For the benefit of US (and some UK) citizens, in France, criminal investigations are (often) instigated by and controlled by a judge (the juge de instruction), not the police or a state prosecutor. They have considerable indepedence and powers to control and direct the investigation, and can act without needing authority from the centre.
Yes, US bases in the UK are generally refered to as RAF something, but in virtually every case are staffed exclusively by US personnel, and function exactly as if they were US bases.
Part of the reason for the "Mozart died a pauper myth" is that for a very brief period around his death there arose a fashion for modest funerals (after an Austrian prince's burial I believe). As a result, people compared his modest funeral with the lavish affairs typical in previous and subsequent years and jumped to the conclusion that he had died poor.
There are actually two European courts: the European Court of Justice, which is the EU's court and enforces EU law. If a privacy agreement between the EU and the US was in conflict with EU law, you could arguably take them to court there.
The other court is the European Court of Human Rights. This is totally separate from the EU, and is based on the European Declaration of Human Rights promulgated just after WW2. (I believe that it pre-dates the EU). Any citizen of a signatory nation can either bring a case to this court (after exhausting due process in their own country) or plead that an action conflicts with the Declaration (towards the end of this yaer the declaration will be incorporated into UK law, thus allowing this to happen)
Paradoxically, although all the EU's members are signatories, the EU itself is not, and thus EU action cannot be challenged here, though if any nation attempted to enforce such an EU action, it could be held in breach.
There is a privacy clause in this Declaration, which could conceivably be used here, and the whole declaration is in admirably simply and non-lawerly language.>/p>
Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others
Actualy, no, I don't remember the "French Purity Laws". Can someone give me a quick rundown? This sounds interesting. Does it have something to do with keeping the French launguage pure and unpolluted? That's my first guess....
Yes, in effect the French government polices additions to the language. Every so often they issue an edict banning the use of some (generally) Anglo-French word. In practice this only affects state media and the more conservative private media companies.
They also limit English-language films and pop music
In the UK lawbooks, there is a specific clause that says pirates can be hanged. I'm not sure if they still can, but a few years ago this was one of the few crimes that still had the death penalty.
This was true up to 2-3 years ago. The incoming Labour government ratified the relevant clause in the European Convention of Human Rights, which bans capital punishment amongs signatories, and made the necessary changes to domestic law. Capital punishment is banned in the UK for all offences now. Mark Austin.
.com was supposed to be for international companies (so Micro$oft will qualify). Any international company based in any country should use.com. Any largely national company in the USA should use.co.us.
Unfortunatly the belief has grown up that.com is more "important" than any other format. The rules should be enforced. Any largely national company in the US or outside (there are UK national companies with.com sites) should lose them.
I wouldn't pay much attention to a scientific article that uses words like "model" and "predicted". All it says is that interstellar hydrogen has been detected. How the heck does that "confirm" the models in question.
What you are saying (without having the intelligence to realise) is that you do not understand science.
Science is all about creating models (or hypothesis) based on observation, using these models to make predictions, and then checking these predictions.
In this case the model, or hypothesis, predicted that, if it was true, extra baryonic mass was needed. The extra mass appears to have been found. More evidence for the hypothesis
That would explain why the fossil record is RARELY in the order evolutionists expect.
The fossil record order is always in the expected order. Occasionally it appears to be wrong when strata are overthrust. Equally occasionally fossil-bearing strata are eroded and redeposited.
A typical creationist argument. make a sweeping statemnent, and provide absolutely no way of verifying it (or otherwise). The complete opposite of science
Listen, the crime in the UK is bad. I guess you never stopped in England. The "bobbies" didn't use to carry guns there.
The police in the UK do not carry guns routinely. I cannot remember seeing an armed policeman in the last 10 years (probabally longer). What happened about that time ago was that rules were relaxed: it used to take an order from the Chief Constable to allow officers to be armed. Now some patrol cars have armed officers (not carrying the guns, but in secure boxes in the car), and forces have gun-trained officers who can be called out by lower level officers
Ever been to Switzerland, you butt weasel? It's practically an armed camp and there is very little gun violence there. Yes, I've been to Switzerland.
