It seems resonable to assume that the MoD are not putting sufficient emphasis on data security when placing contract with private companies.
Well, that's not an entirely invalid inference, but I don't see how you can infer that just from the data that's given.
None of us is privy to the terms of the contract. You can guess what's in them if you like, but your guess are far more likely to be based on your biases than any actual facts available to you. So please don't pretend there's any syllogism involved. When you asy "assume" here, it just means "guess".
If there is a plane crash is it "reasonable to assume that the airline is not putting sufficient emphasis on their planes not crashing"?
EDS has been around since 1962. To quote Wikipedia:
EDS's largest clients include General Motors, Bank of America, Arcandor, Kraft, United States Navy, the UK Ministry of Defence and the Royal Dutch Shell.
But, hey, if an anonymous coward says they're an "incompetent company", that's good enough for me. I stand corrected.
What? Do you really believe a politician made the decision on whom to outsource data management too? Are you familiar with the concept of a civil service at all? Do you know who runs the day-to-day operations for the MoD?
Clue: Decisions like "Which subcontractor should we hire" are not made by the Secretary of State for Defence.
this is the umpteenth time the UK gov't has lost data.
Are you reading impaired, or just an idiot?
No member of -- or person directly employed by -- the UK Government lost this data. EDS, a long-established, privately owned subsidiary of Hewlett Packard, lost this data.
the British Ministry of Defense has lost a hard drive with the personal details of 100,000 serving personnel
No. EDS lost a hard-drive, belonging to the MoD. Had to get that in before the "Government is intrinsically incompetent" posse got here. EDS, a privately owned and run subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard, subcontracting to the MoD, were responsible for the security of this drive, and they, not anyone at the MoD did the losing here.
The "invisible hand" works, in the sense that it works at all, when the man making the (potential) profit is exposed to the full risk. The minute a government grants limited liabilities for a banks debts, and allows them to declare bankruptcy rather than sending the board to the poorhouse, it ceases to work entirely.
Without moral hazard, you get risk taking without sufficient consequence, which is precisely what the subprime mortgage crisis is about. No-one in power in a bank would've approved all this appalling debt, if the government -- through the notion of limited liability and corporate personhood, had not innoculated them from the risk.
How is this different from McDonalds owning "I'm Loving It", or Nike's "Just Do It" -- both common phrases in everyday use. No-ones getting sued for saying "I'm loving this new DVD player" to their friends or "'I'm thinking of going on a shooting spree'. 'Just do it, Dylan'."
Trademarks are incredibly limited in scope. They're not claiming exclusive rights to the word "winter", just commercial use of that word in a context like "Vancouver Winter Games".
Ever noticed that "Gnome" is a trademark of the Gnome Foundation, but no-one is running round suing writers of fairy tales.
Never, in the history of man has the true process of government been summed up so well!
Really? You think thats unique to government? Have you never worked in a private company? Never read TheDailyWTF? Noticed anything happen on Wall Street in the past week?
A massive slice of incompentence and stupidity is the one thing ALL human endeavour together.
That's simply not true. The illegimate goods part of the case would, in all likelihood be equally upheld. Breach of trademark is breach of trademark, and ebay are facilitating this.
The problem with the legitimate goods on sale on ebay.fr is that they're grey market goods -- reimported against the condition of export sales. And the US Supreme Court has already refused to rule on whether non-US-manufactured copyrighted goods (which these are, as the logos are both trademarked and copyrighted) imported into the US as grey market goods are subject to the doctrine of first sale (QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L'ANZA RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, INC.)
Note also, that the before appeal District Court denied the first sale doctrine in all such cases, so a ruling just like this one has ALREADY been made in the US Court, but struck down on appeal.
creatively interpreting narrow laws and selectively enforcing broad laws are both proven tools of tyranical government
So removing power forom the judiciary and keeping it all for the legislature is a well known bar against tyranny. That'll be because tyrannical governments are reknowned for their legislative restraint, presumably.
Look, separation of powers makes tyranny harder -- but by no means impossible. An independent judiciary can block tyrannical legislation, but tyrants have a tendency to remake the judiciary in their own image (see Mugabe, Robert).
Tyrants use every branch of state and government as a tool to impose their will -- look how the Taliban imposed their corrupt fundamentalism at every level of education, for example. But the fact it can be misused by tyrants is not a rational argument against state education -- unless you're an arch-Randian libertarian, in each case the concept of rational argument isn't much use anyway.
Well, that might be the point you want to make now, but it really wasn't the point you were trying to make originally. Your original point was specific to legal systems based on British Common Law.
Anyone who gets to tell you what's legal and not is the government.
So, your point is that the power to make laws should not be concentrated in the hands of the government. And that anyone who makes laws is, by definition, the government.
You're aware that that makes absolutely no sense, right?
Well, no. Placing power in the hands of the judiciary. And in most places, the judiciary are well separated from the government. The US Supreme Court being a fairly massive exception to that rule.
That would be "a judge". Please attend English Jurisprudence 101.
The essence of the law is that it's (supposed to be) predictable. Ie you know in advance whether a certain action might land you in jail or not. This does not satisfy that requirement.
Actually, that's not a legal principle at all, let alone a requirement. You might argue it should be, but to suggest that its a commonly held principle of jurisprudence is simply not the case.
He hasn't got a court date, which means he hasn't had a summons. He claims the summons is on the video, and yet the video doesn't even contain a caution (and anyway, you get to choose whether to receive a caution -- if you refuse, you usually get arrested and charged).
No, he wasn't given a summons. You can't get a summons on the spot. Summons include a court date -- as in you are summoned to appear before XXX magistrates on DD/MM/YYYY to answer a charge of "whatever you may have done" -- and the police don't get to hand out court dates, the CPS does.
