Space is by definition a international territory. As such the laws that NOAA sites don't apply in space (they do in the U.S but not in space).
True, but a US citizen/corporation can be punished (whether this is "morally right" or not I am not debating) for actions they take outside the country.
For example, if a US citizen travels to Cuba and spends money "in Cuban jurisdiction", the law forbidding the spending of money in Cuba is not "in effect" because the US doesn't run Cuba, but when the US citizen gets back on home soil, you can bet that los federales will want a word with them.
It's only a matter of time before Americans begin getting busted for "driving too fast" on the Autobahn, or "inhaling illicit materials" in Amsterdam.
But, if you're a US citizen, these are the laws you've allowed yourself to be subject to, stupid as they are.
Outside the cloistered confines of the slashdot community, there are a lot of people who don't give a wet slap about "open vs. closed", "free vs. proprietary" or any of those arguments.
For a large number of people, it comes down to "works vs. doesn't work".
Skype works, so people use it.
NVidia drivers make their dual-head monitors work smoothly, so people use it.
The majority of people who are using Linux -- the VAST majority -- are doing so not out of some political ideology but out of what essentially boils down to a business need (even if they're doing so in their private lives). The majority of users are weighing "usability, stability and uptime" against other platforms and choosing Linux based on that criteria.
There's a reason why Apple laptops are so dominant in geek circles. It's because Apple gets the first part of that equation -- usability -- extremely well, and doesn't sacrifice much of the other two in order to get it.
Your view of sovereign authority is a fairly narrow one, basically conforming to the "United States Ideal World" as it were. There are plenty of examples of sovereign authority where it is the State who has rights, and not the people.
I would point to you the "Divine Right of Kings" for a classic example of States themselves having rights, one well-honored in history for far longer than this "Republic" thing that's all the rage these days.
The bottom line is that "Rights" and "Sovereignty" are tied hand in hand. He who has the sovereign authority has the rights. In the US, ostensibly a republic, that sovereign power belongs to the populace, and so they are the ones with the rights. In a dictatorship, or a monarchy [note: not a consitutional-monarchy], that sovereignty rests with the head of state, and so they are the ones with the rights, and their subjects have no rights except those granted to them by the sovereign power.
Now, often, proponents of a Republican form of government will insist vociferously that all other forms of government are false, and that those peoples who are subject to them are "oppressed", because their "natural rights" are being violated. But wishing that other countries had different governmental models does not make it so, and like it or not, you have to accept the existence and reality of those models.
When you use "right" as a noun, as you did, it has a legal definition. Countries have the rights which the combination of International Law and their own national laws grant them.
When you use "right" as an adjective -- as perhaps you wanted to but did not -- you can get into a whole area of ethics about what is "right" and what is "not-right" or "wrong". And that would at least be a matter for some debate.
But you never used it as an adjective, you used it as a noun, so there is no "conflict", you're flat-out wrong. They certainly do have the legal right under International Law as well as most individual National Laws, to control the flow of people at their borders.
Now, if you want to argue whether or not "that right is right", that's a whole different debate (and one which, it sounds like, I would continue to disagree with you on).
But that's the thread you're posting in right now.:-)
Are you on crack?
Name one country whose laws are "we have to let anyone who comes to the border come into the country."
Aside from, possibly-maybe, the sovereign nation of Vatican City.
Every sovereign nation on the planet wields the right to determine who may and may not enter its borders. That's part of what defines them as sovereign.
But if I bought those tickets in, say, New York (because Ticketmaster doesn't limit sales to MA residents), I can sell them for, legally, "whateverthefuckIwant".
The Patriots are assuming that "their laws" apply everywhere, which certainly isn't the case at all.
No, "consideration" isn't as in "they consider the situation". Consideration is a catchall term akin to "compensation", ie., what does the random person on the street "get" in this alleged contract? The store would get the permission (it's not a right, calling it so is misleading) to search the shopper. What does the shopper get as consideration?
I see this too.... in the phrasing "we reserve the right to...." except you can only reserve rights you already had. They never had a right to search me. They had a right to REQUEST to search me, but they never actually had the right to search me.
Thus their "reservation" is of a right which never existed, and is therefore meaningless.
