It might disqualify many lawyers. But suggesting that I'm advocating a net loss of freedom is a straw man. I strongly believe that everyone has the right to legal representation, but I also believe that people should be honest.
I'm suggesting that what you are advocating would lead to a net loss of freedom whether your intend that or not.
Lawyers are not obligated by ethical standards to agree with or approve of their clients or their clients' positions. They are ethically obligated not to lie or (in my opinion) knowingly deceive. They are not obligated to argue the opposing side either. There is also attorney/client privilege where lawyers are obligated not to disclose information they obtained as a direct result of communicating with and representing their client.
I think its easily possible for an ethical lawyer to represent the RIAA aggressively regardless of whether they agree with all of the RIAA's positions. Now some of the RIAA's lawyers have been accused of what I would agree is unethical behavior, but were these 5 lawyers among them? No one here as presented any evidence that any of these folks participated in, knew of or condoned unethical activity. If convincing evidence was made available, I'd be condemning them as well, but so far it's all a lot of angry ranting, unsubstantiated allegations and guilt by association.
How do you feel about the defense lawyers at the Nuremberg tribunals?
I guess then that you would disqualify almost all lawyers. Are the people who have a right to legal representation only those you approve of? That's also the prevailing view amongst the leadership of many non-democratic countries.
On the other hand other posts here claim that these guys will be defending "illegal" and intrusive wiretaps and other rights violations. In that case it would be good that these lawyers aren't "very good at it".
So if they are good then the RIAA loses and if they aren't very good then people who oppose government intrusion win.
I'm more concerned about congressmen and senators who championed the RIAA and their ilk joining the administration. I'm also concerned about the ones who are staying put in Congress.
Do you know for a fact that these individuals were the ones that participate in what you believe to be "illegal" representation or are you claiming guilt by association?
If these guys are that good, then it is the RIAA's loss so that's good. Lawyer's are not usually paid to represent their own positions. They are hired by clients to represent theirs. A defense lawyer for a murderer isn't necessarily a murder or in favor of murder. The defense lawyer may even believe the client is guilty, but legal representation if still their right.
It's a business decision about what products they choose to sell and what customers they choose to cater to. It is in no way their intention to deny you access to certain books. They just choose not to be the ones to sell them.
What would you call it if a vegan grocery store chooses not to sell meat?
I agree that though it's Amazon's right to sell or not sell what they want it's also our right to boycott and/or otherwise protest their policy. Nevertheless, it isn't censorship on Amazon's part. Amazon is not a government or other authority or monopoly so we are still free to shop elsewhere and many will. I think it's the people carelessly tossing about inflammatory and inaccurate terms like "censorship" that these folks who annoy you are responding to.
Remember, the people who are "offended" are also calling for boycotts and issuing condemnations against retailers who dare to sell things they don't like. That's is there right too. So Amazon has to make a choice as to which group they will choose to offend by not offending the other. The sensitive people who are easily upset by some reading material apparently are better at maintaining a stink and a boycott that we more thick-skinned folks.
No not until. The courts still decide whether or not the President's claims are valid and Congress has power to confront a power grabbing President as well. Whether they have the balls to do that or not depends on them and how strongly they feel about what the President is doing. No branch of government has unfettered rights. If you don't understand that then you have no clue about the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. system of government. But also keep in mind, that just because you object to something and think it's somehow an infringement does not mean others agree or that you are correct.
Every time I buy something on-line I have to provide my billing address so now the e-mail address I use and possibly more (can it read cookies?) is known to the vendor who can turn around and sell that information to others. How easy is it for some Javascript or something to poke around for e-mail addresses when you are at a site? Also, my e-mail providers know my address - i.e. yahoo, google, aol, apple and comcast. Could they be selling that information? I wouldn't be surprised.
So how do you know in what temporal order the posts were written? We are in different time zones and we connected at different points to different servers on the internet. Tell me how you are so sure of when my post was written or your post was available to me?
