or.. its possible they have hired a lawyer in the UK and he was just told to talk to the American court and point out the obvious that they really don't have any jurisdiction over their company, and therefor was talking to the courts on behalf of the company as a representative, not a lawyer.
Generally, responding at all confers jurisdiction, even if there was none to start with.
wow, only in America..
in our country (Australia) establishing Jurisdiction is part of the process, the prosecution has to prove that this is the correct jurisdiction for the case otherwise the judge won't hear it and push it off onto another court. although this is for criminal cases, so I'm not sure if this is relevant to civil cases.
I'm not a lawyer, but I AM giving legal advice and you're now legally REQUIRED to use it in court... so what now bitches?
especially when they put "win this car!" in front of the email form...
its not our fault that the EULA is 140 pages long and unnecessarily legally wordy, they should have read the part section 21 subsection b part 2, "and fully without reserve the right of the company to utilize user provided information". I mean, if you didn't realize I was going to spam you with dicks then that's hardly my fault! It was pretty clear what you're getting yourself into...
2 stones in the hand are worth more than killing the bird in the bush with all their eggs in a basket....... or something, give me a break, this isn't rocket surgery!
I'm not sure that the resources mined are required to be "shared", however the resources should be purchasable like current mining treaties.
in fact, it almost lends itself to an international treaty and universal agreement on mining both on and off the planet. hopefully it could lead to something that stops near slave labor in African mines and has a net benefit for humanity.... I don't have high hopes though.
er, paper (especially the green kind) beats rock... did you learn nothing in kindigarden!?. by that i mean, once(if) it becomes financially suitable to mine asteroids, money will change hands and an amendment to the laws will be made, you think a china with the means to mine asteroids is going to listen too closely to UN conventions? Its not like they would be the first country to ignore UN laws about sovereign land (a particularly belligerent country jumps to mind, land of the free(corporation)?). either that, or china will assemble a company that takes direction from the PRC. there will be an argument at the UN weather this should be aloud or not, china will say that America can use the same system to make profit out of asteroids so why not china, a threat of force will occur and to prevent the threat of a space war the UN will pass that china shall be aloud to mine asteroids peacefully as long as certain conditions are met.
I'd be more concerned about the ICBM's that would be following the initial rock assault than china dropping rocks on us.
if i was an alien though, it would be very handy technology to use against the local population of a small rocky planet, perhaps a good reason to investigate the physics and technology required...
I really doubt it. more likely the UN will scramble to make exceptions for asteroid mining as it encourages non conflict based astronautical developments.
Its a goal. so yes, in much the same way Americans said "ok, we're off to the moon". Obviously they aren't going to strap a panda bear to a handful of fireworks and hope for the best.
As "incompetent" as western media like to make china out to be, you have to acknowledge that 9/10 of their senior officials have backgrounds in engineering or the sciences. they also aren't required to pander to short term goals as visual progress isn't a requirement when you don't have to get re-elected. China is in a very good position to start looking into their space program and really asserting themselves as a world superpower.
Unlike America, the Australian government has barely the support required to run the country, let alone get re-elected. so any minor event gets blown out of proportion and tends to get a fair amount of attention.
And attention from Australian citizens is all that's required for this to fail the appeals process.
basically "why should American companies decide which Australian citizen gets disconnected from what Australia considers a vital communications tool".
sorry, i should say. "I expect professionals of any capacity to keep their opinions to themselves, and not make press statements about such things". this needs to be especially true for the police who are legally protected and in some cases encouraged to violate your privacy and to completely expose you.
I use to have photos of my self and my wife on our honeymoon doing the nasty. I'd be pretty upset if the police went through it, I'd be much angrier if they dared to so much as have an opinion about what i privately recorded for myself and my wife.
Cops have the law to judge people on.. judging others outside of this is completely inappropriate. Or do we not expect police to maintain professionalism when forcefully invading and involving themselves in others personal lives?
if only that was actually true, but you might be shocked to find how much US law has perverted the rest of the world in regards to copyright infringement and patent law.
Seeings though Copyright infringement has some pretty serious problems of scope creep, i think he brings in a valid argument. where do we draw the line? at the name? at what some entity decides its purpose was? or should we be even treating internet service providers as the same as all other types of service providers (ie, pawn shops, headshops etc.)
After all, it is God Himself the one that stablished the whole lot, both what a mere human thinks important and what he thinks it isn't
um, which God is that? there are a lot and they all say different things, its hard to keep track.
