Slashdot Mirror

From an outsider's perspective I would diagnose the problem somewhat differently. It's paradoxical, the US is in many way under-regulated (eg. the banking system, consumer protection etc), yet on the other hand there are numerous examples of regulation like this.

On this particular issue, I think it's worth mentioning that regulation doesn't inherently do certain things. For example, US banks were required to make a certain amount of loans based on ethnicity (I don't know much about it except it's generally not considered a significant contributor to the recent banking collapse). They're also required to report all money transfers near or over $10,000. These regulations don't help make banking a sounder industry.

Your words imply that one needs merely to add regulation. I'm just pointing out that one can add regulation generously and not improve (perhaps even make the problem worse!) the situation.

Consumer protection seems quite adequate in the US. Sure, maybe idiots aren't sufficiently protected from the consequences of their actions, but you'd improve that by regulating the idiots not the producers.

But I don't think the problem is with the actual regulation. To me there seems a dangerous lack of discretion on the part of administrators, as to when laws ought, and more importantly, ought not to be applied.

I see a lot of discussion on the "need" for discretion. But as another replier notes, administrators should not have discretion. There is a saying here, "the US is a nation of laws not men" (see here for the orginal use). The meaning is that laws should be consistently and fairly applied else it is an avenue for tyranny. The discretion to apply law means that law enforcement can be selectively applied to political opponents, people who refuse to pay bribes/extortion, or other undesirables. Certain parties have to keep their activities scrupulously clean while others can be far more lax in their observance of law. This is the result of discretion and why it is considered an avenue for corruption.

It is as if the mere fact that something breaches an ordinance justifies taking action against that breach, or the mere fact that a crime has been committed means that someone ought to be charged. Or perhaps it is only that failures of discretion, such as in the present case, which are newsworthy.

Yes. That is exactly how it should be. It doesn't make sense to leave enforcement of an ordinance or criminal code up to the discretion of some agency or official with their own interests.

The *only* time I'll support unionization if it joining the union is not a condition of employment-- i.e. if it's completely voluntary.

Surely you can never be forced to join a union? That's ridiculous.

Your Constitution includes Freedom of Association (just like mine). Doesn't that also include freedom of non-association?

"Because terrorists that hide behind civilians and refuse to obey the laws of war aren't entitled to the same treatment as soldiers who fight under a flag and officers? "

That's true, in an ultimate sense. There is a distinction drawn between prisoners of war and other people found on the battlefield. However, the implementation of that distinction is clearly specified. According to the Geneva Convention, you are supposed to treat the people captured on the battlefield as if they were prisoners of war until such time that they receive an evaluation by a "competent tribunal". That tribunal will determine whether or not they deserve a "prisoners of war" status or something else. The relevant section of the Geneva Convention is Article 5. Basically, you can't catch someone and say "Boom! I say you're an enemy combatant, so I can treat you like shit." The whole point of the "competent tribunal" stipulation is to make sure the designation as something other than a prisoner of war is done in a fair manner, that it takes some time to set up (although it could probably be done on the battlefield by a military tribunal), and that people therefore can't use the snap redesignation as an excuse for badly treating captives.

So, from the start, if you capture someone on the battlefield they effectively are prisoners of war until a competent tribunal says otherwise. If they don't deserve "prisoner of war" designation (e.g., they weren't uniformed and didn't follow the other rules that exist under the Geneva Conventions), then, sure, they can be treated differently, although there are still limits to their treatment (e.g., the national and international laws against torture, regardless of their status as prisoner of war or not).

The question is, when did the captive people who experienced torture at the hands of US personnel receive the tribunal to determine their prisoner status? For many of the captives it happened years after the fact if at all (there is debate whether these tribunals were sufficient), which means the USA was indeed clearly violating the Geneva Conventions with the treatment of these captives, in many people's opinions.

If you want to treat people differently depending upon whether or not they are following the "laws of war", that's fine, but you have to follow the "laws of war" yourself, and you might want to familiarize yourself with the details of how to do that, lest you be accused of a war crime.

That section doesn't pertain to anything we're discussing here. Congrats for being part of the FUD.

I know it's a little complicated, but basically in 1983 Reagan signed an executive order granting Interpol international organization status, which just means they get certain (mostly tax- and customs-related) protections and privileges. Section 2(b) of the act defining those privileges is what you quoted above, and is what Reagan gave them. Now, Reagan excepted Interpol from certain protections, viz Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6. These exceptions are what Obama has just withdrawn. Go ahead and read them, they pertain partly to taxes and social security, and also protect the property of international organizations (all of them, not just Interpol) from seizure and search.

