There are how many nations in the world? Do you want a citation or a book?
I've stated what amounts to a null hypothesis. You cannot "prove" a null hypothesis. Ever. You can, however, disprove it. So go right ahead. Can you name me a statistically-significant number of countries outside of the US where a court will openly violate the law of the land, or where the government will openly ignore a court ruling that enforces that law?
("Most" != "All", so one or two examples isn't statistically significant. A reasonable definition of "most", as opposed to a simple majority, would be 66%, so all you need do is find examples of 35% of the nations out there that violate their own laws. I'll give you a starting point, if you like. Zimbabwe openly ignores its own laws, as does Russia. Italy would like to but currently doesn't and if Mussolini Pt. 2 gets convicted that fate may yet never happen.)
I said nothing about these nations NOT conducting these practices, I asked for concrete examples of them doing so. These were not rhetorical questions. They were real questions. Questions that nobody here has found an actual example for. There is no "right to silence", so whilst you are entitled not to answer anything you don't want, I am entitled to say that your refusal to give any examples constitutes evidence that no significant examples exist to be given. Your silence CAN be used against you, and probably will.
Sweden are asking for a person to be tried in regards to a criminal accusation. It is the lawful right of all to be able to have their complaints heard in court. At least, in Europe, where it's been the norm since about 700 AD. I hear there's a country that still has diffulty with this "court" business and has just passed a law prohibiting haebus corpus for certain crimes and prohibiting civilian trial where it's inconvenient.. I hear it also allows arbitrary indefinite detention (as happened with Kevin Mitnick) and that a majority are in favour of violating the UN Charter of Human Rights by abolishing citizenship for the native-born.
The Swiss' examples of police brutality (sch as DVD Jon) were commissioned and paid for by the US. Hell, the terrorist group the IRA got funding and arms from the US Government. (Former Col. Oliver North was involved in that, along with drug-running and gun-running operations on behest of the US.) I rather think that the Swiss' record is a bit better than state-sponsorship of terrorist organizations.
The Crown Copyright in the UK has expired since 1988. You are behind in your reading.
The ones that don't have to have schoolkids recite a pledge of aliegence each day and be conscripted into Selective Service (ie: military service) to be eligible for government jobs or student loans, I would assume.
The duration of protection of related rights (those of performers, phonogram and film producers and broadcasting organisations) was set at fifty years with the following rules for calculating the starting date (Art. 3). This fifty year period was in reflexion of the negotiating position of the European Community at the negotiations which led to the Marrakech Agreements, including the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).
For recordings of performances:
the date of the performance, unless a fixation of the performance is lawfully published or lawfully communicated to the public within this period, in which case the date of the first such publication or the first such communication to the public, whichever is the earlier.
For studio recordings:
the date the fixation is made, unless the phonogram is lawfully published or lawfully communicated to the public during this period, in which case the date of the first such publication or the first such communication to the public, whichever is the earlier.
So, 50 years after the recording was made, regardless of whether it was a live or studio recording. 1918 + 50 = 1968.
However, in the US, these same recordings will remain in copyright until about 2030.
Anyone in the audience, hands up who can tell me which of these is in the past and which is in the future?
Internet Penetration: Falkland Islands have 100% Internet Penetration, making Internet freedom 100% relevant to their existance. The US ranks 16th, with 76.3%, which means freedom on the Internet is of less actual significance to them.
So, no, it doesn't weaken my argument. Rather, it weakens yours as you are neglecting to factor in that freedom only matters when people are involved. A country with rather insignificant adoption of the Internet, such as the US, has no serious impact from abridged freedoms. In a country like the Falklands, where EVERYONE is connected and alternative sources are scarce to non-existant, even a miniscule impact on freedom has devastating impact on EVERYONE involved.
Pitcairn are not in the top 56 nations with connectivity and therefore even 100% restriction on the Internet will have 0% impact on Internet freedom. Do try and think logically. I know you're a K5er, but that doesn't mean you have to think in the K-5 age range.
No, for the same reason that secret ballots in elections don't go against democratic freedoms but are actually critical in those freedoms existing in the first place. There would be no democratic freedom if how you voted was information that could be bought and sold on the open markets and used against you, agreed? Then you have accepted that freedom cannot exist without privacy. (Nor can privacy exist without freedom, as a lack of freedom requires you to accept whatever privacy abuses you are forced to endure.)
It is because the MPAA/RIAA can demand to know your IP address and what protocols you use from your ISP that your freedom on the Internet is abridged, not in spite of it.
It is because the original ITAR restrictions allowed anyone with a decent hardware kit to monitor your communications that your freedom to communicate without fear was abridged, not in spite of it.
