As he was not within Australian juristiction he was under no obligation to comply with Oz laws.
Whether he was breaking the laws of the country he was residing in is irrilivent. Whether that country was enforcing laws that he was breaking is irrilivent too.
Fact is, if you don't want to be bound by the laws of every country in the world, all countries must recognise the limits of their juritistion (the 12 mile or 200 mile line & locally registed vessels in international seas/air-space).
If that means Yemanis can smuggle Kurds & Afghans with impunity, because the Indonesian justice system is so corrupt, so be it.
If it hypothetically means people on unregisted boats in international waters are free to kill each other, then so be it.
It's better than the alternative (read my paragraph on the actions of China)
whats extradition got to do with the price of eggs?
Now read my post again, where does it mention civil verses criminal law or extradition treaties?
My beef is simply the fact that many govts are prosecuting people for acts commited outside of their juristiction:
A Israeli being prosecuted in Belgium for acts committed in Lebanon.
Burmese/Columbian drug lords being prosecuted by the US for acts committed while they were outside of the US & thus under no obligation to comply with US laws. Fact is if I smuggle a ton of heroin into the US, as long as I don't enter the US while doing so, I'm under no obligation to comply with US laws. IE US laws against importing heroin only apply to people who are within US juristiction while they are breaking such laws. Well that's the way it should be.
Never the less govts more 'n more are attempting to enforce their laws outside of their juristiction. Now read my 1st post again carefully & then come back & comment.
This precedent of nations enforcing their laws outside their juristictions, is the fault of Israel, the US, France, Spain, Belgium & China, & is spreading, even Australia is getting in on the act. Meaning we are now expected to comply with every law of every country on the planet no matter where we are. This syndrome must stop. AFAIC the only laws that should be enforced extra-territorilly are the traditional laws of piracy on the high seas & treason.
There are many examples of this:
The US demanding the extradiction of Columbian & Burmese drug lords for acts committed while they were outside of US juristiction & thus under no compulsion to comply with US laws.
Israel prosecuting a German with Latin American citizenship for war crimes that happened in Europe against people that weren't even Israelis & weren't even nationals of that bit of the planet that ended up becoming Israel [crwflags.com].
Belgium prosecuting a Israeli for contravening Belium warcrimes laws in Lebanon
Spain prosecuting Pinochet for acts commited against Spainards outside of Spain. The simple fact is once one becomes an expat one no longer has the protection of their country of citizenship & one must instead accept the protection of their host nation. If a expat doesn't like that they should go home. If Spain doesn't like the fact that Spainish expats in Chile were killed by the Pinochet regime then Spain should use diplomatic avenues, such as a trade embargo, to persuade Chile to prosecute Pinochete. No matter how distastefull it is, the killing of Spainards outside of Spain's juristiction is no concern of the Spainish law courts. If worse comes to the worst & the Chilian justice system refuses to do its duty, the Spanish secret service anti-ETA death squad could be resurrected to target the token Chilian bigwig & a message sent suggesting that the offsprings of Chilan bigwigs could come next.
About 5 years ago or something a freighter from some Arab country smuggled a ship load of hashish to just off Oz's 200 mile economic line where the hashish was loaded onto some waiting Oz yachts & brought ashore. Well the Feds were waiting & cought the Yachties hashed up to the nines. After the freighter unloaded its cargo it headed to New Caledonia, where Oz feds were waiting with extradition warrents. I assume the New Caledonians played along because it's dependent on Oz in many ways, plus the French habitually enforce their laws extra-territorily anyway. So the Arab seamen ended up in a Australian court where the judge promptly threw out the case. He stated that even though they were definitly smuggling hash to Oz, as they never entered Oz juristiction while they were smuggling the hash to Oz, the seamen were under no obligation to comply with Oz laws. IMAO that's a top judge.
Well recently, as in the last year or so, Australia succesfully applied for the extradition of a Yemani people smuggler from Indonesia, who they have prosecuted for breaking Australian people smuggling laws (smuggling Afghans 'n Kurds here) even though he has never been within Oz juristiction & thus IMAO has never been under any obligation to comply with Oz laws.
Now the reason I don't like these concepts is because it sets precedents that's directly responsable for China arresting tourists & business travellers from overseas & throwing them in jail, simply for Besmirching the Reputation of China in foreign publications. You see public attacks on China's reputation are illegal in China. Also under Chinese laws all Chinese are considered within Chinese juristiction no matter where they are on the planet. Ontop of which China does not recognise the right of Chinese to renounce their citizenship. Meaning if say a Chinese person becomes an American & decides he doesn't want to be a dual citizen, & renounces his Chinese citizenship, China won't recognise it & as far as they are concerned he's still Chinese (albit maybe also American too) & still must comply with Chinese laws while in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). This even goes further, if someone has Chinese ancestry (no matter how distant), China reserves the right to consider that person Chinese & thus as far as they're concerned, obliged to comply with Chinese laws, even if that person has never been to China.
This has led to many citizens of the West being arrested while in China on Businees or on holidays, for previously criticising China in western publications & particularly of late, on the web. IMAO the only way the world could stop such incidents is by an international treaty strictly regulating the limits of territorial juristiction. & no matter how much lawyers hate it, this treaty must be so clear & unambiguous that nothing is open to interpritation, no matter how inflexible it is & what the costs are in that regard. If it means people are free to kill each other on unregisted vessels in international waters, then so be it.
