The Lacey Act says no such thing, and you would have to be really thick to think that it does. The Lacey Act says that it is illegal to IMPORT INTO THE US any animals or plants that have been illegally taken according to the laws of the place they were taken from. You would not be prosecuted for taking the animal (that is the other country's problem), you would be prosecuted for bringing it into the US. Big difference.
Oh bullshit. If the situation is serious enough then emergency services will have to be called anyway. And if the siuation is not serious enough to require emergency services, then it is better for everyone if emergency services are not tied up with some 'unflattering' but non-emergency problem.
You mean in your country it is illegal to call the people who can get there quickest? It is illegal to, instead of having some random person calling 911 (or whatever), have a person who is trained and can provide the exact information the responders need in order to enter the property and locate the person with the problem? It is illegal to have the path to the person cleared of foot and vehicular traffic before the responders get there? Either that is complete bullshit, or you live in some really screwed up country.
I'll give you an example. My wife works at a large high school, and medical emergencies are not uncommon. Proper procedure is to call 911 from a school phone, which calls the office. The office sends the nurse to the problem, puts the school on lockdown so the halls are clear, and calls emergency services to provide clear information on where the problem is and how to get there. A few years ago a teacher appeared to be having a heart attack, and rather than follow proper procedure, someone decided to use their cell phone to call 911. The ambulance showed up at the main entrance, and the security people had no idea why they were there or where they were supposed to be going. Worse, it was class-changing time, so all the hallways were clogged with a few thousand students. By the time they got everything sorted out it was almost 20 minutes from the call, and the teacher was in pretty bad shape. So they did, in fact, make a new rule to help with this. If a 911 call comes in and the person gives the location as the high school (or one of several large business campuses), the 911 operator wll direct them to hang up and call the local emergency number. When a similar situation happened a few years later, the school nurse was providing aid less than 2 minutes after the call, the ambulance arrived on site within 5 minutes, and the ambulance crew was treating the person within 7 minutes.
There is no 'extension of jurisdiction' involved. What are you talking about? Or are you trying to claim that the US does not have jurisdiction over what goods and under what conditions it exports things? Every country has such laws. This is not 'some Chinese company made something and sold it to Iran and we don't like that', it is 'some Chinese company exported stuff from the US and sold it to Iran, in direct violation of Federal law which prohibits exporting stuff FROM THE US to Iran'.
From the summary: Since at least 2016, U.S. authorities have been reviewing Huawei's alleged shipping of U.S.-origin products to Iran and other countries in violation of U.S. export and sanctions laws.
There is no 'contract' involved. In order to export from the US, you need an export license issued by the government. Getting the license includes agreeing that the exported goods will not be transferred (to your knowledge) to Iran (or other embargoed places). So, you can call it either 'exporting without a valid license' or 'fraudulently obtaining an export license', but either way it is a serious criminal matter.
The only (legal) way to get the product out of the country is via an export license. The terms of that license say under what conditions said product can be removed from the country. Those terms include not selling the product to Iran. If you violate those terms you break the law, regardless of whether you own the thing you are selling.
Your understanding sucks. It is a violation of US law to export things from the US to be imported into certain countries (like Iran). You need a license to export from the US, and getting a license means you agree to the terms. She is accused of violating the export license. Why is Canada involved? Because they, like every other country not run by complete morons, have their own import/export laws, and expect international cooperation in enforcing them.
Pictures of food used to advertise the food MUST be the actual product. Now, that does not mean that the burger in the picture was put together by some minimum-wage high schooler, it wan't. It was put together by a professional photographer and food stylist who will take hours getting everything just right. But it is the real food.
That is not an appraiser, that is a assessor. Assessors look for major changes to the property since the last assessment. Appraisers look for much more than that.
Appraisals have nothing to do with investments or bubbles. Your lender does not care what you are willing to pay for a house, they care what someone else will pay if you default on the loan. The appraisal process is supposed to help determine that.
