That sounds like it only applies to Spanish Citizens while abroad. For example, if a Spaniard kills someone in Morocco while on vacation, and returns to Spain, they may be tried for the murder he committed while in Morocco. It may require someone from Morocco to come over - a witness or something.
But no Spanish laws apply to a Moroccan running a web site in Morocco offering pirated software that a Spaniard downloads while in Spain. (they may go after the Spaniard however)
Well yes, any country can outlaw anything, anywhere. But in almost all cases, they will have no power to enforce their law outside their borders.
For example, France could have a law that says anyone that wears their hat on backward can be thrown in jail, regardless of where they are at the time they commit the crime, and "must come back or be taken back to France to face justice."
But most sensible countries understand that it's arrogant, presumptuous, and more importantly, generally a waste of time, to tell someone in another country that they're actively breaking a local law, or to demand that another country hand their citizen over to their zealous justice system.
Unfortunately, now and then we see cases where someone does something that's legal where they are, but illegal somewhere else, and then travels back to the country where the prior action was illegal, and find themselves arrested. And in VERY extreme and rare cases thankfully, they are basically kidnapped (forcefully deported out of another country, and taken against their will to the other country) and then set on trial. (I think we could call this "being kim-dotcomm'ed) I'm very much against that practice, but it does happen from time to time. And sometimes they even get away with it.
Normally this wouldn't be an issue that France would be getting too ballsy with, but there's a LOT of money at stake, and nothing "greases the wheels of justice" quite like a fistfull of cash.
Bottom line here I think is it would be a very bad risk right now for anyone that could be considered "a legal representation of Twitter" to step foot in France. (board member, ceo, etc) It'd be unlikely to pan out in the end, but they definitely get arrested (or at least get their passport taken for awhile) and get things dragged out a bit before someone with authority started publicly lambasting and beating some common sense into the court that's trying to make good on their threat.
The constraints of the question are pretty well defined. We're talking about popular music, with common codecs at bitrates used by online music stores.
isn't it difficult to talk with such a large mouthful of assumptions like that?
Though I think there is precedent against it, most (reasonable) countries' legal systems won't attempt to hold someone liable for crimes described by their legal system, committed while outside their country. Interpol (I believe) and extradition treaties can work around this however. Generally extradition is only to send you back to where you were when you committed the crime, in case you try to leave the country to escape local justice.
As others above have pointed out, if anyone, anywhere in the world, could be held liable for doing something which is illegal somewhere else in the world, we'd all be in jail. Imagine if Shari law could be enforced in the USA for example.
The internet shouldn't be an exception here. Twitter is providing a service, and if your country's citizens are reaching out and obtaining that service from outside your borders, holding the overseas company liable is silly. If you want to go after someone, go after your own citizens. Or go the great firewall route.
This is like Iran trying to sue some company in the USA for providing instructions for how to use contraceptives on their USA-hosted website.
No you can't. Not with any reasonably modern encoder and bitrates above 256.
And there's the rub of course. That general of a question can't be answered yes/no. It depends on a variety of factors, most notably the content, the codec, the bitrate, and the playback.
I don't even know why this article submission got accepted. It's like asking "can you win a race against a Toyoda?" where do you even start with that....?
Maybe the term is only familiar in retail and customer service? When a customer or client makes repeated, urgent (to them) phone calls to you in rapid succession, it's referred to as "blowing up your phone". Or, if you are the one answering the phone at the IT help desk when the internet connection goes down, your phone WILL get blown up. As in, never stops ringing, rings again the instant you hang up, etc.
instead of charging a typical amount for your software (say $70) and trying to lock it down yourself and go direct to customers, get on a store (like Apple's AppStore) that has a very reliable, unobtrusive, standardized, and reasonably effective (i.e. "friendly") DRM. Drop the cost, (down to say $20-25) and make up for it in the volume due to the lower cost AND due to being on a friendly store.
Software distribution is going to be almost exclusively digital download soon. And most people just aren't willing to shell out big dollars for a double-click, regardless of what it is. But if you can get your product in front of many eyes, and make it uber-easy to buy, you have a good shot at getting the volume to make up the difference.
Replace the word 'embarassing' with 'incriminating'.
Possibly, but not necessarily, or at least, not primarily. Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is the one witholding the information. He's an elected official whose job is probably more to collect campaign contributions than to actually serve the public.
He very likely discussed the content of that report with the "parties" he is protecting, and was told exactly where he wasn't going to be receiving any more money from if that evaluation wasn't buried. He's probably very well aware that it's going to get pried out of his hands and plastered on page 1 eventually, but this will at least give him a "but I tried to stop it!" when those parties blow up his phone, and he's hoping this will at least do a little damage control.
