but the only references to extradition to a possible death penalty say the extradition "may" be refused -- no requirement that it be so
Yes but any decision not refusing to give up an individual to a human rights violating state, would be challenged at the European Court of Human Rights. And one imagines, reversed.
As for the debt thing, I think it's just plain dumb. I make 1/2 to 1/3 of what some of my friends were making, and yet I have very little debt, while they are buried under it.
Yup me too, but I always figured that was because I was too poor to get into debt, ie no bank in its right mind would lend me a red cent!
I'm not talking so much about the laws themselves as the precedents of interpretation of those laws set by the courts.
Well in that case you should be modded down as being Offtopic. This case is about whether the law is a 'bad' law, ie whether it is ultra vires. There is no question of 'intepreting' this piece of legislation, only of deciding whether it has been enacted outside the grant of power outlined in the Constitutions.
My feeling is that the 'harmonization' argument will win the day. Ie. the court will probably say something like this: "Yes, a series of mala fides extentions of terms can amount in practice to a limitless grant such as would offend the requirement of 'for a limited term.' However, given that this extention merely brings domestic law in line with the term of copyright elsewhere, especially in the context of the increasing internationalization of IP, this particular extention to term is bona fides. The 'Progress of Sciences & Arts' argument will be resolved by reference to publishers interests.
Often laws work if a small amount of people with a lot of money want to keep them and are willing to fight with high-priced lawyers to keep them around. The laws may be tossed in the end, but the pricey lawyers can manage to keep them around and kicking for quite a few years.
Where on earth do you live, where it is up to lawyers to keep laws around (even after they've been 'tossed'). Here in the West, we have these things called legislatures, whose job it is to write and to repeal laws. Even though these legislature are nominally democratically elected (ie. determined by Media Barons), if you are amoung the "small amount of people with a lot of money", that wants a certain law kept on the books, or indeed created, you simply do so by purchasing a block of members of these legislatures. This practice goes under the name 'Campaign Financing.'
I believe that liberty, justice, and God last forever.
In case you hadn't noticed, the first two, at least, are on the endangered species list in 'America' at the moment. As for the third, well God alone knows.
The guy said, until they could get the rights, which clearly involves the assumption that copyright still runs. Maybe Adams did not want his work butchered by Hollywood, and they had to wait for him to die before they could get the rights. Clear now?
[1st Amendment]... I'm pretty sure Australia has most if not all of that somewhere in their constitution as well.
Well, no and yes. The Australian Constitution is largely based on the US Constitution, but does not include anything resembling the Bill of Rights. There is no explicit right of free speech written into the Constitution.
However, in a number of cases, most famously Aust. Capital TV v C'th, the High Court discovered an implicit "Freedom of Political Communication", woven into the fabric of the Constitution, (ie. since the constitution sets up a representative democracy, there must be a presumption of a politically informed electorate, and this implies a right to be informed.)
Note that this freedom of communication is restricted to political matters ('political' as it relates to the electoral process). It seems unlikely, for example, that a pornograper could argue for constitutional protection under this principle.
it was made clear that Ford did actively make such an assesment with the Pinto
Yup, I've seen a reproduction of the balance sheet from ford, numbers of deaths, injuries etc, all tallied up against potential liability, and then the bottom line calculation of cost of modifications needed to alleviate the problem. Truely shocking.
McDonalds made no such calculations... No risk-vs-reward assesment was mentioned or even allegated
OK, I don't have any access to the evidence brought at that trial, so I shall defer to your greater knowledge. It remains, true, does it not, that the apparently excessive exemplary damages awarded in that case, were the result of McDonalds' failure to change their practices despite repeated injuries of a similar nature (presumably they felt that colder coffee would adversly affect sales). While this is not as shocking as the behaviour of Ford, it is not entirely dissimilar.
Learn just a tiny little bit about law before you go spouting your mouth off. They are banning high G force rides, which sounds like they are making it an offence (ie criminal law, public prosecutors). As it stands now, the rememdy is a civil one, (ie negligence law, ambulance chasers.) You don't need statutes to sue, tort law will do just fine, thankyou very much.
Chances are this law will result in less death and injury, which is a loss for the legal eagles.
The McDonalds coffee example is the most badly chosen one I can think of. There were literally dozens of people who got badly burnt by McDonalds coffee before the old lady got her genitalia burnt off. McDonalds calculated that it was cheaper to settle these cases individually than to reduce the temperature of the coffee to a safe level (hot coffee is supposed to keep longer). Any corporation that calculates their profits on a liability vs personal injury (or death) basis deserves to get hit HARD. Any jury that see evidence like that will. McDonalds got what they deserved, simple.
Nuclear is my vote for meeting the needs of the future, but i suppose your millage may vary.
I have heard this described, with some justitification, as giving someone gonorrhaea to cure them of syphilis. Unfortunately it is becoming clearer that global warming is a reality and that (despite what an undue number of slashdotters like to believe), the main suspect is anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Given the paucity of alternative candidates,it may be that nuclear is in fact the lesser of two evils, and the only realistic path to take.
But please! Put the reactors and the waste dumps in someone else's backyard.
