The 99% will not care, because they'll be too busy saying "well it doesn't hurt me directly, and therefore I don't care"
Actually, since it kills every thrift store, second-hand shop, pawn shop, etc. I'm pretty sure "the 99%" are going to notice the problem pretty damn quick.
if the ruling is uphold, it works only for the imaginary parts of the product (e.g. trademarks, copyrights, patents) and not the physical ones. As long as you don't have patented screws or copyrighted sheet metal in the object you sell, the sale might be ok.
...or a trademarked logo anywhere on it, or any type of computer chip (the code is copyrighted), or they don't stamp a copyrighted patten into the plastic/metal/whatever... so, in other words, it only holds to non-raw materials (i.e., pretty much everything a consumer will ever actually purchase).
The last thing America wants is a buttload of conspiracy theorists making him into a martyr
Uh, I hate to tell you this, but he already is; a martyr is someone who suffers and/or dies due to persecution. Death is not required to be a martyr, it's just at the extreme end of the "suffering" spectrum.
Now it can be treason or consorting with the enemy if it goes to wikileaks. I see no problem with that.
The only ones who view Wikileaks as enemies of the state are the ones involved in illegal activities they're trying to cover up. So we're letting those who are government-sponsored criminals warp the legal system to unjustly punish, and even kill, those who might even be thinking of revealing their wrongdoing? Yeah, no problem with that, indeed...
Incorrect. As the GP stated, the art is out of copyright, and their vague sign has no force of law (if they could even prove you saw and/or agreed to it), Even trying to come after you for Breach of Contract would be fruitless; there are no actual damages they can prove (they don't hold copyright to the paintings, so they can't claim damages for copying), so the worst they could do is refuse to let you back in.
No civilized country has ever stormed an embassy that I can think of, other than the Iranian revolutionaries storming the US embassy
The Israeli embassy in Egypt was stormed just last year
If you were to RTFA, you would notice that violent protestors stormed the embassy - the Egyptian government, OTOH, sent in soldiers to stop the protestors and protect the foreign embassy. i.e., the exact opposite of what the UK is doing.
Uh, no. Not even close. According to the article you linked to, the US Supreme Court decided that one small portion of the Vienna Convention hadn't been enacted in US law, and therefore a lawful conviction under US law wouldn't be overturned on the small technicality that that portion of the Vienna Convention was not specifically followed.
NOTE: The technicality in question being that while the arresting officers read him his rights, they did not inform him he could contact his embassy. Note that they did not refuse him contact, they just did not inform him that he could ask for it.
Additionally, the International Court of Justice ruled on this case that the defendant was "entitled to review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences". Multiple appeals courts and even the US Supreme court heard arguments on this case afterwards, and found nothing to overturn the verdict.
One a simpleton would think that it is okay to violate the fundamental fabric of diplomacy and international law because they think someone else did. You are an idiot.
it sets a dangerous precedent in that it would then allow others to do the same (seek an embassy friendly to their cause and try to seek asylum)
You mean, like what has been being done since embassies were established? The US, UK, and others have granted asylum to numerous "criminals" in other countries - some for humanitarian reasons, some not. Whether it's right or wrong in this case is totally beside the point, though. It is the entire process that is at risk here - if the host government can just nullify the embassy on a whim, then what good is an embassy? If the "rule of law" nations refuse to recognize ambassadorial procedure, you think any third-world country is going to give a shit about our ambassadors and embassies? If the UK goes through with this threat, it is going to set off the biggest shitstorm in international relations since Germany invaded Poland.
Ecuador has no other choice but to cave in. They cannot afford to go to war with UK
Are you sure you don't have that backwards? If the UK initiates an act of war against another foreign power, especially over something as controversial as this, they'll have a lot of foreign powers extremely pissed at them. They will be seen as the aggressor, and Ecuador as the underdog. This is going to cause massive problems both with foreign relations, and within their own country ("we went to war over what now!?").