The only thing I'd consider is extra-territorial enviromental laws, for example where nations have the right to enforce their enviromental laws on whatever international waters are closer to them than other countries, as long as they don't descriminate in favour of their own nationals in those waters tat are outside of their 12 mile territorial or 200 mile economic zone. The world's oceans are being fished out 7 times faster than they can be replenished, this has to stop. We don't want our oceans to end up as sterile as the North Atlantic cod fisheries.
This precedent of nations enforcing their laws outside their juristictions, is the fault of Israel, the US, France, Spain, Belgium & China, & is spreading, even Australia is getting in on the act. Meaning we are now expected to comply with every law of every country on the planet no matter where we are. This syndrome must stop. AFAIC the only laws that should be enforced extra-territorilly are the traditional laws of piracy on the high seas & treason.
There are many examples of this:
The US demanding the extradiction of Columbian & Burmese drug lords for acts committed while they were outside of US juristiction & thus under no compulsion to comply with US laws.
Israel prosecuting a German with Latin American citizenship for war crimes that happened in Europe against people that weren't even Israelis & weren't even nationals of that bit of the planet that ended up becoming Israel.
Belgium prosecuting a Israeli for contravening Belium warcrimes laws in Lebanon
Spain prosecuting Pinochet for acts commited against Spainards outside of Spain. The simple fact is once one becomes an expat one no longer has the protection of their country of citizenship & one must instead accept the protection of their host nation. If a expat doesn't like that they should go home. If Spain doesn't like the fact that Spainish expats in Chile were killed by the Pinochet regime then Spain should use diplomatic avenues, such as a trade embargo, to persuade Chile to prosecute Pinochete. No matter how distastefull it is, the killing of Spainards outside of Spain's juristiction is no concern of the Spainish law courts. If worse comes to the worst & the Chilian justice system refuses to do its duty, the Spanish secret service anti-ETA death squad could be resurrected to target the token Chilian bigwig & a message sent suggesting that the offsprings of Chilan bigwigs could come next.
About 5 years ago or something a freighter from some Arab country smuggled a ship load of hashish to just off Oz's 200 mile economic line where the hashish was loaded onto some waiting Oz yachts & brought ashore. Well the Feds were waiting & cought the Yachties hashed up to the nines. After the freighter unloaded its cargo it headed to New Caledonia, where Oz feds were waiting with extradition warrents. I assume the New Caledonians played along because it's dependent on Oz in many ways, plus the French habitually enforce their laws extra-territorily anyway. So the Arab seamen ended up in a Australian court where the judge promptly threw out the case. He stated that even though they were definitly smuggling hash to Oz, as they never entered Oz juristiction while they were smuggling the hash to Oz, the seamen were under no obligation to comply with Oz laws. IMAO that's a top judge.
Well recently, as in the last year or so, Australia succesfully applied for the extradition of a Yemani people smuggler from Indonesia, who they have prosecuted for breaking Australian people smuggling laws (smuggling Afghans 'n Kurds here) even though he has never been within Oz juristiction & thus IMAO has never been under any obligation to comply with Oz laws.
Now the reason I don't like these concepts is because it sets precedents that's directly responsable for China arresting tourists & business travellers from overseas & throwing them in jail, simply for Besmirching the Reputation of China in foreign publications. You see public attacks on China's reputation are illegal in China. Also under Chinese laws all Chinese are considered within Chinese juristiction no matter where they are on the planet. Ontop of which China does not recognise the right of Chinese to renounce their citizenship. Meaning if say a Chinese person becomes an American & decides he doesn't want to be a dual citizen, & renounces his Chinese citizenship, China won't recognise it & as far as they are concerned he's still Chinese (albit maybe also American too) & still must comply with Chinese laws while in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). This even goes further, if someone has Chinese ancestry (no matter how distant), China reserves the right to consider that person Chinese & thus as far as they're concerned, obliged to comply with Chinese laws, even if that person has never been to China.
This has led to many citizens of the West being arrested while in China on Businees or on holidays, for previously criticising China in western publications & particularly of late, on the web. IMAO the only way the world could stop such incidents is by an international treaty strictly regulating the limits of territorial juristiction. & no matter how much lawyers hate it, this treaty must be so clear & unambiguous that nothing is open to interpritation, no matter how inflexible it is & what the costs are in that regard. If it means people are free to kill each other on unregisted vessels in international waters, then so be it.
The only thing I'd consider is extra-territorial enviromental laws, for example where nations have the right to enforce their enviromental laws on whatever international waters are closer to them than other countries, as long as they don't descriminate in favour of their own nationals in those waters tat are outside of their 12 mile territorial or 200 mile economic zone. The world's oceans are being fished out 7 times faster than they can be replenished, this has to stop. We don't want our oceans to end up as sterile as the North Atlantic cod fisheries.
A billion's always been a 1000,000,000 in the British Commonwealth too.
Afterall a thousand's not a hundred hundred, it's just ten hundred, so why do people think a billion's a million million just because a million's a thousand thousand.
