Yeah, but to put credit where credit's due, it started in Germany, with other countries following in, which ultimately lead to the EU directive 95/46/EC.
This is not a free speech issue, because the identities of these persons is not an opinion, nor an information that bears anything remotely resembling a matter of public interest. As such, it's not protected speech.
By your reasoning, what course of action should this family have followed to prevent harm from being done to them? Publicly threaten to track down and kill the person who'd out them? Is that your idea of civilisation?
And I firmly suggest that you refrain from saying you can't harm people with speech: you'd end up looking even more as a fool than you already are.
Indeed, the notions of abuse of process and malicious procsecution exist for a reason. IANAL, and I don't know which one applies to Righthaven's actions. Maybe both.
Yeah, but radon is only part of the equation, namely only a part of the natural radiations (which is what the discussion was initially about). After all, an like you mentioned, it's the result of the desintegration of uranium, which is also radioactive. Regions rich in granite (I'll keep with this example becasue it's the one I know best) especially if said granite is rich in uranium, have significantly higher natural radioactivity than most others, ceteris paribus - while said level of radioactivity isn't considered nocive, indeed.
In fact, in France, when the first reports came about Fukushima Daiichi, journalists used Brittany, the Massif Central, and sometimes the Vosges Mountains as points of comparison to explain that the level of radiation around the nuclear plant was not yet alarming (that was before any rupture, meltdown or leak happened).
Actually, I'd be interested in knowing how the geological composition compares to altitude in contributing to natural radiations. I've been trying to find information about this, to no avail for now.
Well, considering the attack was initiated through spoofed e-mails with malignant attachments that installed trojans, there is something spectacular to it: the inanity of the security schemes, and the ignorance of the users.
It is a rare day indeed when you find a person who will admit that someone who disagrees with them has done an adequate amount of research and fact finding and simply has reached a different well informed opinion.
I don't know where you hang out, but I (and many people I know, many of whom disagree with me on important issues) do it every day. For example, I'm willing to admit right now that you and I have a reasonable difference of opinion on differences of opinion. You're being reasonable enough here that you give me no reason to believe what you say is based on bias, and to give me every reason to believe you're basing what you say on serious thought.
Ditto to that. To put it in Slashdot modding terms, when I have mod points, I tend to reserve the "interesting" positive mod to posts with which I disagree, but are well put and at least seem well thought out. So, basically, I use "+1 interesting" as a "+1 disagree".
Enforcement of law, rights and freedoms is regulation. By this definition, I indeed tend to cry for what you call "more regulation". In other words, I'm a classic liberal who believes in balancing freedoms to make them real rather than theoretical. I can appreciate the energy of Free Market while keeping in mind that it's fundamentally chaotic and needs to be properly channelled to give its best. In a way, you can call me, and people like me, freedom gardeners.
Now, you seem to pin on me some strawman regulationist which somehow lead to this whole legal clusterfuck. If that's actually what you are trying to do, I have just one thing to say to you: fuck you.
For the record, I am not a US citizen. But I tend to consider myself well-informed about how the USA work. And by what I understand of the USA's legal system, what BofA just did exposes it to lawsuits that they would inevitably lose if they happen.
To expand a little : extraditions can still happen even for crimes for which death penalty could be pronounced, they just involve a special agreement that it will not be. At least, that's how it works between France and the USA.
I don't know how it is enforced in the USA, but by your statements your attorneys perpetrated severe violations of their professional responsibility.
Have you done or considered doing something about it? Legal malpractice can be punished, and IMHO should be as often as possible. Y'know, to push the suckers out of the profession.
Your example is better as more likely to happen, but it doesn't invalidate the Parent's point, it actually reinforces it. Sometimes you may have good reasons to break the rules. This is taken into account in any sane judicial system.
...if you ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal".
Fix'd it for you. Learn to use negatives, and when not to use them.
