The taxi medallion issue comes up frequently here on Slashdot, especially in support of Uber - except many countries dont have medallions or the costs associated with them. Here in the UK, to become a licensed taxi in my local area, it will cost you less than £3000 in fees every four years - wheres the excuse for Uber to be operating unlicensed in the same location?
It violates what rights? Even in the US you don't have the right to earn money through illegal means. And you also don't have the right to always operate a vehicle on the public highways. So what rights are being violated?
They should be making their living legally, not illegally - the same would happen in any other circumstance where you are earning money through illegal means...
Your argumentation is completely wrong. An EU company is not required to follow any special EU laws for its operations in the US, only US laws apply (except for accounting and other stuff, which are usually fixed via ownership constructions where one company owns another one).
Uh, completely and utterly wrong - EU companies are still required to follow EU law when operating in other countries.
Take for example bribery and financial conduct laws - what may be legal in the foreign jurisdiction isn't necessarily legal in their home countries jurisdiction, and there have been examples of EU companies being investigated and prosecuted within the EU for their actions in non-EU countries.
However the USA tries to force american companies that operate in the EU to follow not only EU law, which is a no brainer, but also US law, which is idiotic.
If they dont want to follow the law of the country that they are incorporated in, they can move their HQ elsewhere in the world. Simple as that.
They aren't forcing US law into all other countries, they are forcing their own citizens and entities to follow domestic law.
There is no such thing as an "international company", there are only companies that conduct business internationally - and yes, the US government can force US companies to break foreign laws, its up to the company to reconcile that conflict with their business.
I don't see this issue coming up when we are talking about US or EU companies being prosecuted for bribery in foreign nations, even when it wouldn't be considered bribery in those foreign nations. This isn't a new issue, companies have had to deal with differences in domestic and foreign jurisdictions ever since they ceased to have the weight of a military behind them (think the East India Trading Company).
The problem is, if there is no ownership over the celestial body, there is nothing stopping a third party from stepping in once the hard work of prospecting and removing the overburden has been accomplished and doing the easy mining - after all the original mining company doesn't own the land so they can't stop someone else mining it at the same time as them.
In reality the US isn't trying to force anything, while the EU is trying to force foreign companies to solely follow EU rules for activities conducted within the EU.
The problem is, EU law does not exempt foreign companies from their domestic jurisdictions, so their home countries can still require them to follow their laws - which can bring them into conflict with the EU.
Unless an agreement is signed between the countries, its up to the companies to resolve the conflict between the two jurisdictions they are simultaneously operating in. They can't simply ignore one jurisdiction because the other jurisdiction says they have to.
Who is imposing US law on those nations? The US is imposing US law on US companies doing business in a foreign country. Its up to the US company to sort out the conflict between US law and local law, not the US government.
With all due respect, its not down to the US government to accept that US companies have to obey foreign laws - the conflict is something that solely needs to be handled by the companies in question, they have to decide how they can follow both sets of laws if required to.
A US company operating in a foreign country doesn't suddenly fall outside US jurisdiction - if they do find themselves in conflict between the laws of the country they (or their owning umbrella company) are incorporated in and the laws of the country they are doing business in, then its up to the company to decide whether they can resolve that or leave one of the jurisdictions (stop doing business in that country or change the country of incorporation or ownership).
The EU passing laws requiring foreign companies to solely follow EU jurisdiction doesn't solve anything - it doesn't stop the companies being in the jurisdiction of their home country, all it does is create further conflict.
The only thing that can satisfy this situation are completely, entirely and utterly unconnected companies - Amazon SARL having no ownership or connection to Amazon.com Inc. If there is any ownership or similar connection between the two companies, its entirely legitimate for Amazon.com Inc's legal jurisdiction to cascade down the chain of ownership.
The point is that its science orientated with a story wrapped around it - sure, the science needs to be fudged to allow for the story, but its basically one bit of science after another. Very much like a science based MacGuyver...
KC-135-> competition for the KC-46 went into multiple lawsuits and an $800million charge for Boeing, Now theyre working a new KC-X procurement because of problems with the KC-46
Not sure what you mean by this, but the KC-X contest went through several stages and was eventually won by Boeing with the KC-46 a few years ago - the first aircraft are already being produced, and there is currently no issue with the contract or procurement.
There is a whole fucking spectrum of action that can be taken between "do nothing" and "arrest person, imprison person, ruin persons life".
How about removing the device from his possession if you are unsure - return it with an apology when it has been verified by a science teacher or something.
This is the sort of incident where everyone involved needs to be individually sued into oblivion, from the first teacher who raised the issue, to the arresting police officer, to the head teacher who made the suspension and expulsion threats. These people should be made to grovel for forgiveness for the rest of their fucking lives because this sort of over reaction is a disgrace.