My bet is that there no such a thing as "hardcore Christians" but just Christians and those that pose as one without being so.
Hardcore Christians are the ones who describe other Christians as "not real Christians" because the other Christians interpret the bible differently. you have no divine authority to decide how genuine someone elses faith is because they don't ad-hear to your schedule & religious observations. (in fact, i think there might be a passage about judging others?).
IMO, any hardcore christian is any religious person who takes their faith too seriously without basing some of their wordy observations on reason and logic (think evolution, existence of dinosaurs, "spiritual healing", prayer achieving more than actions, etc.)
And us atheist sit back and laugh because you're squabbling over a fantasy... that is until you tie us to a stake and burn us alive that is...
Think about it: If God Himself, comes to you to say "You Shall Burn In Hell If You Dare to Kill Your Neighbor... Oh, And You Shall Burn In Hell Just The Same If You Forget Going To The Sunday Mass", who are you to say one thing is important while the other not so much?
You'd be no one, but that's more because you would be crazy then because of any divine reasoning.
Imagine HIV spreading like the flu, currently it requires some pretty invasive activities to spread, if it could spread by a cough then that is the REAL danger.
how can AC not see the difference between a police officer who has no right to an opinion on this matter (don't we trust them not to have an opinion & remain impartial?) and a private citizen displaying displeasure at unprofessional conduct.
An aware population can defend the internet against tyranny
there is significant awareness on the Internets population about this sort of thing, why do you think groups like lulsec and anonymous are being so aggressive lately?
I don't understand how people can possibly defend this? it does nothing to protect you from the dangers of the "wild west" internet, all it does is add more surveillance to your citizens. I mean, what do they expect this to actually achieve?
the internet is not like "the wild west" the internet is like more like international waters of infinite dimension.
any source for proxies being charged for criminal offenses? surely a "no evidence of any actions on that persons computer" mixed with "an open proxy available to all on the internet" would be a sufficient defense for anything serious, you might get nailed with "miss use of computer" charge though
Slashdot Mirror
not without that light.
or.. its possible they have hired a lawyer in the UK and he was just told to talk to the American court and point out the obvious that they really don't have any jurisdiction over their company, and therefor was talking to the courts on behalf of the company as a representative, not a lawyer.
Generally, responding at all confers jurisdiction, even if there was none to start with.
wow, only in America..
in our country (Australia) establishing Jurisdiction is part of the process, the prosecution has to prove that this is the correct jurisdiction for the case otherwise the judge won't hear it and push it off onto another court. although this is for criminal cases, so I'm not sure if this is relevant to civil cases.
I'm not a lawyer, but I AM giving legal advice and you're now legally REQUIRED to use it in court... so what now bitches?
especially when they put "win this car!" in front of the email form...
its not our fault that the EULA is 140 pages long and unnecessarily legally wordy, they should have read the part section 21 subsection b part 2, "and fully without reserve the right of the company to utilize user provided information". I mean, if you didn't realize I was going to spam you with dicks then that's hardly my fault! It was pretty clear what you're getting yourself into...
yeah, that's not funny at all :(
well, you know what they say...
2 stones in the hand are worth more than killing the bird in the bush with all their eggs in a basket....... or something, give me a break, this isn't rocket surgery!
I'm not sure that the resources mined are required to be "shared", however the resources should be purchasable like current mining treaties.
in fact, it almost lends itself to an international treaty and universal agreement on mining both on and off the planet. hopefully it could lead to something that stops near slave labor in African mines and has a net benefit for humanity.... I don't have high hopes though.
is that because copying is stealing?
Once it's set, it's set in metaphorical stone.
er, paper (especially the green kind) beats rock... did you learn nothing in kindigarden!?. by that i mean, once(if) it becomes financially suitable to mine asteroids, money will change hands and an amendment to the laws will be made, you think a china with the means to mine asteroids is going to listen too closely to UN conventions? Its not like they would be the first country to ignore UN laws about sovereign land (a particularly belligerent country jumps to mind, land of the free(corporation)?). either that, or china will assemble a company that takes direction from the PRC. there will be an argument at the UN weather this should be aloud or not, china will say that America can use the same system to make profit out of asteroids so why not china, a threat of force will occur and to prevent the threat of a space war the UN will pass that china shall be aloud to mine asteroids peacefully as long as certain conditions are met.