There's actually a patern to this 10 x 10 = hundred 10 x 100= thousand 1000 x 1000 = million 1000 x 1,000,000 = billion
Someone even told me they saw OS/2 (PPC) on a Mac at a deom (don't know if it's wives tail - does OS/2 PPC support the Mac G3 southbridge internally? Or does one have to install it on a IBM PPC workstation then manually install a homemade Mac G3 Southbridge driver set & shutdown, then reboot the system drive on a G3 board?
To places where frivilous law suits are instantly rejected
The fact is Google's a private company. As such they can do what ever they want as long as they don't break the criminal code, contractural responsabilities & labour 'n enviromental laws, etc.
Seeing as Google & Search King haven't signed a contracted then fuck em.
Really, lets be honest, frivilous law suit style standover tactics are becoming the norm in the IT industry, so maybe its about time the big American IT companies, particularly virtual web based ones like Google, relocate overseas to places where frivilous law suits are instantly thrown out.
They can do what ever they want as long as they don't break the criminal code, contractural responsabilities & labour 'n enviromental laws, etc.
Seeing as Google & Search King haven't signed a contracted then fuck em.
Really, lets be honest, frivilous law suit style standover tactics are becoming the norm in the IT industry, so maybe its about time the big American IT companies, particularly virtual web based ones like Google, relocate overseas to places where frivilous law suits are instantly thrown out.
You see in the SC example the printer cartridge is a final product being purchased. In your smartcard analogy the smartcard is not, its just a widget so one can axcess pay tv without paying for it.
The thing is they're using the smartcards for axcessing pay TV without paying for it your analogy doesn't make sense.
Your analogy would only make sense if Lexmark had a free refill program, say 10 free refills per printer purchase, where one takes their cartridge to their local official dealer & he scans the chip to see how many refills have already taken place; & SC brought out widget that reset the cartridge chip so it appear that no re-fills have occured
If generic ink cartridges eat into their profits, fuck em, that's life. Reproduction parts are quite legal (see the auto-repair industry).
If the supply & demand curves match up where printer makers can't sell printers at a profit (fact is businesses charge as much as they can get away with, if Lexmark could sell printers at a profit they would) & they must base their profit on selling ink cartridges, then in the world of generic cartridges they'll go under. When enough printer manufacturers go under, the remaining ones will have less competition & could therefore charge more, while increased market share would mean greater economies of scale, meaning less costs, this translate to potential profits.
That's how business works. The best thing that could happen to the airline industry is for half the airlines to go bust, that would overnight make the rest profitable. Look at QANTAS after the Ansett bust up. I'd say this law suite suggests that Lexmark's worried they'l be one of the 1st to go under.
The simple fact is reproduction parts are legal, even ones with trademark badging like Taiwanese reproduction Ford grills with the Ford oval in the middle (as long as there's no intention to decieve & claim the part is a 'original equipment manufacturer' part).
So reproduction filled ink cartridges are legal, meaning that Lexmark's profit model's at fault.
Cracking smart cards means one gets axcess to pay TV without paying for it.
These people are still paying for their ink
The fact is there's no law stating one must use 'original manufacturer' parts when reparing a car, using generic ink cartridges is no different than using Thaiwanese reproduction parts on your car (which are very popular with panel beaters).
Even if Static Control's Smartek chips are compatible with Lexmark printers, it means nothing, as it's possible to conform to protocals without infringing on copyrights. No one's yet suggested that the SC's Smartek chips have copyrighted Lexmark code in them. Plus the chips do not circumvent a copy protection system either
As far as telco networks are concerned, 3 companies that compete in a single market each have virtually the same fixed costs as a monopoly with 100% of the market.
Meaning that, in a simplified sense, a monopoly with 100% of the market has fixed costs per unit that are a 1/3 of those of a company with only 33% of the market.
It's the huge fixed to variable cost ratios of telcos (relative to other industries) that give monopolies a comparative advantage
Sure it was a private company when it 1st started in the post WWI era. But in 1931 Britain's Imperial Airways bought a controlling interest in QANTAS (guess who owned Imperial Airways?), IN 1947 the Oz govt bought their interest & all the remaining privatelly held shares too, making QANTAS 100% govt owned. In 1992 they put TAA, the govt's domestic airline, under QANTAS control. A year later they were officially merged under the QANTAS banner & the Oz govt sold a 25% share of the airline to British Airways. The rest of QANTAS was privatised later.
Sure it was a private company when it 1st started in the post WWI era. But in 1931 Britain's Imperial Airways bought a controlling interest in QANTAS (guess who owned Imperial Airways?), IN 1947 the Oz govt bought their interest & all the remaining privatelly held shares too, making QANTAS 100% govt owned. In 1992 they put TAA, the govt's domestic airline, under QANTAS control. A year later they were officially merged under the QANTAS banner & the Oz govt sold a 25% share of the airline to British Airways. The rest of QANTAS was privatised later.
The fixed costs of telcos & cable networks are huge relativelly speaking.