How about Spain under the dictatorship of Franco? He was a fervent Christian and Catholic and had many people executed solely for their opposing religious views.
Hitlers manipulation of Christianity was also one of the reasons Franco kept out of WW2.
Her comment reads as if someone went through all candidates and rejected *all* those with opinions that agreed with Pao's, which is impossible - the jury is selected from a pool by both sides being able to dismiss a certain number of candidates until the pool fits the jury box. This means that while KP's lawyers could reject those with strong feelings about sexism existing in tech, Pao's lawyers similarly used her selections to load the jury with candidates that would be beneficial for her.
A jury is constructed from "peers", not from "people with beliefs that solely support my case".
She got a fair trial, she's just playing the "unfair" card because she lost.
Pao is already on the hook for a Judge-determined amount of legal costs after the case was decided in KP's favour - the Judge did reduce the amount of costs awarded however, for various reasons. The amount awarded was about $276,000.
KP then offered to forgo recovering the costs if Pao didn't appeal. She made a counter offer of KP paying her $2.7Million to go away. KP rejected that offer, Pao appealed the case, then appealed against the costs, saying she shouldn't have to pay as it "sent a bad message".
Now she has decided to drop it all and pay KP the costs. The only interesting thing left in this case is if KP have taken the deal off the table, will they let Pao off the hook for the costs or not...?
Like contractors: - Uber drivers set their own hours - Uber drivers own their own equipment - Uber drivers are not required to work full time, or a minimum or maximum number of hours - Uber drivers do not work on Uber's premises - Uber drivers are not directly supervised
Quite a few employees would meet some or even all of those criteria.
Working long enough to finish the current job is common. Variable or flexible working hours is common. Bring Your Own Device is becoming common. Working from home is becoming common. Not having an office or a desk is already common for many many classes of employees, as is commuting to a customers location direct from home (there was even an EU court ruling on this just this week). Uber drivers are indeed directly supervised, as they are rated and can be blacklisted by the company.
I don't see anything in your list which cannot also apply to existing employees the world over.
I thought the point was that "they wanted ordinary people to be in control of the democracy, not a rich elite", which is demonstrably false...
Money has always played a massive part in politics - if you think that should change, then fair enough, but citing history as a supporting prop doesn't work.
They wanted ordinary people to be in control of the democracy, not a rich elite.
John Rutledge - lawyer, Judge and travelled to England to complete his law studies. Was also a monied land owner who came from "old money".
Edmund Randolph - lawyer and monied land owner in Virginia, inheriting the estate of the Randolph family.
Nathaniel Gorham - merchant and monied land owner in Massachusetts via the $13.9 million Phelps and Gorham Purchase.
Oliver Ellsworth - lawyer and monied land owner, had multiple degrees.
James Wilson - lawyer.
Which of the above, who wrote the Constitution, were "ordinary people"?
Lets not forget that almost all states had a "property ownership requirement" for voting, which cut out a *massive* number of your "ordinary people" from being able to vote in Presidential and Congressional elections.
You have always had to have a significant amount of money to reach the higher echelons of US government, ever since day one.
So? Its the same progression mass media has undergone since it was first created - even with radio, TV and Internet, news reporting has increased in speed and acceptable delays have decreased to the point where if you break a news story minutes before another outlet then that is considered a success.
We have gone from daily news bulletins to hourly news bulletins to constant news channels - and now we have the internet where anyone can break some major news with a few lines of text as the event happens...
So all you are seeing is the very same progression that has gone on since the first mass produced news leaflet was distributed in Roman times - and tech has constantly driven the speed of delivery.
Newspapers were in regular print in the Americas during the 18th century, so the founding fathers would have been well aware of mass media as it had already started.
Here in the UK, developers are on the hook for flood risk minimisation etc for years afterward, and have to pay a bond which they only get back after so many years without any flood damage occurring in the development - the bond is set at a level where if they spend the money on the flood defences the developer will profit if they get the bond back.
Plus, "flood plains" are often a misnomer - my house is in a flood plain, except the river is 200 metres away and 8 metres below ground level, and if it flooded then the entire city would be in a heap of trouble. It hasn't flooded in 150 years, and the defences are such that flooding will be done upriver outside the city, but still my house is classed as being on a flood plain...
Slashdot Mirror
The taxi medallion issue comes up frequently here on Slashdot, especially in support of Uber - except many countries dont have medallions or the costs associated with them. Here in the UK, to become a licensed taxi in my local area, it will cost you less than £3000 in fees every four years - wheres the excuse for Uber to be operating unlicensed in the same location?
