So in order to prevent the small (population) states from being subject to the whim of the larger states you set up a system where any state can force it's views on all other states; resulting in exactly the thing you were trying to avoid?
The irony is not lost on me =) The federal-state system in Australia is in dire need of reform, with Federal governments increasingly pulling powers from the states by fiat, but the strategy has been pursued by both sides of federal politics irrespective of the competencies or constituencies of the states, so someone to push that reform is not yet in parliament...
People like to point fingers at Atkinson but who the fuck created a system where one state can veto _anything_? With no chance of overriding said veto. That's not democracy.
"We", where "we" is our predecessors, did - Australia is a federation of states, and the balance of power that allows one state to veto is due to the fact that the smaller states were afraid of being subject to the whim of the more populous states. This is also responsible for the Senate, where each state has equal representation despite the disparity in population. It's not a perfect democracy, but we've lived with it for a hundred years, and the Americans have lived with a similar one for over 200.
So it will inconvenience the average user with its rather questionable goals of keeping Australians safe from bad stuff, but will not in fact cause great problems for a lot of the very people it claims to be aimed at.
That's not the only hang up, nor is it the primary one - the issue at the heart of this is that the ACMA blacklist, which would be at the core of the filtering, isn't available for review - a site can be put on the blacklist without notification, and removing sites from the list is an arduous process. There is no independent oversight of this list, and contrary to claims by Conroy it does not only contain sites which are clearly illegal - Wikileaks ended up on the list when it posted a leaked version of the list. It's this potential stifling of free speech by the government without recourse or independent review that has caused issues amongst a wider range of people.
While I am sure it did not damage India's economy the linked article did state that some (a significant enough "some" to be worth mentioning, apparently) of them do use it to get payed for their job.
"Some" of India's 1 billion plus population might be a non-trivial number but the amounts involved are not significant in a $1 trillion plus GDP economy. Sure, some people got burned using a method that's been called into question by the regulator; it's no biggie from India's overall point of view. From Paypal's point of view though, it's significant because of the potential of the Indian market, and that's why I think it's been given such coverage - it is an American publication focused on the technology space, which means Paypal is significant to it. It's a question of perspective.
So this action by PayPal I am sure has inconvenienced many people and for any everyone that uses it as a source of income could find the next months financially challenging.
It isn't an action by Paypal, it's an action by the Indian regulator, and it's not a source of income, it's a method of payment - payment that can be achieved through other means.
So while they might not have a right to operate, I would hope any country would think twice before doing anything that would jeopardize any of its citizens legal sources of income.
The issue is that their their method of payment is under investigation. Whether it's because the payment method allows them to dodge taxes, avoid necessary official declaration or simply that it can aid money laundering, it's something that a regulator is obliged to do. If the word "terrorist" was thrown in there, for example "paypal shuttered because it potentially allows terrorists to transfer funds", would that be sufficient justification?
Note: I was not overly careful with my grammar so maybe you can find another mistake to poke fun of, if you find my logic/opinion to hard to counter.
It wasn't an issue of grammar, it was the wrong word entirely. My issue was with ignorance and the transmutation of "'ve" to "of" due to idiocy, and I called you on it to make an effort to stop it spreading. If you don't want to make an effort to proof your writing, that's your choice, but don't get defensive when you get called on it.
I fail to see how such a policy is worth the economic problems of shuting down paypal for a whole country must of caused.
Firstly: it's must have, not must of. Surely you're not 12 years old with that UID?
Secondly: What makes you think paypal is so integral to the Indian economy that it "must have" caused "economic problems"? Rest assured that this is unlikely to have caused more than a teeny tiny blip in the grand scheme of things.
And I am sure most of the people currently doing the remittances have probably been doing it for quite awhile, so why were they is such a rush that they could not have "fixed" their system without shutting down paypal in the mean time?
You might not be familiar with the words "financial regulator" in America, but generally speaking in the rest of the world, when they act they act immediately and don't dither or worry about a potentially infringing system not being available. The commercial entity does not have an automatic right to operate if it is potentially infringing the regulations or laws.
ACTA relates specifically to counterfeit goods - Patents are more like to be covered by the Patent Cooperation Treaty and other WIPO treaties, but still requires an application for an international patent.
Because the formation of the nation of Australia was on the basis of a vote some four decades later, not as a result of a movement for federation or independence spurred solely by the Eureka Stockade. Never did the pledge catch on or become a slogan for a wider nationalist movement; while Eureka represents a moment of protest against an oppressive authority, its motives and goals never included the creation of a nation.
The reason that I stated that the majority of participants were not Australian-born is to emphasise the point that it served no particular patriotic fervour at the time, no matter how it's been co-opted subsequently. Possibly the only uses currently that are in the original spirit are those used in the labour movement.