Why the specific hate for it being unmanned? If it'd be legal for helicopter or other manned vehicle to do the spying, why should an unmanned version be any different? It's the "spying" part that's the problem, not the "unmanned" part.
This is tricky, because we certainly don't want our personal fun use of drones to be criminalized in any law, but we do want clear restrains on government and other forms of invasion of privacy
Simple solution: Pass a law saying that if it's got monitoring devices over a certain resolution that it falls into a special category that requires permits (for private use), or a search warrant (for police use).
How about we just treat drones like Military Hardware, because that's exactly what they are.
I'd say that it depends on what the drone does - if it's just a spy drone, then if they got the appropriate warrant for surveillance, I'd have no problem with it.
Is your problem just that it's a military robot? I'm perfectly happy to have military-grade bomb disposal units in the hands of the local bomb squad, and don't see why anyone wouldn't be (cost notwithstanding).
I'd even say armed drones are OK as long as they're being remote controlled, and only deployed in situations where SWAT would be sent, anyway - in fact, I'd probably prefer the drone over a SWAT team. Would you rather have a guy there personally who needs to make a split-second "him or me" decision, or someone who can afford to give a few extra seconds time (in which the robot might get shot at) to determine if someone is really a threat before killing them?
It just seems odd to air a 4 year old one-off production like this
... except that it's been hinted at for a long time that a sequel is in the works. Perhaps it's going prime time because the CW (or their parent company) is planning to give the Whedons the funding for a movie / TV series.
Slashdot Mirror
The 99% will not care, because they'll be too busy saying "well it doesn't hurt me directly, and therefore I don't care"
Actually, since it kills every thrift store, second-hand shop, pawn shop, etc. I'm pretty sure "the 99%" are going to notice the problem pretty damn quick.
if the ruling is uphold, it works only for the imaginary parts of the product (e.g. trademarks, copyrights, patents) and not the physical ones. As long as you don't have patented screws or copyrighted sheet metal in the object you sell, the sale might be ok.
...or a trademarked logo anywhere on it, or any type of computer chip (the code is copyrighted), or they don't stamp a copyrighted patten into the plastic/metal/whatever... so, in other words, it only holds to non-raw materials (i.e., pretty much everything a consumer will ever actually purchase).
I have to wonder what happened that made you butcher the word "business" into what I just quoted.
Considering that we're talking about contractors, I'd go with Freudian Slip.
The last thing America wants is a buttload of conspiracy theorists making him into a martyr
Uh, I hate to tell you this, but he already is; a martyr is someone who suffers and/or dies due to persecution. Death is not required to be a martyr, it's just at the extreme end of the "suffering" spectrum.
Now it can be treason or consorting with the enemy if it goes to wikileaks. I see no problem with that.
The only ones who view Wikileaks as enemies of the state are the ones involved in illegal activities they're trying to cover up. So we're letting those who are government-sponsored criminals warp the legal system to unjustly punish, and even kill, those who might even be thinking of revealing their wrongdoing? Yeah, no problem with that, indeed...
you want to make it really hurt, require the representatives replacement come from the opposite party
What opposite party?
Mod +1, insightful
This does it already: http://www.mrphlip.com/xkcd1110/?debug=1
Incorrect. As the GP stated, the art is out of copyright, and their vague sign has no force of law (if they could even prove you saw and/or agreed to it), Even trying to come after you for Breach of Contract would be fruitless; there are no actual damages they can prove (they don't hold copyright to the paintings, so they can't claim damages for copying), so the worst they could do is refuse to let you back in.
sit down, do your job. is that so hard?
If I had money, you would win it.
Apparently, yes.
No civilized country has ever stormed an embassy that I can think of, other than the Iranian revolutionaries storming the US embassy
The Israeli embassy in Egypt was stormed just last year
If you were to RTFA, you would notice that violent protestors stormed the embassy - the Egyptian government, OTOH, sent in soldiers to stop the protestors and protect the foreign embassy. i.e., the exact opposite of what the UK is doing.