That's why govt telco utility monopolies (including govt cable infrasture monopolies, as opposed to content) will always have the lowest sustainable costs long-term. There's no way Singapore would be able to provide broadband to everyone on th island at the costs they do without Singapore Telecom (a 100% govt own utility that subsidies tax-payers with dividends every year) having a cable infrastructure monopoly.
Look how universal cable is in the Netherlands, & at very low per customer costs to the provider. Going by what I was told, basically every house gets a cable connection with all the free-to-air channels on it as part of the Dutch equilivent of the British BBC TV license. So everyone gets the Dutch free to air channels, about 6 channels, including their BBC equilivents, plus they get about 3 free to air channels each from Germany, Belgium, France & the UK. Which means about 15 channels & a cable connection all on the standard national TV license (the Dutch equilivent of the Brits BBC license). The main side effect of this is is that its universal nature makes provider costs low & you don't have millions of TV antennas ruining the skyline (I spent 3 months there 2 years ago & I only saw 2 TV antennas in the whole country). If one wants pay TV they simply subsribe to whatever extra channels they want & it gets piped in on the 'free-to-air' cable with the govt getting a percentage from the pay TV content provider for providing the infrastructure. The whole country comes pre-wired by one single cable network, making things really simple if one wants a cable internet connection
The US wouldn't have the problem with broadband internet providers going bust all the time if it had a govt telco & cable Infrastructure utility monopoly. As the only way to get cheap prices for broadband sustainably is through the economies of scale of a monopoly.
Of course this goes for all utilities. Take electricity, the only state in Oz that has had Californian style problems is Victoria, the only Oz state with privatised electricity. Of course private monopolies are bad (legislation's then needed to protect the consumer), but govt utility monopolies are good - if they rise prices too much the politicians get voted out.
Really the only reason the US doesn't have govt utility monopolies is because of ideology. American capitalist ideology believe's it's bad for govts to provide commercial services. But putting ideology before pragmatism is a losers game. Pragmatism dictates that where economies of scale are king govt monopolies are the go.
Lets look at the example of Singapore again. Singapore Telecom provides billions to the govt coffers every year in dividends (there-by subsidising the tax-payers). Look at Singapore Airlines, its one of the most successful & profitable airlines in the world. Singapore also has govt owned stock broking firms that run multi-billion dollar stock portfolios in both Singapore & elseware. Plus govts have a legislative & competitive advantage which is the gain of Singapore's tax-payers too. The govt buys up & invests in firms where it helps ST or SA. The govt can legislature in favour of the companies it owns, there-by giving the tax-payer an advantage. Of course it's tough luck to anyone competing against the govt, but fair competition doesn't exist anyware on the planet anyway. The fact is the only purpose of a business is to make a profit, so businesses use every advantage they can, no matter how unfair it is to their competition, so why should govts be different when they are providing commercial services & protecting the tax-payers dividends. Of cours govts have to very circumspect & sef-controlled - go to far & they can drive away investment BTW the Singapore govt also has share portfolios managed through front companies meaning theire's many compaines arround the world, including the US, that are part owned or fully owned by the Singapore govt & they don't even know about.
Really this is the legacy of that ultimate pragmatist Lee Quan Yew. Singapore doesn't hesitate to use policies of the far-right, centre & far-left if they feel its the right policy for the problem. Letting oneself be constrained by ideology, like the US, is a mugs game. Can you imagine the stink in the US if the govt dared to provided commercial services at a profit & make billions in divendends? Look at the controversy that surrounded Carter lending Chrysler some short term cash. Really the massive growth rates in places like Taiwan, South Korea & Japan from 1950 to 1990, have all come from putting pragmatism 1st & not giving a shit about ideology.
2/ The initiative I took led to the creation of the internet.
Obviously he ment interpretation 2, as, if he meant interpretation 1 he would have just said it. The fact is the difference between in & by means alot, even though those definitions overlap.
The Lindows claim is that Windows was already a generic term for Windowing GUIs when Win 1 came out, they give the example of Microware Windows, a graphical window program that pre-dates MS Windows.
Therefore the Lindows people can claim that Lindows is a play on words between Linux & the generic term for Windowing software. Therefore quite a apt name for any Linux distribution with Z-Windows on it.
Whether they have alterior motivations about potential customers misinterpreting the name is irrilvent to that fact. That was the risk MS took when it named its GUI using the generic term
Whether one is committing a crime or not, (one can even be 100% legit) cops in much of the world will not hesitate to hassle one if they think they can get 'don't hassle me' bribe money.
This is Mexico it happens all the time. Gez I know someone who was arrested & locked up for reporting the theft of her handbag, she paid a bribe & she was out of there. Only thing was she didn't know how things worked in the 3rd World because it took 2 days of her being locked up before she put 2 & 2 together (just because a cop wants a bribe doesn't mean they'l spell things out for you)
Slashdot Mirror
Fact is the greedy deserve ripping off
It's karma when the greedy get ripped off by 'get rich quick' schemes
Ever heard what happens you syick a old cassette in front of a big woofer?
As he was not within Australian juristiction he was under no obligation to comply with Oz laws.
Whether he was breaking the laws of the country he was residing in is irrilivent. Whether that country was enforcing laws that he was breaking is irrilivent too.