True. There is very little gun crime in Switzerland. There is very little crime in Switzerland at all even by European standards. It is a highly conformist, state and personal ordered society. However, the rate of gun crime is high in relation to the general crime rate when compared with other countries without wide gun ownership
I'll use that as an example: if you start a new political party which has, as a platform, curing society via yogic bouncing, it's not going to get much coverage in large newspapers.
There is such a party here in the UK. I don't know if it exists elswhere but believe that it does in some places in Europe. (don't know about the US)
It put up a substantial candidate list in the last general election and a full slate in the recent EU elections, and is standing for London Mayor and assembly next week.
It does not get much media coverage, but does get some.
> The fascists were left wing.
What a lot of hogwash. Whether a political party is left-wing or right-wing is best determined by finding out what they call themselves. The Nazis explicitly and persistently described themselves as "right-wing" and moreover they set themselves up in contrast to and in opposition to the communists, who were universally described as "left-wing." You go back to school and learn history as it was, not as your airy ideology would arbitrarily fantasize it to have been.
Look at what the Nazi party name is an acronym for: the National Socialist party. Hitler described himself as a socialist all his politcally active life. His addidtion to socialism was to make in nationist rather than internationalist.
The UK didn't really have much choice. The agreement was a 100 year lease. Doing anything other than return the country would have been considered interfering in another country's politics. Actually, no. The Treaty of Nanking ceded Hong Kong to the UK in perpetuity. The 99 year lease you refer to was for the New Territories, not Hong Kong. The British gave HK back voluntarily.
Technically correct. However Hong Kong Island is such a small part of the whole that it would not have been viable without the New Territories - no airport, docks etc, most housing outside the area.
Did you know that the equivalent of the Supreme Court for UK citizens is the EUROPEAN court ?
Yes, but for your information, and non Europeans, it has nothing to do with the EU. It was formed immediately after the war. The UK was a founder member, and played a major part in writing the European Convention of Human Rights.
BTW, I also think we should pull out of the EU and forge closer links with the US (NAFTA?), but paranoia does not help the case.
On the subject of UK libel laws they are theoretically worse than some correspondants have made out. Anyone involved can be sued. For example, if I was libelled in a newspaper, I could sue the author, the paper, the printer, the distributer, the newsagent, and the paper boy who delivered it!
In practise what happens is the printers and distrubuters force papers etc (in particular politically controversial ones such as Private Eye) to sign compensation agreements. They are sued, concede immediately, pass the costs on: these costs cannot be recovered even if the paper subsequently wins the libel action
Under my understanding of UK law (IANAL), a product offered for sale must be of the quality desired, in other words it must do its job as described. This description does not have to be confined to the formal product description. For example, if you asked a salesman if Cyber Patrol would stop all pornographics sites, and he said yes, or if the impression (e.g via advertising) of greater functionality is given, this is part of the contract. You can therefore demand your money back (at least - there may be other breach of contract implications). It would seem to me that Mattel and Cyber Patrol (and the other net-watchers) are in breach of this consideration by claiming greater functionality than exists in reality. While I can only comment on UK law, the law is derived from common law, much of which the UK shares with the USA. Does this give a (legal) way of harrassing the ungodly? Mark
I agree with this posting. I like classical music, I like to listen to CDs.Someone has to produce them, this costs money
If all CDs are instantly ripped-off, they will not be produced
It's as simple as that. If CDs cannot be enonomically produced, they will not be made, and neither will MP3's. The only ways to hear musc will be radio/TV or concerts, and both will get more expensive as the income from CDs dries up.
The argument about the nature of nerds/libertarians is circular.
Nerds are Libertarians.
How do we know? Libertarians are nerds
I have yet to see a Libertarian argument (including the substantive parts of this one) that does not reduce down to "All the problems of the world would vanish if the Government went away"
Exactly. Though this is common in North America in Europe its still not fully understood. To find proof of the matter one only has to look south to Austria, where a Nazi (sic), Joerg Haider, was recently elected into the Aus. gov.. 1/3 of Austria's voters voted for him, and noone was shocked by it. Everyone expectes people in the country to have a bit of Nazi in them anyway. So where were all these anti-Nazi laws then? They didn't do squat, and even after the EU, Finland, Israil and the USA sounded alarm, Austria's Goverment just threw a temper-tantrum.