Where does this ridiculous notion that open source is somehow an 'end around the restrictions of copyright law' come from? It is no such thing. Copyright law is, basically, if you create something you get to distribute it and allow copies on your terms. Some people's terms involve payment. Other people's terms may simply include things like not preventing someone else from copying their work. In EITHER case, what gives you the power to do something about when your terms are not adhered to? Copyright law, and nothing else.
What law do you suppose they are disobeying? Since you mention TOS, I guess you mean the CFAA. But that law specifically exempts lawful investigative, protective, or intelligence activities by law enforcement agencies.
This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
The truth is, nobody is really running on old mainframes. They are running on brand new mainframes, most likely ones that have been released in the last five years. The latest mainframe was released just 4 months ago. Mainframes are still in active development, with new models coming out every 1.5-2 years.
Where does this STUPID idea that mainframes are 'decades old' come from? Of course these companies replace hardware. They spend MILLIONS of dollars doing it, and they do it every few years. And what do they replace it with? NEW mainframes, because they are best suited for the job. The latest IBM Z mainframe was released 4 whole months ago.
There is only ONE reason for any of these 'driver assist' features (BLIS, ACC, lane departure, auto-braking, etc) to exist at all - to alert you to things you didn't see. If you are not going to trust alerts BECAUSE you didn't see it, then there is no reason for the systems in the first place. So, either the systems must be removed altogether (best idea), or they must work correctly. There is no middle ground.
YOU may find it not worth the $15/month, others (like me) may find it worth it. I have had XM/SiriusXM for over 10 years, listened to daily, and have yet to hear an ad on any music channel (I am aware that there are 1 or 2 channels that retransmit some crappy FM stations, I don't listen to those).
Slashdot Mirror
The Lacey Act says no such thing, and you would have to be really thick to think that it does. The Lacey Act says that it is illegal to IMPORT INTO THE US any animals or plants that have been illegally taken according to the laws of the place they were taken from. You would not be prosecuted for taking the animal (that is the other country's problem), you would be prosecuted for bringing it into the US. Big difference.
Oh bullshit. If the situation is serious enough then emergency services will have to be called anyway. And if the siuation is not serious enough to require emergency services, then it is better for everyone if emergency services are not tied up with some 'unflattering' but non-emergency problem.
You mean in your country it is illegal to call the people who can get there quickest? It is illegal to, instead of having some random person calling 911 (or whatever), have a person who is trained and can provide the exact information the responders need in order to enter the property and locate the person with the problem? It is illegal to have the path to the person cleared of foot and vehicular traffic before the responders get there? Either that is complete bullshit, or you live in some really screwed up country.
I'll give you an example. My wife works at a large high school, and medical emergencies are not uncommon. Proper procedure is to call 911 from a school phone, which calls the office. The office sends the nurse to the problem, puts the school on lockdown so the halls are clear, and calls emergency services to provide clear information on where the problem is and how to get there. A few years ago a teacher appeared to be having a heart attack, and rather than follow proper procedure, someone decided to use their cell phone to call 911. The ambulance showed up at the main entrance, and the security people had no idea why they were there or where they were supposed to be going. Worse, it was class-changing time, so all the hallways were clogged with a few thousand students. By the time they got everything sorted out it was almost 20 minutes from the call, and the teacher was in pretty bad shape. So they did, in fact, make a new rule to help with this. If a 911 call comes in and the person gives the location as the high school (or one of several large business campuses), the 911 operator wll direct them to hang up and call the local emergency number. When a similar situation happened a few years later, the school nurse was providing aid less than 2 minutes after the call, the ambulance arrived on site within 5 minutes, and the ambulance crew was treating the person within 7 minutes.
There is no 'extension of jurisdiction' involved. What are you talking about? Or are you trying to claim that the US does not have jurisdiction over what goods and under what conditions it exports things? Every country has such laws. This is not 'some Chinese company made something and sold it to Iran and we don't like that', it is 'some Chinese company exported stuff from the US and sold it to Iran, in direct violation of Federal law which prohibits exporting stuff FROM THE US to Iran'.
