The Times is published and printed in England, by a company incorporated in England.
And owned by a US corporation.
Ergo, as a commercial entity it is wholly governed by not the US commercial code but by the Companies Act 1985 [legislation.gov.uk]. THE DMCA DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
Yes, it does. As I said, any copyrights in one WIPO signatory, the UK, is valid in another WIPO signatory, the US. So, yes, it is valid for them to sue over a copyright in the US. That's the entire point of the WIPO treaties.
Also, the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory. Ergo, a British newspaper owned by an AUSTRALIAN has no claim under the DMCA. Or am I wrong about that as well?
You're extremely wrong.
1) No one is applying the DMCA outside of the US. Both companies are US-based. 2) Murdoch's citizenship doesn't matter at all. 3) Copyrights that are valid in one WIPO signatory country are valid in another. And both the US and UK are WIPO signatories.
Well, you'd be spot-on *IF* the US & UK still operated under Rule of Law instead of Rule of/by Men. In Rule of/by Men "Law" is whatever Men currently in power say it is and are themselves not bound by any such.
No one is operating outside of the rule of law. News Corp, a US corporation, is using a US statute, the DMCA, against another US corporation, First Look Media. Now, their claim is silly, but their use of the DMCA is not outside of what the law allows.
English law doesn't apply. Both News Corp and The Interceptor's parent company, First Look Media, are based in the US. Also, any valid copyright in one WIPO signatory country is valid in another WIPO signatory company.
Now, this doesn't make what News Corp is doing valid, but trying to act like they don't have any standing in the US to bring this case is silly.
There are no alternate web browsers for iOS. There are alternate shells around the engine of Safari,
So by this logic, PaleMoon is not an alternate browser since it's merely just an alternate shell around Gecko? And current Opera is also not an alternate browser because it's just Chrome with a different shell, too, right? Please do tell.
You must have purposefully picked some expensive i5 CPU and expensive mobo to hit that price. You can get an i7-4770, an ASUS Z87-A and 8 GB of RAM for just under $450.
H1b visas should be pared down to a couple of thousand superstars for whom NO replacement can be found (i.e. truly unique talents).. saying you don't want to pay an engineer or scientist in the US 75k a year doesn't cut it.
And in the cases of these truly unique people they should be required to pay at market or above wages and benefits. Because if those engineers/scientists/etc. were truly as vital to these companies as claimed then they can more than afford to pay all of that versus having vital positions being unfilled. That would eliminate all of this abuse of the system to drive down wages.
(2) eliminate the restriction and let the H1-B workers compete without restriction. I would be happy with the second option, but I don't think most of the complainers would agree.
Why wouldn't they agree? Having to actually pay equivalent or higher wages to their American couterparts would all but eliminate most of the H1-B imports and outsourcing in general. The whole point of H1-B/outsourcing hires is to depress wages and benefits, not actually because they can't find qualified people (outside of extremely rare cases). Clearly if these IT workers at Disney are being used to train their replacements then they clearly were not incompetents who couldn't do their job.
Because what Disney and other companies are doing in situations like this clearly violate the regulations around H1-Bs. H1-Bs by law are not supposed to be used to displace American workers or to drive down wages. They are only supposed to be used when NO ONE has the skills needed for the job. Clearly if these IT workers can train their replacements they have the skills to do their job. But since most of Congress are basically the mouthpieces of the rich and wealthy they won't do shit to stop this.
Congress should have required companies to have to pay above well-above market rates to use H1-Bs if they really are as vital as these companies claim. That would have eliminated the clear abuses of the system that we routinely see from these companies.
Sure, he's allowed to throw all the shit at the wall he wants to see what sticks. I'm simply being amused at him both trying to claim to not have run the site during this period but then also try to claim credit for actions he supposedly couldn't have been responsible for.
But wasn't the defense claiming that Mark Karpeles was running the site at this point? Why should that get Ulbricht leniency if he wasn't running the site at that point? Does this mean his defense has finally given up on that ridiculous conspiracy theory?
Re:Any reasons for checking it out?
on
Rust 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
I apologize. I don't keep up on the latest lingo for douche beards.
Re:Any reasons for checking it out?
on
Rust 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
If the definition of a scrum meeting has "short amount of time" and you are not taking a "short amount of time"... Are you still scrum/agile or some else with scrum/agile aspects?
Once again propagating the "NoTrueScotsman" argument. It is impossible for a large team to have a scrum in a "short amount of time" unless they talk for only 5 seconds.
Then you end up with Microsoft inserting garbage characters at the start of each text file to make their job easier, breaking scripts and confusing both users and other editors alike.
It's not a garbage character. It's a BOM and it's part of the Unicode standard. If your scripts and text editors can't read the BOM in 2015 then they are the things that are horribly broken.
Better to have long drawn out useless meetings dictated by management that try to give direction that hardly resembles the work being done vs a short: this is what i have done, what i am doing, and this is what is stopping me.
Scrums mostly are long, drawn-out, useless meeting dictated by management. You must work at one of the only handful of companies where this isn't the case.
Can't be possible. Your original claim was pretty adamant that all issues are the fault of user and to quote you "it's never the tool". If a tool is poorly-made then it means that it is not the fault of the wielder if they can't get the job done using a faulty tool.
Slashdot Mirror
The Times is published and printed in England, by a company incorporated in England.
And owned by a US corporation.
Ergo, as a commercial entity it is wholly governed by not the US commercial code but by the Companies Act 1985 [legislation.gov.uk]. THE DMCA DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
Yes, it does. As I said, any copyrights in one WIPO signatory, the UK, is valid in another WIPO signatory, the US. So, yes, it is valid for them to sue over a copyright in the US. That's the entire point of the WIPO treaties.