Re:One of my favourite quotes...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 2
dont be an idiot. If you're going to nit pick my use of the word WAR, at least look up a definition or something
I hardly need look up a defintion. I'm giving you one. Admittedly rebellion against the state is often termed a 'civil war,' but legally this is better thought of as an insurrection. Civil war might also occur when the claims to state power within a nation become confused. Since you want a defintion lets just look in the most obvious place, the OED:
I. 1. a. Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state.
Doesn't leave much room for an attack against some foreign secret society, the very existence of which has now been brought into question, does it? Let me reitterate, 9/11 was not an act of war, it was an act of terrorism. The purpetrators are not lawful combatants, they are criminals.
Re:One of my favourite quotes...
on
Want Freedom?
·
· Score: 1
How come you think we're not at war? What exactly was that 9-11 thing? Was it all a big joke?
It was a highly successful act of terrorism. It was not and act of war. War occurs when hostilities arise between two (or more) states. Al-Quaeda, (assuming they were responsible), is not a state. Is that really so difficult to understand?
The War On Terrorism, like the War On Drugs, is merely rhetorical -- a marketing device. The war in Afghanistan, liek the Gulf War, (and its possible sequel) are wars, real wars.
You haven't been paying attention have you. There's this little thing called 'Intellectual Property'...
On the other hand, it is arguable that no-one ought to be able to own information. Given the importance of the 'information economy,' however, any such arguments are sure to fall on deaf ears.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.
Well perhaps not in nature, but certainly in a society of laws:
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The Galeon developments are nice.
Yes, but what is even nicer is that Galeon is Mozilla without all the bloat. To the Galeon developers I say this: "Thank YOU!!! Galeon rocks, I'm so glad I've ditched Mozilla. But please, please don't develop this great browser to death. Small (and standards compliant) is beautiful.
Nope, he revealed himself to be a complete professional, who wasn't going to put up with that kind of BS. I would have done, nearly the same thing. Remember, a job interview is a two-way process. The employer is checking you our as a potential employee, but you are also checking them out as a potential employer. The guy very quickly decided they weren't up to his standards and terminated the interview. What's the problem with that?
It would be more beautiful if they threaten legal action. Saying to Sorkin that the if he "wants to avoid the expense of having to hire a lawyer.....that he must take down those links.
Yes, but the problem is that to threaten legal action you must find something that is actionable. True, framing someone else's site in such a way as to suggest to the viewer that the information comes from your site might give rise to liability under the tort of 'passing off.' However, I am at a loss to imagine what legal avenues would be available against a site that merely references other sites in the way his does. There is no contractual relationship, there is no species of intellectual property that is being infringed, no tort, maybe they better get the politicians to create some new cybercrime for them.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all. It's simply a matter of refusing a visa request, no-one is being held in custody. Yet.
Actually its a 'writ.'
Yes but any decision not refusing to give up an individual to a human rights violating state, would be challenged at the European Court of Human Rights. And one imagines, reversed.
Yes, but not in any relevant way, given the question being adressed was the constitutionality of trial in absentia.
Umm considering they are both presently not in custody, where do you see the Habeas Corpus issue coming in?
Unbelievable, they have been playing computer games for over 20 years and it hasn't killed them yet?
Yup me too, but I always figured that was because I was too poor to get into debt, ie no bank in its right mind would lend me a red cent!
Well in that case you should be modded down as being Offtopic. This case is about whether the law is a 'bad' law, ie whether it is ultra vires. There is no question of 'intepreting' this piece of legislation, only of deciding whether it has been enacted outside the grant of power outlined in the Constitutions.
My feeling is that the 'harmonization' argument will win the day. Ie. the court will probably say something like this: "Yes, a series of mala fides extentions of terms can amount in practice to a limitless grant such as would offend the requirement of 'for a limited term.' However, given that this extention merely brings domestic law in line with the term of copyright elsewhere, especially in the context of the increasing internationalization of IP, this particular extention to term is bona fides. The 'Progress of Sciences & Arts' argument will be resolved by reference to publishers interests.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong!
Nobody forced him ... Why excatly was he sitting in one place for 86 hours again?
Well it had to happen folks, THEY are landing! Let's hope they mean to share this planet with our race!
Where on earth do you live, where it is up to lawyers to keep laws around (even after they've been 'tossed'). Here in the West, we have these things called legislatures, whose job it is to write and to repeal laws. Even though these legislature are nominally democratically elected (ie. determined by Media Barons), if you are amoung the "small amount of people with a lot of money", that wants a certain law kept on the books, or indeed created, you simply do so by purchasing a block of members of these legislatures. This practice goes under the name 'Campaign Financing.'
Only to people with a modicum of knowledge of atmospheric science.
In case you hadn't noticed, the first two, at least, are on the endangered species list in 'America' at the moment. As for the third, well God alone knows.
The guy said, until they could get the rights, which clearly involves the assumption that copyright still runs. Maybe Adams did not want his work butchered by Hollywood, and they had to wait for him to die before they could get the rights. Clear now?
Well, no and yes. The Australian Constitution is largely based on the US Constitution, but does not include anything resembling the Bill of Rights. There is no explicit right of free speech written into the Constitution.
