Have you ever seen a domestic cat kill birds? They kill them for the excitement. And you can bet the cat does not like to give the pigeon a chance, and they mostly don't eat what they catch.
If someone annoys you and you kick them in the nuts you can expect to get sued for assault. And if you annoy some hunters and they shoot up your toys they can expect to be sued for destruction of property.
I agree. In fact, this does not go even nearly far enough. All public employees should be prohibited from cursing in public. And that includes politicians. Three strikes and they're out of office permanently.
So they should give an urgent warning whenever there is even a possibility of a quake?
And what happens after they predict a quake a few times and no quake happens, or the quakes are minor? Do you think the public is going to listen to them when they give the next warning?
You don't have to look outside the plant itself. Many plants require bees or other similar insects for pollination. So if they kill them off the plants themselves will cease to reproduce. Which may be what the GM companies want. What better way to ensure seed sales next year.
It should be possible for the farmers to sue Monsanto, not just as a response to their suits, but for polluting their crops. If Monsanto claims ownership of the genes, then the fact that those genes are trespassing is also Monsanto's fault.
Any paper/tv news that report on the case will read the FBI release. So it will likely reach more people then a talk show.
And what questions do you think the media would ask the accused? They wouldn't include 'Are you innocent?' would they?
If the judge is so worried about a tainted jury, he should just ask if they've heard anything about the case during jury selection. If hearing news reports and talk shows counts as having a bias then remove all jurors that have heard them. Don't just gag one side while letting the other have virtually free reign in the media.
According to the indictment, for more than five years the conspiracy has operated websites that unlawfully reproduce and distribute infringing copies of copyrighted works, including movies—often before their theatrical release—music, television programs, electronic books, and business and entertainment software on a massive scale. The conspirators’ content hosting site, Megaupload.com, is advertised as having more than one billion visits to the site, more than 150 million registered users, 50 million daily visitors, and accounting for four percent of the total traffic on the Internet. The estimated harm caused by the conspiracy’s criminal conduct to copyright holders is well in excess of $500 million. The conspirators allegedly earned more than $175 million in illegal profits through advertising revenue and selling premium memberships.
It seems to me the jury pool is pretty much tainted now. Or is inserting the word 'allegedly' the thing that makes it all OK? What exactly can the defendant say on a talk show that will taint the jury more?
You were claiming that someone announcing their innocence would taint the jury pool. I'd like to know how announcing that person X was arrested for crime Y is any different? Why should the defendant be prevented from speaking in public, but the police and the prosecutor should be free to do the same? Or should any juror that has heard anything about a case be automatically excluded?
At least the US feels that as long as the 'wronged' party is in a jurdiction that they control, they have the right to have foreign citizens extradited. Just look at the case of the UK hacker Gary McKinnon. Let's just hope Europe will be just as determined to have those evil foreigners punished.
Aren't they going possessing parts of a dead plant to stop them from 'abusing' it? After all what is the problem with people growing plants? The law is meant to prevent drug USE. Preventing drug production is just a convenient way of doing that.
In child porn the situation is reversed. They want to prevent children from being photographed/filmed in inappropriate situations, so they go after anyone in possession of those photos/films, since they are the ones that 'support' the industry by paying for the products.
The strange thing with child porn is that people who do NOT pay for CP but just pirate it are also being prosecuted, while with most other forms of PI, they are seen as the ones destroying the industry.
Well politicians and corporations LOVE globalization. So if a corporation can go and outsource, or buy things in a different country, then why should it be ok for consumers to be limited by borders?
If you product A is available at a better price in another country, they should be free to buy it there and import it. If corporations don't want them them to do that they have two options: a) lower prices in the place where the person lives b) raise prices everywhere else
Christian countries executed plenty of people for religious crimes in the past.Before that the Jews exterminated a few nations. So why are you surprised when the third major religion based on the same teachings embraces the violent side of their faith?
Is the law that was broken in this case just religious, or is it also part of the law of Saudi Arabia? How do you separate the two?
For example, what if a country has laws against abortion. Would Interpol help arrest someone who performed abortions then fled the country? The law after all might exist because of religion, but it is still a civil laws.
There are many laws that have roots in religion. Which will Interpol support and which ignore?
Communists suppressed religions, but they didn't invade countries to 'make them atheist'. They invaded to control them. Any religious oppression was just a side effect of the total oppression.
Slashdot Mirror
Can you shoot down a hot air balloon when it flies over your property? Do you own it? What about a news helicopter? Can you shoot down one of those?
They are. The response is usually to hunt down and kill the predator. If the predator has an owner, the owner can usually be sued by the victim.
Have you ever seen a domestic cat kill birds? They kill them for the excitement. And you can bet the cat does not like to give the pigeon a chance, and they mostly don't eat what they catch.
You only eat hippies if you want to get high.
If someone annoys you and you kick them in the nuts you can expect to get sued for assault. And if you annoy some hunters and they shoot up your toys they can expect to be sued for destruction of property.