But things like that can turn and bite you. This may be a very big thorn in his side, come election day. Depending on how close the competition is, his opposition may drag this issue back above ground for a month of mud slinging. But money can really help to bury things. Depends on how much he can throw at it, and how deep it needs to go.
"Never give a man a gun unless you know where he's going to point it." Same goes for inviting in a team of investigators to get to the bottom of any mess you are even remotely related to. You'd better either make sure you're squeaky clean, or make sure their opinion is already properly paid for.
Knowledge and experience are not synonymous with skill. An experienced, trained monkey is still a monkey.
If all the monkey needs to do is push the same buttons over and over again, he'll probably do very well at it. He may even enjoy it. But if that's the kind of job they have you doing, that'd drive me crazy anyway. If that's all they want to replace you with, you're better off being replaced anyway, there's no future there for you. The monkey may end up actually having skill, or maybe not. What you train him to do may be all he ever does till the day he retires.
On the other hand, they may want you to train up their monkey so they can drop the maintenance cost of that project, to clear up the checkbook for the next project they're getting ready to start... using you. (keep you maintaining an established project, and hire a monkey to start the new project... or train the monkey to run the established project, and have YOU start the new one... they cost the same, which makes more sense?) That's what you want to see. Run around their company getting new projects off the ground and moving, train a monkey, hand it off, and on to the next project. That's a great way for a company to grow and for you to have stable business from them.
And make no mistake, the swine who are members of the US Supreme Court know who will line their pockets and they are the willing servants of those who will line their pockets.
And just how are they getting their pockets lined? These aren't elected officials, there are no campaign contributions. They sit till they retire, and then a new one gets appointed.
What's the difference between it being set in concrete by the supreme court and not challenging it at all?
appeals and scope. A decision by a small court somewhere is anywhere from mostly to totally irrelevant in another court in another place, particularly in another state. But when handling a case in a lower court, citing a decision made by a higher court on the same subject generally gets the lower court to make the same decision as the higher court did. So, ironically, the best way to broaden the scope of a good decision made in a lower court is to have someone appeal it, to a higher court. Then if that court upholds the decision, the scope of the ruling is increased. If this can be taken all the way to the supreme court, the scope is national.
Of course this also runs the risk of the good decision being overturned, either for legal or technicality reasons. And the SCOTUS is too busy to hear all appeals, they only hear the ones that have merit. (either the decision being appealed probably needs to be overturned due to injustice, or needs to be upheld so it goes national. (due to lower court decisions frequently going the wrong way on it in the past)
is it really too much effort for you to click on the link in the summary?
Actually, it's far more entertaining watching the hypocrisy of dozens of people reposting the exact same quote (after reading the many that have already done so) while wagging a finger at me.
In the end, it all balances out. I'm lazy for not reading the article too closely, and you're lazy for romping on the Reply button without bothering to scroll two inches down to see the ten others that have already said what you're about to repeat again. (see.sig)
In theory he could change those teachings. But it seems unlikely.
They don't pick a pope that's promising reform, they pick one that will carry on just like the previous popes. Religions appear to prefer stagnation, at least at their upper levels. I wonder if it has anything to do with their age? "Clinging to the past" seems to be a common hobby with most old farts;)
I like the "he has no previous experience" thing they mentioned. I don't think "have you ever been a pope before?" was part of the the interview...
So true. It'd be like if the US wanted to go into talks with China to agree to stop spying on each other. Really? That's just not going to go anywhere. These are just countries looking after their best interests abroad. Why should they stop? Give me one good reason. (morals don't count. morals never count on a national scale, only things that get results count where entire nations are concerned)
throwing gear away or giving it away. Just because you have it doesn't mean to have to, or should use it. If energy and space efficiency are important, you need to carefully consider what you are reusing. Sure, what you have now may have already fallen off the depreciation books, but if it's going to draw twice the power and take double the space that newer used kit would, it may not be the best option, even when the other options involve purchasing new or newer-used gear.
Not saying you need to do this, just recommending you keep an open mind and don't be afraid to do what needs to be done if you find it necessary.
You don't know you can trust a doctor. Doctors have been convicted of molesting their patients. They are no different to any other people.
That's like saying you (you, personally) shouldn't be able to trust your father because there are some fathers that have molested their children.
People "in a position of trust" are, by definition, people that you should be able to trust. That trust can be abused. Nothing is absolute. But we as a society try to keep those groups trustworthy. We won't get them all, but we should still try to keep the faith in them. Saying otherwise is like being that woman that was abused by her last boyfriend and now is afraid to date again. Trust can be abused, and lost in specific cases. But it doesn't mean the entire world cannot trust in general as a result.