Wording is VERY important when it comes to making things legally binding.:-)
"People have *asked* for regulation, and they have delivered."
So what if they asked for regulation? If I get a law passed which says "Dredd gets to say who may or may not be allowed in the Boy Scouts", it doesn't mean it has a Constitutional leg to stand on. The Boy Scouts are a private organization, and their admissions practices are their own business, not subject to government scrutiny (BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE). So why is the Democratic Party (or, again, any other party) any different.
The Supreme Court said, in deciding that case:
Government actions that unconstitutionally burden that right may take many forms, one of which is intrusion into a group's internal affairs by forcing it to accept a member it does not desire.
If the Democratic Party does not "desire" to have Candidate-X as their nominee for the Presidency in the General Election, any state law which forces them to do so, or constrains such party to choose their candidate in a manner of the State's choosing, is on very unstable legal footing.
I'm simply saying "they want to choose who their candidate is, let them decide how they want to do that."
How is that somehow contrary to a two-party system? (leaving aside for the moment that the two-party system is what's destroying America right now)
I don't care what "system" is used, I simply don't want to have my money paying to help the $NOT_MY_PARTY Party figure out who their candidate should be. Let them figure that out on their own with their own money, and in their own way.
Why does anyone think that primaries must be binding? Why do states feel they get to regulate primaries at all?
The Democratic Party is a private organization. (The same for any political party, it's not just the DNC) It should be up to them to determine -- by their own means and at their own expense -- who their candidate is that they want to promote in the General Election.
Why does the state fund an election cycle which benefits nobody but the political parties?
Why should the state be able to, as it does in many states, tell the Democratic party that "Your sworn enemies, the Republicans, get to vote in determining who you will put up against them in the election"?
Political parties should be able to determine their candidate in whatever fashion they so choose -- intraparty elections, interparty elections, closed-door back-room top-secret stategy-meeting decisions, randomly chosen powerball winner, whatever they want. The only people who really should have any say are the members of the political party in question (and even then, in accordance with their own organization charter, etc., etc.)
But certainly this is not a matter that the government should be involved in at all.
This depends a great deal on where you live. In a lot of at-will states, it is sufficient to simply say "you are fired." You don't need a reason of any kind. It can be "because you wore a purple shirt today," and unless "purple shirt wearing" is a protected class against discrimination (hint - it isn't), it sticks.
Every jurisdiction is different, but this is the way it actually works in a lot of locations. I know I've heard human resources attorneys in my state (NY) tell me this on multiple occasions.
When I was an employee at BigY, it was not uncommon for engineers to cheer mock-enthusiastically about how psyched we were to have achieved second place.... yet again.
The engineers (at the time anyway, can't speak to now) definitely seemed to "get" that management was willing to settle for second way more often than we would have liked.
I make no claim that the students will *react* any different, it simply allows the administration and faculty to say "We put that in your inbox. We can prove that via the logs. You're supposed to be checking your campus mail. If you didn't get it, didn't read it, didn't act on it, that's your business."
If I hand off the message to, say, GMail or Yahoo, I have no *proof* that it actually ended up in their inbox, only that a middleman mail server accepted it. That can make a world of difference when a student claims "I never got that notice which said to show up at this evening lecture or I'd get a failing grade," or whatever.
I've only worked on my campus two years, and I've already seen that come up twice, where the logs were pulled for e-mail to say "did this student send a message like they said they did", or "did this student receive the message like they claim they didn't?"
The wise thing to do in my opinion is provide some sort of email service (outsourced is fine) for the small percent of students who actually use it, and allow student's to submit their own email addresses to the campus database
Are you high? Seriously, what color is the sky in the world you live in?
As a campus system admin, I would completely say bollocks to that. You're opening yourself up to tons of "I never got that message, Professor Xavier," and crap like that.
You give them a campus e-mail address. It's the *official* address. Delivery to that mailbox for all official college correspondence is guaranteed. THEN, if you opt to forward it off-campus to gmail or wherever, that's your own business, and you're responsible for the failings of such at your own peril.
.... people had been wondering "what the fuck it was ESR was up to lately, since he hadn't gone off on an ill-advised tear in a while".