It is because enough of your personal information can be bought from identity vendors to allow identity theft that your freedom to exist as an individual is curtailed, not in spite of it.
I don't have faith in any nation, but most nations respect their own laws. The Constitiution, by definition, is a law of how government works and not a law of a nation, yet you will frequently hear how the US Government doesn't apply the Constitution to its activities outside its national borders and has largely ignored any court rulings that tell it to do otherwise. In other words, the entire system is nothing more than an elaborate farce.
In Britain, the Law Lords have an infinitely superior record to the US Supreme Court on actually requiring the government of the day to comply with the law. When it fails, Britain invariably respects the decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights. Britain has many failings - the current University crisis is one example, the current NHS crisis another, the NotW crisis a third (since the civil service vetoed an enquiry it becomes a government failing even before the person ultimately responsible became a key player in the Tory government), the "Supreme Court" is a fourth, the degradation of the powers of the House of Lords a fifth, the attempt by Cameron to subvert the House of Lords through fraudulant peerages is a sixth, etc. It isn't a free nation in the sense I would regard freedom, but none of these are actual violations of law, they are merely the usual Tory perversions we saw in the dark days of the Cult of the Thatcherites.
The US - well, Texas executed one guy after the International Courts ruled that this was illegal and in violation of international law. The US has smuggled execution drugs from other nations in violation of the laws of those nations. The US has refused to hand over CIA agents in the Italian case of kidnapping, in violation of the national soverenty of Italy and international obligations. The US has deliberately smuggled guns to terrorist groups in other nations (including Mexico). Admiral Poyndexter is a national hero to many, but in any civilized country would be regarded as a traitor to humanity.
"Spycatcher" leaked far more of intelligence value to hostile nations than Wikileaks ever has. Don't recall any special renditioning going on there. Sure, the British Government took him to Australian court, but they were the ones who got their knuckles rapped for being economical with the truth. Much the same would have happened in a British court. In the US legal system, truthiness is the de-facto standard.
Don't recall any of the SAS autobiographies, which leaked special ops and black ops secrets, leading to detention without trial or psychosis-inducing treatment. We British hold Haebus Corpus to be a fundamental right as opposed to a privilege the President or Congress can arbitrarily remove.
Britain was quite happy to try terrorists, suspected terrorists and "unlawful combatants" in British civilian courts. America - well, they prefer to keep people prisoner even after being found innocent on all charges.
Meh - I moved from the UK to the US because the US has tech jobs, not because of some alleged freedom. (I'm a citizen of both nations.) The footpath law is freedom. The BBC is freedom. Yes, the Digital Protection Act is freedom. Even British Telecom is a freedom of sorts, compared to granny Bell, the Verizon gang and the Comcast mafia.
Besides, there's no protection in the US that doesn't exist in the UK. The Constitution is merely plagarized from British laws (it's a damn shame Britain never sued for copyright violation) that are still active today and the European Convention of Human Rights is vastly more expansive than anything the US can lay claim to. The US is probably the least free country I've ever had the misfortune of living in and I've lived in many. That it has to tell you that your free, daily, in order for even the most gullible to actually believe a word of it should tell you something. Living here is a mere practicality, not a pleasure.
Can you tell me, precisely, what bad things Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand or the Falkland Islands are doing that compare with intimidation and threats against companies that had links to Wikileaks?
Can you tell me, precisely, how many domain seizures the UK has been involved in of late?
Do you have any concrete examples of, oh, Lichtenstein ordering other nations to arrest minors and terrorize them for pissing off the MPAA?
Can you name any country other than the US which forbids the distribution of World War I audio for copyright reasons?
Given that the US, in retaining control of ICANN, demolishing network neutrality, placing excessive restrictions on cryptography, pressuring organizations to drop any association whatsoever with wikileaks and encouraging Internet fraud through a lack of any kind of privacy legislation, has effectively crippled actual freedom without needing any censorship legislation per-se, it should be obvious that the US is only near the top for reasons that have nothing to do with freedom.
Actually, what you want to do is drill right down to the Martian core and dump a mix of nuclear waste and/or highly-enriched uranium into it. You won't be able to re-liquify the core, but the more heat you can generate, the stronger the magnetic field will get. At worst, you get a practical study in how the magnetic field forms in the first place (still not completely understood). At best, you reduce the difficulty in terraforming in any kind of stable way.
