Re:BZZT! Canada still constitutional monarchy
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
One word answer: NO
Nobody does a "strict interpretation" of the Law in the sense you mean it. That alone means you don't understand how Common Law works.
Re:BZZT! Canada still constitutional monarchy
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
I am sorry, I just can't resist setting the facts straight when I see such a convoluted and misinformed lie.
The Queen IS the ceremonial head, however legaly speaking Queen Canada is a separate entity from Queen UK.
And besides, Queen Canada and her "representative" have no autority whatsoever on Canadian legislation and the like. They have to do as they are told by the elected officials. It is strongly enforced in the unwritten rules of the Commonwealth. If you don't believe this please read some Private Council decisions on constitution dating back from the first half of last century.
There is no such thing as a Queen veto in Canada, the same way there effectively is no Senate veto. All these ceremonial powers would be overthrown by the Supreme Court if ever someone would try to abuse of them.
Lastly, on the Supreme Court of Canada: it has been the highest court in this country since Westminster's Act in 1924.
Therefore Canada is independant through the means of its executive, legislative, judiciary and military systems.
BCU in Vancouver has a strong video codec team. RealNetworks and Microsoft used to recruit there. They have a whole bunch of doctorate and post-doctorate students from all around the world.
You might want to revise your statement. There is no contradiction here. ComputerXpress vs. John Doe is about proving defamation when it is directed against you while the present case states that the degree of protection for the online journalist is equal to his print counterparts.
One case talks about a defense mecanism, the other defines a burden of proof for defamation.
This court finds that Narconews is a media defendant and is entitled to heightened protection under the First Amendment," wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Paula Omansky, citing New York Times v. Sullivan.[emphasis from me]
Everybody benefits from the protection of the First Amendment, but journalist have a higher protection, for the public's benefit.
Anyways, all of this is very theoretical as both parties concerned are based in Mexico. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect this decision will have in reality.
A contract does not need to be written. Unless there are special rules or regulations requiring a written contract for a specific kind of transactions, a binding agreement is spontaneous (some states REQUIRE written agreements for residential leases..). For example if I buy a case of Bud at the 7/11, a contract got executed in the form of a purchase. A case of beer was exchanged against money. This is a MUTUAL agreement, because the store agreed to sell me something at the same time I agreed to pay for it.
Now, what happens in a situation like an EULA? It can be viewed as an imposed agreement on the user. However the user ALWAYS has the option to turn the EULA down and bring the software back to the store. It is perfectly legal, as long as you have a way to READ the implied contract BEFORE you get to the point of no return (i.e. you opening the package).
This is not the worse case of an imposed agreement. Read all the warning signs on the walls when you are in public places, or read the back of a concert ticket. All of these represent conditions that you accept to respect and assume by purchasing an event ticket for example. This is OK as long as you were the one who bought the ticket. But what happens if you invite a friend to a ballgame and he gets severly injured on the final homerun? He didn't purchase the ticket, but by using it to enter the stadium he implicitly agreed to the terms and conditions imposed by the event organizers. And that's how it works.
I hope that with this in mind you can see that an EULA really is not on the border of legality. It is perfectly sustainable and defendable. There's no way around it.
I believe that we can find a serious 'ulterior motive' to this story being brought up at this time. The Arabs always present themselves as the origin of Modern Civilisation, that was their motto dating back from the Gulf war.
How can a modern country bomb a civilisation, where civilisation has begun? With this new space-attack theory we are attempting to whipe out all previous beliefs and show the world that Arabs are not the descendants of who they pretend they are. The same way Italians are not descending from the Romans and so on..
The marvels and subtilities of modern day propaganda..
It is a fallacy to pretend that nowadays broadband access does not make a noticeable difference compared to a 56k connection.
I believe that Dvorak is a little bit too infuriated with his DSL problems (hey, aren't we all) to make a honest and objective point on that issue. The thruth is that installing a DSL connection is a real pain in the neck and it can be very frustrating to deal with the incompetence of providers and their tech 'support' departments.
But then again isn't it a little bit dishonest of a former high-profile journalist desperatly in need of attention to publish nonsense like that just because he can't measure the difference?
56k might be considered as a standard for web development, but high quality video will never make it into that arena, and I really wonder where his 'tests' where conducted.
If you want to donate to a charity, go ahead and do it. But don't let this nutcase profit from your original receipt.
He found an online revenu loophole: push lots of kiddy porn ads and bogus products to build up recurrent revenue while maintaining a stable flow of tax deductions coming in through the back door.
way to go...
