Um, US Courts have no jurisdiction over China. It's a foreign country.
Yes, that's the obvious answer, and yes, the "the US is just big and mean and stupid and thinks it rules the world" opinions expressed in other responses are terribly fashionable. But no, it's not correct, and no, nobody's stupid enough to think that we're going to send the federal marshals to Shanghai.
You can sue foreign governments in United States courts. A cursory search reveals, for example, this case from a few months ago: Stethem v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 201 F.Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C., 2002).
Put very simply, a party (say, Microsoft, or in the above case a U.S. citizen killed as a result of actions of the defendant nation) can get a judgment, or a court order, against a foreign country.
If it's a monetary judgment, it can be collected from whatever assets the country has in the United States - bank accounts, foreign currency reserves, real estate, whatever. If it's a court order, then, say, Microsoft could get an injunction forbidding the Chinese government (or whatever state-owned enterprise) from distributing "Windows PRC" within the United States.
This happens all the time. It's really not that exciting. Suing China, of course, would be a little pointless - China's not likely to try to undertake any action within the jurisdiction of the US courts - namely, within the United States.
I hardly think the Chinese goverment even acknowledges the US legal system and just disregards it as capitalistic "justice" for the rich, easy punishment for the poor. (Sad thing is they are prolly right with this, too...):(
Uh. The opinion of freaking China as to whether the US court systems are, comparatively speaking, just and fair.
The system thereby encourages both dishonest plaintiffs and dishonest lawyers. Both have something to gain from unnecessary suits, as long as they think they canwin, regardless of whether they should bring suit in the first place).
Attorneys are not in the business of deciding the merits of somebody's claim. Their ethical obligations are to represent people if they are asked to. That's basically the only reason why public defenders can exist - because J. Q. Defender has to present J. W. Rapist's position in the best light he can, regardless of whether Mr. Rapist is a scumbag.
They fear years of research and work being stolen from them because they are unable to work the system the way Forgent or Microsoft or BT or Amazon can. They fear some white trash bimbo is going to pour coffee on herself at your family restaraunt and suddenly your livlihood is gone. Or, perhaps, some redneck is going to slip walking up the steps to your house and steal your home from you. They fear being screwed by the people who are supposed to advise them in the intricacies of law. They fear being rendered helpless in a system that ONLY rewards those with money and those with the most expensive lawyers.
IANAL.
Look at what you wrote. Setting aside your cheap ethnic bigotry that only "rednecks" sue anyone, do you really think that "white trash bimbos" and "rednecks" qualify as "those with money" and "those with the most expensive lawyers"?
This is how it works. Slashdotters, take notice.
If you Slip and Fall, or Pour Hot Coffee on yourself, you have what is called a tort claim (we will ignore whether or not these claims have merit). A tort is a legally recognized injury. You can sue for the tort of wrongful death, or the tort of fraud, or the tort of negligence. Your state's law governs what the legal requirements are for a court to find that "fraud" or "negligence" existed. What you are suing for is a) monetary damages, i.e. your hospital bills b) punitive damages, i.e. a monetary punishment to make the wrongdoer think twice about ever doing it again, and/or c) attorney's fees.
But most people, especially those who have fallen and can't get up, don't have enough money to hire an attorney by the hour. What is usually arranged is what's called a "contingent fee contract". Basically, the lawyer gets 1/3 of whatever is recovered. (That is why you see those "you don't pay if you don't win" television commercials for lawyers.)
What does this encourage? Dishonest PLAINTIFFS, not dishonest lawyers. Since filing a lawsuit becomes risk-free as long as you can pretend you have been grievously injured, it's worth trying your luck even if you have done something monstrously stupid and injured yourself. And idiot JURIES can be called upon to give ridiculous damage awards.
The system does NOT favor the rich in tort litigation. Sorry. All juries see is a bank account from which to give out a massive judgment. All attorneys see is that an endless assortment of greedy idiots will show up at their doors demanding massive rewards for self-inflicted stupidity. All lawyers do is facilitate the wishes of greedy plaintiffs.
Who is helpless? You were right, it's business owners (and anybody whom a jury might think could distribute big bucks to someone who tried drinking Drano to see what would happen). Do you notice the inconsistency in thinking that The Rich set up a system which screws themselves over?
What really happened is that populist legislatures, and populist judges, trying to DIMINISH the power of "The Man" and INCREASE the power of the "People", created our present system. Tort lawsuits exist, and were in modern times generally created, to favor the little man. The problem is that the balance swung too far. "Suit to recover because your employer has insanely dangerous machinery" became "suit to recover because your boss harmed your self-esteem".