So either you don't really understand what's going on or you're just fearmongering. As to the whoever started this, well, that was pure FUD.

That section doesn't pertain to anything we're discussing here. Congrats for being part of the FUD.

I know it's a little complicated, but basically in 1983 Reagan signed an executive order granting Interpol international organization status, which just means they get certain (mostly tax- and customs-related) protections and privileges. Section 2(b) of the act defining those privileges is what you quoted above, and is what Reagan gave them. Now, Reagan excepted Interpol from certain protections, viz Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6. These exceptions are what Obama has just withdrawn. Go ahead and read them, they pertain partly to taxes and social security, and also protect the property of international organizations (all of them, not just Interpol) from seizure and search.

So either you don't really understand what's going on or you're just fearmongering. As to the whoever started this, well, that was pure FUD.

That which you quoted is section 2b. This was *already* given to them by the original order as signed by Ronald Reagan. Obama isn't granting them the rights under 2b, because Interpol already had them all along and nobody noticed. Please see the original order: Executive Order 12425. Notice that 2b is not listed in the "exceptions", meaning that they have the rights under 2b.

>>This summary is flat out WRONG. It's phrased to start a flamewar. Click the news link, and see what it says

I'm the submitter, and I'd recommend not clicking on the news link. Not only is it wrong, but the Slashdot editors added it in to my submission, which just had a link to the Executive Order and to the UN Parking Ticket Scandal.

>>FOIA might be affected, but they are not immune to crimes.

Incorrect. They are immune (technically, they were already immune - this extends their immunities further). ABCNews is further wrong when it says INTERPOL does not have full diplomatic immunity. If you look at all the categories of possible immunities here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Diplomatic_immunity_in_the_United_States, INTERPOL agents (and their families to a certain extent) have them all now. There's more kinds of diplomatic immunity than the immunities diplomats have.

They're immune to search, seizure, suit, legal proceedings, taxes, and their families too. Just what I want from a law enforcement agency, eh?

If you don't believe me, read the law yourself. All the source is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act

>>This summary is flat out WRONG. It's phrased to start a flamewar. Click the news link, and see what it says

I'm the submitter, and I'd recommend not clicking on the news link. Not only is it wrong, but the Slashdot editors added it in to my submission, which just had a link to the Executive Order and to the UN Parking Ticket Scandal.

>>FOIA might be affected, but they are not immune to crimes.

Incorrect. They are immune (technically, they were already immune - this extends their immunities further). ABCNews is further wrong when it says INTERPOL does not have full diplomatic immunity. If you look at all the categories of possible immunities here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Diplomatic_immunity_in_the_United_States, INTERPOL agents (and their families to a certain extent) have them all now. There's more kinds of diplomatic immunity than the immunities diplomats have.

They're immune to search, seizure, suit, legal proceedings, taxes, and their families too. Just what I want from a law enforcement agency, eh?

If you don't believe me, read the law yourself. All the source is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act

>>The actual article says:

Which they added to my submission. I just linked to the actual executive order, and to a story about UN parking tickets. The inclusion of the ABC News story was standard Slashdot editor brilliance. Especially since it's wrong.

>>"diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State." That is NOT what the International Organizations Immunities Act is.

In actuality, INTERPOL employees now have full diplomatic immunity when operating in an official capacity on American soil, and are immune to suit and legal proceedings for anything they do as part of their job.

So ABCNews is wrong, not me.

Don't believe me? Read section 7:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act#Sec._7.

This modification specifically allows INTERPOL the ability to enter into contracts, own and dispose property and has some ancillary language regarding taxes and immigration.

The real provision that is possibly dangerous is Section 7. (b) Representatives of foreign governments in or to international organizations and officers and employees of such organizations shall be immune from suit and legal process relating to acts performed by them in their official capacity ... http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act#Title_I

If an agent of INTERPOL is "just doing his job" then he can do whatever he wants. Fortunately for us INTERPOL is very limited in what it can do.

INTERPOL's constitution is very clear as Article 3 states: It is strictly forbidden for the Organization to undertake any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character. http://www.interpol.int/public/icpo/legalmaterials/constitution/constitutiongenreg/constitution.asp

Thus, we are safe from the administration asking INTERPOL to conduct operations on US soil. If that charter were to change though... it would be a different story.