From the summary: Since at least 2016, U.S. authorities have been reviewing Huawei's alleged shipping of U.S.-origin products to Iran and other countries in violation of U.S. export and sanctions laws.
Everything in your post is incorrect.
There is no 'contract' involved. In order to export from the US, you need an export license issued by the government. Getting the license includes agreeing that the exported goods will not be transferred (to your knowledge) to Iran (or other embargoed places). So, you can call it either 'exporting without a valid license' or 'fraudulently obtaining an export license', but either way it is a serious criminal matter.
The only (legal) way to get the product out of the country is via an export license. The terms of that license say under what conditions said product can be removed from the country. Those terms include not selling the product to Iran. If you violate those terms you break the law, regardless of whether you own the thing you are selling.
Your understanding sucks. It is a violation of US law to export things from the US to be imported into certain countries (like Iran). You need a license to export from the US, and getting a license means you agree to the terms. She is accused of violating the export license. Why is Canada involved? Because they, like every other country not run by complete morons, have their own import/export laws, and expect international cooperation in enforcing them.
Pictures of food used to advertise the food MUST be the actual product. Now, that does not mean that the burger in the picture was put together by some minimum-wage high schooler, it wan't. It was put together by a professional photographer and food stylist who will take hours getting everything just right. But it is the real food.
That is not an appraiser, that is a assessor. Assessors look for major changes to the property since the last assessment. Appraisers look for much more than that.
Appraisals have nothing to do with investments or bubbles. Your lender does not care what you are willing to pay for a house, they care what someone else will pay if you default on the loan. The appraisal process is supposed to help determine that.
Where does this ridiculous notion that open source is somehow an 'end around the restrictions of copyright law' come from? It is no such thing. Copyright law is, basically, if you create something you get to distribute it and allow copies on your terms. Some people's terms involve payment. Other people's terms may simply include things like not preventing someone else from copying their work. In EITHER case, what gives you the power to do something about when your terms are not adhered to? Copyright law, and nothing else.
What law do you suppose they are disobeying? Since you mention TOS, I guess you mean the CFAA. But that law specifically exempts lawful investigative, protective, or intelligence activities by law enforcement agencies.
Maybe you should try reading the actual law , particularly section (f), and maybe you will see where your brilliant analysis falls apart.
The CFAA specifically says:
This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.
So, no.
They do on my phone (Galaxy). Maybe you just have a cappy phone.
'Hey carriers, how many phones were connected to your network when the alert was sent'. Are you under the impression they don't know this information?
The truth is, nobody is really running on old mainframes. They are running on brand new mainframes, most likely ones that have been released in the last five years. The latest mainframe was released just 4 months ago. Mainframes are still in active development, with new models coming out every 1.5-2 years.
Where does this STUPID idea that mainframes are 'decades old' come from? Of course these companies replace hardware. They spend MILLIONS of dollars doing it, and they do it every few years. And what do they replace it with? NEW mainframes, because they are best suited for the job. The latest IBM Z mainframe was released 4 whole months ago.
There are still no ads on the music channels, just like it has always been. He doesn't know what he is talking about.
There is only ONE reason for any of these 'driver assist' features (BLIS, ACC, lane departure, auto-braking, etc) to exist at all - to alert you to things you didn't see. If you are not going to trust alerts BECAUSE you didn't see it, then there is no reason for the systems in the first place. So, either the systems must be removed altogether (best idea), or they must work correctly. There is no middle ground.
YOU may find it not worth the $15/month, others (like me) may find it worth it. I have had XM/SiriusXM for over 10 years, listened to daily, and have yet to hear an ad on any music channel (I am aware that there are 1 or 2 channels that retransmit some crappy FM stations, I don't listen to those).
'A dozen or so channels'? I get about 150 channels in my car, and 200 or so when using their internet service.
My guess would be that the driver thinks the car 'sees' something he doesn't, and he reacts to that by braking harder.
The statement wasn't 'this can't be done', it was 'this design won't work'. There is a world of difference between those statements.