What does this have to do with patent law? Absolutely nothing. This question of whether a company's patent on JPEGs is enforceable has absolutely nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits like the kinds you described. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the honesty of the legal profession.
...but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years...
That is not what the original post said, which perhaps you would have ascertained had you read it. The original quotation was:
"Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years. At what point do we say, "actually, never mind, let's check back in 2050 to see if it makes sense then"?"
To read, scan eyes back and forth along line of text at preferred speed. Repeat until comprehension occurs.
How much cash does Bill Gates - thats one man - have?
Comparatively little, I suspect. Do you really think that rich people have all their money in a checking account? Most of Bill Gates' wealth is his stock holdings, especially MSFT.
Caveat: Your fundamental point that the Russians rule utterly is well taken. They do indeed so rule. Look at the Trans-Siberian Railway, for Pete's sake. Makes the mighty Union Pacific look like HO.
Anyway...
NASA can't afford to go to Mars single-handed. Neither can ESA. And neither can the Russians. The only way this is going to get done soon is through cooperation. Yeah, cooperation. That dirty "c" word. Sometimes, you can't do everything yourself so you call in someone else, pooling resources and talent to get the job done as best as possible.
Isn't the fact that no single nation on Earth can afford to develop a Mars mission a strong indication that it is massively impractical? Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years. At what point do we say, "actually, never mind, let's check back in 2050 to see if it makes sense then"?
Oh, there was plenty of settlement in the Americas well before even Columbus got there. History did not begin in Europe.
Well, considering that "history" means a written record, then history began in the Middle East, and didn't include the Americas until the Europeans brought writing.
(At least for North America. The Aztecs had some written records, which the Spanish destroyed. In which case they no longer exist as "history", because they're now unknown.)
Why do you think that the Moon is extremely fragile? It's not made of porcelain. We've been drilling into the Earth for millennia and it hasn't started crumbling yet.
As for destabilizing the Moon's orbit - basically, this would require a tremendous impact or explosion on one side of it, pushing it out of its present orbit. Think about all those craters on the moon. Even the force of truly humungous meteorite impacts couldn't move it from where it is now. Maybe if we detonated every nuclear weapon on Earth at the same point on the lunar surface simultaneously, we could move the Moon. Maybe.
A lunar geologist, btw, would be a "selenologist".
It probably just wanted to know if you have stairs in your home, and to protect the scientists from the Terrible Secret of Space. Pusher robots are like that.
Although they don't want violence or anything harsh they still believe that Africa is a continent for Africans - not Englishmen or Frenchmen. And it shouldn't be - the only thing whites have brought to Africa is racism and their own forms of control over the lands true owners.
Oh, please.
If somebody had written "Europe is a continent for Europeans - not Africans or South Asians... And it shouldn't be - the only thing coloreds have brought to Europe is crime and welfare dependency" you'd go from 0 to self-righteous in half a second.
Peddle your hypocritical racist twaddle somewhere else.
Re:I hope he's kidding, but just in case....
on
The Case for the Empire
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
This conservative fuckhead should go back to the trailer park where he belongs.
It was heretofore difficult for me to contemplate someone being so pathetic that they took real offense at someone mischaracterizing the actions of fictional persons.
The latest Walmart controversy (as heard on NPR): they're running supermarkets in their stores and employing non-union butchers.
Good. You ever been forced to work in a closed shop (mandatory union membership)? It sucks.
Supposedly Walmart treats their employees like crap. Maybe you and I don't have to worry about getting a job as a cashier, but that's no reason to applaud paying people next to nothing just so you can get a better deal on paper towels.
Wal-Mart helped pioneer employee stock ownership plans. If you've ever been to a Sam's Club, they have the stock price posted next to the employee lounge. Wal-Mart means employment to a lot of people in a lot places more blighted than you'll ever see. Why do they pay people "next to nothing"? Why do you pay upwards of $1000 for an apartment in Silicon Valley? Because the cost of living is different in different places.
Which is better for the economy, a bunch of people in each city making good money selling goods at local stores, or a couple of guys in Texas making good money running a chain?
Arkansas, actually. And a lot of the "good money" is being made by the employees because they are shareholders, as per above.