Also, Obama's actions have had no change on their status in this regard. They have always had this status.

Ok, let's take that one at a time.

>>Interpol has no police force. It conducts no investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone. As an international organization it was not subject to FOIA requests anyway, because it's not a department of the federal government.

It has an office, it has employees, it has files. They are now immune to search and seizure by the federal government.

>>As a previous poster noted, this is NOT DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

It is diplomatic immunity. Learn to fucking read. There's more kinds of diplomatic immunity than the immunities given to diplomats.

>>This is immunity from attachment of any property that Interpol may have in the USA.

Yes.

>>Any employees of Interpol, if any, stationed in the USA can and would still be arrested for crimes they commit

No, they are immune to suit and legal proceedings for anything they did while acting as an employee of interpol.

>>In summary, both the original submitter and basically every comment I've seen so far are not just wrong, they are comically wrong.

Learn to read. It helps in life.

Some references:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

Ok, let's take that one at a time.

>>Interpol has no police force. It conducts no investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone. As an international organization it was not subject to FOIA requests anyway, because it's not a department of the federal government.

It has an office, it has employees, it has files. They are now immune to search and seizure by the federal government.

>>As a previous poster noted, this is NOT DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

It is diplomatic immunity. Learn to fucking read. There's more kinds of diplomatic immunity than the immunities given to diplomats.

>>This is immunity from attachment of any property that Interpol may have in the USA.

Yes.

>>Any employees of Interpol, if any, stationed in the USA can and would still be arrested for crimes they commit

No, they are immune to suit and legal proceedings for anything they did while acting as an employee of interpol.

>>In summary, both the original submitter and basically every comment I've seen so far are not just wrong, they are comically wrong.

Learn to read. It helps in life.

Some references:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12425
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

>>The title and summary are pretty misleading, it appears the only thing Obama did was exempt INTERPOL from certain taxes and provided them with immunity from search and seizure. The article explicitly states that it is not the same thing as diplomatic immunity.

That's because they edited my submission and mangled it.

For the actual law in question, read this:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/International_Organizations_Immunities_Act

INTERPOL is already immune to suit and legal process (Section 7). This made them immune to search, seizure, and paying taxes. And their families, if I'm reading it right.

There's different kinds of diplomatic immunity, read this for more information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity#Diplomatic_immunity_in_the_United_States

They now have all the entries on that table, so if you don't want to call it full diplomatic immunity, you're welcome to come up with a better term.

How can you tolerate a country that has "we will kill all jews world-wide" in it's constitution (note they do clarify that if they ever get the Jews they will come after everyone else - you just can't make this up. Unfortunately, it's not a joke)

In the words of Wikipedia, citation please.

Is it before or after Article 4, which states:

Islam is the official religion in Palestine. Respect and sanctity of all other heavenly religions shall be maintained.

Or Article 18?

Freedom of belief and the performance of religious rituals are guaranteed, provided that they do not violate public order or public morals.

Here's an idea, it's novel, I know. How about you go to the Palestinian Constitution, which I helpfully linked above, and show us this "not a joke" claim you're making, "it's true, really it is" about the goal of "death to Jews and all non-Muslims".

Because beyond that, you ARE a troll.

Every year a whole shitload of peer-reviewed articles get published, most of which are worthless crap that are not necessarily lies.

Peer review is not a QA process. A review board of peers does not guarantee the quality of a paper just like a jury of peers does not guarantee justice. A paper passing peer review only means that the paper has met the *minimum* standard of getting published. It left to the readers to assess the value and trustworthiness of the paper, which is what *publication* is for in the first place. If I read a paper and don't agree with its author, I publish my own research to refute it rather than file a complaint against the reviewers (who are usually anonymous anyway), and wait for the feedback from the reviewers, and hopefully get it approved for publication asap.

But here, we're talking about the *leaked* stuff here. Being leaked means that the material has NOT passed peer review, and the above chivalrous way does not apply.

There are indeed "interesting" things going on according to the leaked material (esp. a readme file by an unlucky "Harry"), and it's interesting enough for a heated and hopefully fruitful discussion, which is NOT at the peer-reviewed-publication level. On the contrary, these discussions provides a good complement angle which is not necessarily worthless.