But yeah, I agree, and here's a big giveaway for a patent to be plain bogus: the use of contitional. There's no place for conditional in a patent filing. No uncertainty should be admitted in what is supposed to be a full disclosure of an entire process with all its whereabouts. Therefore, this patent is bogus until it can be reformulated using exclusively the indicative mood. Period.
This could be a convenient way to purge a lot of bogus patents, very easy to automatize. "Sorry, your patent just got invalidated for using conditional mood. You've got one month to reformulate it using exclusively the indicative."
Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I said. Sorry if I haven't been clear.
I think it's the "there" that confused you, and it's entirely my fault: being French, it was obvious to me that "there" refered to California, but I overlooked the fact that it wasn't necessarily obvious for everyone.
But yeah, that's why Polanski was never tried in France for this affair: because of the ne bis in idem principle.
If it weren't for that, he could have been tried, even though the facts took place in California.
This is linked to the impossibility for France to extradite its own citizens: if the alleged facts are punishable by French law, then French jurisdiction takes charge.
And finally, that's why the principle of ne bis idem applies even when two different sovereignties are involved: provisions about this are usually included in extradition treaties. Overall, it favors judicial cooperation, but it's not always easy.
No one is speaking of letting him go free. The procedure leading to a trial had started (in the UK) before the USA came and mingled to require an extradition on an irrelevant pretext ("terrorism", yeah right). Complying to such a ridiculous claim would be, indeed, pretty spineless.
Slashdot Mirror
Germany only extradites people with their consent.
Wrong: Germany just can't extradite its own citizens without passing a law specifically for this purpose.
Privacy laws are irrelevant. We're not speaking of nominative data, here, only ratings of search terms.
Yeah, but to put credit where credit's due, it started in Germany, with other countries following in, which ultimately lead to the EU directive 95/46/EC.
Identify this Anonymous Coward. It's for free speech.
This is not a free speech issue, because the identities of these persons is not an opinion, nor an information that bears anything remotely resembling a matter of public interest. As such, it's not protected speech.
By your reasoning, what course of action should this family have followed to prevent harm from being done to them? Publicly threaten to track down and kill the person who'd out them? Is that your idea of civilisation?
And I firmly suggest that you refrain from saying you can't harm people with speech: you'd end up looking even more as a fool than you already are.
I have news for you: such a law already exists: slamming a door in the face of someone is assault.
Given there are laws against theft, property damage, fraud, murder, rape, etc I suppose you do all of that all the time, out of spite?
Idiots like you.
This idea goes against may principles on many levels but... I find it eerily compelling.
Indeed, the notions of abuse of process and malicious procsecution exist for a reason. IANAL, and I don't know which one applies to Righthaven's actions. Maybe both.
Yeah, but radon is only part of the equation, namely only a part of the natural radiations (which is what the discussion was initially about). After all, an like you mentioned, it's the result of the desintegration of uranium, which is also radioactive. Regions rich in granite (I'll keep with this example becasue it's the one I know best) especially if said granite is rich in uranium, have significantly higher natural radioactivity than most others, ceteris paribus - while said level of radioactivity isn't considered nocive, indeed.
In fact, in France, when the first reports came about Fukushima Daiichi, journalists used Brittany, the Massif Central, and sometimes the Vosges Mountains as points of comparison to explain that the level of radiation around the nuclear plant was not yet alarming (that was before any rupture, meltdown or leak happened).
Actually, I'd be interested in knowing how the geological composition compares to altitude in contributing to natural radiations. I've been trying to find information about this, to no avail for now.
Actually, there are places where telluric radiations (involving radon) are quite significant. Granitic regions come to mind, among others.
Well, considering the attack was initiated through spoofed e-mails with malignant attachments that installed trojans, there is something spectacular to it: the inanity of the security schemes, and the ignorance of the users.
It is a rare day indeed when you find a person who will admit that someone who disagrees with them has done an adequate amount of research and fact finding and simply has reached a different well informed opinion.