There's the flip side of the coin, too - the price of everything going down by 20% means that everybody's purchasing power just went up by 20%. That means a lot of poor people can suddenly buy a lot more. Is that good for the economy? It means that a lot of people in rural America can suddenly breathe easier.
I'm not a rabid Wal-Mart apologist. My family business was one of the countless small stores destroyed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. But the truth isn't as simple as "and then the giant came and destroyed everything".
Martin Guerre was a sixteenth-century French peasant who returned from war to find that he had "returned" years earlier and had been living tidily with his wife for some time.
There followed a great trial to determine which one was the "real" Guerre. The real one lost.
It's a famous historical episode in early modern history. Needless to say, it a) predates Mark Twain and b) is obviously the basis of the musical (and a movie with Gerard Depardieu).
Ha. So if we have a United States of Africa, do we call them African? How about United States of Asia? Asians? You get the point?
What point? Hypothetical countries need hypothetical names?
But, sure, we can play that game. Let's say we had a hypothetical federation of European nations, which we'll call the "European Union". What are people from within this Union supposedly called? Europeans. What about places which are in Europe but not in the European Union, like Norway? Norwegians.
You see, some countries in the world are called "The United States of X". Generally because, accurately or otherwise, they're supposedly a federal union of autonomous "states".
People who live in one of these "United States" countries are called after the place where the states are located.
Citizens of the United States of Mexico are called.... Mexicans.
Citizens of the United States of Brazil are called.... Brazilians.
Citizens of the United States of America are called.... Americans.
But the entire Western Hemisphere should be called "America"! It's unfair that just the USA uses that name!
Unfair in what way? Brazil doesn't lack a name. Canada's not hurting for a moniker unrelated to the name of its continent.
Besides, geographical names are blurry anyway. By "Africa'' a lot of people mean simply "sub-Saharan Africa". Peru used to mean all of non-Brazilian South America, not just one Andean country. Some names (e.g. Iraq, Pakistan) are simply made up out of nowhere.
So why invent the ugly term "USian", which could equally well apply to several different countries, when everybody the world over knows what an "American" is?
Slashdot Mirror
Presumably to be award to those on their way to destruction, or possibly those who have no chance to survive make their time.
... only when combined with "a form of fusion" :-)
Um, US Courts have no jurisdiction over China. It's a foreign country.
Yes, that's the obvious answer, and yes, the "the US is just big and mean and stupid and thinks it rules the world" opinions expressed in other responses are terribly fashionable. But no, it's not correct, and no, nobody's stupid enough to think that we're going to send the federal marshals to Shanghai.
You can sue foreign governments in United States courts. A cursory search reveals, for example, this case from a few months ago: Stethem v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 201 F.Supp. 2d 78 (D.D.C., 2002).
Put very simply, a party (say, Microsoft, or in the above case a U.S. citizen killed as a result of actions of the defendant nation) can get a judgment, or a court order, against a foreign country.
If it's a monetary judgment, it can be collected from whatever assets the country has in the United States - bank accounts, foreign currency reserves, real estate, whatever. If it's a court order, then, say, Microsoft could get an injunction forbidding the Chinese government (or whatever state-owned enterprise) from distributing "Windows PRC" within the United States.
This happens all the time. It's really not that exciting. Suing China, of course, would be a little pointless - China's not likely to try to undertake any action within the jurisdiction of the US courts - namely, within the United States.
I hardly think the Chinese goverment even acknowledges the US legal system and just disregards it as capitalistic "justice" for the rich, easy punishment for the poor. (Sad thing is they are prolly right with this, too...) :(
Uh. The opinion of freaking China as to whether the US court systems are, comparatively speaking, just and fair.
We'll go with the ol' grain of salt on this one.
The system thereby encourages both dishonest plaintiffs and dishonest lawyers. Both have something to gain from unnecessary suits, as long as they think they canwin, regardless of whether they should bring suit in the first place).
Attorneys are not in the business of deciding the merits of somebody's claim. Their ethical obligations are to represent people if they are asked to. That's basically the only reason why public defenders can exist - because J. Q. Defender has to present J. W. Rapist's position in the best light he can, regardless of whether Mr. Rapist is a scumbag.
They fear being rendered helpless in a system that ONLY rewards those with money and those with the most expensive lawyers.
IANAL.
Look at what you wrote. Setting aside your cheap ethnic bigotry that only "rednecks" sue anyone, do you really think that "white trash bimbos" and "rednecks" qualify as "those with money" and "those with the most expensive lawyers"?
This is how it works. Slashdotters, take notice.