I'd be more concerned about the ICBM's that would be following the initial rock assault than china dropping rocks on us. if i was an alien though, it would be very handy technology to use against the local population of a small rocky planet, perhaps a good reason to investigate the physics and technology required...
I really doubt it. more likely the UN will scramble to make exceptions for asteroid mining as it encourages non conflict based astronautical developments.
Its a goal. so yes, in much the same way Americans said "ok, we're off to the moon". Obviously they aren't going to strap a panda bear to a handful of fireworks and hope for the best.
As "incompetent" as western media like to make china out to be, you have to acknowledge that 9/10 of their senior officials have backgrounds in engineering or the sciences. they also aren't required to pander to short term goals as visual progress isn't a requirement when you don't have to get re-elected. China is in a very good position to start looking into their space program and really asserting themselves as a world superpower.
Unlike America, the Australian government has barely the support required to run the country, let alone get re-elected. so any minor event gets blown out of proportion and tends to get a fair amount of attention.
And attention from Australian citizens is all that's required for this to fail the appeals process.
basically "why should American companies decide which Australian citizen gets disconnected from what Australia considers a vital communications tool".
sorry, i should say. "I expect professionals of any capacity to keep their opinions to themselves, and not make press statements about such things". this needs to be especially true for the police who are legally protected and in some cases encouraged to violate your privacy and to completely expose you.
what if the little comment was "fucking nigger"?
I use to have photos of my self and my wife on our honeymoon doing the nasty. I'd be pretty upset if the police went through it, I'd be much angrier if they dared to so much as have an opinion about what i privately recorded for myself and my wife.
Cops have the law to judge people on.. judging others outside of this is completely inappropriate. Or do we not expect police to maintain professionalism when forcefully invading and involving themselves in others personal lives?
if only that was actually true, but you might be shocked to find how much US law has perverted the rest of the world in regards to copyright infringement and patent law.
Seeings though Copyright infringement has some pretty serious problems of scope creep, i think he brings in a valid argument. where do we draw the line? at the name? at what some entity decides its purpose was? or should we be even treating internet service providers as the same as all other types of service providers (ie, pawn shops, headshops etc.)
A torrent isn't infringing content, what it downloads is though. a torrent is "just a link", so his point is still accurate.
After all, it is God Himself the one that stablished the whole lot, both what a mere human thinks important and what he thinks it isn't
um, which God is that? there are a lot and they all say different things, its hard to keep track.
My bet is that there no such a thing as "hardcore Christians" but just Christians and those that pose as one without being so.
Hardcore Christians are the ones who describe other Christians as "not real Christians" because the other Christians interpret the bible differently. you have no divine authority to decide how genuine someone elses faith is because they don't ad-hear to your schedule & religious observations. (in fact, i think there might be a passage about judging others?).
IMO, any hardcore christian is any religious person who takes their faith too seriously without basing some of their wordy observations on reason and logic (think evolution, existence of dinosaurs, "spiritual healing", prayer achieving more than actions, etc.)
And us atheist sit back and laugh because you're squabbling over a fantasy... that is until you tie us to a stake and burn us alive that is...
Think about it: If God Himself, comes to you to say "You Shall Burn In Hell If You Dare to Kill Your Neighbor... Oh, And You Shall Burn In Hell Just The Same If You Forget Going To The Sunday Mass", who are you to say one thing is important while the other not so much?
You'd be no one, but that's more because you would be crazy then because of any divine reasoning.
Imagine HIV spreading like the flu, currently it requires some pretty invasive activities to spread, if it could spread by a cough then that is the REAL danger.
Especially sensitive matters like a naked photo.
how can AC not see the difference between a police officer who has no right to an opinion on this matter (don't we trust them not to have an opinion & remain impartial?) and a private citizen displaying displeasure at unprofessional conduct.
An aware population can defend the internet against tyranny
there is significant awareness on the Internets population about this sort of thing, why do you think groups like lulsec and anonymous are being so aggressive lately?
I don't understand how people can possibly defend this? it does nothing to protect you from the dangers of the "wild west" internet, all it does is add more surveillance to your citizens. I mean, what do they expect this to actually achieve?
the internet is not like "the wild west" the internet is like more like international waters of infinite dimension.
any source for proxies being charged for criminal offenses? surely a "no evidence of any actions on that persons computer" mixed with "an open proxy available to all on the internet" would be a sufficient defense for anything serious, you might get nailed with "miss use of computer" charge though
It's really not that obvious in the summary.