A visa is a document that entitles you to cross the border,
Strictly speaking a visa is a document that helps you present yourself to an immigration officer at the border. There's a presumption that he/she will let you cross the border, but no entitlement.
Actually what's more refreshing is that for a change, a foreign court was granted jurisdiction in America, rather than the other way around. And no-one got to be deported in the process!
i dunno, throwing in a few deportees in the other direction might help bring about a sense of proportion about the merits of copyright law uber alles.
We in the UK pay for the BBC willingly because it is worth the price
Don't presume to speak for all of us in the UK. You might pay for the BBC willingly, but I'd rather not if I had a choice. However I'm coerced into doing so even if I just want to watch their competitors.
The BBC's latest theory is that I am obliged to pay them a license fee if I merely watch a video on my PC which is being streamed live (by any broadcaster/website) because that is covered by the 1949 act which established the license fee. They haven't tried to enforce that one yet but they are positioning themselves to maintain their rentseeking position if/when the traditional broadcast TV audience declines even more significantly.
You can only break the laws of a sovereign nation whilst you are within the jurisdiction of that nation.
Not true. Lots of countries have extraterritorial legislation. For example the UK authorities can prosecute for sexual offences committed overseas against children under 16 by British citizens or residents. Several countries (eg Belgium and Spain) have laws which allow them to prosecute "crimes against humanity" in whatever country they occur. Thus Spain once tried to extradite General Pinochet from the UK to face trial for actions he committed entirely within Argentina.
But you do of course have to be within the grasp of the prosecuting authorities for them to enforce the outcome of any prosecution.
Al Queda struck a magor blow to the American way of life. While not an instant knock down, it may in fact be a mortal blow. More like a bee sting to a person allergic to bee venom.
Your implication is that some part of the blow was self inflicted, with which I agree. Don't misunderstand me: the direct consequence of the attack deserved every word of support and sympathy the rest of the world offered. When the rest of NATO immediately invoked the mutual defence article of the founding treaty, that was an entirely proportionate response to the scale of the attack. AQ's 'blow' was major. But only a nation's own leaders and citizens can change its way of life.
The bright side is that getting that way of life back is likewise in your hands - not AQs
Slashdot Mirror
A visa is a document that entitles you to cross the border,
Strictly speaking a visa is a document that helps you present yourself to an immigration officer at the border. There's a presumption that he/she will let you cross the border, but no entitlement.
Actually what's more refreshing is that for a change, a foreign court was granted jurisdiction in America, rather than the other way around. And no-one got to be deported in the process!
i dunno, throwing in a few deportees in the other direction might help bring about a sense of proportion about the merits of copyright law uber alles.
127.0.1.1 www.facebook.com
/ just saying
Yeah those old HP Laserjets were built to last. They still make good second hand purchases.
So does it count if Sony steal your ID? I'm thinking Sony is clever. Those rootkits weren't for nothing.
Well it was written in that spirit, but jokes get most laughs if they poke close to truth. Your interpretation is also acceptable.
till Microsoft uses it in get the facts comparisons?
We in the UK pay for the BBC willingly because it is worth the price
Don't presume to speak for all of us in the UK. You might pay for the BBC willingly, but I'd rather not if I had a choice. However I'm coerced into doing so even if I just want to watch their competitors.
The BBC's latest theory is that I am obliged to pay them a license fee if I merely watch a video on my PC which is being streamed live (by any broadcaster/website) because that is covered by the 1949 act which established the license fee. They haven't tried to enforce that one yet but they are positioning themselves to maintain their rentseeking position if/when the traditional broadcast TV audience declines even more significantly.
Not true. Lots of countries have extraterritorial legislation. For example the UK authorities can prosecute for sexual offences committed overseas against children under 16 by British citizens or residents. Several countries (eg Belgium and Spain) have laws which allow them to prosecute "crimes against humanity" in whatever country they occur. Thus Spain once tried to extradite General Pinochet from the UK to face trial for actions he committed entirely within Argentina.
But you do of course have to be within the grasp of the prosecuting authorities for them to enforce the outcome of any prosecution.
Your implication is that some part of the blow was self inflicted, with which I agree. Don't misunderstand me: the direct consequence of the attack deserved every word of support and sympathy the rest of the world offered. When the rest of NATO immediately invoked the mutual defence article of the founding treaty, that was an entirely proportionate response to the scale of the attack. AQ's 'blow' was major. But only a nation's own leaders and citizens can change its way of life.
The bright side is that getting that way of life back is likewise in your hands - not AQs