Uh, no. Not even close. According to the article you linked to, the US Supreme Court decided that one small portion of the Vienna Convention hadn't been enacted in US law, and therefore a lawful conviction under US law wouldn't be overturned on the small technicality that that portion of the Vienna Convention was not specifically followed.
NOTE: The technicality in question being that while the arresting officers read him his rights, they did not inform him he could contact his embassy. Note that they did not refuse him contact , they just did not inform him that he could ask for it.
Additionally, the International Court of Justice ruled on this case that the defendant was "entitled to review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences". Multiple appeals courts and even the US Supreme court heard arguments on this case afterwards, and found nothing to overturn the verdict.
routinely terrorizes and occasionally disappears journalists and those who speak out against the government.
[Citation needed]
One a simpleton would think that it is okay to violate the fundamental fabric of diplomacy and international law because they think someone else did. You are an idiot.
FTFY.
it sets a dangerous precedent in that it would then allow others to do the same (seek an embassy friendly to their cause and try to seek asylum)
You mean, like what has been being done since embassies were established? The US, UK, and others have granted asylum to numerous "criminals" in other countries - some for humanitarian reasons, some not.
Whether it's right or wrong in this case is totally beside the point, though. It is the entire process that is at risk here - if the host government can just nullify the embassy on a whim, then what good is an embassy? If the "rule of law" nations refuse to recognize ambassadorial procedure, you think any third-world country is going to give a shit about our ambassadors and embassies?
If the UK goes through with this threat, it is going to set off the biggest shitstorm in international relations since Germany invaded Poland.
Ecuador has no other choice but to cave in. They cannot afford to go to war with UK
Are you sure you don't have that backwards? If the UK initiates an act of war against another foreign power, especially over something as controversial as this, they'll have a lot of foreign powers extremely pissed at them. They will be seen as the aggressor, and Ecuador as the underdog. This is going to cause massive problems both with foreign relations, and within their own country ("we went to war over what now!?").
I do wonder what Solyent steak tastes like:)
It varies from person to person.
it turns out the world would be a better place if hot young women would have more orgies with old guys.
I don't agree that would make the world a better place, but ask me again in a few years and I might have changed my mind...
I hated Canticle, but I'd hardly rate it as all that high on a "depressing scifi" list.
May in that context means "we are allowed to do so."
In that context it also means "we are allowed not to do so"
Why the specific hate for it being unmanned? If it'd be legal for helicopter or other manned vehicle to do the spying, why should an unmanned version be any different?
It's the "spying" part that's the problem, not the "unmanned" part.
This is tricky, because we certainly don't want our personal fun use of drones to be criminalized in any law, but we do want clear restrains on government and other forms of invasion of privacy
Simple solution: Pass a law saying that if it's got monitoring devices over a certain resolution that it falls into a special category that requires permits (for private use), or a search warrant (for police use).
How about we just treat drones like Military Hardware, because that's exactly what they are.
I'd say that it depends on what the drone does - if it's just a spy drone, then if they got the appropriate warrant for surveillance, I'd have no problem with it.
Is your problem just that it's a military robot? I'm perfectly happy to have military-grade bomb disposal units in the hands of the local bomb squad, and don't see why anyone wouldn't be (cost notwithstanding).
I'd even say armed drones are OK as long as they're being remote controlled, and only deployed in situations where SWAT would be sent, anyway - in fact, I'd probably prefer the drone over a SWAT team. Would you rather have a guy there personally who needs to make a split-second "him or me" decision, or someone who can afford to give a few extra seconds time (in which the robot might get shot at) to determine if someone is really a threat before killing them?
It just seems odd to air a 4 year old one-off production like this
... except that it's been hinted at for a long time that a sequel is in the works. Perhaps it's going prime time because the CW (or their parent company) is planning to give the Whedons the funding for a movie / TV series.
So what you're saying is that someone needs to make a gun that shoots Buckyballs, and then we can buy them again?