Oh, and by the way, April is the cruellest month, breeding lilacs out of dead land, mixing memory and desire, stirring dull roots with spring rain ;-) [emphasis mine]

What's more, because US treaties are backed by the power of the Constitution, they are very difficult to repeal later down the road if they turn out to be a bad idea, or, as is more often the case, the other governments back out of the treaty and leave the US holding the bag. Few countries put as much force of law behind treaties as the US. This is also one of the reasons the US never signed on to Kyoto, because it was assumed that the other countries wouldn't be able to make the ambitious targets and would quietly back out, whereas the US would be stuck with it.

Not true. Treaties ratified under the Treaty Clause can be superseded by ordinary law. See the Head Money Cases (emphasis added):

The Constitution of the United States places such provisions as these in the same category as other laws of Congress by its declaration that

this Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.

. . . there is nothing in this law which makes it irrepealable or unchangeable. The Constitution gives it no superiority over an act of Congress in this respect, which may be repealed or modified by an act of a later date. . . .

A treaty is made by the President and the Senate. Statutes are made by the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. The addition of the latter body to the other two in making a law certainly does not render it less entitled to respect in the matter of its repeal or modification than a treaty made by the other two. If there be any difference in this regard, it would seem to be in favor of an act in which all three of the bodies participate. And such is, in fact, the case in a declaration of war, which must be made by Congress and which, when made, usually suspends or destroys existing treaties between the nations thus at war.

In short, we are of opinion that, so far as a treaty made by the United States with any foreign nation can become the subject of judicial cognizance in the courts of this country, it is subject to such acts as Congress may pass for its enforcement, modification, or repeal.

In fact, treaties can be even easier to repeal than laws. There have been multiple occasions when the President has decided to withdraw from a treaty without even asking Congress – like Bush withdrawing from the ABM treaty.

On top of that, you can always implement a treaty in the form of an ordinary law. Treaties can be passed as "non-self-executing", in which case they have no legal force themselves at all. For instance, the United States ratified the Berne Convention, but 17 USC 104(c) says "No right or interest in a work eligible for protection under this title may be claimed by virtue of, or in reliance upon, the provisions of the Berne Convention, or the adherence of the United States thereto. . . ." Instead, the Berne Convention was implemented as the Berne Convention Implementation Act, which was passed by both houses of Congress as a regular bill.

A treaty that we're a party to might not even necessarily have been implemented. I recall reading a Supreme Court case (sadly, I can't remember which) where a treaty we were party to would have prevented the execution of a Mexican citizen, but the Court dismissed the appeal, on the basis that the treaty was not passed as self-executing and wasn't implemented by any law. Thus although the international community recognized us as a party to the treaty, our own courts found it unenforceable under domestic law. The Supreme Court basically sai

It's a self correcting problem.

Once we really do have too many humans for the food supply those humans will go to war over food and kill large numbers of each other. And then we don't have too many humans anymore.

But fell free to kill yourself for the good of humanity if you really think you and your offspring (and their offspring) are going to petri dish the earth.

...Or we could continue breeding at current rates, then find some other way to ensure we get enough food and turn a tidy profit at the same time. [wikisource.org]

Just a modest proposal, is all.

Has google started selling these? If not, then they CAN put these under ownership of a non-profit group and state that it is there for the preservation purposes. According to Chinese Law, that is LEGAL under section 4.

On the contrary, no single person on earth fully understands even the most mundane, common-place things around us. See, for example, the essay "I, Pencil".

we still aren't seeing eye-to-eye here

True. Though I agree that the Ninth allows that the Bill of Rights is not a complete enumeration of our Rights.

In your argument you do not refer to the whole of the Fourth Amendment, but only a part, in fact, just four words. Here are the rest of them:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There's a lot more here than just "unreasonable search and seizure." Yet you focus even more closely, on the distinction between unreasonable and reasonable alone, as though this were the only matter on which the Amendment turns. The Fourth Amendment is far more complex than you say, and taken as a whole, I read - and I think reasonably - that in general we should not be taken by surprise by a search or a seizure, but that if we are, there has to be a good reason, with specific details, given beforehand, to a judge, and that what can be seized, and where, must be incuded in the description to the judge. So what happens at airport security is a search with consent: there is no surprise. By way of contrast, what we know happened at AT&T's Fulsom St. CO and other sites round the country was a surprise, and seized personal effects in the shape of private communications addressed to parties that did not include the NSA, who had sought no warrant from any judge to seize anything in this manner.

