Viking have made it a deliberate policy to advertise their wares by product placement on cooking shows. As I understand it, their rationale is that as a premium-price product, they need to create the impression that their stoves, ranges, etc. are "high-end" or high quality.
It does seem to be working, as Viking can't keep up with demand.
From the article... "The codes identify a product, distinguishing between an eight-ounce can of Del Monte creamed corn and a medium-size pair of Hanes boxer shorts. "
Phew... that's a relief. No more creamed corn undershorts for tybalt! I gotta get me one of these bar-code thingies.
Since I watch the ads on my local TV station, I guess that gives me some sort of "right" to walk up during the six o'clock news and take a shit on the anchor desk?
I must protest in the strongest possible terms the obviously pedantic turn that this thread has taken. I have served in the Navy for seventy-nine years, and have never seen a trace of cannibalism on Slashdot until this post. Why must the average British Linux user be subjected to this filth and depredation!?
This is the sort of lesson that we all should remember, and REPEAT to political people when we talk with them. No, we may not see the need for infrastructure investment right now, but when you make the investment, people are able to use the resulting infrastructure in ways we don't even apprehend right now.
It reminds me of the parable of casting bread upon the waters...
I don't know who recognizes them, and that's the main obstacle. You're entirely right that the usual way in which sovereign status is conferred under international law is recognition... it's a "de facto" and not a "de jure" concept. (Public International Law is very much a developing field with no codification).
But recognition isn't formal, it's very much a de facto procedure as well... which is why Britain plays a dangerous game the longer they leave Sealand alone. Leaving them alone, especially when they are inside UK terriorial waters, could potentially be construed as tanamount to recognition. Certainly the German and Dutch actions discussed on the Sealand web page were tanamount to recognition.
But the Sealand argument does have some merit. There are conflicting theories of how sovereignty work, and Sealand has an excellent claim to sovereignty through the "self-determination" framework... they have land, which as they point out had been abandoned and was outside international waters. They live on it, and that gives them at least an outside shot at being recognized as a "people" with a right to self-determination... which gives them in international law an inherent right to declare their independence.
In the end, it depends (as things always do in law) on which way a court would go. A court has a reasonable shot at deciding a case on a "self-determination" model.
These legal concepts (of who is sovereign and what is a nation or a state) are very cloudy, and there really are no worthwhile coherent theories which have gained wide acceptance. In the end, the best way to characterize the question is that a state does the sort of things states do.
If I were Prince of Sealand, I'd be busy trying to get into some of the more accomodating international organizatons, preferably those outside UN control, like maybe the UPU (which would also allow them to have their own postal addresses so they wouldn't have to go thtough the UK mailbag address).
Pirate radio stations didn't have a case or claim about being sovereign territories under international law. It's an absolutely crucial difference, and it's the pole by which Sealand can make a legal case not just about British domestic law.
Sealand does and Britain doesn't want to deal with it for fear their courts are going to tell them they are... they're playing the cards close to their chest. It has to be more than a simple pain in the ass or they're not going to risk the precedent.
Machiavelli's dicta are always nice... they don't apply, by definition, where the rule of law is taken seriously. I have no doubt that the UK government is more than willing to spit on the rule of law... but it has to be worth their while and if you understood what the principle means in the UK, you'd understand it has to be worth one whole heck of a lot.
Of course, they can always just declare war. That opens another can of worms.
"Passing a bill" won't have a damned bit of effect on a British court's treatment of an international law question, whose determination by definition lies beyond the scope of the domestic state. According to all accepted British legal doctrine that I am familiar with - I studied international law for a while - international law does apply to the British government, it can trump the law of the domestic state, and it is not subject to change at the whim of the domestic state.
I would tend to disagree. The point is not that the UK wouldn't want to "shut them down", but whether they would actually do so.
Were the matter something as serious as a "terrorist" attack, they might well do so. That said, Sealand know how precarious their toehold is and have already committed themselves quite clearly (see the government website) to coming down as hard on this as everyone else. Any action would be undoubtedly undertaken (quietly) in a spirit of comity, which allows Sealand to go on claiming sovereignty and Britain to go on ignoring the issue.
The very last thing Britain wants to do, is to shut down Sealand, and that's because they then run the risk of their own courts declaring that they have no jurisdiction. In the end, that's the greatest weapon Sealand has: the threat of a bewigged judge in a "foreign" country. A British court is absolutely bound to rule according to the rule of law, and the government is absolutely bound to it. In a sphere where international law rules are invoked, they are going to have to be considered. And a ruling against the British government is going to mean big trouble for Britain... they simply can't disobey a court order from their own court.
The British judiciary, remember, has a worldwide reputation for probity (one reason why they are chosen so often as the governing jurisdiction of international contracts). They're not likely to rule one way simply because the government would prefer it.
Slashdot Mirror
Viking have made it a deliberate policy to advertise their wares by product placement on cooking shows. As I understand it, their rationale is that as a premium-price product, they need to create the impression that their stoves, ranges, etc. are "high-end" or high quality.
It does seem to be working, as Viking can't keep up with demand.
I've used a Viking range and was very impressed.
