One of the first things I've always done when setting up Visual Studio on a new computer is to set the option to insert spaces instead of tab characters. I find tab characters, to put it bluntly, irritating and utterly unnecessary. (You can imagine my opinion on standard makefile syntax!)
So, for all those tab fans, what is it about tabs that you find useful?
Oh, I see; you're objecting specifically to the prospect of federal legislation, not of legislation per se? So if the sort of laws in question were passed at a state level you'd be fine with them?
(Personally, I find it difficult to understand the importance many Americans place on the separation of federal and state government powers, but it's not something I would care to argue about one way or the other; if that's the way you like your government, far be it from me to complain!)
Please show us where in the US Constitution it says that the federal government has the right to tell corporations how many resources they can give to individuals and NGOs.
On the other hand, corporations only exist as the result of government legislation. Personally, I don't see any obvious constitutional or ethical problem with legislation requiring corporations to behave (or not behave) in a certain way as a prerequisite for corporate status. They would still be free to give away as much money or resources as they like to whomever they like, provided they were willing to give up the legal protections and other benefits accorded to a corporation.
If the registrars for.com had enforced the same sort of policies that the registrars for.com.au have, perhaps people would still remember that "com" is supposed to be short for "commercial".:-)
DISCLAIMER: I have a direct relationship to stephenconroy.com.au.
OK, cool; perhaps you can answer the obvious question. Why did you want stephenconroy.com.au and not, for example, stephenconroy.org.au? Since you are not in fact a business, the latter (or some variant thereof) would have been the more correct choice.
He's saying that only a business can get a.com.au name from this group. The "com" is short for commercial, meaning a business, so this does not seem to be an unreasonable policy.
What on Earth would have been wrong with, for example, stephen-conroy.org.au?
It's bad enough worrying about inadvertently breaking a law (it isn't as if there's the slightest chance of memorising all of them, even if I had time to try) without worrying about the possibility of being extradited as a result. One of the things I accept relatively high taxes for is a more or less decent prison system; it's a bit disconcerting to find out I could get chucked in someone else's badly funded one anyway.
Then there's civil disobedience - not that I've ever felt the need, you understand, but if it happens I'd much prefer to be tried by a jury that shared my cultural values.
The problem is, most of the time when on the internet you don't know where the remote computer is physically located. Generally speaking there's no reason to care.
but surely it's unusual for someone to be tried in a country he's never even visited?
Not at all.
Wow. Scary as hell, but fascinating.
Note also that it is the UK government that I was originally criticising
For what?
Oh, yeah, oops - that was in a different thread. Doesn't matter, I was mostly wrong anyway.
I still don't believe extradition is appropriate in this case. It seems both cruel and unnecessary. (I think there's a quote from Terry Pratchett that would be very apropro here... anyone?)
I wouldn't say unique, but surely it's unusual for someone to be tried in a country he's never even visited? It seems unnecessarily prejudicial to his case.
Note also that it is the UK government that I was originally criticising, so the fact that it signed the treaty in question doesn't exactly excuse it from responsibility for the consequences.:-)
This assumes that the crime took place in Britain: a laughable proposal.
Of course the crime took place in Britain. That's just common sense. The fact that the affected computer was elsewhere is irrelevant.
[...] if you were to stand just on one side of your country's border and shoot into a neighboring country, killing someone on the other side, the crime would be said to have taken place there.
That's just silly. It may or may not be true, legally speaking - I wouldn't know - but just as silly either way.
I don't quite see how, in this case. On the one hand, McKinnon was extradited because, although he was acting in the UK, the servers his actions affected were in the US. On the other hand, folks have also been prosecuted in the UK for actions affecting servers in the US.
What is the explanation for this apparent discrepancy, if not cherry-picking?
Yes, you have a point. Maybe he should count himself lucky!:-)... or maybe the British are just waiting until he finishes his prison sentence in the US and is deported back home...
Is there any evidence that he actually did attempt to disrupt the US military on September 11th? The man was a nutcase, so you can't take a confession or threat at face value.
In any case, terrorism is also a crime, not an act of war.
I was speaking colloquially rather than in legal terms; this is the first case of an internet extradition that I'm aware of. Regardless of whether this case is setting a precedent or whether the precedent has already been set, however, it's still a bad precedent.
But this is the whole point. Determination of jurisdiction is not defined in this way. It makes sense to us that you can only be charged with a crime where you commit it. The truth is it can be either or and sometimes both. [...]
Well, obviously. But the point is, jurisdiction should be determined in this way; yes, charging people in the place where a crime is committed does make sense; and it shouldn't be either or and sometimes both.
There may be a well-established precedent allowing the world's governments to cherry-pick the most hostile jurisdiction to try a suspect. It's still wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the first things I've always done when setting up Visual Studio on a new computer is to set the option to insert spaces instead of tab characters. I find tab characters, to put it bluntly, irritating and utterly unnecessary. (You can imagine my opinion on standard makefile syntax!)
So, for all those tab fans, what is it about tabs that you find useful?
Oh, I see; you're objecting specifically to the prospect of federal legislation, not of legislation per se? So if the sort of laws in question were passed at a state level you'd be fine with them?