It violates what rights? Even in the US you don't have the right to earn money through illegal means. And you also don't have the right to always operate a vehicle on the public highways. So what rights are being violated?
So you remove their only way to make a living?
They should be making their living legally, not illegally - the same would happen in any other circumstance where you are earning money through illegal means...
We europeans lough our asses off about such stupidity.
Really? Try going abroad to have sex with underage children in a country where that is legal.
That sort of thing is prosecuted in the EU, regardless of it being legal in the foreign jurisdiction. Its also prosecuted in the US as well.
Your argumentation is completely wrong. An EU company is not required to follow any special EU laws for its operations in the US, only US laws apply (except for accounting and other stuff, which are usually fixed via ownership constructions where one company owns another one).
Uh, completely and utterly wrong - EU companies are still required to follow EU law when operating in other countries.
Take for example bribery and financial conduct laws - what may be legal in the foreign jurisdiction isn't necessarily legal in their home countries jurisdiction, and there have been examples of EU companies being investigated and prosecuted within the EU for their actions in non-EU countries.
However the USA tries to force american companies that operate in the EU to follow not only EU law, which is a no brainer, but also US law, which is idiotic.
If they dont want to follow the law of the country that they are incorporated in, they can move their HQ elsewhere in the world. Simple as that.
They aren't forcing US law into all other countries, they are forcing their own citizens and entities to follow domestic law.
There is no such thing as an "international company", there are only companies that conduct business internationally - and yes, the US government can force US companies to break foreign laws, its up to the company to reconcile that conflict with their business.
I don't see this issue coming up when we are talking about US or EU companies being prosecuted for bribery in foreign nations, even when it wouldn't be considered bribery in those foreign nations. This isn't a new issue, companies have had to deal with differences in domestic and foreign jurisdictions ever since they ceased to have the weight of a military behind them (think the East India Trading Company).
The problem is, if there is no ownership over the celestial body, there is nothing stopping a third party from stepping in once the hard work of prospecting and removing the overburden has been accomplished and doing the easy mining - after all the original mining company doesn't own the land so they can't stop someone else mining it at the same time as them.
In reality the US isn't trying to force anything, while the EU is trying to force foreign companies to solely follow EU rules for activities conducted within the EU.
The problem is, EU law does not exempt foreign companies from their domestic jurisdictions, so their home countries can still require them to follow their laws - which can bring them into conflict with the EU.
Unless an agreement is signed between the countries, its up to the companies to resolve the conflict between the two jurisdictions they are simultaneously operating in. They can't simply ignore one jurisdiction because the other jurisdiction says they have to.
Who is imposing US law on those nations? The US is imposing US law on US companies doing business in a foreign country. Its up to the US company to sort out the conflict between US law and local law, not the US government.
With all due respect, its not down to the US government to accept that US companies have to obey foreign laws - the conflict is something that solely needs to be handled by the companies in question, they have to decide how they can follow both sets of laws if required to.
A US company operating in a foreign country doesn't suddenly fall outside US jurisdiction - if they do find themselves in conflict between the laws of the country they (or their owning umbrella company) are incorporated in and the laws of the country they are doing business in, then its up to the company to decide whether they can resolve that or leave one of the jurisdictions (stop doing business in that country or change the country of incorporation or ownership).
The EU passing laws requiring foreign companies to solely follow EU jurisdiction doesn't solve anything - it doesn't stop the companies being in the jurisdiction of their home country, all it does is create further conflict.
The only thing that can satisfy this situation are completely, entirely and utterly unconnected companies - Amazon SARL having no ownership or connection to Amazon.com Inc. If there is any ownership or similar connection between the two companies, its entirely legitimate for Amazon.com Inc's legal jurisdiction to cascade down the chain of ownership.
The point is that its science orientated with a story wrapped around it - sure, the science needs to be fudged to allow for the story, but its basically one bit of science after another. Very much like a science based MacGuyver...
KC-135-> competition for the KC-46 went into multiple lawsuits and an $800million charge for Boeing, Now theyre working a new KC-X procurement because of problems with the KC-46
Not sure what you mean by this, but the KC-X contest went through several stages and was eventually won by Boeing with the KC-46 a few years ago - the first aircraft are already being produced, and there is currently no issue with the contract or procurement.
There is a whole fucking spectrum of action that can be taken between "do nothing" and "arrest person, imprison person, ruin persons life".
How about removing the device from his possession if you are unsure - return it with an apology when it has been verified by a science teacher or something.
