Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo! Not Bound by French Court Ruling
Klerck writes "Luckily, a US federal judge has ruled that Yahoo! is not bound by the French ruling that demanded that all Nazi memorabilia be removed from its auction site. It's a nice surprise to have a sensible ruling come out of a federal court in times like these."
Smokin!
"Je ne regrette rien" ( I have no regrets.)
Non, Rien De Rien, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien
Ni Le Bien Qu'on M'a Fait, Ni Le Mal
Tout Ca M'est Bien Egal
Non, Rien De Rien, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien
C'est Paye, Balaye, Oublie, Je Me Fous Du Passe
Avec Mes Souvenirs J'ai Allume Le Feu
Mes Shagrins, Mes Plaisirs,
Je N'ai Plus Besoin D'eux
Balaye Les Amours Avec Leurs Tremolos
Balaye Pour Toujours
Je Reparas A Zero
Non, Rien De Rien, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien
Ni Le Bien Qu'on M'a Fait, Ni Le Mal
Tout Ca M'est Bien Egal
Non, Rien De Rien, Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien
Car Ma Vie, Car Me Joies
Aujourd'hui Ca Commence Avec Toi
So what would U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel think of the Dmitry Skylarov case? (If you've been asleep for six months, Skylarov is a Russian citizen who is charged with violating the DMCA by writing a program _in Russia_.)
$MODERATOR obviously has trouble understanding sarcasm. He must be American.
On November 13, 1995 at the E.N.S., I played for the first time to the Algebraic Whist, a Whist extension being played with a Tarot game + one card (79 cards in total), and a hat for each player. We were 6 and the game was played in 21 turns: 1 card for the first turn, ..., 10 cards for the tenth turn, a trumpless turn, then one goes downwards, the last turn (with one card) being special (cf below). Points are counted as follows: when a player fulfils his contract, he gets as many points as the number of his tricks; otherwise he loses the difference between his announced number and his actual number of tricks. Now here are the 17's. At the first turn (of my first game), the card that has been turned over to indicates the trump was the 17 magic (the Star, cf section Symbols). 6 or 7 turns before the end, I bet that I would arrive at 17. 2 turns before the end, I still was first with 16~points, and the second (Bill Allombert, who, like me, had attended the French U.M.E. organized by Danny Loeb in 1991 and 1992) had 15 points; we might still arrive both at 17. Bill announced 2 and I announced 0, but Bill didn't get 2 tricks. I didn't get a trick, so I stayed at 16. The last turn, as I said, is special: each player puts his card onto his hat without looking at it; thus each one knows the other players' cards, but not his own card. I had to talk first, and I announced 1 (it was the only way to arrive at 17), which was sensible since I knew that none of the other cards was a trump. The next one to talk (he was ranked last with -16 points) announced 1 too. Eventually I got the trick, so that I arrived first with 17 points, and the last one had -17 points.
You, sir, are a very slow idiot.
k-rad. Of course this means that you've gained 5 karma. ugh.
The Constitution, our highest law, explicitly protects the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. The government lacks the legal authority to pass a law banning weapons; any such law that was passed would be struck down by the courts. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change this; the process for passing an amendment is (intentionally) FAR more difficult than passing an ordinary law. (2/3 majority in both houses of Congress, and then it must be ratified by [IIRC] 2/3 of the individual State legislatures within a fixed time period.
Our founding fathers, having just overthrown an oppressive, tyrannical, and corrupt government wanted to insure that they and their decendents would retain the ability to do so again in the future if it became necessary:
Banning weapons is a foolish premise. First of all, we have a term for countries where only the police and military are armed: police states. Furthermore, it is impossible to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Criminals manage to get weapons even in maximum-security prisons. In a setting where everyone is forcably disarmed, even a primitive weapon like a knife or a club gives an attacker a lethal advantage over his weaponless victims. Such an enviornment is actually MORE dangerous, because the few people with weapons can use them with impunity -- they can be confidant of their own safety because their victims lack the means to defend themselves. If the evidence of prison violence was not compelling enough, you need to look no further than the events of September 11th to see what happens when you introduce a minimally-armed (but violent & determined) individual into a totally disarmed environment.
A person who wants to get a gun will do so, regardless of any laws. Northern Ireland has some of the most restrictive gun-control laws on the planet, and we can all see how effective THAT has been. If people can smuggle drugs, they can smuggle guns too. Even if they can't smuggle them, they can BUILD them. A gun is nothing more than a well-machined piece of metal. The skills, tools, and raw materials to build a gun from scratch are ubiquitous in an industrialized society. Realize that I'm not just talking about improvised single-shot contraptions; building an open-bolt submachine gun is pretty easy -- the most difficult part is rifling the barrel.
Banning all guns is an idealistic pipe dream. It sounds good on the surface, but once you submit it to any scrutiny, you see that it's unworkable in real life. Gun control laws do nothing but deprive law-abiding citizens of the means to protect themselves, and deprives a free society of the means of preserving it's freedom.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?