Slashdot Mirror
One word answer: NO
Nobody does a "strict interpretation" of the Law in the sense you mean it. That alone means you don't understand how Common Law works.
I am sorry, I just can't resist setting the facts straight when I see such a convoluted and misinformed lie.
The Queen IS the ceremonial head, however legaly speaking Queen Canada is a separate entity from Queen UK.
And besides, Queen Canada and her "representative" have no autority whatsoever on Canadian legislation and the like. They have to do as they are told by the elected officials. It is strongly enforced in the unwritten rules of the Commonwealth. If you don't believe this please read some Private Council decisions on constitution dating back from the first half of last century.
There is no such thing as a Queen veto in Canada, the same way there effectively is no Senate veto. All these ceremonial powers would be overthrown by the Supreme Court if ever someone would try to abuse of them.
Lastly, on the Supreme Court of Canada: it has been the highest court in this country since Westminster's Act in 1924.
Therefore Canada is independant through the means of its executive, legislative, judiciary and military systems.
BCU in Vancouver has a strong video codec team. RealNetworks and Microsoft used to recruit there. They have a whole bunch of doctorate and post-doctorate students from all around the world.
Give it to Canadians, they're nice people.
Still looking for Al Gore's original post, the one where he presents his blueprints for the Internet.
You might want to revise your statement. There is no contradiction here. ComputerXpress vs. John Doe is about proving defamation when it is directed against you while the present case states that the degree of protection for the online journalist is equal to his print counterparts.
One case talks about a defense mecanism, the other defines a burden of proof for defamation.
This court finds that Narconews is a media defendant and is entitled to heightened protection under the First Amendment," wrote New York Supreme Court Justice Paula Omansky, citing New York Times v. Sullivan. [emphasis from me]
Everybody benefits from the protection of the First Amendment, but journalist have a higher protection, for the public's benefit.
Anyways, all of this is very theoretical as both parties concerned are based in Mexico. It will be interesting to see what kind of effect this decision will have in reality.
A contract does not need to be written. Unless there are special rules or regulations requiring a written contract for a specific kind of transactions, a binding agreement is spontaneous (some states REQUIRE written agreements for residential leases..). For example if I buy a case of Bud at the 7/11, a contract got executed in the form of a purchase. A case of beer was exchanged against money. This is a MUTUAL agreement, because the store agreed to sell me something at the same time I agreed to pay for it.
Now, what happens in a situation like an EULA? It can be viewed as an imposed agreement on the user. However the user ALWAYS has the option to turn the EULA down and bring the software back to the store. It is perfectly legal, as long as you have a way to READ the implied contract BEFORE you get to the point of no return (i.e. you opening the package).
This is not the worse case of an imposed agreement. Read all the warning signs on the walls when you are in public places, or read the back of a concert ticket. All of these represent conditions that you accept to respect and assume by purchasing an event ticket for example. This is OK as long as you were the one who bought the ticket. But what happens if you invite a friend to a ballgame and he gets severly injured on the final homerun? He didn't purchase the ticket, but by using it to enter the stadium he implicitly agreed to the terms and conditions imposed by the event organizers. And that's how it works.
I hope that with this in mind you can see that an EULA really is not on the border of legality. It is perfectly sustainable and defendable. There's no way around it.
And why was this modded as a troll? This is clearly a case of POWER abuse on this person's FREEDOM of expression.
yeah
How can a modern country bomb a civilisation, where civilisation has begun? With this new space-attack theory we are attempting to whipe out all previous beliefs and show the world that Arabs are not the descendants of who they pretend they are. The same way Italians are not descending from the Romans and so on..
The marvels and subtilities of modern day propaganda..
It is a fallacy to pretend that nowadays broadband access does not make a noticeable difference compared to a 56k connection.
I believe that Dvorak is a little bit too infuriated with his DSL problems (hey, aren't we all) to make a honest and objective point on that issue. The thruth is that installing a DSL connection is a real pain in the neck and it can be very frustrating to deal with the incompetence of providers and their tech 'support' departments.
But then again isn't it a little bit dishonest of a former high-profile journalist desperatly in need of attention to publish nonsense like that just because he can't measure the difference?
56k might be considered as a standard for web development, but high quality video will never make it into that arena, and I really wonder where his 'tests' where conducted.
If you want to donate to a charity, go ahead and do it. But don't let this nutcase profit from your original receipt. He found an online revenu loophole: push lots of kiddy porn ads and bogus products to build up recurrent revenue while maintaining a stable flow of tax deductions coming in through the back door. way to go...