This is the sort of incident where everyone involved needs to be individually sued into oblivion, from the first teacher who raised the issue, to the arresting police officer, to the head teacher who made the suspension and expulsion threats. These people should be made to grovel for forgiveness for the rest of their fucking lives because this sort of over reaction is a disgrace.
How about Spain under the dictatorship of Franco? He was a fervent Christian and Catholic and had many people executed solely for their opposing religious views.
Hitlers manipulation of Christianity was also one of the reasons Franco kept out of WW2.
She brought the court case, not KP - so people should cut the bitching about who had deep pockets...
Her comment reads as if someone went through all candidates and rejected *all* those with opinions that agreed with Pao's, which is impossible - the jury is selected from a pool by both sides being able to dismiss a certain number of candidates until the pool fits the jury box. This means that while KP's lawyers could reject those with strong feelings about sexism existing in tech, Pao's lawyers similarly used her selections to load the jury with candidates that would be beneficial for her.
A jury is constructed from "peers", not from "people with beliefs that solely support my case".
She got a fair trial, she's just playing the "unfair" card because she lost.
Pao is already on the hook for a Judge-determined amount of legal costs after the case was decided in KP's favour - the Judge did reduce the amount of costs awarded however, for various reasons. The amount awarded was about $276,000.
KP then offered to forgo recovering the costs if Pao didn't appeal. She made a counter offer of KP paying her $2.7Million to go away. KP rejected that offer, Pao appealed the case, then appealed against the costs, saying she shouldn't have to pay as it "sent a bad message".
Now she has decided to drop it all and pay KP the costs. The only interesting thing left in this case is if KP have taken the deal off the table, will they let Pao off the hook for the costs or not...?
Like contractors:
- Uber drivers set their own hours
- Uber drivers own their own equipment
- Uber drivers are not required to work full time, or a minimum or maximum number of hours
- Uber drivers do not work on Uber's premises
- Uber drivers are not directly supervised
Quite a few employees would meet some or even all of those criteria.
Working long enough to finish the current job is common. Variable or flexible working hours is common. Bring Your Own Device is becoming common. Working from home is becoming common. Not having an office or a desk is already common for many many classes of employees, as is commuting to a customers location direct from home (there was even an EU court ruling on this just this week). Uber drivers are indeed directly supervised, as they are rated and can be blacklisted by the company.
I don't see anything in your list which cannot also apply to existing employees the world over.
I thought the point was that "they wanted ordinary people to be in control of the democracy, not a rich elite", which is demonstrably false...
Money has always played a massive part in politics - if you think that should change, then fair enough, but citing history as a supporting prop doesn't work.
They wanted ordinary people to be in control of the democracy, not a rich elite.
John Rutledge - lawyer, Judge and travelled to England to complete his law studies. Was also a monied land owner who came from "old money".
Edmund Randolph - lawyer and monied land owner in Virginia, inheriting the estate of the Randolph family.
Nathaniel Gorham - merchant and monied land owner in Massachusetts via the $13.9 million Phelps and Gorham Purchase.
Oliver Ellsworth - lawyer and monied land owner, had multiple degrees.
James Wilson - lawyer.
Which of the above, who wrote the Constitution, were "ordinary people"?
Lets not forget that almost all states had a "property ownership requirement" for voting, which cut out a *massive* number of your "ordinary people" from being able to vote in Presidential and Congressional elections.
You have always had to have a significant amount of money to reach the higher echelons of US government, ever since day one.
So? Its the same progression mass media has undergone since it was first created - even with radio, TV and Internet, news reporting has increased in speed and acceptable delays have decreased to the point where if you break a news story minutes before another outlet then that is considered a success.
We have gone from daily news bulletins to hourly news bulletins to constant news channels - and now we have the internet where anyone can break some major news with a few lines of text as the event happens...
So all you are seeing is the very same progression that has gone on since the first mass produced news leaflet was distributed in Roman times - and tech has constantly driven the speed of delivery.
Newspapers were in regular print in the Americas during the 18th century, so the founding fathers would have been well aware of mass media as it had already started.
"Flood plains" have nothing to do with sea level rises...
Here in the UK, developers are on the hook for flood risk minimisation etc for years afterward, and have to pay a bond which they only get back after so many years without any flood damage occurring in the development - the bond is set at a level where if they spend the money on the flood defences the developer will profit if they get the bond back.
Plus, "flood plains" are often a misnomer - my house is in a flood plain, except the river is 200 metres away and 8 metres below ground level, and if it flooded then the entire city would be in a heap of trouble. It hasn't flooded in 150 years, and the defences are such that flooding will be done upriver outside the city, but still my house is classed as being on a flood plain...
Oh you are definitely going to have to provide a citation for that, since piracy has been used to mean copyright infringement for hundreds of years.