I didn't see very many (for/.) accusations that the French were hypocritical fascists or the Swedes were neo-Nazis or such. Hell, with the Saddam Southpark picture the U.S. was being blamed for the Iraq-Iran war and tens of thousands of great kids were being smeared because of some juvenile nonsense of a few. Does everyone here think they are above making mistakes? Does everyone here equate a mistake with evil?
I'm just opposed to painting large populations with a broad brush and I'm against stupid analogies that equate minor crimes with horrific ones. I've traveled and lived in a number of countries around the world and I've found that most of the people in all of the places are pretty decent, nice folks. But here in/., people revel in their bigotry while patting themselves on the back for being so progressive.
You have my sympathy. Every country has its dicks. My respect for Australia is not diminished by Conroy's bad behavior. I hope you keep fighting his nutty ideas. My comment was a protest against nation bashing and bashing my nation in particular. I won't bash yours.
I'll write slowly so you can understand. I'm not in favor of German bashing or on bashing countries in general. I was being sarcastic. On the thread about South Park for example there was all sorts of nonsense spewed because some Marines behaved in a juvenile manner. Considering most of them are in the late teens and early twenties, that's not surprising.
There were not any German bashing posts when I wrote mine. There are delays you know.
If the U.S. seems to trample on some personal rights or freedoms, especially when it crosses international borders to do so or even if it requests extradition, this site immediately fills up with a lot of America bashing. Its funny that when it is Europe or Australia doing this we don't see the same sanctimonious outrage. If course, the U.S. actually has a constitution that guarantees the right of free speech and most other countries do not. I guess if you don't strive for high standards you cannot be held accountable.
What are your smoking? First of all if Canada did extradite Marc to the U.S. , the charges he would face do not include the death penalty. Secondly, it is Canada's decision governed by Canada's laws that will determine whether or not Marc will be extradited. After that the U.S. would still have to make the case against Marc stick. It is not illegal in the U.S. for a citizen of another country to smoke pot or take drugs while in another country. It is illegal for them to distribute or conspire to distribute drugs in the U.S. regardless of where they are when they do it. We have agreements with Canada and many other countries to mutually enforce drug trafficking laws, so what Marc is charged with is certainly illegal. It's up to the courts of Canada and possibly the U.S. to determine if Marc is in fact guilty.
Your beef at this point is with Canada, not the U.S.
First of all your response is a complete non sequitur. What does Marc Emery have to do with the price of eggs in China? Secondly, Canada as has almost every other country in the world has agreed to ban the sale and distribution of certain substances. The U.S. is charging Marc with sending drugs to the U.S. - the U.S. is the jurisdiction. Canada may decide that its own laws require the extradition of Marc to the U.S. - That is Canada and Canadian officials acting to enforce Canadian laws as they see them. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Canada.
A better case is when some judge in Spain or Belgium decides to charge the citizen of another country for "crimes" committed only in that other country. If you want to take on "judicial imperialism", start with Europe.
No I don't have to count them. The U.S. did not want or encourage Iraq's war on Iran. It saw Iraq and its secular government as a counter to Iranian power and radical brand of Islam. It was in the U.S. interest for Iraq to remain strong and stable and not do something stupid that would make itself vulnerable - which is exactly what they did. The war itself greatly disrupted the supply of middle east oil which was also not in our interests.
Saddam had only seized power a few years before, so we didn't know him that well, but we didn't like or trust him. The Arab Baathists had modeled themselves after the Fascists and National Socialists except their uebermensch were Arabs. They were never our allies or friends and they've consistently worked against American interests. In this case, the U.S. didn't really want a winner, but they did not want Iraq to lose either. That would give Iran dominance over the region and its oil.