You then seek to invalidate the notion that a Constitutional notion of privacy stands on the fourth amendment. I can only say that I disagree with your premises and your argument, and that I strongly recommend that you re-evaluate your view once you have read the French version of the Bill of Rights, Les Droits De l'Homme et du citoyen, written with the benefit of our Bill of Rights, but containing nothing that could be said to offer the reasonable expectation of privacy we enjoy that follows from "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." And, I argue, would not have but for the Fourth Amendment.

There is also the question of what is missing in your comments so far. I know this is slashdot, and there are plenty of things that I would like to say further on this subject, and I am sure you have had to compromise on what you can say; but I think it's important to note that you have said nothing about why there is a difference between warranted and warantless wiretaps at all, why the former are acceptable and the latter are not. To me, the distinction is clear and understandable.

I disagree - I happen to work for a massive piece of this 'M-I Complex', and we're dying here. All the major aerospace and defense companies are going through a seriously hard time and shedding people or outsourcing like mad.

If it were as simple as this, I wouldn't be looking for work :)

Looks like you missed the parent posters point. You would most likely vote to keep your job in the Military Industrial Complex. Even if you say you would not, and claim to be one of the few that understands the big picture that the MIC is a very bad deal for everyone, it would be a hard stretch to imagine the majority of your suffering co-workers and all other dependent's in your state following your lead.

I doubt America will ever shake the shackles of the MIC - people are too motivated by self interest (as in, I want a Job, thanks), and things have only gone waaay downhill since Eisenhower warned how bad things could get, so its not like nobody didn't see it coming

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America

Somehow, I trust it more than conservapedia...

>The military industrial complex will have none of that.
>Not Haliburton, not Texas Instruments, not Lockheed and not the rest.
>These arms makers make too much money to stop making it now.

Your right there. Ex-presidents have warned about it, war heros written books about it but it wont change anytime soon, if ever. No need for assassination these days like you suggest. They only need to do some high profile job lay-off's at a few of the many MIC plants around America, but specifically in the state(s) where the politician(s) are causing problems for the business... voters will set them straight soon after, if they don't fall into line like good little lap-dogs sooner than that.

Yes, they would have been.

Ok, please, provide references for exemption for such civilians in the Geneva Conventions. Put up or shut-up.

some pathetic fucking romance

Your language reveals anger, which only further convinces me, you are wrong.

Of course the new administration "wants to look forward, not backwards" on all the dirty laundry of the previous administration. We were all warned about the military industrial complex by a sitting president, but we'll never see any charges against Cheney or others now. Obama is too busy covering his own ass, the game of politics isn't going to change.

Of course be careful talking about Cheney, he may shoot you in the face and then take a day to sober up before reporting it.

'You can write something meaningful in 250 words, but it takes a lot more skill than doing it in 500 words. Every word has to count for so much more.'

I think this guy was going for 250, but ran over by 13:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address

Fail!

Lucky it wasn't something important, like an MIT application.

OK, I won't go in the details of your post, but the part about France having no separation of Church and State is one of the funniest things I've read lately on the Web.

I'll have you know that most Frenches perceive the USA as having no such separation. I know better, while aknowledging where this perception comes from: your politicians always speaking of God, religious nutjobs being unreasonably influential, the existence of creationists in what looks otherwise like a sensible country, etc. Seriously, I can't blame them for doubting the existence of an actual separation. In fact, I have to regularily read your Constitution to remember that this separation theoretically exists.

Ah well, since I'm on it, I can respond to other parts of your post.

So, about what you called the "Napoleonic law", I'm not sure of what you mean by that. Napoleon ended up a dictator, that's a given, and ultimately ended up as the inventor of modern dictatorship. I'm not among the Frenches who admire his reign. But even he hadn't had the guts to overthrow completely the inheritance of the French Revolution on which he built his power. And this included the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which specifies (in its article IX) the principle of presumption of innocence. So no, even under Napoleon, you weren't "guilty until proven innocent". By the way, the Constitutional Council of France specifically refered to article IX of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which has constitutional value, to invalidate the previous version of the repressive part of the law discussed here.