As much as I hesitate to quote from Wikipedia, here's a relevant one:
In 1980, historian Geoffrey Blainey drew attention to the fact that many miners were temporary migrants from Britain and the United States, who did not intend to settle permanently in Australia. He wrote:
"Nowadays it is common to see the noble Eureka flag and the rebellion of 1854 as the symbol of Australian independence, of freedom from foreign domination; but many saw the rebellion in 1854 as an uprising by outsiders who were exploiting the country's resources and refusing to pay their fair share of taxes. So we make history do its handsprings."
it certainly seems like you guys have forgotten the old pledge "We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties."
That's because that is a pledge associated with the Eureka stockade, and nothing at all to do with the formation of the Australian nation; the majority of those participating in the stockade were not Australian born but rather recent migrants to the country in the hunt for gold. And yes, it's mostly forgotten because it's not a pledge repeated commonly, and indeed if anything has been co-opted by anti-immigration groups, along with the flag and associated symbolism. Not exactly something to be proud of.
It was in fact the iPAD. And I would assume that the trademark is being disputed over the name rather than a graphical/logo form. It's not like the Fujitsu one was being pronounced as something other than "eye-pad", leading to sufficient confusion.
Twitter can be used as a sort of meta-aggregate. I can subscribe to the EFF, slashdot, techdirt, boing boing, michael geist, etc. and get all the headlines on one page, rather than navigating through several different websites. when something sounds interesting, I click it and go straight to the article. It is a time saver.
Back in my day, we had to use these rickety old things RSS Readers, and we liked it. Ah, how I miss 2008.
Nevertheless, trademark law does not require a trademark to be registered in order for it to be considered a company's exclusive right - it can be demonstrated through use, such as in this instance selling a device by that name. While yes, it was considered abandoned, Fujitsu reasserted their rights over the name and as such Apple could have taken reasonable measures to avoid clashing with it, if they wanted to - clearly though, they're willing to fight for it.
Slashdot Mirror
So in order to prevent the small (population) states from being subject to the whim of the larger states you set up a system where any state can force it's views on all other states; resulting in exactly the thing you were trying to avoid?
The irony is not lost on me =) The federal-state system in Australia is in dire need of reform, with Federal governments increasingly pulling powers from the states by fiat, but the strategy has been pursued by both sides of federal politics irrespective of the competencies or constituencies of the states, so someone to push that reform is not yet in parliament...
If I have seen farther than others it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants.
-- Sir Isaac Newton
Actually, I think our government missed the lecture on Internet 101 and copied China's notes. Our PM can speak Mandarin after all.
People like to point fingers at Atkinson but who the fuck created a system where one state can veto _anything_? With no chance of overriding said veto. That's not democracy.
"We", where "we" is our predecessors, did - Australia is a federation of states, and the balance of power that allows one state to veto is due to the fact that the smaller states were afraid of being subject to the whim of the more populous states. This is also responsible for the Senate, where each state has equal representation despite the disparity in population. It's not a perfect democracy, but we've lived with it for a hundred years, and the Americans have lived with a similar one for over 200.
And with any source that is an unabashedly sensationalist, right-wing tabloid like the Daily Mail, which has regularly published false stories and lost a string of libel suits. It's got an even more sordid history going back to the inter-war period.
So it will inconvenience the average user with its rather questionable goals of keeping Australians safe from bad stuff, but will not in fact cause great problems for a lot of the very people it claims to be aimed at.
That's not the only hang up, nor is it the primary one - the issue at the heart of this is that the ACMA blacklist, which would be at the core of the filtering, isn't available for review - a site can be put on the blacklist without notification, and removing sites from the list is an arduous process. There is no independent oversight of this list, and contrary to claims by Conroy it does not only contain sites which are clearly illegal - Wikileaks ended up on the list when it posted a leaked version of the list. It's this potential stifling of free speech by the government without recourse or independent review that has caused issues amongst a wider range of people.
Let me put on the record that I love that this is modded informative.
While I am sure it did not damage India's economy the linked article did state that some (a significant enough "some" to be worth mentioning, apparently) of them do use it to get payed for their job.
"Some" of India's 1 billion plus population might be a non-trivial number but the amounts involved are not significant in a $1 trillion plus GDP economy. Sure, some people got burned using a method that's been called into question by the regulator; it's no biggie from India's overall point of view. From Paypal's point of view though, it's significant because of the potential of the Indian market, and that's why I think it's been given such coverage - it is an American publication focused on the technology space, which means Paypal is significant to it. It's a question of perspective.
So this action by PayPal I am sure has inconvenienced many people and for any everyone that uses it as a source of income could find the next months financially challenging.
It isn't an action by Paypal, it's an action by the Indian regulator, and it's not a source of income, it's a method of payment - payment that can be achieved through other means.
So while they might not have a right to operate, I would hope any country would think twice before doing anything that would jeopardize any of its citizens legal sources of income.
The issue is that their their method of payment is under investigation. Whether it's because the payment method allows them to dodge taxes, avoid necessary official declaration or simply that it can aid money laundering, it's something that a regulator is obliged to do. If the word "terrorist" was thrown in there, for example "paypal shuttered because it potentially allows terrorists to transfer funds", would that be sufficient justification?
