Violent crime has been rising for years. Our death by gunshot is far lower than the USA's per capita. The fact is you are far less likely to be killed during a crime in Britain then in the USA. Are you safer in the USA or in Britain? Which one has guns?
Cigarettes cause cancer, and the tobacco companies covered it up for years. Hence they are guilty of negligence.
Gun companies *could* make guns safer and prevent the number of deaths to small children, but haven't. Hence they are guilty of negligence.
A hammer is designed for a purpose. It cannot be made safer without preventing it's main purpose, which is in itself legal. Hammer manufacturers cannot be held responsible for someone misusing a hammer.
Surely it has to be more down to the intended purpose? A hammer is designed for a purpose other than bodily harm. Similarly, some toolkits are designed for purposes other than breaking into someone else's servers.
Woomera was the site of the UK's rocket program when we had one, years ago. Search for Black Knight or Black Arrow on the web, you'll throw up some details. I believe the (crumbling) launch site etc. is still there.
The crew should have been free to go after, possibly, a brief questioning/interogation and a medical "safety" check. Tops 3 days. Longer than that (barring serious injury from the accident) and they're hostages.
Agreed. Personally I think the Chinese were crazy not to release the air crew after about 24 hours. They'd have got rid of the human interest in the story, and could probably claim salvage rights on the plan and keep it legally!
Never said it wasn't in international air space. However it landed on their turf. As I said, consider what the US would do if an unfriendly spy plane landed at a US air field. They would make every effort to gain any useful knowledge from the event.
and since we already know what Chinese jet technology is, they would probably get it back pretty quick
Exactly, but if it had something of use, the USA would keep it until they had got everything they could. They'd be stupid not to. The Chinese would make a fuss, the US would stall them. Sound familiar?
All very well, but if the tables were turned, what would have happened?
What would the USA do if the chinese kept flying planes up the cost of California, just outside the territorial boundaries? What would they do if one of these planes came down at an American air-base?
That being said, the Chinese should have released the air crew within 24 hours, and I would assume (hope?) that they would have destroyed any codes or sensitive data before allowing anyone on board.
Then they don't need to be patented anyway. 'Publishing them' establishes prior art.
I believe they patent them so they can then use patent bargaining in case they accidentally step on someone else's patents - so publishing them wouldn't achieve the same thing at all.
But Bluetooth isn't (just) about computers. It's about enabling communication between devices. PDA's, phones, etc. Maybe you won't be able to use it with your Windows XXXP laptop, but you'll be able transfer data from your phone to your PDA, to your printer.
More likely The Powers That Be would continue posting articles on why The Enemy was going to lose because they were not using The One True OS. Jon Katz would post articles on how the use of guns on the battlefield was leading to a crackdown on geeks in US schools. And the trolls would keep on trolling. Possibly in another language if the war was lost.
ZX81, yes it was called 23 Monster Maze. It had a T. Rex wandering the maze, and you had to get to the exit without bumping into it. Excellent game for it's time.
Men-only golf clubs are on shakey ground - several have been challenged and lost. It's only a matter of time before they all are forced into accepting women members.
Single religion clubs are probably safe, as they can (I assume) claim that they are a church activity I guess
In the UK we actually have a right to work - in as much as you are not allowed to be arbitrarily prevented from working, that applies to employers, the government, etc. Getting sued doesn't involve the powers of the government, it involves the power of the judiciary, who are supposedly independent!
Now that's doubly odd. If I understand correctly, a private organisation does not have to abide by discrimination law?
We've had a number of test cases here where 'Private Clubs' (the MCC, various gentlemans clubs etc.) have been taken to court over discriminatory rules (No Women, generally). AFAIK the clubs have all lost in the end.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it's as simple as that - if I am employed and speaking against my company means I lose my job, get sued, lose my house, (possibly) become unemployable, then by *threatening* these things a company is at least attempting to censor me. Likewise, you comment you cannot terminate your relationship with the government, short of leaving. Well, how is that any different from the only way to cope with your company censoring you? You can also vote in a different government, which you generally can't do with your company.
True, but if you could prove the bitching was legitimate they might have a hard time suppressing it. Of course you might well find your job disappeared.
Slashdot Mirror
Violent crime has been rising for years. Our death by gunshot is far lower than the USA's per capita. The fact is you are far less likely to be killed during a crime in Britain then in the USA. Are you safer in the USA or in Britain? Which one has guns?
The arguments are:
Cigarettes cause cancer, and the tobacco companies covered it up for years. Hence they are guilty of negligence.