One of the problems with Austria is that, for political reasons at the end of the war, the myth of Austria as "Hitler's first victim" was put forward by the Allies, and Austria never had to confront their Nazi past in the same way that Germany did.
As a consequence, Austrian history "glosses over" the war, and they often appear insensitive to these issues
On Joerg Haider's party's vote in the recent Austrian elections, it is less significant than it appears: it is largely a reaction to the two main establishment parties who have up to now, in effect, stitched up Austrian politics between themselves, extending to political control of government appointments. A section of the Austrian people would probabally have voted for any party opposed to the other two. I do agree that the Austrian official response to protests was pathetic, but do bear in mind that there has been significant internal protests.
Pfft. Nobody has ever shown that criminalization of gun ownership reduces gun violence or overall violence.
Writing from UK, examine incredibly low rate of gun crime (of all types, including by professional ciminals - a crime involving guns is headline news in all papers/TV/radio)
Also, see example of Switzerland - A country with a very high degree of social stability, and, even by European standards very low crime. Except in one area: guns. Why? Most adult male Swiss have a gun at home (provided by the Government - all adult who pass a fitness test are in the Army/Militia up to age 50-55)
1/3 of homicides in the US are committed without the use of a firearm, AND THOSE 1/3 ALONE (per capita) exceed the per capita homicide rate of e.g. England. America's violence problem is NOT due to guns being here. A lot of US homicide (and crime) is caused by prohibition of narcotics (and the inevitable black market that results from it), and a non-egalitarian economy.... There's always less crime the more brutal the government is (unless you count crimes perpetrated by the government).
I agree with the first statement, not the last. The best predictor of crime is social ineqality: the more unequal society (defined by income spread, access to social goods etc) the more crime. Since brutal governments tend to be unequal, they tend to have, proportionately, more crime. Note comparing raw crime figures can be misleading, since social factors can mean a low starting base.
Many european countries, in addition to gun control, also censor (hate literature mostly) and there's no doubt that it does reduce Nazism and hate crime. Trampling on peoples' rights quite often does reduce crime; it's just never worth it.
I agree, most European countries lack the US entrenched freedom of speech, and that the press etc is often wrongly restricted. However, I point to the success of the UK anti-racism legislation: by a mix of law (it is illegal to promote race hatred) persuasion and education, racism is increasingly viewd as unacceptable by the generality of the population, and races mix in the UK (OK in London in particular) on a much more free basis than in the US or the rest of Europe.
Sales taxes force businesses to be (unpaid) tax collectors.
Sales taxes eg VAT require accounts in a particular format, require you to collect the money, collect the details and send these off to the tax collector. Thus a business may have to have two separate accounting systems to cope with the tax and the business
Large businesses have finance departments that can handle this without problems, for small businesses the overhead is proportionately larger
BTW for US residents VAT works on added value. An example, I buy goods at £100, pay VAT £17.50, do something and sell them at £200, collecet VAT £35.00. I reclaim the VAT I have paid and send the difference to the VAT collector (£17.50 in this case). You can get VAT back, for example if the product is a book, no VAT is payable when sold, so the tax collector sends you a cheque for any VAT you have paid!
>There were two major groups of revolutionaries: >the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Trotsky and the >anarchists. Not strictly true, Although the Anarchists were the prinicpal opposition, they were not the only ones. These other groups were loosely organised as the Mensheviks (or majority - Bolshevik means minority), and the Bolsheviks overthrew the elected, democratic Kerenskey Parliament (not the Tsar - hed had already gone by then). Otherwise an interesting and informative post.
Slashdot Mirror
For the benefit of US (and some UK) citizens, in France, criminal investigations are (often) instigated by and controlled by a judge (the juge de instruction), not the police or a state prosecutor. They have considerable indepedence and powers to control and direct the investigation, and can act without needing authority from the centre.
Mark Austin
Yes, US bases in the UK are generally refered to as RAF something, but in virtually every case are staffed exclusively by US personnel, and function exactly as if they were US bases.
