I don't think there are any extradition agreements that apply to civil lawsuits. In general, the purpose of extradition is to allow people charged and convicted in due process to be handed over to the respective authorities.
However, that never applies to crimes committed outside of the jurisdiction of the court seeking extradition. For example, if you breack American copyright law in Germany and get charged and convicted in the US for that violation in a criminal case, extradition agreements do not apply because the US court had no jurisdiction over you. Most likely, it won't even get that far as a judge in general will not accept cases that the court has no jurisdiction over.
That idiot as you call her sued because the coffee was hotter than coffee usually would be. She had sever injuries that requires skin transplants. I can understand why she would sue. I can't understand however how the jury could aware over a million dollar in punitive damages. It's good to know that the judge reduced it to $650,000.
Actually, you don't have to be an American for the provisions in the 5th amendment to apply. You just have to be under the jurisdiction of the American court system. In general, the provisions of the constitution apply to all people (persons) under the jurisdiction of the United States, whether they be citizens or not.
or the laws of the European Union which clearly states that double jeopardy is prohibited.
Re:You can appeal an ACQUITTAL in Norway?
on
"DVD-Jon" Faces Retrial
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The European Court of Justice has rules that double jeopardy violates European Law.
The case in point was a German draftee who didn't show up on the assigned date. He was brought to trial for draft evasion and sentenced to prison for a short time (a month or so), after which he was supposed to recommence his military service. After his prison time was up, he again failed to show up on the assigned date and was again convicted of draft evasion. He appealed to the ECJ and won. The ECJ ruled that the second conviction was indeed double jeopardy and thus against European law.
The person in Denmark could also appeal to the ECJ because Denmark as a EU member state is under the jurisdiction of the court. In the case of Norway, however, that is not an option as Norway is (still) not a member of the European Union.
I do agree that AOL's ease-of-use was one of the major factors that kept it around well and alive for so long. The problem, however, that I would see is that the longer one user gets exposed to computers and learns how to use them, the less he or she will actually need AOL's easy interface and might even feel restricted by it.
I would venture a guess that ease-of-use is what gets new customers to AOL while "dirty chat" is what keeps them (or used to keep them) with AOL.
I'd rather see the human race extinct knowing that we have been at least ethical about it, then survive at the cost of othr lifeforms. But, of course, that's just me.
Like all more or less philosophical debates, it all comes back to the meaning of life. Why are we here? What's our purpose?
If we assert that survival is our purpose, then clearly killing or torturing other lifeforms for our own benefits is not only ethical but essential if it allows us to survive just a month, a year or a century longer.
If we assert that doing good and helping others is our purpose, then survival becomes less of an issue and animal (ab)use for our own gain a non-issue.
Or we could assert dozens of other purposes of being. Fact is that that interpretation is a rather personal one. Religions, philosophy and science have tried for centuries to find answers for that ultimate question. What you choose is up to you at the end. As for me, I'd rather go with the second one.
So you are saying that it is acceptable to subject animals to testing so that humans can live (longer). You see it that way; I don't.
It would be acceptable if there was a way to make sure that the subject was actually consenting to participate in the experiment. Seeing that's hardly possible with animals, I can't justify animal experimentation.
That's also why I said that testing with consenting humans is fine. Note that all I'm worried about is the consent part. If a human subject consents to having sulphuric acid injected into their eyes, by all means, go at it. But don't decide in the place of other beings who don't get a chance to voice their own will.
Let me ask you this though, if developing an HIV vaccine depended on killing one mice, would you find it ethical if the mice was killed for the welfare of all humans? What about killing a human being? If you agree to the first but object to the second, how do you make that distinction?
Hmm, I guess this would be a situation where my own knowledge falls short to reality to make an educated guess. If this is indeed factual, it appears that more research on my part is necessary.
I don't get to. It is up to everyone to make their own decisions in their lives. All I stated was what I believed to be wrong. What you do with that is up to you.
See that's exactly the problem. There is no way that someone else can rightfully consent in my place. The whole idea of age of consent and what comes with it is a mere legal device trying to at least somewhat fix the much more fundamental problem of parent-children relationships.
GPL: Free as in herpes? I almost choked on my coffee laughing about that one. It's hilarious! Good work:-P
Yes, but the purpose matters. Aside from humans, lifeforms kill other lifeforms because (a) they are hungry or (b) they are trying to defend themselves. I have yet to see or hear about a case where a cat injected formaldehyde into a mouse to see how it reacts.
So basically what all this comes down to is that the end (i.e. human health and welfare) justifies the means of getting there (i.e. animal testing)? This planet disgusts me.