Gun companies *could* make guns safer and prevent the number of deaths to small children, but haven't. Hence they are guilty of negligence.
A hammer is designed for a purpose. It cannot be made safer without preventing it's main purpose, which is in itself legal. Hammer manufacturers cannot be held responsible for someone misusing a hammer.
Your argument is?
Surely it has to be more down to the intended purpose? A hammer is designed for a purpose other than bodily harm. Similarly, some toolkits are designed for purposes other than breaking into someone else's servers.
Blane.
Woomera was the site of the UK's rocket program when we had one, years ago. Search for Black Knight or Black Arrow on the web, you'll throw up some details. I believe the (crumbling) launch site etc. is still there.
Blane.
Nah, it's still a screenshot. It's not a screen dump.
The crew should have been free to go after, possibly, a brief questioning/interogation and a medical "safety" check. Tops 3 days. Longer than that (barring serious injury from the accident) and they're hostages.
Agreed. Personally I think the Chinese were crazy not to release the air crew after about 24 hours. They'd have got rid of the human interest in the story, and could probably claim salvage rights on the plan and keep it legally!
Unlikely, one report I read said they think he ejected straight into the propellers of the US plane.
Never said it wasn't in international air space. However it landed on their turf. As I said, consider what the US would do if an unfriendly spy plane landed at a US air field. They would make every effort to gain any useful knowledge from the event.
and since we already know what Chinese jet technology is, they would probably get it back pretty quick
Exactly, but if it had something of use, the USA would keep it until they had got everything they could. They'd be stupid not to. The Chinese would make a fuss, the US would stall them. Sound familiar?
And if a Russian spy plane had landed at a US air-field? One that had some interesting technology (useful to code breakers etc)?
All very well, but if the tables were turned, what would have happened?
What would the USA do if the chinese kept flying planes up the cost of California, just outside the territorial boundaries? What would they do if one of these planes came down at an American air-base?
That being said, the Chinese should have released the air crew within 24 hours, and I would assume (hope?) that they would have destroyed any codes or sensitive data before allowing anyone on board.
Then they don't need to be patented anyway. 'Publishing them' establishes prior art.
I believe they patent them so they can then use patent bargaining in case they accidentally step on someone else's patents - so publishing them wouldn't achieve the same thing at all.
But Bluetooth isn't (just) about computers. It's about enabling communication between devices. PDA's, phones, etc. Maybe you won't be able to use it with your Windows XXXP laptop, but you'll be able transfer data from your phone to your PDA, to your printer.
More likely The Powers That Be would continue posting articles on why The Enemy was going to lose because they were not using The One True OS. Jon Katz would post articles on how the use of guns on the battlefield was leading to a crackdown on geeks in US schools. And the trolls would keep on trolling. Possibly in another language if the war was lost.
My Linux box hits load averages of 24 whilst transferring mail and virus scanning them. Keeps running OK. Pentium 150 with 64Mb RAM
Portable Executable (Format)
That'll teach me not to preview! Of course it was actually called 3D Monster Maze. My fingers have a life of their own.
ZX81, yes it was called 23 Monster Maze. It had a T. Rex wandering the maze, and you had to get to the exit without bumping into it. Excellent game for it's time.
But the parents haven't broken the contract, and I thought under US law a child cannot sign a contract (and so can't be held to it)?
Men-only golf clubs are on shakey ground - several have been challenged and lost. It's only a matter of time before they all are forced into accepting women members.
Single religion clubs are probably safe, as they can (I assume) claim that they are a church activity I guess
In the UK we actually have a right to work - in as much as you are not allowed to be arbitrarily prevented from working, that applies to employers, the government, etc. Getting sued doesn't involve the powers of the government, it involves the power of the judiciary, who are supposedly independent!
Now that's doubly odd. If I understand correctly, a private organisation does not have to abide by discrimination law?
We've had a number of test cases here where 'Private Clubs' (the MCC, various gentlemans clubs etc.) have been taken to court over discriminatory rules (No Women, generally). AFAIK the clubs have all lost in the end.
I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it's as simple as that - if I am employed and speaking against my company means I lose my job, get sued, lose my house, (possibly) become unemployable, then by *threatening* these things a company is at least attempting to censor me. Likewise, you comment you cannot terminate your relationship with the government, short of leaving. Well, how is that any different from the only way to cope with your company censoring you? You can also vote in a different government, which you generally can't do with your company.
True, but if you could prove the bitching was legitimate they might have a hard time suppressing it. Of course you might well find your job disappeared.
Yes, but have you also waived the rights to sit around and bitch about the company with co-workers or friends?