Note: I was not overly careful with my grammar so maybe you can find another mistake to poke fun of, if you find my logic/opinion to hard to counter.
It wasn't an issue of grammar, it was the wrong word entirely. My issue was with ignorance and the transmutation of "'ve" to "of" due to idiocy, and I called you on it to make an effort to stop it spreading. If you don't want to make an effort to proof your writing, that's your choice, but don't get defensive when you get called on it.
You wouldn't guess it from the title - should be "Paypal suspended in India", not "India suspended..."
I fail to see how such a policy is worth the economic problems of shuting down paypal for a whole country must of caused.
Firstly: it's must have, not must of. Surely you're not 12 years old with that UID?
Secondly: What makes you think paypal is so integral to the Indian economy that it "must have" caused "economic problems"? Rest assured that this is unlikely to have caused more than a teeny tiny blip in the grand scheme of things.
And I am sure most of the people currently doing the remittances have probably been doing it for quite awhile, so why were they is such a rush that they could not have "fixed" their system without shutting down paypal in the mean time?
You might not be familiar with the words "financial regulator" in America, but generally speaking in the rest of the world, when they act they act immediately and don't dither or worry about a potentially infringing system not being available. The commercial entity does not have an automatic right to operate if it is potentially infringing the regulations or laws.
ACTA relates specifically to counterfeit goods - Patents are more like to be covered by the Patent Cooperation Treaty and other WIPO treaties, but still requires an application for an international patent.
instead of the middle east having us by the short hairs, in the future it's going to be the Chinese.
In the future?
Because the formation of the nation of Australia was on the basis of a vote some four decades later, not as a result of a movement for federation or independence spurred solely by the Eureka Stockade. Never did the pledge catch on or become a slogan for a wider nationalist movement; while Eureka represents a moment of protest against an oppressive authority, its motives and goals never included the creation of a nation.
The reason that I stated that the majority of participants were not Australian-born is to emphasise the point that it served no particular patriotic fervour at the time, no matter how it's been co-opted subsequently. Possibly the only uses currently that are in the original spirit are those used in the labour movement.
As much as I hesitate to quote from Wikipedia, here's a relevant one:
In 1980, historian Geoffrey Blainey drew attention to the fact that many miners were temporary migrants from Britain and the United States, who did not intend to settle permanently in Australia. He wrote:
"Nowadays it is common to see the noble Eureka flag and the rebellion of 1854 as the symbol of Australian independence, of freedom from foreign domination; but many saw the rebellion in 1854 as an uprising by outsiders who were exploiting the country's resources and refusing to pay their fair share of taxes. So we make history do its handsprings."
1. Dey tuk er jeb! Won't someone think of the jeb?
Where the hell do you think this is from, New Zealand?
it certainly seems like you guys have forgotten the old pledge "We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties."
That's because that is a pledge associated with the Eureka stockade, and nothing at all to do with the formation of the Australian nation; the majority of those participating in the stockade were not Australian born but rather recent migrants to the country in the hunt for gold. And yes, it's mostly forgotten because it's not a pledge repeated commonly, and indeed if anything has been co-opted by anti-immigration groups, along with the flag and associated symbolism. Not exactly something to be proud of.
It was in fact the iPAD. And I would assume that the trademark is being disputed over the name rather than a graphical/logo form. It's not like the Fujitsu one was being pronounced as something other than "eye-pad", leading to sufficient confusion.
Follow your favourite band's twitter RSS feed, or get Google Reader to scrape their sites for you. I'm just sayin', twitter ain't designed for aggregation.
Twitter can be used as a sort of meta-aggregate. I can subscribe to the EFF, slashdot, techdirt, boing boing, michael geist, etc. and get all the headlines on one page, rather than navigating through several different websites. when something sounds interesting, I click it and go straight to the article. It is a time saver.
Back in my day, we had to use these rickety old things RSS Readers, and we liked it. Ah, how I miss 2008.
Nevertheless, trademark law does not require a trademark to be registered in order for it to be considered a company's exclusive right - it can be demonstrated through use, such as in this instance selling a device by that name. While yes, it was considered abandoned, Fujitsu reasserted their rights over the name and as such Apple could have taken reasonable measures to avoid clashing with it, if they wanted to - clearly though, they're willing to fight for it.
Uh, the iPod went on sale in 2001, so Apple had at least established a beachhead on the iP* portable devices claim...
(which is not to say that that this trademark infringement is justified, or iPad a particularly good name)
+5 informative here - that's probably the most succinct explanation for why this isn't Darwinian, though still could be considered evolution.
Given the martian day is only 40min longer than an earth day, the difference isn't that significant.
From TFA:
so it could go up to about 9,150 meters before its energy runs low enough to drive it to descend
i.e. not a flight ceiling, a limitation of energy capacity.
I'm s clod, you insensitive plod*!
*(british slang)
Except it's more like Linux.conf.us being held in Cuba. Just a little bit wrong.