As for the French Academy... well, I agree that it is laughable. Fortunately, not much care is given to their rulings. For example, they ruled that the French version of "e-mail" would be "mèl". Thankfully, this awful semantic unit has been overriden by the Quebecois version "courriel", which has the awesome property of offering the variant "pourriel" for junk mail. So, basically, the Quebecois protect French language from the French Academy.

In France, the populace has a much different relationship with the government than Americans do with theirs.

That, I aknowledge as true. And I find it very interesting to discuss. Don't you?

Having the right of the accuser to be present during proceedings taken away is one that will impact their civil liberties.

This typo is quite unfortunate. I guess you meant the accused. And I agree with you, but thats one reason why the Constitutional Council might ditch this law again.

However, the French standard for civil liberties is much lower.

Maybe. Or maybe we have a different definition of civil liberties. For example, I find the typical lack of concern about privacy that most Americans show rather startling. That's things like that that make the dialogue interesting.

In the 4th circuit, this has been overturned. See Veeck vs. the Southern Building Code Congress. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Veeck_v._Southern_Building_Code_Congress_Int'l,_Inc.

How quickly the spirit is lost:

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon... (interrupted by applause) we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

Well, 'tis changing.

(I found this form ('tis) in Hume's Treatise of Human Nature, 1739 - yes, I know he's a Scott.).

Could we get a single clear form for the possessive in English please? No, of course not.

Is it "Haxamanish's post", "Haxamanish' post" or "Haxamanishes post"? Depending on who you ask, the answer is different. "It's" and "its" is consistent with none of those. But then again, consistency is not a property of natural language.

Firing at civilians is illegal too... but dropping a bomb on an enemy that is surrounded by a thousand civilians is perfectly fine.

Not really. If you drop a bomb on a single enemy solder surrounded by a thousand civilians, and said soldier was just moving through the area and not deliberately using those civilians as a human shield, then it's still illegal. This is covered by Geneva Convention Protocol I Article 57. Specifically:

With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: (a) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall: (i) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 52 and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this Protocol to attack them; (ii) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss or civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects; (iii) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

(b) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;

For example, Grdelica train bombing by NATO forces during the Kosovo War was a war crime under this Article, and would be recognized as such, except that (effectively NATO-run by that time) ICTY tribunal accepted the pilot's claim that he didn't recognize the passenger train as such, neither during the first nor the second bombing run.

I do really like your remark pointing out the dual meaning of "privé", but the French text does not contain that word.

OT: I tried to write the French text in this remark, using the cumbersome html codes for foreign languages, but even that works only in the most simple cases on Slashdot. When will they fix this?

> We don't hear about good lawyers ever.

So you never heard about Gandhi ?

Highly recommend reading "The Story of my Experiments with Truth"
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Autobiography_or_The_Story_of_my_Experiments_with_Truth

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome. So what's with Google's Chrome?

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can mine our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And they're going to come out with their own operating system?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit trying to syphon off my personal data in between crashes!

I thought that the Korean War never really ended. It was just a cease fire that continues until this day? Although there is an armistice agreement.

There's no shame in that, it won't even disqualify you from being President of the United States.

Why should it? There's no requirement for a birth certificate in the Constitution. I looked.

They, of course, have not the slightest clue how difficult (probably impossible with current technology) it would be to live on the Moon or Mars.

That's exactly the mission NASA has been tasked with: figure out how to live off the Moon, and then Mars.

As for the question of Why, well that's also been addressed. "We do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." If you want to know what a America would look like without NASA, just take one look at my country, Australia. If you train to be an aeronautical engineer here you might as well start looking for a job overseas at graduation time.. cause our aerospace industry is non-existent. That has knock-on effects in every other industry.

NASA == high tech and there's no higher tech than manned space flight. The challenge is the journey and the destination.

Then you missed an important part of the book. They weren't advocating giving away physical things. They were talking about the fact that ideas are free. Even ideas that take time to figure out. But profits can be made from physical things that express ideas.

You might even be familiar with this quote, the most relevant point being that:

"It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property."

Yes, the context is of patents, but I believe the same could be true of digital information. Such information is almost as ephemeral as an idea. The marginal costs associated with reproduction are indeed close to zero. But there are other ways to make money with it.

Another point I think you may have missed from the book is that the costs associated with intellectual property protection seem to have loomed far above the benefits of late. How many trees must die for this protection? Given the way copyrights and patents are treated, can we honestly say that Intellectual Property rights enforcement are consistent with ordinary property rights and freedom of expression?