What exactly *does* ESR contribute these days? I have to be honest when I say that -- while he was in the right place at the right time with the right idea when it came to Open Source -- for the most part the rest of the time I see him as a tremendous Oxygen Thief, stealing valuable oxygen that could be consumed by other more productive folks.
Who cares if ESR uses Red Hat or not? I don't care if he uses Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu or dusts off some Yggdrasil disks, to be honest. Let him use "what works for him."
It's not like he's going to be leading this army of "Red Hat Deserters" or something. If it wasn't for Slashdot running a story about it, nobody would even have noticed or cared....
I understand that your grandmother is ill, and I sympathize, but is it society's job to cater to her disabilities? or her job as a member of society to do what she needs to do to function within that society?
I've got no real problem with saying that "government services" must accommodate a disability, but private enterprise certainly should have the ability to say something like, "Blind people only account for $10K in profit each year, why should I spend $50K accommodating them?" or "Wheelchair-bound people only account for $100K each year in profit, why should I spend $300K accommodating them?"
Companies should be able to do their own profit-and-loss analysis for whether it's worth investing in accommodations. And, in a free market, the handicapped have the option of either going to businesses that DO accommodate them, or -- if there's nobody in that space who is willing -- to set up shop and cater to that niche market that's being ignored.
On the Mac side, the same hardware with a program called "SuperDuper" is even better. It'll create an exact -- BOOTABLE -- image of your hard drive. So, if it all goes to shit on the main drive, you can hold down the option key at boot time and choose to boot off your backup. Then, simply "re-backup" the backup onto the "main" drive, and you've restored your data.
I've already used it a couple times when I was testing out Leopard. Same disclaimers as you: don't work for any of the companies involved, just a really big fan of a customer.
For server relocation, with ESX server the answer would be to VMotion them off to another server. In real-time, they happily change their "physical" server, without missing even a single ping. (yes, I've done it, and do it all the time at work).
ESX3 is supposed to have all sorts of real-time improvements on this process, allowing servers to auto-migrate themselves to less-taxed hardware, etc., etc.
512(b) System caching
This says that system caching conducted in standard ways and not interfering with copy protection systems is fine. If the cached material is made available to end users the system provider must follow the takedown and put back provisions. This may apply to situations like the proxy and caching servers used by many large ISPs and a very wide range of other providers.
Copyright lawyers disagree on whether or not it applies to something like the Google cache [4], with some arguing that it is not collected at the direction of an end user but by Google crawling the web itself. Google may be able to do this instead under the doctrine of fair use. In the case of online newspapers Google has chosen to produce a non-caching news portal rather than resolve the question in court. [Emphasis Added]
So maybe, just maybe, it's not quite as clear-cut as you'd like to think it is.
Pirate Bay is *more* legal than Google. Google at least exists in this "grey area" -- with things like Google Cache, and things like that, where they actually DO distribute the actual copyrighted content themselves occasionally. Nothing that the Pirate Bay serves up is actually copyrighted, since it's just.torrent files.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but a US citizen/corporation can be punished (whether this is "morally right" or not I am not debating) for actions they take outside the country.
For example, if a US citizen travels to Cuba and spends money "in Cuban jurisdiction", the law forbidding the spending of money in Cuba is not "in effect" because the US doesn't run Cuba, but when the US citizen gets back on home soil, you can bet that los federales will want a word with them.
It's only a matter of time before Americans begin getting busted for "driving too fast" on the Autobahn, or "inhaling illicit materials" in Amsterdam.
But, if you're a US citizen, these are the laws you've allowed yourself to be subject to, stupid as they are.
For a large number of people, it comes down to "works vs. doesn't work".
Skype works, so people use it.
NVidia drivers make their dual-head monitors work smoothly, so people use it.
The majority of people who are using Linux -- the VAST majority -- are doing so not out of some political ideology but out of what essentially boils down to a business need (even if they're doing so in their private lives). The majority of users are weighing "usability, stability and uptime" against other platforms and choosing Linux based on that criteria.
There's a reason why Apple laptops are so dominant in geek circles. It's because Apple gets the first part of that equation -- usability -- extremely well, and doesn't sacrifice much of the other two in order to get it.