In the early days, the Martian core would not yet have solidified. Thus, the magnetic field would have been substantially stronger. The fact that it's still semi-liquid today (as evidenced by the fact that there's any magnetic field now at all) is the remarkable part of the story. 3-4 billion years ago, the Martian magnetic field would likely have been far more intense than Earth's is today. Hell, Earth's magnetic field a paltry 220 million years ago was 33% stronger than present by some estimates, and Earth's core is heated by thermonuclear activity. The Martian core likely isn't to any meaningful degree.
Back when briney oceans formed the Martian surface (we already know that part), Mars would have been a bad place for floppy disks.
On the flip-side, it might encourage big companies to believe that software patents = easy money for no work. They're already doing less than they need to be, the last thing we want is for their shareholders to insist they can make the same profits by doing less.
Well, despite the US Constitution, I'm told that not all States recognize Native Americans as US citizens (and therefore do not consider them to be American). If you think the Birther movement is bad, can you imagine what would happen if a Native American ran for President and won?
Jet fighters are made of carbon fibre, so swapping one form of carbon for another isn't going to increase any risks. Swapping for a stronger carbon may allow for a lighter frame, though. The drawback is that graphene is a semiconductor and fighters travel at a high enough altitude that there are potential risks of some interesting side-effects.
Now, Formula 1 cars are also made of plastic-reinforced carbon fibre. It is always a great challenge to the teams to build cars that are as light as possible and yet capable of meeting safety requirements that are unimaginably stringent. (I doubt there's a single road car that could handle 250 tonne impacts.) Depending on exactly what directions graphene paper can absorb stresses, it's possible that you could devise much lighter cars that also offer superior protection against those unwanted 240mph collisions. Lacking high levels of cosmic radiation or fly-by-wire controls, F1 cars are also much less likely to suffer any ill-effects from unwanted graphene properties.
That I agree with100%. I was more addressing the question of "is it technically possible, given what's being used" rather than "is it something users can do for themselves". If you ask the latter question, then router companies have made it (probably deliberately) way too hard for far too many people. Auto-update isn't rocket science, even Windows is capable of it. The ability to auto-update a router using any embedded Unix-like OS is as old as cron. That it isn't as easy as waking up and finding the Internet is more powerful than you could possibly imagine is absurd.
It's not just the press release, it's in the Sonic OS release notes as well for 5.6.x.y and 5.8.x.y that the OS supports IPv6. They've no business whatsoever putting statements in release notes that simply aren't true.
Slashdot Mirror
There are how many nations in the world? Do you want a citation or a book?
I've stated what amounts to a null hypothesis. You cannot "prove" a null hypothesis. Ever. You can, however, disprove it. So go right ahead. Can you name me a statistically-significant number of countries outside of the US where a court will openly violate the law of the land, or where the government will openly ignore a court ruling that enforces that law?
("Most" != "All", so one or two examples isn't statistically significant. A reasonable definition of "most", as opposed to a simple majority, would be 66%, so all you need do is find examples of 35% of the nations out there that violate their own laws. I'll give you a starting point, if you like. Zimbabwe openly ignores its own laws, as does Russia. Italy would like to but currently doesn't and if Mussolini Pt. 2 gets convicted that fate may yet never happen.)
I said nothing about these nations NOT conducting these practices, I asked for concrete examples of them doing so. These were not rhetorical questions. They were real questions. Questions that nobody here has found an actual example for. There is no "right to silence", so whilst you are entitled not to answer anything you don't want, I am entitled to say that your refusal to give any examples constitutes evidence that no significant examples exist to be given. Your silence CAN be used against you, and probably will.
Sweden are asking for a person to be tried in regards to a criminal accusation. It is the lawful right of all to be able to have their complaints heard in court. At least, in Europe, where it's been the norm since about 700 AD. I hear there's a country that still has diffulty with this "court" business and has just passed a law prohibiting haebus corpus for certain crimes and prohibiting civilian trial where it's inconvenient.. I hear it also allows arbitrary indefinite detention (as happened with Kevin Mitnick) and that a majority are in favour of violating the UN Charter of Human Rights by abolishing citizenship for the native-born.
The Swiss' examples of police brutality (sch as DVD Jon) were commissioned and paid for by the US. Hell, the terrorist group the IRA got funding and arms from the US Government. (Former Col. Oliver North was involved in that, along with drug-running and gun-running operations on behest of the US.) I rather think that the Swiss' record is a bit better than state-sponsorship of terrorist organizations.
The Crown Copyright in the UK has expired since 1988. You are behind in your reading.
The ones that don't have to have schoolkids recite a pledge of aliegence each day and be conscripted into Selective Service (ie: military service) to be eligible for government jobs or student loans, I would assume.