Unless both parties of the contract show sufficient proof of identity, the contract can't really become valid. Confirmation through an e-mail address is rarely sufficient proof of identification. Credit cards, SSN's, DL's and national ID's may though.
The nature of so called "contracts" online is still highly debatable. As long as there is no way to sufficiently guarantee that the person clicking on the "I Agree" button is really who they say they are, it should prove rather tough on either party to enforce the terms of the contract.
Air molecules aren't alive. They don't breathe, move or grow. They are one of the elements crucial to life (as we know it).
By breathing, we just do what every other animal on the planet is doing. Other animals breathe, eat and dump their shit whereever. Other animals don't, however, experiment with other animals for their own gain. That's a human trait.
Seriously though, what is important and what is not is highly based on our individual values. Personally, I don't think human survival is more important than animal survival. I am also aware, though, that that places me into a small minority on this planet. But who said you had to be in the majority to be right?
The question is not about being born in general. The question is whether the newborn had any influence in the decision that his or her genes be artifically altered.
Interestingly enough, in recent years parents have sued doctors for not diagnosing potential disabilities in their future children. They claimed that, had they known about them, they would probably have aborted. There's a number of stories about this, for example, French court extens.
Genetic experimentation can rarely be ethical. The problem is that the outcome of genetic experimentation is supposed to be an altered new lifeform, which never got a chance to make the decision whether he/she/it wanted to be altered in the first place. That's where I would see the real ethical dilemma.
As to the White House administration, let's not go there. For all we know, they might already be the outcome of said genetic experiments <g>
It is not hard to understand at all. But the question remains: who are we to decide that we can employ other animals for our own purpose, specifically so when it comes to testing and experimentation?
Actually, any experiments with rats and mice are unethical in my book. The momeny we employ them to our gain, we assume the arrogance to believe that we are more important than those creatures.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem with human testing if the subject/participant volunteered under free will to be experimented with. I don't see how that could be unethical.
The European Space Agency began its manned flight programme with Spacelab, providing the opportunity for the selection of the first ESA Astronauts in 1978. The three first astronauts selected were the German Ulf Merbold, the Dutch Wubbo Ockels and the Swiss Claude Nicollier. (Original)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think there are any extradition agreements that apply to civil lawsuits. In general, the purpose of extradition is to allow people charged and convicted in due process to be handed over to the respective authorities.
However, that never applies to crimes committed outside of the jurisdiction of the court seeking extradition. For example, if you breack American copyright law in Germany and get charged and convicted in the US for that violation in a criminal case, extradition agreements do not apply because the US court had no jurisdiction over you. Most likely, it won't even get that far as a judge in general will not accept cases that the court has no jurisdiction over.
That idiot as you call her sued because the coffee was hotter than coffee usually would be. She had sever injuries that requires skin transplants. I can understand why she would sue. I can't understand however how the jury could aware over a million dollar in punitive damages. It's good to know that the judge reduced it to $650,000.
there are by definition no area codes that start with a 0 or a 1
Actually, you don't have to be an American for the provisions in the 5th amendment to apply. You just have to be under the jurisdiction of the American court system. In general, the provisions of the constitution apply to all people (persons) under the jurisdiction of the United States, whether they be citizens or not.
or the laws of the European Union which clearly states that double jeopardy is prohibited.
The European Court of Justice has rules that double jeopardy violates European Law. The case in point was a German draftee who didn't show up on the assigned date. He was brought to trial for draft evasion and sentenced to prison for a short time (a month or so), after which he was supposed to recommence his military service. After his prison time was up, he again failed to show up on the assigned date and was again convicted of draft evasion. He appealed to the ECJ and won. The ECJ ruled that the second conviction was indeed double jeopardy and thus against European law. The person in Denmark could also appeal to the ECJ because Denmark as a EU member state is under the jurisdiction of the court. In the case of Norway, however, that is not an option as Norway is (still) not a member of the European Union.
um, is this supposed to be related to the story in any way? sm P.S. nice story, though
I do agree that AOL's ease-of-use was one of the major factors that kept it around well and alive for so long. The problem, however, that I would see is that the longer one user gets exposed to computers and learns how to use them, the less he or she will actually need AOL's easy interface and might even feel restricted by it. I would venture a guess that ease-of-use is what gets new customers to AOL while "dirty chat" is what keeps them (or used to keep them) with AOL.
I'd rather see the human race extinct knowing that we have been at least ethical about it, then survive at the cost of othr lifeforms. But, of course, that's just me.
Like all more or less philosophical debates, it all comes back to the meaning of life. Why are we here? What's our purpose?