Most of the military aide to Iraq came from Russia and some from France. The U.S. did not want Iraq to lose so it provided some aide and intelligence to Iraq. We did not support them in the way you imply. In fact, Iraq attacked an American Naval vessel (USN Stark) in the later stages of the war. By the way, do you know where Iraq go its poison gas technology - used against Iran and its own civilians? The Soviets yes, but from Germany as well.
I was in military intelligence during the Iranian revolution and the early years of this war, so my information about U.S. intentions is pretty accurate.
The count for Saddam was approximately 2 million if you count the million plus killed during his 8 year war of aggression against Iran. So no, the coalition(s) in both gulf war's combined and the entire occupation have not begun to approach the numbers Saddam put up.
You can climb down from your high horse now, sonny boy.
The U.S. didn't sell Saddam WMD. The Germans did (poison gas) and the French helped him develop a nuclear capability which the Israelis destroyed most of. Saddam bought most of his bad stuff from Europe and the Russians. And yes, Saddam did have WMD and did try to develop it, but the first gulf war and the post inspections and sanctions seemed to have been effective in keeping him from reconstituting them.
This thread is drowning in sanctimonious crap.
Murder is a judgment based on some law - secular or divine. You can call it homicide, but it's not murder if the homicide is done in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction. So if a state, particularly a democratic state kills someone as punishment for a crime for which they were lawfully tried and convicted, it isn't murder unless you are arguing that it's murder under some god's law. Which one would that be and please cite the appropriate scriptures. (The 10 Commandments properly translated forbade murder, not killing.)
So, you and a bunch of your fellow travelers on this thread are not making an argument; you're just spewing propaganda for your positions - which generally seem to be some anti-American holier than thou nonsense. Don't think for a minute that you are persuading or impressing anybody.
Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty because every system of justice is so flawed that they cannot be trusted to always render a correct or just verdict.
What nonsense. What in the hell is "cultural imperialism" anyway? It's an inflammatory but meaningless term. Quality Canadian artists thrive on the world stage and in the U.S. Even mediocre ones seem to do well.
As for "economic imperialism", Canada does very well in its trade relations with the U.S. Canada's economy is a good balance of extractive, agricultural, manufacturing and service businesses. If there was any "economic imperialism" involved then the U.S would only be trading automobiles for timber and oil. That's not the case. Canada manufactures and exports automobiles, consultants, service, rail and other transportation services, and a whole host of high value economic products.
To top it all off, Canada gets a big defense subsidy by being next to the U.S. It can afford to spend much less as a percent of GDP on defense because it knows the U.S. won't allow anyone to attack it.
The CRTC and certain other Canadians engaging in this delusional paranoia are really undervaluing what Canada, Canadians and Canadian culture produce. Otherwise they wouldn't be so fearful of letting it compete fairly on the world stage. I don't see the Australians having this problem.
Well, my company cannot move to the Lotus Notes 8 client because it is so bloated that we'd have to upgrade everybody's but the developers' PCs to get it to run. IBM keeps trying to make Eclipse some kind of universal platform and it's not well suited for that. Look what they've done with their crappy overpriced and underperforming Rational products. You can't produce a decent or compliant UML diagram or integrate your diagrams into your documentation. You can't fit a developer version of WAS along side their Eclipse based RAD pig on a developer's PC anymore either. Eclipse cannot be made to do everything well.
I'd be happier if we'd dump Notes altogether. It's e-mail and calendaring sucks - we're always "losing" meetings and e-mails and it doesn't integrate well with anything not from IBM.
Really? Well that's news to me. Give me an example of an iTune track that can only be played on Apple hardware. I'm Apple/iTunes user though I never buy downloaded software because I don't like compressed music. However, my understanding is that every track you buy, download or rip to iTunes can be burned to a CD and then imported - DRM free - to any other music player including iTunes and then written again in any number of formats compatible with most any device. Friends of mine do this all the time.
So tell me which track you are having problems with or are you just making this up?