He "claimed" to have had a summons, but he also claims its on the video, which it singularly he isn't. He's not even given a caution, which would probably require him lawyering up. All that happens is he's appraised of his rights, and warned that he might be commiting an offence.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's not an entirely invalid inference, but I don't see how you can infer that just from the data that's given.
None of us is privy to the terms of the contract. You can guess what's in them if you like, but your guess are far more likely to be based on your biases than any actual facts available to you. So please don't pretend there's any syllogism involved. When you asy "assume" here, it just means "guess".
If there is a plane crash is it "reasonable to assume that the airline is not putting sufficient emphasis on their planes not crashing"?
EDS has been around since 1962. To quote Wikipedia:
But, hey, if an anonymous coward says they're an "incompetent company", that's good enough for me. I stand corrected.
What? Do you really believe a politician made the decision on whom to outsource data management too?
Are you familiar with the concept of a civil service at all? Do you know who runs the day-to-day operations for the MoD?
Clue: Decisions like "Which subcontractor should we hire" are not made by the Secretary of State for Defence.
Are you reading impaired, or just an idiot?
No member of -- or person directly employed by -- the UK Government lost this data. EDS, a long-established, privately owned subsidiary of Hewlett Packard, lost this data.
No. EDS lost a hard-drive, belonging to the MoD. Had to get that in before the "Government is intrinsically incompetent" posse got here. EDS, a privately owned and run subsidiary of Hewlett-Packard, subcontracting to the MoD, were responsible for the security of this drive, and they, not anyone at the MoD did the losing here.
Screw that. I have a 200 Petabyte databased maintained using only ed and only queried with fgrep.
That was a deeply uninformative article. Thank you for wasting three minutes of my life.
Speaking for the rest of the world - d'uh. When the economy is fucked, we'll always appreciate a bailout at someone elses expense.
The "invisible hand" works, in the sense that it works at all, when the man making the (potential) profit is exposed to the full risk. The minute a government grants limited liabilities for a banks debts, and allows them to declare bankruptcy rather than sending the board to the poorhouse, it ceases to work entirely.
Without moral hazard, you get risk taking without sufficient consequence, which is precisely what the subprime mortgage crisis is about. No-one in power in a bank would've approved all this appalling debt, if the government -- through the notion of limited liability and corporate personhood, had not innoculated them from the risk.
Wow. You've invented HyperCard. And only 20years after HyperCard was already invented
How is this different from McDonalds owning "I'm Loving It", or Nike's "Just Do It" -- both common phrases in everyday use. No-ones getting sued for saying "I'm loving this new DVD player" to their friends or "'I'm thinking of going on a shooting spree'. 'Just do it, Dylan'."
Trademarks are incredibly limited in scope. They're not claiming exclusive rights to the word "winter", just commercial use of that word in a context like "Vancouver Winter Games".
Ever noticed that "Gnome" is a trademark of the Gnome Foundation, but no-one is running round suing writers of fairy tales.
Really? You think thats unique to government? Have you never worked in a private company? Never read TheDailyWTF? Noticed anything happen on Wall Street in the past week?
A massive slice of incompentence and stupidity is the one thing ALL human endeavour together.
I don't see the point of thought helmets for the Army, if the Commander-in-Chief is still incapable of coherent thought.
That's simply not true. The illegimate goods part of the case would, in all likelihood be equally upheld. Breach of trademark is breach of trademark, and ebay are facilitating this.
The problem with the legitimate goods on sale on ebay.fr is that they're grey market goods -- reimported against the condition of export sales. And the US Supreme Court has already refused to rule on whether non-US-manufactured copyrighted goods (which these are, as the logos are both trademarked and copyrighted) imported into the US as grey market goods are subject to the doctrine of first sale (QUALITY KING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. L'ANZA RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, INC.)
Note also, that the before appeal District Court denied the first sale doctrine in all such cases, so a ruling just like this one has ALREADY been made in the US Court, but struck down on appeal.
Quite. "Derive" exists in this context only as the implicit stem of "derivative".
Because demanding the legislature "determine ahead of time whether an action is legal" removes the power to interpret law from the judiciary.
Look, separation of powers makes tyranny harder -- but by no means impossible. An independent judiciary can block tyrannical legislation, but tyrants have a tendency to remake the judiciary in their own image (see Mugabe, Robert).
Tyrants use every branch of state and government as a tool to impose their will -- look how the Taliban imposed their corrupt fundamentalism at every level of education, for example. But the fact it can be misused by tyrants is not a rational argument against state education -- unless you're an arch-Randian libertarian, in each case the concept of rational argument isn't much use anyway.
Well, that might be the point you want to make now, but it really wasn't the point you were trying to make originally. Your original point was specific to legal systems based on British Common Law.
You're aware that that makes absolutely no sense, right?
The kid was mistaken.
There never was a summons.
The kid was given a warning, and a file was sent to the CPS. The CPS told the police to get a grip.
He hasn't got a court date, which means he hasn't had a summons.
He claims the summons is on the video, and yet the video doesn't even contain a caution (and anyway, you get to choose whether to receive a caution -- if you refuse, you usually get arrested and charged).
None of these things happened.
No, he wasn't given a summons. You can't get a summons on the spot. Summons include a court date -- as in you are summoned to appear before XXX magistrates on DD/MM/YYYY to answer a charge of "whatever you may have done" -- and the police don't get to hand out court dates, the CPS does.
He "claimed" to have had a summons, but he also claims its on the video, which it singularly he isn't. He's not even given a caution, which would probably require him lawyering up. All that happens is he's appraised of his rights, and warned that he might be commiting an offence.