FYI, News Corp is a US corporation too.
Even if Rupert Murdoch was a Australian citizen that has no bearing anyway. Both of the corporations involved are incorporated in the US.
Also, the DMCA does not I repeat NOT apply outside the borders of the United States of America territory. Ergo, a British newspaper owned by an AUSTRALIAN has no claim under the DMCA. Or am I wrong about that as well?
You're extremely wrong.
1) No one is applying the DMCA outside of the US. Both companies are US-based.
2) Murdoch's citizenship doesn't matter at all.
3) Copyrights that are valid in one WIPO signatory country are valid in another. And both the US and UK are WIPO signatories.
Well, you'd be spot-on *IF* the US & UK still operated under Rule of Law instead of Rule of/by Men. In Rule of/by Men "Law" is whatever Men currently in power say it is and are themselves not bound by any such.
No one is operating outside of the rule of law. News Corp, a US corporation, is using a US statute, the DMCA, against another US corporation, First Look Media. Now, their claim is silly, but their use of the DMCA is not outside of what the law allows.
He can tell you whether the DMCA applies in other countries that have no relationship to the USA.
No one is applying the DMCA outside of the USA. Both of the companies involved in this, News Corp and First Look Media, are based in the US.
English law doesn't apply. Both News Corp and The Interceptor's parent company, First Look Media, are based in the US. Also, any valid copyright in one WIPO signatory country is valid in another WIPO signatory company.
Now, this doesn't make what News Corp is doing valid, but trying to act like they don't have any standing in the US to bring this case is silly.
First Look Media is a US 501(c)(3) corporation.
Protip: News Corp is a US Corporation.
There are no alternate web browsers for iOS. There are alternate shells around the engine of Safari,
So by this logic, PaleMoon is not an alternate browser since it's merely just an alternate shell around Gecko? And current Opera is also not an alternate browser because it's just Chrome with a different shell, too, right? Please do tell.
You must have purposefully picked some expensive i5 CPU and expensive mobo to hit that price. You can get an i7-4770, an ASUS Z87-A and 8 GB of RAM for just under $450.
Well the bureaucrats who are likely regulating this are probably overworked and understaffed. So it's unlikely they can effectively regulate it.
H1b visas should be pared down to a couple of thousand superstars for whom NO replacement can be found (i.e. truly unique talents).. saying you don't want to pay an engineer or scientist in the US 75k a year doesn't cut it.
And in the cases of these truly unique people they should be required to pay at market or above wages and benefits. Because if those engineers/scientists/etc. were truly as vital to these companies as claimed then they can more than afford to pay all of that versus having vital positions being unfilled. That would eliminate all of this abuse of the system to drive down wages.
(2) eliminate the restriction and let the H1-B workers compete without restriction. I would be happy with the second option, but I don't think most of the complainers would agree.
Why wouldn't they agree? Having to actually pay equivalent or higher wages to their American couterparts would all but eliminate most of the H1-B imports and outsourcing in general. The whole point of H1-B/outsourcing hires is to depress wages and benefits, not actually because they can't find qualified people (outside of extremely rare cases). Clearly if these IT workers at Disney are being used to train their replacements then they clearly were not incompetents who couldn't do their job.
Why should this be illegal?
Because what Disney and other companies are doing in situations like this clearly violate the regulations around H1-Bs. H1-Bs by law are not supposed to be used to displace American workers or to drive down wages. They are only supposed to be used when NO ONE has the skills needed for the job. Clearly if these IT workers can train their replacements they have the skills to do their job. But since most of Congress are basically the mouthpieces of the rich and wealthy they won't do shit to stop this.
Congress should have required companies to have to pay above well-above market rates to use H1-Bs if they really are as vital as these companies claim. That would have eliminated the clear abuses of the system that we routinely see from these companies.
Or you know, you could just put a condom on and forget about whole "dying" story.
Ignoring numerous people like Arthur Ashe and Isaac Asimov who got AIDS via blood transfusion, right?
Sure, he's allowed to throw all the shit at the wall he wants to see what sticks. I'm simply being amused at him both trying to claim to not have run the site during this period but then also try to claim credit for actions he supposedly couldn't have been responsible for.
But wasn't the defense claiming that Mark Karpeles was running the site at this point? Why should that get Ulbricht leniency if he wasn't running the site at that point? Does this mean his defense has finally given up on that ridiculous conspiracy theory?
I apologize. I don't keep up on the latest lingo for douche beards.
Yeah can't forget the chin-strap beard.
read *and handle* a BOM, that is.
If the definition of a scrum meeting has "short amount of time" and you are not taking a "short amount of time"... Are you still scrum/agile or some else with scrum/agile aspects?
Once again propagating the "NoTrueScotsman" argument. It is impossible for a large team to have a scrum in a "short amount of time" unless they talk for only 5 seconds.
Then you end up with Microsoft inserting garbage characters at the start of each text file to make their job easier, breaking scripts and confusing both users and other editors alike.
It's not a garbage character. It's a BOM and it's part of the Unicode standard. If your scripts and text editors can't read the BOM in 2015 then they are the things that are horribly broken.
Better to have long drawn out useless meetings dictated by management that try to give direction that hardly resembles the work being done vs a short: this is what i have done, what i am doing, and this is what is stopping me.
Scrums mostly are long, drawn-out, useless meeting dictated by management. You must work at one of the only handful of companies where this isn't the case.
Which is true.
Can't be possible. Your original claim was pretty adamant that all issues are the fault of user and to quote you "it's never the tool". If a tool is poorly-made then it means that it is not the fault of the wielder if they can't get the job done using a faulty tool.