I can just imagine packs of dissatisfied voters stalking senators and trying their best to get them to break. :)
I agree. In fact, this does not go even nearly far enough. All public employees should be prohibited from cursing in public. And that includes politicians. Three strikes and they're out of office permanently.
So they should give an urgent warning whenever there is even a possibility of a quake?
And what happens after they predict a quake a few times and no quake happens, or the quakes are minor? Do you think the public is going to listen to them when they give the next warning?
You don't have to look outside the plant itself. Many plants require bees or other similar insects for pollination. So if they kill them off the plants themselves will cease to reproduce. Which may be what the GM companies want. What better way to ensure seed sales next year.
What happens if the person quits? Or is on vacation/sick when you need support? Or is just plain incompetent?
This seems to be a promise to provide less reliable support then what we have now.
It should be possible for the farmers to sue Monsanto, not just as a response to their suits, but for polluting their crops. If Monsanto claims ownership of the genes, then the fact that those genes are trespassing is also Monsanto's fault.
Any paper/tv news that report on the case will read the FBI release. So it will likely reach more people then a talk show.
And what questions do you think the media would ask the accused? They wouldn't include 'Are you innocent?' would they?
If the judge is so worried about a tainted jury, he should just ask if they've heard anything about the case during jury selection. If hearing news reports and talk shows counts as having a bias then remove all jurors that have heard them. Don't just gag one side while letting the other have virtually free reign in the media.
From the FBI press release:
According to the indictment, for more than five years the conspiracy has operated websites that unlawfully reproduce and distribute infringing copies of copyrighted works, including movies—often before their theatrical release—music, television programs, electronic books, and business and entertainment software on a massive scale. The conspirators’ content hosting site, Megaupload.com, is advertised as having more than one billion visits to the site, more than 150 million registered users, 50 million daily visitors, and accounting for four percent of the total traffic on the Internet. The estimated harm caused by the conspiracy’s criminal conduct to copyright holders is well in excess of $500 million. The conspirators allegedly earned more than $175 million in illegal profits through advertising revenue and selling premium memberships.
It seems to me the jury pool is pretty much tainted now. Or is inserting the word 'allegedly' the thing that makes it all OK? What exactly can the defendant say on a talk show that will taint the jury more?
And I'm pointing out that it's just as absurd to prevent the jury from hearing the defendants claims of innocence.
You were claiming that someone announcing their innocence would taint the jury pool. I'd like to know how announcing that person X was arrested for crime Y is any different? Why should the defendant be prevented from speaking in public, but the police and the prosecutor should be free to do the same? Or should any juror that has heard anything about a case be automatically excluded?
But announcing his arrest and all the crimes he's supposed to have committed will in no way influence a juror?
But does America extradite it's citizens when a European country requests their extradition for (for example) slander?
Demand to have him extradited!
At least the US feels that as long as the 'wronged' party is in a jurdiction that they control, they have the right to have foreign citizens extradited. Just look at the case of the UK hacker Gary McKinnon. Let's just hope Europe will be just as determined to have those evil foreigners punished.
If we wanted to protect children, we'd raise the minimum age required to enlist in the army. 30 years sounds about right.
Aren't they going possessing parts of a dead plant to stop them from 'abusing' it? After all what is the problem with people growing plants? The law is meant to prevent drug USE. Preventing drug production is just a convenient way of doing that.
In child porn the situation is reversed. They want to prevent children from being photographed/filmed in inappropriate situations, so they go after anyone in possession of those photos/films, since they are the ones that 'support' the industry by paying for the products.
The strange thing with child porn is that people who do NOT pay for CP but just pirate it are also being prosecuted, while with most other forms of PI, they are seen as the ones destroying the industry.
And it's the government doing the persuading. Why not raise the age when people can enlist to 30+, when they no longer feel they are immortal?
Well politicians and corporations LOVE globalization. So if a corporation can go and outsource, or buy things in a different country, then why should it be ok for consumers to be limited by borders?
If you product A is available at a better price in another country, they should be free to buy it there and import it. If corporations don't want them them to do that they have two options:
a) lower prices in the place where the person lives
b) raise prices everywhere else
Isn't free market grand?
Christian countries executed plenty of people for religious crimes in the past.Before that the Jews exterminated a few nations. So why are you surprised when the third major religion based on the same teachings embraces the violent side of their faith?
Is the law that was broken in this case just religious, or is it also part of the law of Saudi Arabia? How do you separate the two?
For example, what if a country has laws against abortion. Would Interpol help arrest someone who performed abortions then fled the country? The law after all might exist because of religion, but it is still a civil laws.
There are many laws that have roots in religion. Which will Interpol support and which ignore?
Communists suppressed religions, but they didn't invade countries to 'make them atheist'. They invaded to control them. Any religious oppression was just a side effect of the total oppression.