If we assert that survival is our purpose, then clearly killing or torturing other lifeforms for our own benefits is not only ethical but essential if it allows us to survive just a month, a year or a century longer.
If we assert that doing good and helping others is our purpose, then survival becomes less of an issue and animal (ab)use for our own gain a non-issue.
Or we could assert dozens of other purposes of being. Fact is that that interpretation is a rather personal one. Religions, philosophy and science have tried for centuries to find answers for that ultimate question. What you choose is up to you at the end. As for me, I'd rather go with the second one.
So you are saying that it is acceptable to subject animals to testing so that humans can live (longer). You see it that way; I don't.
It would be acceptable if there was a way to make sure that the subject was actually consenting to participate in the experiment. Seeing that's hardly possible with animals, I can't justify animal experimentation.
That's also why I said that testing with consenting humans is fine. Note that all I'm worried about is the consent part. If a human subject consents to having sulphuric acid injected into their eyes, by all means, go at it. But don't decide in the place of other beings who don't get a chance to voice their own will.
Let me ask you this though, if developing an HIV vaccine depended on killing one mice, would you find it ethical if the mice was killed for the welfare of all humans? What about killing a human being? If you agree to the first but object to the second, how do you make that distinction?
Hmm, I guess this would be a situation where my own knowledge falls short to reality to make an educated guess. If this is indeed factual, it appears that more research on my part is necessary.
must research...find truth...
I don't get to. It is up to everyone to make their own decisions in their lives. All I stated was what I believed to be wrong. What you do with that is up to you.
See that's exactly the problem. There is no way that someone else can rightfully consent in my place. The whole idea of age of consent and what comes with it is a mere legal device trying to at least somewhat fix the much more fundamental problem of parent-children relationships.
GPL: Free as in herpes? I almost choked on my coffee laughing about that one. It's hilarious! Good work :-P
Yes, but the purpose matters. Aside from humans, lifeforms kill other lifeforms because (a) they are hungry or (b) they are trying to defend themselves. I have yet to see or hear about a case where a cat injected formaldehyde into a mouse to see how it reacts.
So basically what all this comes down to is that the end (i.e. human health and welfare) justifies the means of getting there (i.e. animal testing)? This planet disgusts me.
Unless both parties of the contract show sufficient proof of identity, the contract can't really become valid. Confirmation through an e-mail address is rarely sufficient proof of identification. Credit cards, SSN's, DL's and national ID's may though.
The nature of so called "contracts" online is still highly debatable. As long as there is no way to sufficiently guarantee that the person clicking on the "I Agree" button is really who they say they are, it should prove rather tough on either party to enforce the terms of the contract.
Air molecules aren't alive. They don't breathe, move or grow. They are one of the elements crucial to life (as we know it).
By breathing, we just do what every other animal on the planet is doing. Other animals breathe, eat and dump their shit whereever. Other animals don't, however, experiment with other animals for their own gain. That's a human trait.
Sure thing, egomaniac.
Seriously though, what is important and what is not is highly based on our individual values. Personally, I don't think human survival is more important than animal survival. I am also aware, though, that that places me into a small minority on this planet. But who said you had to be in the majority to be right?
The question is not about being born in general. The question is whether the newborn had any influence in the decision that his or her genes be artifically altered.
Interestingly enough, in recent years parents have sued doctors for not diagnosing potential disabilities in their future children. They claimed that, had they known about them, they would probably have aborted. There's a number of stories about this, for example, French court extens.
Genetic experimentation can rarely be ethical. The problem is that the outcome of genetic experimentation is supposed to be an altered new lifeform, which never got a chance to make the decision whether he/she/it wanted to be altered in the first place. That's where I would see the real ethical dilemma.
As to the White House administration, let's not go there. For all we know, they might already be the outcome of said genetic experiments <g>
It is not hard to understand at all. But the question remains: who are we to decide that we can employ other animals for our own purpose, specifically so when it comes to testing and experimentation?
Actually, any experiments with rats and mice are unethical in my book. The momeny we employ them to our gain, we assume the arrogance to believe that we are more important than those creatures. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with human testing if the subject/participant volunteered under free will to be experimented with. I don't see how that could be unethical.
There have been a number of people from European countries that have been on board of MIR or manned other space missions.
From the ESA (European Space Agency) web site:
The European Space Agency began its manned flight programme with Spacelab, providing the opportunity for the selection of the first ESA Astronauts in 1978. The three first astronauts selected were the German Ulf Merbold, the Dutch Wubbo Ockels and the Swiss Claude Nicollier. (Original)
umm, the Challenger disaster or the Apollo crisis anyone?
only, it's not the first. sorry, pal