, just advise to be cautious.

The law is full of weird gimmicks that nobody takes seriously. For example, some contracts aren't valid unless something of value changes hands. So the lawyers add the assertion that one party paid the other a small amount of money. It's often a lie, and everybody involved knows it, but it's an accepted practice.

Oh, here's another one. There's no direct route between downtown Palo Alto and Interstate 280. So people often cut across the Stanford University campus, or a shopping center they own. To avoid creating a public easement, the University briefly roadblocks these routes every few years, giving motorists little flyers explaining that they're driving accross private property.

In drawing up this EULA, Borland had to satisfy three completely separate goals: to give Open Source developers the right to use the software for free; to require commercial developers to pay something for the product; and to satisfy RMS's very idiosyncratic and specific definition of "Free Software". Hardly suprising the resulting contract is a little weird.

Actually, certainly in Europe, but as far as I'm aware also in the US, if Apple was found to have caused this damage through "gross negligence", then they would be responsible for damages, because damages due to gross negligence on the part of the vendor is exactly what can _not_ be excluded.

The legal definition of gross negligence according to lectlaw is:
GROSS NEGLIGENCE - Failure to use even the slightest amount of care in a way that shows Recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of others.

Or more applicable to this case (from here):
Gross negligence
Any action or an omission in reckless disregard of the consequences to the safety or property of another. Sometimes referred to as "very great negligence" and it is more then just neglect of ordinary care towards others or just inadvertence. Also known as the Latin term culpa lata.

Of course, IANAL, but my gut feeling would be that gross negligence would not be applicable in this case... gross negligence is basicaly one step short of intentional damage.

Been a while since i studied this stuff in school, but I'm pretty sure it's slander.

1. Slander
2. Libel

DeanT

Been a while since i studied this stuff in school, but I'm pretty sure it's slander.

1. Slander
2. Libel

DeanT

Been a while since i studied this stuff in school, but I'm pretty sure it's slander.

1. Slander
2. Libel

DeanT

Look here (http://www.duhaime.org/dict-b.htm) man, and get that chip away from me!

I can't believe he mentioned hair in the same sentence. Ewwww!