Slashdot Mirror
It might disqualify many lawyers. But suggesting that I'm advocating a net loss of freedom is a straw man. I strongly believe that everyone has the right to legal representation, but I also believe that people should be honest.
I'm suggesting that what you are advocating would lead to a net loss of freedom whether your intend that or not. Lawyers are not obligated by ethical standards to agree with or approve of their clients or their clients' positions. They are ethically obligated not to lie or (in my opinion) knowingly deceive. They are not obligated to argue the opposing side either. There is also attorney/client privilege where lawyers are obligated not to disclose information they obtained as a direct result of communicating with and representing their client. I think its easily possible for an ethical lawyer to represent the RIAA aggressively regardless of whether they agree with all of the RIAA's positions. Now some of the RIAA's lawyers have been accused of what I would agree is unethical behavior, but were these 5 lawyers among them? No one here as presented any evidence that any of these folks participated in, knew of or condoned unethical activity. If convincing evidence was made available, I'd be condemning them as well, but so far it's all a lot of angry ranting, unsubstantiated allegations and guilt by association. How do you feel about the defense lawyers at the Nuremberg tribunals?
I guess then that you would disqualify almost all lawyers. Are the people who have a right to legal representation only those you approve of? That's also the prevailing view amongst the leadership of many non-democratic countries.
Campus police are not rent-a-cops. They are real police. Sadly.
On the other hand other posts here claim that these guys will be defending "illegal" and intrusive wiretaps and other rights violations. In that case it would be good that these lawyers aren't "very good at it". So if they are good then the RIAA loses and if they aren't very good then people who oppose government intrusion win. I'm more concerned about congressmen and senators who championed the RIAA and their ilk joining the administration. I'm also concerned about the ones who are staying put in Congress.
Do you know for a fact that these individuals were the ones that participate in what you believe to be "illegal" representation or are you claiming guilt by association?
If these guys are that good, then it is the RIAA's loss so that's good. Lawyer's are not usually paid to represent their own positions. They are hired by clients to represent theirs. A defense lawyer for a murderer isn't necessarily a murder or in favor of murder. The defense lawyer may even believe the client is guilty, but legal representation if still their right.
It's a business decision about what products they choose to sell and what customers they choose to cater to. It is in no way their intention to deny you access to certain books. They just choose not to be the ones to sell them. What would you call it if a vegan grocery store chooses not to sell meat?
I agree that though it's Amazon's right to sell or not sell what they want it's also our right to boycott and/or otherwise protest their policy. Nevertheless, it isn't censorship on Amazon's part. Amazon is not a government or other authority or monopoly so we are still free to shop elsewhere and many will. I think it's the people carelessly tossing about inflammatory and inaccurate terms like "censorship" that these folks who annoy you are responding to. Remember, the people who are "offended" are also calling for boycotts and issuing condemnations against retailers who dare to sell things they don't like. That's is there right too. So Amazon has to make a choice as to which group they will choose to offend by not offending the other. The sensitive people who are easily upset by some reading material apparently are better at maintaining a stink and a boycott that we more thick-skinned folks.
No not until. The courts still decide whether or not the President's claims are valid and Congress has power to confront a power grabbing President as well. Whether they have the balls to do that or not depends on them and how strongly they feel about what the President is doing. No branch of government has unfettered rights. If you don't understand that then you have no clue about the U.S. Constitution or the U.S. system of government. But also keep in mind, that just because you object to something and think it's somehow an infringement does not mean others agree or that you are correct.
Every time I buy something on-line I have to provide my billing address so now the e-mail address I use and possibly more (can it read cookies?) is known to the vendor who can turn around and sell that information to others. How easy is it for some Javascript or something to poke around for e-mail addresses when you are at a site? Also, my e-mail providers know my address - i.e. yahoo, google, aol, apple and comcast. Could they be selling that information? I wouldn't be surprised.
So how do you know in what temporal order the posts were written? We are in different time zones and we connected at different points to different servers on the internet. Tell me how you are so sure of when my post was written or your post was available to me?