I respectfully disagree with your position and suggest that a more careful reading would have given you the answers you seek.

Actually, skipping the preliminary, the BNA act begins " It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by Proclamation that, on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than Six Months after the passing of this Act, the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the Name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and be One Dominion under that Name accordingly."

It's not the most the most inspired reading. The Yanks do have us beat when it comes to founding documents. Actually, they've got pretty much everyone beat, just for including the concept of the 'pursuit of happiness' being important. Since when did a government ever care about its people's happiness? At most they would prefer that most of the people be more or less content so that they don't revolt, but that's about it. Of course, the US as envisioned by its founding fathers, and the US today are arguably quite different.

As to predictions... Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1841, against the extension of copyright http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_(Macaulay) [wikisource.org] Only quoting the ending, but the speech as a whole is a very good read

"I am so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living. If I saw, Sir, any probability that this bill could be so amended in the Committee that my objections might be removed, I would not divide the House in this stage. But I am so fully convinced that no alteration which would not seem insupportable to my honorable and learned friend, could render his measure supportable to me, that I must move, though with regret, that this bill be read a second time this day six months."

I think it's about time to seriously start working on a community-owned mesh network. Like Eben Moglen says:

In the 21st century, we must make the equal right to communication an engineered fact.

(full transcript)

I know it's a wiki, but it's a carbon copy of the real lawbook, it's just the only page I could find that allows me to directly link to the article.

Let me translate something for you:

"Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging welke beperkt blijft tot enkele exemplaren en welke uitsluitend dient tot eigen oefening, studie of gebruik van de natuurlijke persoon die zonder direct of indirect commercieel oogmerk de verveelvoudiging vervaardigt of tot het verveelvoudigen uitsluitend ten behoeve van zichzelf opdracht geeft."

Which you can translate loosly to:

"It is not considered copyright infringement if a copy is made solely for the purpose of own practice or study without direct or indirect commerical gain, and when the copy is only meant for himself".

If you want to read it yourself, here is a shoddy google translation: here

In short, under Dutch law, it's legal to make copy's of copyrighted works (be it a movie, music or a piece of text), only if it's for yourself and does not give you a commercial gain. This rule was originally built to support people making back-up copies for them selves, but applies to the internet too. What you CAN'T do is upload copyrighted files (uploading = distribution), and this whole legal blurb doesn't apply to applications (uploading or downloading of software is both illegal).

Your turn.

It's not only an American thing. We've got the same in Italy, Europe. Check Article 27 at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Italy

The defendant is not considered guilty until final judgment is passed.

I expect every democratic county to have the same statement in its constitutional chart even if governments (US included) sometimes find ways to work around those principles.

that isn't right. you know what else isn't right ? ridiculous copyright terms of 95 or whatwasit years after author's death. ridiculous claims that users can't make a copy for their own, private use of purchased works. ridiculous patent claims.
none of these helps to either advance arts or science. none of these helps to improve artist image.

i recently saw a link to a speach, done in 1841.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Copyright_Law_(Macaulay).

"Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress? Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living"

that's quite correct, don't you agree ? so if artists have decided to screw everybody else with unreasonable claims (or maybe simply allowed somebody else to do that) - well, screw the artists. maybe it would be healthy to let them feel the pain of no copyright, so that unreasonability of a copyright standing for a hundred of years after they are friggin dead kicks in.

copyright isn't a basic right like right to own a physical unit. it's a privilege, put forth and allowed to be enjoyed with a single stated goal - to advance public good. it has been abused for a hundred years and made in the absolute opposite what was the stated goal. if you see such masses of people considering it unreasonable, maybe, just maybe you are wrong.

ps. it's also quite telling that wikipedia page has the following at the bottom... "This work published before January 1, 1923 is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago."

ps2. personally, i do not support complete abolishment of copyright. i believe the pirateparty program of 5 years and no restrictions on personal use is very, very reasonable. i would even support a slightly extended period of 14 years, which i have seen as an optimal lenght, coming out from some studies.

I believe you will find some familiar names if you read the Völuspá.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future

Quite enlightening. Read, digest, discuss.
Somewhere in there is an example of just such technology creep.
It starts out optional, but soon everyone will be on this stuff just to get a few
more IQ points.

A lot of sci-fi discusses the dangers of depending on tech too much.
Better living thru chemistry is just as bad.