Fact is, if you don't want to be bound by the laws of every country in the world, all countries must recognise the limits of their juritistion (the 12 mile or 200 mile line & locally registed vessels in international seas/air-space).
If that means Yemanis can smuggle Kurds & Afghans with impunity, because the Indonesian justice system is so corrupt, so be it.
If it hypothetically means people on unregisted boats in international waters are free to kill each other, then so be it.
It's better than the alternative (read my paragraph on the actions of China)
whats extradition got to do with the price of eggs?
Now read my post again, where does it mention civil verses criminal law or extradition treaties?
My beef is simply the fact that many govts are prosecuting people for acts commited outside of their juristiction:
A Israeli being prosecuted in Belgium for acts committed in Lebanon.
Burmese/Columbian drug lords being prosecuted by the US for acts committed while they were outside of the US & thus under no obligation to comply with US laws. Fact is if I smuggle a ton of heroin into the US, as long as I don't enter the US while doing so, I'm under no obligation to comply with US laws. IE US laws against importing heroin only apply to people who are within US juristiction while they are breaking such laws. Well that's the way it should be.
Never the less govts more 'n more are attempting to enforce their laws outside of their juristiction. Now read my 1st post again carefully & then come back & comment.
Samsung has full right to manufacture & develop Alphas, no matter what Intel or HP do.
This precedent of nations enforcing their laws outside their juristictions, is the fault of Israel, the US, France, Spain, Belgium & China, & is spreading, even Australia is getting in on the act. Meaning we are now expected to comply with every law of every country on the planet no matter where we are. This syndrome must stop. AFAIC the only laws that should be enforced extra-territorilly are the traditional laws of piracy on the high seas & treason.
There are many examples of this:
The US demanding the extradiction of Columbian & Burmese drug lords for acts committed while they were outside of US juristiction & thus under no compulsion to comply with US laws.
Israel prosecuting a German with Latin American citizenship for war crimes that happened in Europe against people that weren't even Israelis & weren't even nationals of that bit of the planet that ended up becoming Israel [crwflags.com].
Belgium prosecuting a Israeli for contravening Belium warcrimes laws in Lebanon
Spain prosecuting Pinochet for acts commited against Spainards outside of Spain. The simple fact is once one becomes an expat one no longer has the protection of their country of citizenship & one must instead accept the protection of their host nation. If a expat doesn't like that they should go home. If Spain doesn't like the fact that Spainish expats in Chile were killed by the Pinochet regime then Spain should use diplomatic avenues, such as a trade embargo, to persuade Chile to prosecute Pinochete. No matter how distastefull it is, the killing of Spainards outside of Spain's juristiction is no concern of the Spainish law courts. If worse comes to the worst & the Chilian justice system refuses to do its duty, the Spanish secret service anti-ETA death squad could be resurrected to target the token Chilian bigwig & a message sent suggesting that the offsprings of Chilan bigwigs could come next.
About 5 years ago or something a freighter from some Arab country smuggled a ship load of hashish to just off Oz's 200 mile economic line where the hashish was loaded onto some waiting Oz yachts & brought ashore. Well the Feds were waiting & cought the Yachties hashed up to the nines. After the freighter unloaded its cargo it headed to New Caledonia, where Oz feds were waiting with extradition warrents. I assume the New Caledonians played along because it's dependent on Oz in many ways, plus the French habitually enforce their laws extra-territorily anyway. So the Arab seamen ended up in a Australian court where the judge promptly threw out the case. He stated that even though they were definitly smuggling hash to Oz, as they never entered Oz juristiction while they were smuggling the hash to Oz, the seamen were under no obligation to comply with Oz laws. IMAO that's a top judge.
Well recently, as in the last year or so, Australia succesfully applied for the extradition of a Yemani people smuggler from Indonesia, who they have prosecuted for breaking Australian people smuggling laws (smuggling Afghans 'n Kurds here) even though he has never been within Oz juristiction & thus IMAO has never been under any obligation to comply with Oz laws.
Now the reason I don't like these concepts is because it sets precedents that's directly responsable for China arresting tourists & business travellers from overseas & throwing them in jail, simply for Besmirching the Reputation of China in foreign publications. You see public attacks on China's reputation are illegal in China. Also under Chinese laws all Chinese are considered within Chinese juristiction no matter where they are on the planet. Ontop of which China does not recognise the right of Chinese to renounce their citizenship. Meaning if say a Chinese person becomes an American & decides he doesn't want to be a dual citizen, & renounces his Chinese citizenship, China won't recognise it & as far as they are concerned he's still Chinese (albit maybe also American too) & still must comply with Chinese laws while in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). This even goes further, if someone has Chinese ancestry (no matter how distant), China reserves the right to consider that person Chinese & thus as far as they're concerned, obliged to comply with Chinese laws, even if that person has never been to China.
This has led to many citizens of the West being arrested while in China on Businees or on holidays, for previously criticising China in western publications & particularly of late, on the web. IMAO the only way the world could stop such incidents is by an international treaty strictly regulating the limits of territorial juristiction. & no matter how much lawyers hate it, this treaty must be so clear & unambiguous that nothing is open to interpritation, no matter how inflexible it is & what the costs are in that regard. If it means people are free to kill each other on unregisted vessels in international waters, then so be it.