I didn't see very many (for /.) accusations that the French were hypocritical fascists or the Swedes were neo-Nazis or such. Hell, with the Saddam Southpark picture the U.S. was being blamed for the Iraq-Iran war and tens of thousands of great kids were being smeared because of some juvenile nonsense of a few. Does everyone here think they are above making mistakes? Does everyone here equate a mistake with evil?
I'm just opposed to painting large populations with a broad brush and I'm against stupid analogies that equate minor crimes with horrific ones. I've traveled and lived in a number of countries around the world and I've found that most of the people in all of the places are pretty decent, nice folks. But here in /., people revel in their bigotry while patting themselves on the back for being so progressive.
You have my sympathy. Every country has its dicks. My respect for Australia is not diminished by Conroy's bad behavior. I hope you keep fighting his nutty ideas. My comment was a protest against nation bashing and bashing my nation in particular. I won't bash yours.
I'll write slowly so you can understand. I'm not in favor of German bashing or on bashing countries in general. I was being sarcastic. On the thread about South Park for example there was all sorts of nonsense spewed because some Marines behaved in a juvenile manner. Considering most of them are in the late teens and early twenties, that's not surprising. There were not any German bashing posts when I wrote mine. There are delays you know.
If the U.S. seems to trample on some personal rights or freedoms, especially when it crosses international borders to do so or even if it requests extradition, this site immediately fills up with a lot of America bashing. Its funny that when it is Europe or Australia doing this we don't see the same sanctimonious outrage. If course, the U.S. actually has a constitution that guarantees the right of free speech and most other countries do not. I guess if you don't strive for high standards you cannot be held accountable.
What are your smoking? First of all if Canada did extradite Marc to the U.S. , the charges he would face do not include the death penalty. Secondly, it is Canada's decision governed by Canada's laws that will determine whether or not Marc will be extradited. After that the U.S. would still have to make the case against Marc stick. It is not illegal in the U.S. for a citizen of another country to smoke pot or take drugs while in another country. It is illegal for them to distribute or conspire to distribute drugs in the U.S. regardless of where they are when they do it. We have agreements with Canada and many other countries to mutually enforce drug trafficking laws, so what Marc is charged with is certainly illegal. It's up to the courts of Canada and possibly the U.S. to determine if Marc is in fact guilty. Your beef at this point is with Canada, not the U.S.
First of all your response is a complete non sequitur. What does Marc Emery have to do with the price of eggs in China? Secondly, Canada as has almost every other country in the world has agreed to ban the sale and distribution of certain substances. The U.S. is charging Marc with sending drugs to the U.S. - the U.S. is the jurisdiction. Canada may decide that its own laws require the extradition of Marc to the U.S. - That is Canada and Canadian officials acting to enforce Canadian laws as they see them. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Canada. A better case is when some judge in Spain or Belgium decides to charge the citizen of another country for "crimes" committed only in that other country. If you want to take on "judicial imperialism", start with Europe.
No I don't have to count them. The U.S. did not want or encourage Iraq's war on Iran. It saw Iraq and its secular government as a counter to Iranian power and radical brand of Islam. It was in the U.S. interest for Iraq to remain strong and stable and not do something stupid that would make itself vulnerable - which is exactly what they did. The war itself greatly disrupted the supply of middle east oil which was also not in our interests. Saddam had only seized power a few years before, so we didn't know him that well, but we didn't like or trust him. The Arab Baathists had modeled themselves after the Fascists and National Socialists except their uebermensch were Arabs. They were never our allies or friends and they've consistently worked against American interests. In this case, the U.S. didn't really want a winner, but they did not want Iraq to lose either. That would give Iran dominance over the region and its oil. Most of the military aide to Iraq came from Russia and some from France. The U.S. did not want Iraq to lose so it provided some aide and intelligence to Iraq. We did not support them in the way you imply. In fact, Iraq attacked an American Naval vessel (USN Stark) in the later stages of the war. By the way, do you know where Iraq go its poison gas technology - used against Iran and its own civilians? The Soviets yes, but from Germany as well. I was in military intelligence during the Iranian revolution and the early years of this war, so my information about U.S. intentions is pretty accurate.