Mark Austin
It's illegal in the EU as well: most recent judgements have involved car manufacturers restricting cross-border purchases
Mark Austin
Part of the reason for the "Mozart died a pauper myth" is that for a very brief period around his death there arose a fashion for modest funerals (after an Austrian prince's burial I believe). As a result, people compared his modest funeral with the lavish affairs typical in previous and subsequent years and jumped to the conclusion that he had died poor.
Mark Austin
IANAL
There are actually two European courts: the European Court of Justice, which is the EU's court and enforces EU law. If a privacy agreement between the EU and the US was in conflict with EU law, you could arguably take them to court there.
The other court is the European Court of Human Rights. This is totally separate from the EU, and is based on the European Declaration of Human Rights promulgated just after WW2. (I believe that it pre-dates the EU). Any citizen of a signatory nation can either bring a case to this court (after exhausting due process in their own country) or plead that an action conflicts with the Declaration (towards the end of this yaer the declaration will be incorporated into UK law, thus allowing this to happen)
Paradoxically, although all the EU's members are signatories, the EU itself is not, and thus EU action cannot be challenged here, though if any nation attempted to enforce such an EU action, it could be held in breach.
There is a privacy clause in this Declaration, which could conceivably be used here, and the whole declaration is in admirably simply and non-lawerly language.>/p>
Mark Austin
Yes, in effect the French government polices additions to the language. Every so often they issue an edict banning the use of some (generally) Anglo-French word. In practice this only affects state media and the more conservative private media companies.
They also limit English-language films and pop music
Mark Austin
Unfortunatly the belief has grown up that .com is more "important" than any other format. The rules should be enforced. Any largely national company in the US or outside (there are UK national companies with .com sites) should lose them.
Mark Austin
What you are saying (without having the intelligence to realise) is that you do not understand science.
Science is all about creating models (or hypothesis) based on observation, using these models to make predictions, and then checking these predictions.
In this case the model, or hypothesis, predicted that, if it was true, extra baryonic mass was needed. The extra mass appears to have been found. More evidence for the hypothesis
Mark Austin
The fossil record order is always in the expected order. Occasionally it appears to be wrong when strata are overthrust. Equally occasionally fossil-bearing strata are eroded and redeposited.
A typical creationist argument. make a sweeping statemnent, and provide absolutely no way of verifying it (or otherwise). The complete opposite of science
Mark Austin
The police in the UK do not carry guns routinely. I cannot remember seeing an armed policeman in the last 10 years (probabally longer). What happened about that time ago was that rules were relaxed: it used to take an order from the Chief Constable to allow officers to be armed. Now some patrol cars have armed officers (not carrying the guns, but in secure boxes in the car), and forces have gun-trained officers who can be called out by lower level officers
Mark Austin
True. There is very little gun crime in Switzerland. There is very little crime in Switzerland at all even by European standards. It is a highly conformist, state and personal ordered society. However, the rate of gun crime is high in relation to the general crime rate when compared with other countries without wide gun ownership
Mark Austin
There is such a party here in the UK. I don't know if it exists elswhere but believe that it does in some places in Europe. (don't know about the US)
It put up a substantial candidate list in the last general election and a full slate in the recent EU elections, and is standing for London Mayor and assembly next week.
It does not get much media coverage, but does get some.
Mark Austin
Look at what the Nazi party name is an acronym for: the National Socialist party. Hitler described himself as a socialist all his politcally active life. His addidtion to socialism was to make in nationist rather than internationalist.
Mark Austin
Technically correct. However Hong Kong Island is such a small part of the whole that it would not have been viable without the New Territories - no airport, docks etc, most housing outside the area.
Mark AustinYes, but for your information, and non Europeans, it has nothing to do with the EU. It was formed immediately after the war. The UK was a founder member, and played a major part in writing the European Convention of Human Rights.
BTW, I also think we should pull out of the EU and forge closer links with the US (NAFTA?), but paranoia does not help the case.
On the subject of UK libel laws they are theoretically worse than some correspondants have made out. Anyone involved can be sued. For example, if I was libelled in a newspaper, I could sue the author, the paper, the printer, the distributer, the newsagent, and the paper boy who delivered it!