The only thing I'd consider is extra-territorial enviromental laws, for example where nations have the right to enforce their enviromental laws on whatever international waters are closer to them than other countries, as long as they don't descriminate in favour of their own nationals in those waters tat are outside of their 12 mile territorial or 200 mile economic zone. The world's oceans are being fished out 7 times faster than they can be replenished, this has to stop. We don't want our oceans to end up as sterile as the North Atlantic cod fisheries.
This precedent of nations enforcing their laws outside their juristictions, is the fault of Israel, the US, France, Spain, Belgium & China, & is spreading, even Australia is getting in on the act. Meaning we are now expected to comply with every law of every country on the planet no matter where we are. This syndrome must stop. AFAIC the only laws that should be enforced extra-territorilly are the traditional laws of piracy on the high seas & treason.
There are many examples of this:
The US demanding the extradiction of Columbian & Burmese drug lords for acts committed while they were outside of US juristiction & thus under no compulsion to comply with US laws.
Israel prosecuting a German with Latin American citizenship for war crimes that happened in Europe against people that weren't even Israelis & weren't even nationals of that bit of the planet that ended up becoming Israel.
Belgium prosecuting a Israeli for contravening Belium warcrimes laws in Lebanon
Spain prosecuting Pinochet for acts commited against Spainards outside of Spain. The simple fact is once one becomes an expat one no longer has the protection of their country of citizenship & one must instead accept the protection of their host nation. If a expat doesn't like that they should go home. If Spain doesn't like the fact that Spainish expats in Chile were killed by the Pinochet regime then Spain should use diplomatic avenues, such as a trade embargo, to persuade Chile to prosecute Pinochete. No matter how distastefull it is, the killing of Spainards outside of Spain's juristiction is no concern of the Spainish law courts. If worse comes to the worst & the Chilian justice system refuses to do its duty, the Spanish secret service anti-ETA death squad could be resurrected to target the token Chilian bigwig & a message sent suggesting that the offsprings of Chilan bigwigs could come next.
About 5 years ago or something a freighter from some Arab country smuggled a ship load of hashish to just off Oz's 200 mile economic line where the hashish was loaded onto some waiting Oz yachts & brought ashore. Well the Feds were waiting & cought the Yachties hashed up to the nines. After the freighter unloaded its cargo it headed to New Caledonia, where Oz feds were waiting with extradition warrents. I assume the New Caledonians played along because it's dependent on Oz in many ways, plus the French habitually enforce their laws extra-territorily anyway. So the Arab seamen ended up in a Australian court where the judge promptly threw out the case. He stated that even though they were definitly smuggling hash to Oz, as they never entered Oz juristiction while they were smuggling the hash to Oz, the seamen were under no obligation to comply with Oz laws. IMAO that's a top judge.
Well recently, as in the last year or so, Australia succesfully applied for the extradition of a Yemani people smuggler from Indonesia, who they have prosecuted for breaking Australian people smuggling laws (smuggling Afghans 'n Kurds here) even though he has never been within Oz juristiction & thus IMAO has never been under any obligation to comply with Oz laws.
Now the reason I don't like these concepts is because it sets precedents that's directly responsable for China arresting tourists & business travellers from overseas & throwing them in jail, simply for Besmirching the Reputation of China in foreign publications. You see public attacks on China's reputation are illegal in China. Also under Chinese laws all Chinese are considered within Chinese juristiction no matter where they are on the planet. Ontop of which China does not recognise the right of Chinese to renounce their citizenship. Meaning if say a Chinese person becomes an American & decides he doesn't want to be a dual citizen, & renounces his Chinese citizenship, China won't recognise it & as far as they are concerned he's still Chinese (albit maybe also American too) & still must comply with Chinese laws while in the US (or anywhere else for that matter). This even goes further, if someone has Chinese ancestry (no matter how distant), China reserves the right to consider that person Chinese & thus as far as they're concerned, obliged to comply with Chinese laws, even if that person has never been to China.
This has led to many citizens of the West being arrested while in China on Businees or on holidays, for previously criticising China in western publications & particularly of late, on the web. IMAO the only way the world could stop such incidents is by an international treaty strictly regulating the limits of territorial juristiction. & no matter how much lawyers hate it, this treaty must be so clear & unambiguous that nothing is open to interpritation, no matter how inflexible it is & what the costs are in that regard. If it means people are free to kill each other on unregisted vessels in international waters, then so be it.
The only thing I'd consider is extra-territorial enviromental laws, for example where nations have the right to enforce their enviromental laws on whatever international waters are closer to them than other countries, as long as they don't descriminate in favour of their own nationals in those waters tat are outside of their 12 mile territorial or 200 mile economic zone. The world's oceans are being fished out 7 times faster than they can be replenished, this has to stop. We don't want our oceans to end up as sterile as the North Atlantic cod fisheries.
A billion's always been a 1000,000,000 in the British Commonwealth too.
Afterall a thousand's not a hundred hundred, it's just ten hundred, so why do people think a billion's a million million just because a million's a thousand thousand.
There's actually a patern to this
10 x 10 = hundred
10 x 100= thousand
1000 x 1000 = million
1000 x 1,000,000 = billion
teller machines, ATMs, workstations etc
They're still real big with banks.