(Personally, I find it difficult to understand the importance many Americans place on the separation of federal and state government powers, but it's not something I would care to argue about one way or the other; if that's the way you like your government, far be it from me to complain!)
Moving to a merchant account won't necessarily stop this sort of problem. My wife had a similar experience with American Express.
Ten to one it was due to either a hardware fault or a faulty third party device driver. :-)
Please show us where in the US Constitution it says that the federal government has the right to tell corporations how many resources they can give to individuals and NGOs.
On the other hand, corporations only exist as the result of government legislation. Personally, I don't see any obvious constitutional or ethical problem with legislation requiring corporations to behave (or not behave) in a certain way as a prerequisite for corporate status. They would still be free to give away as much money or resources as they like to whomever they like, provided they were willing to give up the legal protections and other benefits accorded to a corporation.
If the registrars for .com had enforced the same sort of policies that the registrars for .com.au have, perhaps people would still remember that "com" is supposed to be short for "commercial". :-)
DISCLAIMER: I have a direct relationship to stephenconroy.com.au.
OK, cool; perhaps you can answer the obvious question. Why did you want stephenconroy.com.au and not, for example, stephenconroy.org.au? Since you are not in fact a business, the latter (or some variant thereof) would have been the more correct choice.
He's saying that only a business can get a .com.au name from this group. The "com" is short for commercial, meaning a business, so this does not seem to be an unreasonable policy.
What on Earth would have been wrong with, for example, stephen-conroy.org.au?
Trouble is a relative term. :-)
It's bad enough worrying about inadvertently breaking a law (it isn't as if there's the slightest chance of memorising all of them, even if I had time to try) without worrying about the possibility of being extradited as a result. One of the things I accept relatively high taxes for is a more or less decent prison system; it's a bit disconcerting to find out I could get chucked in someone else's badly funded one anyway.
Then there's civil disobedience - not that I've ever felt the need, you understand, but if it happens I'd much prefer to be tried by a jury that shared my cultural values.
The problem is, most of the time when on the internet you don't know where the remote computer is physically located. Generally speaking there's no reason to care.
but surely it's unusual for someone to be tried in a country he's never even visited?
Not at all.
Wow. Scary as hell, but fascinating.
Note also that it is the UK government that I was originally criticising
For what?
Oh, yeah, oops - that was in a different thread. Doesn't matter, I was mostly wrong anyway.
I still don't believe extradition is appropriate in this case. It seems both cruel and unnecessary. (I think there's a quote from Terry Pratchett that would be very apropro here ... anyone?)
Those aren't opinions on legal questions. They are opinions on ethical questions.
I wouldn't say unique, but surely it's unusual for someone to be tried in a country he's never even visited? It seems unnecessarily prejudicial to his case.
Note also that it is the UK government that I was originally criticising, so the fact that it signed the treaty in question doesn't exactly excuse it from responsibility for the consequences. :-)
Ah yes, that answers my prior question on law school.
What prior question?
You are a legal quack, the same way Jim Carey is a medical quack.
I don't recall stating an opinion on any legal issues recently. Are you confusing me with someone else?
This is a legal case, not fantasy land.
So it's a legal case. Does that mean we can't comment on the ethics involved?
Especially when it's someone else's Government anyway. :-)
Don't like it? Get the treaty changed.
Now that's an absurd suggestion. How do you suggest I go about it?
France.
This assumes that the crime took place in Britain: a laughable proposal.
Of course the crime took place in Britain. That's just common sense. The fact that the affected computer was elsewhere is irrelevant.
[...] if you were to stand just on one side of your country's border and shoot into a neighboring country, killing someone on the other side, the crime would be said to have taken place there.
That's just silly. It may or may not be true, legally speaking - I wouldn't know - but just as silly either way.
I don't quite see how, in this case. On the one hand, McKinnon was extradited because, although he was acting in the UK, the servers his actions affected were in the US. On the other hand, folks have also been prosecuted in the UK for actions affecting servers in the US.
What is the explanation for this apparent discrepancy, if not cherry-picking?
Is it true the the UK's Home Secretary could have directed that the accused by tried in the UK rather than extradited?
Yes, you have a point. Maybe he should count himself lucky! :-) ... or maybe the British are just waiting until he finishes his prison sentence in the US and is deported back home ...
Is there any evidence that he actually did attempt to disrupt the US military on September 11th? The man was a nutcase, so you can't take a confession or threat at face value.
In any case, terrorism is also a crime, not an act of war.
I was speaking colloquially rather than in legal terms; this is the first case of an internet extradition that I'm aware of. Regardless of whether this case is setting a precedent or whether the precedent has already been set, however, it's still a bad precedent.
What does my government have to do with anything?
But this is the whole point. Determination of jurisdiction is not defined in this way. It makes sense to us that you can only be charged with a crime where you commit it. The truth is it can be either or and sometimes both. [...]
Well, obviously. But the point is, jurisdiction should be determined in this way; yes, charging people in the place where a crime is committed does make sense; and it shouldn't be either or and sometimes both.
There may be a well-established precedent allowing the world's governments to cherry-pick the most hostile jurisdiction to try a suspect. It's still wrong.
Really buying into this terrorist hype, aren't you?
It wasn't an act of war. It was a criminal offence, and a minor one at that.