From the article you link to:
For recordings of performances:
For studio recordings:
So, 50 years after the recording was made, regardless of whether it was a live or studio recording. 1918 + 50 = 1968.
However, in the US, these same recordings will remain in copyright until about 2030.
Anyone in the audience, hands up who can tell me which of these is in the past and which is in the future?
Internet Penetration: Falkland Islands have 100% Internet Penetration, making Internet freedom 100% relevant to their existance. The US ranks 16th, with 76.3%, which means freedom on the Internet is of less actual significance to them.
So, no, it doesn't weaken my argument. Rather, it weakens yours as you are neglecting to factor in that freedom only matters when people are involved. A country with rather insignificant adoption of the Internet, such as the US, has no serious impact from abridged freedoms. In a country like the Falklands, where EVERYONE is connected and alternative sources are scarce to non-existant, even a miniscule impact on freedom has devastating impact on EVERYONE involved.
Pitcairn are not in the top 56 nations with connectivity and therefore even 100% restriction on the Internet will have 0% impact on Internet freedom. Do try and think logically. I know you're a K5er, but that doesn't mean you have to think in the K-5 age range.
No, for the same reason that secret ballots in elections don't go against democratic freedoms but are actually critical in those freedoms existing in the first place. There would be no democratic freedom if how you voted was information that could be bought and sold on the open markets and used against you, agreed? Then you have accepted that freedom cannot exist without privacy. (Nor can privacy exist without freedom, as a lack of freedom requires you to accept whatever privacy abuses you are forced to endure.)
It is because the MPAA/RIAA can demand to know your IP address and what protocols you use from your ISP that your freedom on the Internet is abridged, not in spite of it.
It is because the original ITAR restrictions allowed anyone with a decent hardware kit to monitor your communications that your freedom to communicate without fear was abridged, not in spite of it.
It is because enough of your personal information can be bought from identity vendors to allow identity theft that your freedom to exist as an individual is curtailed, not in spite of it.
I don't have faith in any nation, but most nations respect their own laws. The Constitiution, by definition, is a law of how government works and not a law of a nation, yet you will frequently hear how the US Government doesn't apply the Constitution to its activities outside its national borders and has largely ignored any court rulings that tell it to do otherwise. In other words, the entire system is nothing more than an elaborate farce.
In Britain, the Law Lords have an infinitely superior record to the US Supreme Court on actually requiring the government of the day to comply with the law. When it fails, Britain invariably respects the decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights. Britain has many failings - the current University crisis is one example, the current NHS crisis another, the NotW crisis a third (since the civil service vetoed an enquiry it becomes a government failing even before the person ultimately responsible became a key player in the Tory government), the "Supreme Court" is a fourth, the degradation of the powers of the House of Lords a fifth, the attempt by Cameron to subvert the House of Lords through fraudulant peerages is a sixth, etc. It isn't a free nation in the sense I would regard freedom, but none of these are actual violations of law, they are merely the usual Tory perversions we saw in the dark days of the Cult of the Thatcherites.
The US - well, Texas executed one guy after the International Courts ruled that this was illegal and in violation of international law. The US has smuggled execution drugs from other nations in violation of the laws of those nations. The US has refused to hand over CIA agents in the Italian case of kidnapping, in violation of the national soverenty of Italy and international obligations. The US has deliberately smuggled guns to terrorist groups in other nations (including Mexico). Admiral Poyndexter is a national hero to many, but in any civilized country would be regarded as a traitor to humanity.
"Spycatcher" leaked far more of intelligence value to hostile nations than Wikileaks ever has. Don't recall any special renditioning going on there. Sure, the British Government took him to Australian court, but they were the ones who got their knuckles rapped for being economical with the truth. Much the same would have happened in a British court. In the US legal system, truthiness is the de-facto standard.
Don't recall any of the SAS autobiographies, which leaked special ops and black ops secrets, leading to detention without trial or psychosis-inducing treatment. We British hold Haebus Corpus to be a fundamental right as opposed to a privilege the President or Congress can arbitrarily remove.
Britain was quite happy to try terrorists, suspected terrorists and "unlawful combatants" in British civilian courts. America - well, they prefer to keep people prisoner even after being found innocent on all charges.
Meh - I moved from the UK to the US because the US has tech jobs, not because of some alleged freedom. (I'm a citizen of both nations.) The footpath law is freedom. The BBC is freedom. Yes, the Digital Protection Act is freedom. Even British Telecom is a freedom of sorts, compared to granny Bell, the Verizon gang and the Comcast mafia.