Someone even told me they saw OS/2 (PPC) on a Mac at a deom (don't know if it's wives tail - does OS/2 PPC support the Mac G3 southbridge internally? Or does one have to install it on a IBM PPC workstation then manually install a homemade Mac G3 Southbridge driver set & shutdown, then reboot the system drive on a G3 board?
To places where frivilous law suits are instantly rejected
The fact is Google's a private company. As such they can do what ever they want as long as they don't break the criminal code, contractural responsabilities & labour 'n enviromental laws, etc.
Seeing as Google & Search King haven't signed a contracted then fuck em.
Really, lets be honest, frivilous law suit style standover tactics are becoming the norm in the IT industry, so maybe its about time the big American IT companies, particularly virtual web based ones like Google, relocate overseas to places where frivilous law suits are instantly thrown out.
They can do what ever they want as long as they don't break the criminal code, contractural responsabilities & labour 'n enviromental laws, etc.
Seeing as Google & Search King haven't signed a contracted then fuck em.
Really, lets be honest, frivilous law suit style standover tactics are becoming the norm in the IT industry, so maybe its about time the big American IT companies, particularly virtual web based ones like Google, relocate overseas to places where frivilous law suits are instantly thrown out.
You see in the SC example the printer cartridge is a final product being purchased. In your smartcard analogy the smartcard is not, its just a widget so one can axcess pay tv without paying for it.
The thing is they're using the smartcards for axcessing pay TV without paying for it your analogy doesn't make sense.
Your analogy would only make sense if Lexmark had a free refill program, say 10 free refills per printer purchase, where one takes their cartridge to their local official dealer & he scans the chip to see how many refills have already taken place; & SC brought out widget that reset the cartridge chip so it appear that no re-fills have occured
If generic ink cartridges eat into their profits, fuck em, that's life. Reproduction parts are quite legal (see the auto-repair industry).
If the supply & demand curves match up where printer makers can't sell printers at a profit (fact is businesses charge as much as they can get away with, if Lexmark could sell printers at a profit they would) & they must base their profit on selling ink cartridges, then in the world of generic cartridges they'll go under. When enough printer manufacturers go under, the remaining ones will have less competition & could therefore charge more, while increased market share would mean greater economies of scale, meaning less costs, this translate to potential profits.
That's how business works. The best thing that could happen to the airline industry is for half the airlines to go bust, that would overnight make the rest profitable. Look at QANTAS after the Ansett bust up. I'd say this law suite suggests that Lexmark's worried they'l be one of the 1st to go under.
The simple fact is reproduction parts are legal, even ones with trademark badging like Taiwanese reproduction Ford grills with the Ford oval in the middle (as long as there's no intention to decieve & claim the part is a 'original equipment manufacturer' part).
So reproduction filled ink cartridges are legal, meaning that Lexmark's profit model's at fault.
'Fair' has nothing to do with it.
Cracking smart cards means one gets axcess to pay TV without paying for it.
These people are still paying for their ink
The fact is there's no law stating one must use 'original manufacturer' parts when reparing a car, using generic ink cartridges is no different than using Thaiwanese reproduction parts on your car (which are very popular with panel beaters).
Even if Static Control's Smartek chips are compatible with Lexmark printers, it means nothing, as it's possible to conform to protocals without infringing on copyrights. No one's yet suggested that the SC's Smartek chips have copyrighted Lexmark code in them. Plus the chips do not circumvent a copy protection system either
Coke made the bottle, so it's already covered by cokes IP. If I happen to use it to store water it's none of their business
As far as telco networks are concerned, 3 companies that compete in a single market each have virtually the same fixed costs as a monopoly with 100% of the market.
Meaning that, in a simplified sense, a monopoly with 100% of the market has fixed costs per unit that are a 1/3 of those of a company with only 33% of the market.
It's the huge fixed to variable cost ratios of telcos (relative to other industries) that give monopolies a comparative advantage
Like about 7 years ago.
Sure it was a private company when it 1st started in the post WWI era. But in 1931 Britain's Imperial Airways bought a controlling interest in QANTAS (guess who owned Imperial Airways?), IN 1947 the Oz govt bought their interest & all the remaining privatelly held shares too, making QANTAS 100% govt owned. In 1992 they put TAA, the govt's domestic airline, under QANTAS control. A year later they were officially merged under the QANTAS banner & the Oz govt sold a 25% share of the airline to British Airways. The rest of QANTAS was privatised later.
So for 45 years QANTAS was 100% govt owned.
Like about 7 years ago.
Sure it was a private company when it 1st started in the post WWI era. But in 1931 Britain's Imperial Airways bought a controlling interest in QANTAS (guess who owned Imperial Airways?), IN 1947 the Oz govt bought their interest & all the remaining privatelly held shares too, making QANTAS 100% govt owned. In 1992 they put TAA, the govt's domestic airline, under QANTAS control. A year later they were officially merged under the QANTAS banner & the Oz govt sold a 25% share of the airline to British Airways. The rest of QANTAS was privatised later.
So for 45 years QANTAS was 100% govt owned.
Is the main determiner of bandwidth costs.