However, in a number of cases, most famously Aust. Capital TV v C'th, the High Court discovered an implicit "Freedom of Political Communication", woven into the fabric of the Constitution, (ie. since the constitution sets up a representative democracy, there must be a presumption of a politically informed electorate, and this implies a right to be informed.)
Note that this freedom of communication is restricted to political matters ('political' as it relates to the electoral process). It seems unlikely, for example, that a pornograper could argue for constitutional protection under this principle.
Yup, I've seen a reproduction of the balance sheet from ford, numbers of deaths, injuries etc, all tallied up against potential liability, and then the bottom line calculation of cost of modifications needed to alleviate the problem. Truely shocking.
McDonalds made no such calculationsOK, I don't have any access to the evidence brought at that trial, so I shall defer to your greater knowledge. It remains, true, does it not, that the apparently excessive exemplary damages awarded in that case, were the result of McDonalds' failure to change their practices despite repeated injuries of a similar nature (presumably they felt that colder coffee would adversly affect sales). While this is not as shocking as the behaviour of Ford, it is not entirely dissimilar.
Learn just a tiny little bit about law before you go spouting your mouth off. They are banning high G force rides, which sounds like they are making it an offence (ie criminal law, public prosecutors). As it stands now, the rememdy is a civil one, (ie negligence law, ambulance chasers.) You don't need statutes to sue, tort law will do just fine, thankyou very much.
Chances are this law will result in less death and injury, which is a loss for the legal eagles.
The McDonalds coffee example is the most badly chosen one I can think of. There were literally dozens of people who got badly burnt by McDonalds coffee before the old lady got her genitalia burnt off. McDonalds calculated that it was cheaper to settle these cases individually than to reduce the temperature of the coffee to a safe level (hot coffee is supposed to keep longer). Any corporation that calculates their profits on a liability vs personal injury (or death) basis deserves to get hit HARD. Any jury that see evidence like that will. McDonalds got what they deserved, simple.
Depends whether you're using Netscape, Mozilla, Galeon, whatever. It should be in the same directory as prefs.js, should be easy to find.
find ~ -name '*.js'I have heard this described, with some justitification, as giving someone gonorrhaea to cure them of syphilis. Unfortunately it is becoming clearer that global warming is a reality and that (despite what an undue number of slashdotters like to believe), the main suspect is anthropogenic carbon dioxide. Given the paucity of alternative candidates,it may be that nuclear is in fact the lesser of two evils, and the only realistic path to take.
But please! Put the reactors and the waste dumps in someone else's backyard.
dont be an idiot. If you're going to nit pick my use of the word WAR, at least look up a definition or something I hardly need look up a defintion. I'm giving you one. Admittedly rebellion against the state is often termed a 'civil war,' but legally this is better thought of as an insurrection. Civil war might also occur when the claims to state power within a nation become confused. Since you want a defintion lets just look in the most obvious place, the OED: I. 1. a. Hostile contention by means of armed forces, carried on between nations, states, or rulers, or between parties in the same nation or state; the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state. Doesn't leave much room for an attack against some foreign secret society, the very existence of which has now been brought into question, does it? Let me reitterate, 9/11 was not an act of war, it was an act of terrorism. The purpetrators are not lawful combatants, they are criminals.
How come you think we're not at war? What exactly was that 9-11 thing? Was it all a big joke? It was a highly successful act of terrorism. It was not and act of war. War occurs when hostilities arise between two (or more) states . Al-Quaeda, (assuming they were responsible), is not a state. Is that really so difficult to understand? The War On Terrorism, like the War On Drugs, is merely rhetorical -- a marketing device. The war in Afghanistan, liek the Gulf War, (and its possible sequel) are wars, real wars.
You haven't been paying attention have you. There's this little thing called 'Intellectual Property' ...
On the other hand, it is arguable that no-one ought to be able to own information. Given the importance of the 'information economy,' however, any such arguments are sure to fall on deaf ears.
Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.Well perhaps not in nature, but certainly in a society of laws:
The Congress shall have PowerThe Galeon developments are nice. Yes, but what is even nicer is that Galeon is Mozilla without all the bloat. To the Galeon developers I say this: "Thank YOU!!! Galeon rocks, I'm so glad I've ditched Mozilla. But please, please don't develop this great browser to death. Small (and standards compliant) is beautiful.
Nope, he revealed himself to be a complete professional, who wasn't going to put up with that kind of BS. I would have done, nearly the same thing. Remember, a job interview is a two-way process. The employer is checking you our as a potential employee, but you are also checking them out as a potential employer. The guy very quickly decided they weren't up to his standards and terminated the interview. What's the problem with that?
Yes, but the problem is that to threaten legal action you must find something that is actionable. True, framing someone else's site in such a way as to suggest to the viewer that the information comes from your site might give rise to liability under the tort of 'passing off.' However, I am at a loss to imagine what legal avenues would be available against a site that merely references other sites in the way his does. There is no contractual relationship, there is no species of intellectual property that is being infringed, no tort, maybe they better get the politicians to create some new cybercrime for them.