If you Slip and Fall, or Pour Hot Coffee on yourself, you have what is called a tort claim (we will ignore whether or not these claims have merit). A tort is a legally recognized injury. You can sue for the tort of wrongful death, or the tort of fraud, or the tort of negligence. Your state's law governs what the legal requirements are for a court to find that "fraud" or "negligence" existed. What you are suing for is a) monetary damages, i.e. your hospital bills b) punitive damages, i.e. a monetary punishment to make the wrongdoer think twice about ever doing it again, and/or c) attorney's fees.
But most people, especially those who have fallen and can't get up, don't have enough money to hire an attorney by the hour. What is usually arranged is what's called a "contingent fee contract". Basically, the lawyer gets 1/3 of whatever is recovered. (That is why you see those "you don't pay if you don't win" television commercials for lawyers.)
What does this encourage? Dishonest PLAINTIFFS, not dishonest lawyers. Since filing a lawsuit becomes risk-free as long as you can pretend you have been grievously injured, it's worth trying your luck even if you have done something monstrously stupid and injured yourself. And idiot JURIES can be called upon to give ridiculous damage awards.
The system does NOT favor the rich in tort litigation. Sorry. All juries see is a bank account from which to give out a massive judgment. All attorneys see is that an endless assortment of greedy idiots will show up at their doors demanding massive rewards for self-inflicted stupidity. All lawyers do is facilitate the wishes of greedy plaintiffs.
Who is helpless? You were right, it's business owners (and anybody whom a jury might think could distribute big bucks to someone who tried drinking Drano to see what would happen). Do you notice the inconsistency in thinking that The Rich set up a system which screws themselves over?
What really happened is that populist legislatures, and populist judges, trying to DIMINISH the power of "The Man" and INCREASE the power of the "People", created our present system. Tort lawsuits exist, and were in modern times generally created, to favor the little man. The problem is that the balance swung too far. "Suit to recover because your employer has insanely dangerous machinery" became "suit to recover because your boss harmed your self-esteem".
What does this have to do with patent law? Absolutely nothing. This question of whether a company's patent on JPEGs is enforceable has absolutely nothing to do with frivolous lawsuits like the kinds you described. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the honesty of the legal profession.
After the free-for-life Performa support fiasco, the odds that Apple would ever again make such a claim are absolutely nil.
Would you pour Clorox on your french fries?
I thought that's how they made poutine.
...but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years...
That is not what the original post said, which perhaps you would have ascertained had you read it. The original quotation was:
"Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years. At what point do we say, "actually, never mind, let's check back in 2050 to see if it makes sense then"?"
To read, scan eyes back and forth along line of text at preferred speed. Repeat until comprehension occurs.
How much cash does Bill Gates - thats one man - have?
Comparatively little, I suspect. Do you really think that rich people have all their money in a checking account? Most of Bill Gates' wealth is his stock holdings, especially MSFT.
Caveat: Your fundamental point that the Russians rule utterly is well taken. They do indeed so rule. Look at the Trans-Siberian Railway, for Pete's sake. Makes the mighty Union Pacific look like HO.
Anyway...
NASA can't afford to go to Mars single-handed. Neither can ESA. And neither can the Russians. The only way this is going to get done soon is through cooperation.
Yeah, cooperation. That dirty "c" word. Sometimes, you can't do everything yourself so you call in someone else, pooling resources and talent to get the job done as best as possible.
Isn't the fact that no single nation on Earth can afford to develop a Mars mission a strong indication that it is massively impractical? Supposing it could be done, but it would take 5% of the world's GDP for 10 years. At what point do we say, "actually, never mind, let's check back in 2050 to see if it makes sense then"?
Oh, there was plenty of settlement in the Americas well before even Columbus got there. History did not begin in Europe.
Well, considering that "history" means a written record, then history began in the Middle East, and didn't include the Americas until the Europeans brought writing.
(At least for North America. The Aztecs had some written records, which the Spanish destroyed. In which case they no longer exist as "history", because they're now unknown.)
I'm guessing it's his ham radio call sign.
I will amend my prior statement - a lunar geologist should be called a selenologist.
Why do you think that the Moon is extremely fragile? It's not made of porcelain. We've been drilling into the Earth for millennia and it hasn't started crumbling yet.