In practise what happens is the printers and distrubuters force papers etc (in particular politically controversial ones such as Private Eye) to sign compensation agreements. They are sued, concede immediately, pass the costs on: these costs cannot be recovered even if the paper subsequently wins the libel action
Mark Austin
Under my understanding of UK law (IANAL), a product offered for sale must be of the quality desired, in other words it must do its job as described. This description does not have to be confined to the formal product description. For example, if you asked a salesman if Cyber Patrol would stop all pornographics sites, and he said yes, or if the impression (e.g via advertising) of greater functionality is given, this is part of the contract. You can therefore demand your money back (at least - there may be other breach of contract implications). It would seem to me that Mattel and Cyber Patrol (and the other net-watchers) are in breach of this consideration by claiming greater functionality than exists in reality. While I can only comment on UK law, the law is derived from common law, much of which the UK shares with the USA. Does this give a (legal) way of harrassing the ungodly? Mark
I agree with this posting. I like classical music, I like to listen to CDs.Someone has to produce them, this costs money
If all CDs are instantly ripped-off, they will not be produced
It's as simple as that. If CDs cannot be enonomically produced, they will not be made, and neither will MP3's. The only ways to hear musc will be radio/TV or concerts, and both will get more expensive as the income from CDs dries up.
The argument about the nature of nerds/libertarians is circular.
I have yet to see a Libertarian argument (including the substantive parts of this one) that does not reduce down to "All the problems of the world would vanish if the Government went away"
Truly ludicrous.
As a consequence, Austrian history "glosses over" the war, and they often appear insensitive to these issues
On Joerg Haider's party's vote in the recent Austrian elections, it is less significant than it appears: it is largely a reaction to the two main establishment parties who have up to now, in effect, stitched up Austrian politics between themselves, extending to political control of government appointments. A section of the Austrian people would probabally have voted for any party opposed to the other two. I do agree that the Austrian official response to protests was pathetic, but do bear in mind that there has been significant internal protests.
Writing from UK, examine incredibly low rate of gun crime (of all types, including by professional ciminals - a crime involving guns is headline news in all papers/TV/radio)
Also, see example of Switzerland - A country with a very high degree of social stability, and, even by European standards very low crime. Except in one area: guns. Why? Most adult male Swiss have a gun at home (provided by the Government - all adult who pass a fitness test are in the Army/Militia up to age 50-55)I agree with the first statement, not the last. The best predictor of crime is social ineqality: the more unequal society (defined by income spread, access to social goods etc) the more crime. Since brutal governments tend to be unequal, they tend to have, proportionately, more crime. Note comparing raw crime figures can be misleading, since social factors can mean a low starting base.
I agree, most European countries lack the US entrenched freedom of speech, and that the press etc is often wrongly restricted. However, I point to the success of the UK anti-racism legislation: by a mix of law (it is illegal to promote race hatred) persuasion and education, racism is increasingly viewd as unacceptable by the generality of the population, and races mix in the UK (OK in London in particular) on a much more free basis than in the US or the rest of Europe.
Sales taxes force businesses to be (unpaid) tax collectors.
Sales taxes eg VAT require accounts in a particular format, require you to collect the money, collect the details and send these off to the tax collector. Thus a business may have to have two separate accounting systems to cope with the tax and the business
Large businesses have finance departments that can handle this without problems, for small businesses the overhead is proportionately larger
BTW for US residents VAT works on added value. An example, I buy goods at £100, pay VAT £17.50, do something and sell them at £200, collecet VAT £35.00. I reclaim the VAT I have paid and send the difference to the VAT collector (£17.50 in this case). You can get VAT back, for example if the product is a book, no VAT is payable when sold, so the tax collector sends you a cheque for any VAT you have paid!
>There were two major groups of revolutionaries: >the Bolsheviks led by Lenin and Trotsky and the >anarchists. Not strictly true, Although the Anarchists were the prinicpal opposition, they were not the only ones. These other groups were loosely organised as the Mensheviks (or majority - Bolshevik means minority), and the Bolsheviks overthrew the elected, democratic Kerenskey Parliament (not the Tsar - hed had already gone by then). Otherwise an interesting and informative post.