The count for Saddam was approximately 2 million if you count the million plus killed during his 8 year war of aggression against Iran. So no, the coalition(s) in both gulf war's combined and the entire occupation have not begun to approach the numbers Saddam put up. You can climb down from your high horse now, sonny boy.
The U.S. didn't sell Saddam WMD. The Germans did (poison gas) and the French helped him develop a nuclear capability which the Israelis destroyed most of. Saddam bought most of his bad stuff from Europe and the Russians. And yes, Saddam did have WMD and did try to develop it, but the first gulf war and the post inspections and sanctions seemed to have been effective in keeping him from reconstituting them.
This thread is drowning in sanctimonious crap. Murder is a judgment based on some law - secular or divine. You can call it homicide, but it's not murder if the homicide is done in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction. So if a state, particularly a democratic state kills someone as punishment for a crime for which they were lawfully tried and convicted, it isn't murder unless you are arguing that it's murder under some god's law. Which one would that be and please cite the appropriate scriptures. (The 10 Commandments properly translated forbade murder, not killing.) So, you and a bunch of your fellow travelers on this thread are not making an argument; you're just spewing propaganda for your positions - which generally seem to be some anti-American holier than thou nonsense. Don't think for a minute that you are persuading or impressing anybody. Personally, I'm opposed to the death penalty because every system of justice is so flawed that they cannot be trusted to always render a correct or just verdict.
What nonsense. What in the hell is "cultural imperialism" anyway? It's an inflammatory but meaningless term. Quality Canadian artists thrive on the world stage and in the U.S. Even mediocre ones seem to do well. As for "economic imperialism", Canada does very well in its trade relations with the U.S. Canada's economy is a good balance of extractive, agricultural, manufacturing and service businesses. If there was any "economic imperialism" involved then the U.S would only be trading automobiles for timber and oil. That's not the case. Canada manufactures and exports automobiles, consultants, service, rail and other transportation services, and a whole host of high value economic products. To top it all off, Canada gets a big defense subsidy by being next to the U.S. It can afford to spend much less as a percent of GDP on defense because it knows the U.S. won't allow anyone to attack it. The CRTC and certain other Canadians engaging in this delusional paranoia are really undervaluing what Canada, Canadians and Canadian culture produce. Otherwise they wouldn't be so fearful of letting it compete fairly on the world stage. I don't see the Australians having this problem.
The file system sounds like the one promised for Microsoft's Cairo version of Windows - and XP and Vista.
Well, my company cannot move to the Lotus Notes 8 client because it is so bloated that we'd have to upgrade everybody's but the developers' PCs to get it to run. IBM keeps trying to make Eclipse some kind of universal platform and it's not well suited for that. Look what they've done with their crappy overpriced and underperforming Rational products. You can't produce a decent or compliant UML diagram or integrate your diagrams into your documentation. You can't fit a developer version of WAS along side their Eclipse based RAD pig on a developer's PC anymore either. Eclipse cannot be made to do everything well. I'd be happier if we'd dump Notes altogether. It's e-mail and calendaring sucks - we're always "losing" meetings and e-mails and it doesn't integrate well with anything not from IBM.
Really? Well that's news to me. Give me an example of an iTune track that can only be played on Apple hardware. I'm Apple/iTunes user though I never buy downloaded software because I don't like compressed music. However, my understanding is that every track you buy, download or rip to iTunes can be burned to a CD and then imported - DRM free - to any other music player including iTunes and then written again in any number of formats compatible with most any device. Friends of mine do this all the time. So tell me which track you are having problems with or are you just making this up?