As for destabilizing the Moon's orbit - basically, this would require a tremendous impact or explosion on one side of it, pushing it out of its present orbit. Think about all those craters on the moon. Even the force of truly humungous meteorite impacts couldn't move it from where it is now. Maybe if we detonated every nuclear weapon on Earth at the same point on the lunar surface simultaneously, we could move the Moon. Maybe.
A lunar geologist, btw, would be a "selenologist".
It probably just wanted to know if you have stairs in your home, and to protect the scientists from the Terrible Secret of Space. Pusher robots are like that.
Although they don't want violence or anything harsh they still believe that Africa is a continent for Africans - not Englishmen or Frenchmen. And it shouldn't be - the only thing whites have brought to Africa is racism and their own forms of control over the lands true owners.
Oh, please.
If somebody had written "Europe is a continent for Europeans - not Africans or South Asians... And it shouldn't be - the only thing coloreds have brought to Europe is crime and welfare dependency" you'd go from 0 to self-righteous in half a second.
Peddle your hypocritical racist twaddle somewhere else.
This conservative fuckhead should go back to the trailer park where he belongs.
It was heretofore difficult for me to contemplate someone being so pathetic that they took real offense at someone mischaracterizing the actions of fictional persons.
We also have a balanced budget amendment.
Just to clarify - you're not arguing that there exists a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, are you?
Because, well, there's not.
The late, lamented DNA.
The latest Walmart controversy (as heard on NPR): they're running supermarkets in their stores and employing non-union butchers.
Good. You ever been forced to work in a closed shop (mandatory union membership)? It sucks.
Supposedly Walmart treats their employees like crap. Maybe you and I don't have to worry about getting a job as a cashier, but that's no reason to applaud paying people next to nothing just so you can get a better deal on paper towels.
Wal-Mart helped pioneer employee stock ownership plans. If you've ever been to a Sam's Club, they have the stock price posted next to the employee lounge. Wal-Mart means employment to a lot of people in a lot places more blighted than you'll ever see. Why do they pay people "next to nothing"? Why do you pay upwards of $1000 for an apartment in Silicon Valley? Because the cost of living is different in different places.
Which is better for the economy, a bunch of people in each city making good money selling goods at local stores, or a couple of guys in Texas making good money running a chain?
Arkansas, actually. And a lot of the "good money" is being made by the employees because they are shareholders, as per above.
There's the flip side of the coin, too - the price of everything going down by 20% means that everybody's purchasing power just went up by 20%. That means a lot of poor people can suddenly buy a lot more. Is that good for the economy? It means that a lot of people in rural America can suddenly breathe easier.
I'm not a rabid Wal-Mart apologist. My family business was one of the countless small stores destroyed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. But the truth isn't as simple as "and then the giant came and destroyed everything".
Martin Guerre was a sixteenth-century French peasant who returned from war to find that he had "returned" years earlier and had been living tidily with his wife for some time.
There followed a great trial to determine which one was the "real" Guerre. The real one lost.
It's a famous historical episode in early modern history. Needless to say, it a) predates Mark Twain and b) is obviously the basis of the musical (and a movie with Gerard Depardieu).
Ha.
So if we have a United States of Africa, do we call them African? How about United States of Asia? Asians?
You get the point?
What point? Hypothetical countries need hypothetical names?
But, sure, we can play that game. Let's say we had a hypothetical federation of European nations, which we'll call the "European Union". What are people from within this Union supposedly called? Europeans. What about places which are in Europe but not in the European Union, like Norway? Norwegians.
There's no such thing as a USian.
You see, some countries in the world are called "The United States of X". Generally because, accurately or otherwise, they're supposedly a federal union of autonomous "states".
People who live in one of these "United States" countries are called after the place where the states are located.
Citizens of the United States of Mexico are called.... Mexicans.
Citizens of the United States of Brazil are called.... Brazilians.
Citizens of the United States of America are called.... Americans.
But the entire Western Hemisphere should be called "America"! It's unfair that just the USA uses that name!
Unfair in what way? Brazil doesn't lack a name. Canada's not hurting for a moniker unrelated to the name of its continent.
Besides, geographical names are blurry anyway. By "Africa'' a lot of people mean simply "sub-Saharan Africa". Peru used to mean all of non-Brazilian South America, not just one Andean country. Some names (e.g. Iraq, Pakistan) are simply made up out of nowhere.
So why invent the ugly term "USian", which could equally well apply to several different countries, when everybody the world over knows what an "American" is?
any mention of a movie sequel as well? Nah, that would be too good...
Why, yes... um... it's even mentioned in the story header.