I would point to you the "Divine Right of Kings" for a classic example of States themselves having rights, one well-honored in history for far longer than this "Republic" thing that's all the rage these days.
The bottom line is that "Rights" and "Sovereignty" are tied hand in hand. He who has the sovereign authority has the rights. In the US, ostensibly a republic, that sovereign power belongs to the populace, and so they are the ones with the rights. In a dictatorship, or a monarchy [note: not a consitutional-monarchy], that sovereignty rests with the head of state, and so they are the ones with the rights, and their subjects have no rights except those granted to them by the sovereign power.
Now, often, proponents of a Republican form of government will insist vociferously that all other forms of government are false, and that those peoples who are subject to them are "oppressed", because their "natural rights" are being violated. But wishing that other countries had different governmental models does not make it so, and like it or not, you have to accept the existence and reality of those models.
When you use "right" as an adjective -- as perhaps you wanted to but did not -- you can get into a whole area of ethics about what is "right" and what is "not-right" or "wrong". And that would at least be a matter for some debate.
But you never used it as an adjective, you used it as a noun, so there is no "conflict", you're flat-out wrong. They certainly do have the legal right under International Law as well as most individual National Laws, to control the flow of people at their borders.
Now, if you want to argue whether or not "that right is right", that's a whole different debate (and one which, it sounds like, I would continue to disagree with you on).
But that's the thread you're posting in right now. :-)
Are you on crack? Name one country whose laws are "we have to let anyone who comes to the border come into the country." Aside from, possibly-maybe, the sovereign nation of Vatican City. Every sovereign nation on the planet wields the right to determine who may and may not enter its borders. That's part of what defines them as sovereign.
Actually, you can. There are plenty of jurisdictions where "Private Road" means "No trespassing".
But if I bought those tickets in, say, New York (because Ticketmaster doesn't limit sales to MA residents), I can sell them for, legally, "whateverthefuckIwant".
The Patriots are assuming that "their laws" apply everywhere, which certainly isn't the case at all.
No, "consideration" isn't as in "they consider the situation". Consideration is a catchall term akin to "compensation", ie., what does the random person on the street "get" in this alleged contract? The store would get the permission (it's not a right, calling it so is misleading) to search the shopper. What does the shopper get as consideration?
For a contract to be binding there must be consideration for both sides. There's no consideration for the person who is "on the premises".
I see this too.... in the phrasing "we reserve the right to...." except you can only reserve rights you already had. They never had a right to search me. They had a right to REQUEST to search me, but they never actually had the right to search me. Thus their "reservation" is of a right which never existed, and is therefore meaningless. Wording is VERY important when it comes to making things legally binding. :-)
The Supreme Court said, in deciding that case:
If the Democratic Party does not "desire" to have Candidate-X as their nominee for the Presidency in the General Election, any state law which forces them to do so, or constrains such party to choose their candidate in a manner of the State's choosing, is on very unstable legal footing.
I'm simply saying "they want to choose who their candidate is, let them decide how they want to do that."
How is that somehow contrary to a two-party system? (leaving aside for the moment that the two-party system is what's destroying America right now)
I don't care what "system" is used, I simply don't want to have my money paying to help the $NOT_MY_PARTY Party figure out who their candidate should be. Let them figure that out on their own with their own money, and in their own way.
The Democratic Party is a private organization. (The same for any political party, it's not just the DNC) It should be up to them to determine -- by their own means and at their own expense -- who their candidate is that they want to promote in the General Election.
Why does the state fund an election cycle which benefits nobody but the political parties?
Why should the state be able to, as it does in many states, tell the Democratic party that "Your sworn enemies, the Republicans, get to vote in determining who you will put up against them in the election"?
Political parties should be able to determine their candidate in whatever fashion they so choose -- intraparty elections, interparty elections, closed-door back-room top-secret stategy-meeting decisions, randomly chosen powerball winner, whatever they want . The only people who really should have any say are the members of the political party in question (and even then, in accordance with their own organization charter, etc., etc.)
But certainly this is not a matter that the government should be involved in at all.