Korma whore.
From the article... "The codes identify a product, distinguishing between an eight-ounce can of Del Monte creamed corn and a medium-size pair of Hanes boxer shorts. "
Phew... that's a relief. No more creamed corn undershorts for tybalt! I gotta get me one of these bar-code thingies.
That's OK; it isn't even remotely comic.
This is probably because of the CD-R tax, which boosts the prices out of the free range.
"Apu, you got any of that beer with the candy floating in it? You know...Skittle-brau?"
Since I watch the ads on my local TV station, I guess that gives me some sort of "right" to walk up during the six o'clock news and take a shit on the anchor desk?
It apparently was filed in October of 1987, which means it will expire in 2007. 20 years from filing or 17 years from granting, whichever is longer.
Or, if you _are_ a slacker, it will result in other people's hard-earned property being taken away from them and given to you.
(Tybalt is always in favour of slacker-friendly systems)
Dear Sir,
I must protest in the strongest possible terms the obviously pedantic turn that this thread has taken. I have served in the Navy for seventy-nine years, and have never seen a trace of cannibalism on Slashdot until this post. Why must the average British Linux user be subjected to this filth and depredation!?
Yours etc.,
Rear-Admiral Arthur Mellish Winstanley (Mrs.)
This is the sort of lesson that we all should remember, and REPEAT to political people when we talk with them. No, we may not see the need for infrastructure investment right now, but when you make the investment, people are able to use the resulting infrastructure in ways we don't even apprehend right now.
It reminds me of the parable of casting bread upon the waters...
I don't know who recognizes them, and that's the main obstacle. You're entirely right that the usual way in which sovereign status is conferred under international law is recognition... it's a "de facto" and not a "de jure" concept. (Public International Law is very much a developing field with no codification).
But recognition isn't formal, it's very much a de facto procedure as well... which is why Britain plays a dangerous game the longer they leave Sealand alone. Leaving them alone, especially when they are inside UK terriorial waters, could potentially be construed as tanamount to recognition. Certainly the German and Dutch actions discussed on the Sealand web page were tanamount to recognition.
But the Sealand argument does have some merit. There are conflicting theories of how sovereignty work, and Sealand has an excellent claim to sovereignty through the "self-determination" framework... they have land, which as they point out had been abandoned and was outside international waters. They live on it, and that gives them at least an outside shot at being recognized as a "people" with a right to self-determination... which gives them in international law an inherent right to declare their independence.
In the end, it depends (as things always do in law) on which way a court would go. A court has a reasonable shot at deciding a case on a "self-determination" model.
These legal concepts (of who is sovereign and what is a nation or a state) are very cloudy, and there really are no worthwhile coherent theories which have gained wide acceptance. In the end, the best way to characterize the question is that a state does the sort of things states do.
If I were Prince of Sealand, I'd be busy trying to get into some of the more accomodating international organizatons, preferably those outside UN control, like maybe the UPU (which would also allow them to have their own postal addresses so they wouldn't have to go thtough the UK mailbag address).
Pirate radio stations didn't have a case or claim about being sovereign territories under international law. It's an absolutely crucial difference, and it's the pole by which Sealand can make a legal case not just about British domestic law.
Sealand does and Britain doesn't want to deal with it for fear their courts are going to tell them they are... they're playing the cards close to their chest. It has to be more than a simple pain in the ass or they're not going to risk the precedent.
Machiavelli's dicta are always nice... they don't apply, by definition, where the rule of law is taken seriously. I have no doubt that the UK government is more than willing to spit on the rule of law... but it has to be worth their while and if you understood what the principle means in the UK, you'd understand it has to be worth one whole heck of a lot.
Of course, they can always just declare war. That opens another can of worms.
"Passing a bill" won't have a damned bit of effect on a British court's treatment of an international law question, whose determination by definition lies beyond the scope of the domestic state. According to all accepted British legal doctrine that I am familiar with - I studied international law for a while - international law does apply to the British government, it can trump the law of the domestic state, and it is not subject to change at the whim of the domestic state.
I would tend to disagree. The point is not that the UK wouldn't want to "shut them down", but whether they would actually do so. Were the matter something as serious as a "terrorist" attack, they might well do so. That said, Sealand know how precarious their toehold is and have already committed themselves quite clearly (see the government website) to coming down as hard on this as everyone else. Any action would be undoubtedly undertaken (quietly) in a spirit of comity, which allows Sealand to go on claiming sovereignty and Britain to go on ignoring the issue. The very last thing Britain wants to do, is to shut down Sealand, and that's because they then run the risk of their own courts declaring that they have no jurisdiction. In the end, that's the greatest weapon Sealand has: the threat of a bewigged judge in a "foreign" country. A British court is absolutely bound to rule according to the rule of law, and the government is absolutely bound to it. In a sphere where international law rules are invoked, they are going to have to be considered. And a ruling against the British government is going to mean big trouble for Britain... they simply can't disobey a court order from their own court. The British judiciary, remember, has a worldwide reputation for probity (one reason why they are chosen so often as the governing jurisdiction of international contracts). They're not likely to rule one way simply because the government would prefer it.