I don't know where you hang out, but I (and many people I know, many of whom disagree with me on important issues) do it every day. For example, I'm willing to admit right now that you and I have a reasonable difference of opinion on differences of opinion. You're being reasonable enough here that you give me no reason to believe what you say is based on bias, and to give me every reason to believe you're basing what you say on serious thought.
Ditto to that. To put it in Slashdot modding terms, when I have mod points, I tend to reserve the "interesting" positive mod to posts with which I disagree, but are well put and at least seem well thought out. So, basically, I use "+1 interesting" as a "+1 disagree".
Enforcement of law, rights and freedoms is regulation. By this definition, I indeed tend to cry for what you call "more regulation". In other words, I'm a classic liberal who believes in balancing freedoms to make them real rather than theoretical. I can appreciate the energy of Free Market while keeping in mind that it's fundamentally chaotic and needs to be properly channelled to give its best. In a way, you can call me, and people like me, freedom gardeners.
Now, you seem to pin on me some strawman regulationist which somehow lead to this whole legal clusterfuck. If that's actually what you are trying to do, I have just one thing to say to you: fuck you.
For the record, I am not a US citizen. But I tend to consider myself well-informed about how the USA work. And by what I understand of the USA's legal system, what BofA just did exposes it to lawsuits that they would inevitably lose if they happen.
That's interesting. What the fuck happened to contract laws and due process?
To expand a little : extraditions can still happen even for crimes for which death penalty could be pronounced, they just involve a special agreement that it will not be. At least, that's how it works between France and the USA.
I, for one, welcome our creepy robotic overlords.
I don't know how it is enforced in the USA, but by your statements your attorneys perpetrated severe violations of their professional responsibility.
Have you done or considered doing something about it? Legal malpractice can be punished, and IMHO should be as often as possible. Y'know, to push the suckers out of the profession.
Your example is better as more likely to happen, but it doesn't invalidate the Parent's point, it actually reinforces it. Sometimes you may have good reasons to break the rules. This is taken into account in any sane judicial system.
...if you ignore the fact that this is a blatant case of "patenting the goal".
Fix'd it for you. Learn to use negatives, and when not to use them.
But yeah, I agree, and here's a big giveaway for a patent to be plain bogus: the use of contitional. There's no place for conditional in a patent filing. No uncertainty should be admitted in what is supposed to be a full disclosure of an entire process with all its whereabouts. Therefore, this patent is bogus until it can be reformulated using exclusively the indicative mood. Period.
This could be a convenient way to purge a lot of bogus patents, very easy to automatize. "Sorry, your patent just got invalidated for using conditional mood. You've got one month to reformulate it using exclusively the indicative."
Uh, yeah, that's exactly what I said. Sorry if I haven't been clear.
I think it's the "there" that confused you, and it's entirely my fault: being French, it was obvious to me that "there" refered to California, but I overlooked the fact that it wasn't necessarily obvious for everyone.
But yeah, that's why Polanski was never tried in France for this affair: because of the ne bis in idem principle.
If it weren't for that, he could have been tried, even though the facts took place in California.
This is linked to the impossibility for France to extradite its own citizens: if the alleged facts are punishable by French law, then French jurisdiction takes charge.
And finally, that's why the principle of ne bis idem applies even when two different sovereignties are involved: provisions about this are usually included in extradition treaties. Overall, it favors judicial cooperation, but it's not always easy.
Once the US agencies stop being dicks and let British courts do their job, he won't have to worry about that.
The fact that they haven't done so for seven years is simply mind-boggling.
USA's demands block the procedure.
No one is speaking of letting him go free. The procedure leading to a trial had started (in the UK) before the USA came and mingled to require an extradition on an irrelevant pretext ("terrorism", yeah right). Complying to such a ridiculous claim would be, indeed, pretty spineless.
someone comes along and replicates the iPod in your car, still leaving your iPod there, is it really that bad?
It results in one more iPod in the world, so yes, it is bad.