The fixed costs of telcos & cable networks are huge relativelly speaking.
That's why govt telco utility monopolies (including govt cable infrasture monopolies, as opposed to content) will always have the lowest sustainable costs long-term. There's no way Singapore would be able to provide broadband to everyone on th island at the costs they do without Singapore Telecom (a 100% govt own utility that subsidies tax-payers with dividends every year) having a cable infrastructure monopoly.
Look how universal cable is in the Netherlands, & at very low per customer costs to the provider. Going by what I was told, basically every house gets a cable connection with all the free-to-air channels on it as part of the Dutch equilivent of the British BBC TV license. So everyone gets the Dutch free to air channels, about 6 channels, including their BBC equilivents, plus they get about 3 free to air channels each from Germany, Belgium, France & the UK. Which means about 15 channels & a cable connection all on the standard national TV license (the Dutch equilivent of the Brits BBC license). The main side effect of this is is that its universal nature makes provider costs low & you don't have millions of TV antennas ruining the skyline (I spent 3 months there 2 years ago & I only saw 2 TV antennas in the whole country). If one wants pay TV they simply subsribe to whatever extra channels they want & it gets piped in on the 'free-to-air' cable with the govt getting a percentage from the pay TV content provider for providing the infrastructure. The whole country comes pre-wired by one single cable network, making things really simple if one wants a cable internet connection
The US wouldn't have the problem with broadband internet providers going bust all the time if it had a govt telco & cable Infrastructure utility monopoly. As the only way to get cheap prices for broadband sustainably is through the economies of scale of a monopoly.
Of course this goes for all utilities. Take electricity, the only state in Oz that has had Californian style problems is Victoria, the only Oz state with privatised electricity. Of course private monopolies are bad (legislation's then needed to protect the consumer), but govt utility monopolies are good - if they rise prices too much the politicians get voted out.
Really the only reason the US doesn't have govt utility monopolies is because of ideology. American capitalist ideology believe's it's bad for govts to provide commercial services. But putting ideology before pragmatism is a losers game. Pragmatism dictates that where economies of scale are king govt monopolies are the go.
Lets look at the example of Singapore again. Singapore Telecom provides billions to the govt coffers every year in dividends (there-by subsidising the tax-payers). Look at Singapore Airlines, its one of the most successful & profitable airlines in the world. Singapore also has govt owned stock broking firms that run multi-billion dollar stock portfolios in both Singapore & elseware. Plus govts have a legislative & competitive advantage which is the gain of Singapore's tax-payers too. The govt buys up & invests in firms where it helps ST or SA. The govt can legislature in favour of the companies it owns, there-by giving the tax-payer an advantage. Of course it's tough luck to anyone competing against the govt, but fair competition doesn't exist anyware on the planet anyway. The fact is the only purpose of a business is to make a profit, so businesses use every advantage they can, no matter how unfair it is to their competition, so why should govts be different when they are providing commercial services & protecting the tax-payers dividends. Of cours govts have to very circumspect & sef-controlled - go to far & they can drive away investment BTW the Singapore govt also has share portfolios managed through front companies meaning theire's many compaines arround the world, including the US, that are part owned or fully owned by the Singapore govt & they don't even know about.
Really this is the legacy of that ultimate pragmatist Lee Quan Yew. Singapore doesn't hesitate to use policies of the far-right, centre & far-left if they feel its the right policy for the problem. Letting oneself be constrained by ideology, like the US, is a mugs game. Can you imagine the stink in the US if the govt dared to provided commercial services at a profit & make billions in divendends? Look at the controversy that surrounded Carter lending Chrysler some short term cash. Really the massive growth rates in places like Taiwan, South Korea & Japan from 1950 to 1990, have all come from putting pragmatism 1st & not giving a shit about ideology.
I took the initiative in creating the Internet
That has 2 interprestations:
1/ I took the initiative by creating the internet
2/ The initiative I took led to the creation of the internet.
Obviously he ment interpretation 2, as, if he meant interpretation 1 he would have just said it. The fact is the difference between in & by means alot, even though those definitions overlap.
The Lindows claim is that Windows was already a generic term for Windowing GUIs when Win 1 came out, they give the example of Microware Windows, a graphical window program that pre-dates MS Windows.
Therefore the Lindows people can claim that Lindows is a play on words between Linux & the generic term for Windowing software. Therefore quite a apt name for any Linux distribution with Z-Windows on it.
Whether they have alterior motivations about potential customers misinterpreting the name is irrilvent to that fact. That was the risk MS took when it named its GUI using the generic term
Whether a local traffic cop or a whole federal govt dept the system of encouraging the solicitation of 'don't hassle me' money scales well.
The system has been perfected through many hundreds of years of trial 'n error.
Whether one is committing a crime or not, (one can even be 100% legit) cops in much of the world will not hesitate to hassle one if they think they can get 'don't hassle me' bribe money.
This is Mexico it happens all the time. Gez I know someone who was arrested & locked up for reporting the theft of her handbag, she paid a bribe & she was out of there. Only thing was she didn't know how things worked in the 3rd World because it took 2 days of her being locked up before she put 2 & 2 together (just because a cop wants a bribe doesn't mean they'l spell things out for you)