Besides, there's no protection in the US that doesn't exist in the UK. The Constitution is merely plagarized from British laws (it's a damn shame Britain never sued for copyright violation) that are still active today and the European Convention of Human Rights is vastly more expansive than anything the US can lay claim to. The US is probably the least free country I've ever had the misfortune of living in and I've lived in many. That it has to tell you that your free, daily, in order for even the most gullible to actually believe a word of it should tell you something. Living here is a mere practicality, not a pleasure.
Relative to what?
Can you tell me, precisely, what bad things Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand or the Falkland Islands are doing that compare with intimidation and threats against companies that had links to Wikileaks?
Can you tell me, precisely, how many domain seizures the UK has been involved in of late?
Do you have any concrete examples of, oh, Lichtenstein ordering other nations to arrest minors and terrorize them for pissing off the MPAA?
Can you name any country other than the US which forbids the distribution of World War I audio for copyright reasons?
Inquiring lolcats wish to know.
Given that the US, in retaining control of ICANN, demolishing network neutrality, placing excessive restrictions on cryptography, pressuring organizations to drop any association whatsoever with wikileaks and encouraging Internet fraud through a lack of any kind of privacy legislation, has effectively crippled actual freedom without needing any censorship legislation per-se, it should be obvious that the US is only near the top for reasons that have nothing to do with freedom.
Which is precisely why big businesses will start dumping their development divisions and switch to patent trolling instead.
S's is horrible and all who use it should be shot. S' is the only correct form.
Actually, what you want to do is drill right down to the Martian core and dump a mix of nuclear waste and/or highly-enriched uranium into it. You won't be able to re-liquify the core, but the more heat you can generate, the stronger the magnetic field will get. At worst, you get a practical study in how the magnetic field forms in the first place (still not completely understood). At best, you reduce the difficulty in terraforming in any kind of stable way.
In the early days, the Martian core would not yet have solidified. Thus, the magnetic field would have been substantially stronger. The fact that it's still semi-liquid today (as evidenced by the fact that there's any magnetic field now at all) is the remarkable part of the story. 3-4 billion years ago, the Martian magnetic field would likely have been far more intense than Earth's is today. Hell, Earth's magnetic field a paltry 220 million years ago was 33% stronger than present by some estimates, and Earth's core is heated by thermonuclear activity. The Martian core likely isn't to any meaningful degree.
Back when briney oceans formed the Martian surface (we already know that part), Mars would have been a bad place for floppy disks.
Mixing hashes and linked lists is basically an indexed sequential database. Not revolutionary stuff.
On the flip-side, it might encourage big companies to believe that software patents = easy money for no work. They're already doing less than they need to be, the last thing we want is for their shareholders to insist they can make the same profits by doing less.
Try using a tabular format. The base of a counting system is the increment needed to move from one column to the next.
Well, despite the US Constitution, I'm told that not all States recognize Native Americans as US citizens (and therefore do not consider them to be American). If you think the Birther movement is bad, can you imagine what would happen if a Native American ran for President and won?
Given the various insecurities I've seen, the second one is unlikely to be usable in America. Given Kansas and Texas, the third one certainly isn't.
Jet fighters are made of carbon fibre, so swapping one form of carbon for another isn't going to increase any risks. Swapping for a stronger carbon may allow for a lighter frame, though. The drawback is that graphene is a semiconductor and fighters travel at a high enough altitude that there are potential risks of some interesting side-effects.
Now, Formula 1 cars are also made of plastic-reinforced carbon fibre. It is always a great challenge to the teams to build cars that are as light as possible and yet capable of meeting safety requirements that are unimaginably stringent. (I doubt there's a single road car that could handle 250 tonne impacts.) Depending on exactly what directions graphene paper can absorb stresses, it's possible that you could devise much lighter cars that also offer superior protection against those unwanted 240mph collisions. Lacking high levels of cosmic radiation or fly-by-wire controls, F1 cars are also much less likely to suffer any ill-effects from unwanted graphene properties.
Rule 666 and 3/4.
That I agree with100%. I was more addressing the question of "is it technically possible, given what's being used" rather than "is it something users can do for themselves". If you ask the latter question, then router companies have made it (probably deliberately) way too hard for far too many people. Auto-update isn't rocket science, even Windows is capable of it. The ability to auto-update a router using any embedded Unix-like OS is as old as cron. That it isn't as easy as waking up and finding the Internet is more powerful than you could possibly imagine is absurd.
It's not just the press release, it's in the Sonic OS release notes as well for 5.6.x.y and 5.8.x.y that the OS supports IPv6. They've no business whatsoever putting statements in release notes that simply aren't true.
Given that SI is French... (As are those parts of the Constitution not taken from the British.) Oh the irony of life...