This depends a great deal on where you live. In a lot of at-will states, it is sufficient to simply say "you are fired." You don't need a reason of any kind. It can be "because you wore a purple shirt today," and unless "purple shirt wearing" is a protected class against discrimination (hint - it isn't), it sticks. Every jurisdiction is different, but this is the way it actually works in a lot of locations. I know I've heard human resources attorneys in my state (NY) tell me this on multiple occasions.
When I was an employee at BigY, it was not uncommon for engineers to cheer mock-enthusiastically about how psyched we were to have achieved second place.... yet again.
The engineers (at the time anyway, can't speak to now) definitely seemed to "get" that management was willing to settle for second way more often than we would have liked.
I make no claim that the students will *react* any different, it simply allows the administration and faculty to say "We put that in your inbox. We can prove that via the logs. You're supposed to be checking your campus mail. If you didn't get it, didn't read it, didn't act on it, that's your business."
If I hand off the message to, say, GMail or Yahoo, I have no *proof* that it actually ended up in their inbox, only that a middleman mail server accepted it. That can make a world of difference when a student claims "I never got that notice which said to show up at this evening lecture or I'd get a failing grade," or whatever.
I've only worked on my campus two years, and I've already seen that come up twice, where the logs were pulled for e-mail to say "did this student send a message like they said they did", or "did this student receive the message like they claim they didn't?"
Are you high? Seriously, what color is the sky in the world you live in?
As a campus system admin, I would completely say bollocks to that. You're opening yourself up to tons of "I never got that message, Professor Xavier," and crap like that.
You give them a campus e-mail address. It's the *official* address. Delivery to that mailbox for all official college correspondence is guaranteed. THEN, if you opt to forward it off-campus to gmail or wherever, that's your own business, and you're responsible for the failings of such at your own peril.
.... people had been wondering "what the fuck it was ESR was up to lately, since he hadn't gone off on an ill-advised tear in a while".
What exactly *does* ESR contribute these days? I have to be honest when I say that -- while he was in the right place at the right time with the right idea when it came to Open Source -- for the most part the rest of the time I see him as a tremendous Oxygen Thief, stealing valuable oxygen that could be consumed by other more productive folks.
Who cares if ESR uses Red Hat or not? I don't care if he uses Red Hat, Debian, Ubuntu or dusts off some Yggdrasil disks, to be honest. Let him use "what works for him."
It's not like he's going to be leading this army of "Red Hat Deserters" or something. If it wasn't for Slashdot running a story about it, nobody would even have noticed or cared....
I understand that your grandmother is ill, and I sympathize, but is it society's job to cater to her disabilities? or her job as a member of society to do what she needs to do to function within that society?
I've got no real problem with saying that "government services" must accommodate a disability, but private enterprise certainly should have the ability to say something like, "Blind people only account for $10K in profit each year, why should I spend $50K accommodating them?" or "Wheelchair-bound people only account for $100K each year in profit, why should I spend $300K accommodating them?"
Companies should be able to do their own profit-and-loss analysis for whether it's worth investing in accommodations. And, in a free market, the handicapped have the option of either going to businesses that DO accommodate them, or -- if there's nobody in that space who is willing -- to set up shop and cater to that niche market that's being ignored.
On the Mac side, the same hardware with a program called "SuperDuper" is even better. It'll create an exact -- BOOTABLE -- image of your hard drive. So, if it all goes to shit on the main drive, you can hold down the option key at boot time and choose to boot off your backup. Then, simply "re-backup" the backup onto the "main" drive, and you've restored your data.
I've already used it a couple times when I was testing out Leopard. Same disclaimers as you: don't work for any of the companies involved, just a really big fan of a customer.
For server relocation, with ESX server the answer would be to VMotion them off to another server. In real-time, they happily change their "physical" server, without missing even a single ping. (yes, I've done it, and do it all the time at work). ESX3 is supposed to have all sorts of real-time improvements on this process, allowing servers to auto-migrate themselves to less-taxed hardware, etc., etc.
Exactly which law makes torrent files illegal? Please be prepared to cite chapter and verse.
Pirate Bay is *more* legal than Google. Google at least exists in this "grey area" -- with things like Google Cache, and things like that, where they actually DO distribute the actual copyrighted content themselves occasionally. Nothing that the Pirate Bay serves up is actually copyrighted, since it's just .torrent files.