It's a fairly well-established rule in personal relations, that you should be honest, but in most cases, avoid being "brutally honest". That's an example of how withholding information is widely considered something that can be a positive thing.
How is paying considerably higher premiums for life insurance in MY best interest?
So you're against being honest with your doctor because you want to scam your insurance provider? There's a proven statistical reason smokers should pay more for medical insurance - they, on the statistical average, ring up larger medical bills as a result of their drug habit. You want to trash your body, fine, it's yours to trash. I don't like your trying to trick the system into making me chip in for your intentionally unhealthy behavior.
(some might even call it "insurance fraud")
Though really your example isn't even valid to begin with. If your doctor can't figure out you're a smoker (and you smoke more than say, two packs a week) then you're going to be receiving some really crappy medical care from that quack.
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like it only applies to Spanish Citizens while abroad. For example, if a Spaniard kills someone in Morocco while on vacation, and returns to Spain, they may be tried for the murder he committed while in Morocco. It may require someone from Morocco to come over - a witness or something.
But no Spanish laws apply to a Moroccan running a web site in Morocco offering pirated software that a Spaniard downloads while in Spain. (they may go after the Spaniard however)
Well yes, any country can outlaw anything, anywhere. But in almost all cases, they will have no power to enforce their law outside their borders.
For example, France could have a law that says anyone that wears their hat on backward can be thrown in jail, regardless of where they are at the time they commit the crime, and "must come back or be taken back to France to face justice."
But most sensible countries understand that it's arrogant, presumptuous, and more importantly, generally a waste of time, to tell someone in another country that they're actively breaking a local law, or to demand that another country hand their citizen over to their zealous justice system.
Unfortunately, now and then we see cases where someone does something that's legal where they are, but illegal somewhere else, and then travels back to the country where the prior action was illegal, and find themselves arrested. And in VERY extreme and rare cases thankfully, they are basically kidnapped (forcefully deported out of another country, and taken against their will to the other country) and then set on trial. (I think we could call this "being kim-dotcomm'ed) I'm very much against that practice, but it does happen from time to time. And sometimes they even get away with it.
Normally this wouldn't be an issue that France would be getting too ballsy with, but there's a LOT of money at stake, and nothing "greases the wheels of justice" quite like a fistfull of cash.
Bottom line here I think is it would be a very bad risk right now for anyone that could be considered "a legal representation of Twitter" to step foot in France. (board member, ceo, etc) It'd be unlikely to pan out in the end, but they definitely get arrested (or at least get their passport taken for awhile) and get things dragged out a bit before someone with authority started publicly lambasting and beating some common sense into the court that's trying to make good on their threat.
I didn't know BK did that. But I did know petsmart does it with petco ;)
isn't it difficult to talk with such a large mouthful of assumptions like that?
Though I think there is precedent against it, most (reasonable) countries' legal systems won't attempt to hold someone liable for crimes described by their legal system, committed while outside their country. Interpol (I believe) and extradition treaties can work around this however. Generally extradition is only to send you back to where you were when you committed the crime, in case you try to leave the country to escape local justice.
As others above have pointed out, if anyone, anywhere in the world, could be held liable for doing something which is illegal somewhere else in the world, we'd all be in jail. Imagine if Shari law could be enforced in the USA for example.
The internet shouldn't be an exception here. Twitter is providing a service, and if your country's citizens are reaching out and obtaining that service from outside your borders, holding the overseas company liable is silly. If you want to go after someone, go after your own citizens. Or go the great firewall route.
This is like Iran trying to sue some company in the USA for providing instructions for how to use contraceptives on their USA-hosted website.
And there's the rub of course. That general of a question can't be answered yes/no. It depends on a variety of factors, most notably the content, the codec, the bitrate, and the playback.
I don't even know why this article submission got accepted. It's like asking "can you win a race against a Toyoda?" where do you even start with that....?
Maybe the term is only familiar in retail and customer service? When a customer or client makes repeated, urgent (to them) phone calls to you in rapid succession, it's referred to as "blowing up your phone". Or, if you are the one answering the phone at the IT help desk when the internet connection goes down, your phone WILL get blown up. As in, never stops ringing, rings again the instant you hang up, etc.
"Look, someone's making a touchscreen phone, quick, lets make one too!"
"Look, someone's making a touch tablet, quick, lets make one too!"
"Look, someone's making a smart watch, quick, lets make one too!"
OK this is getting sickening, you can stop now.
instead of charging a typical amount for your software (say $70) and trying to lock it down yourself and go direct to customers, get on a store (like Apple's AppStore) that has a very reliable, unobtrusive, standardized, and reasonably effective (i.e. "friendly") DRM. Drop the cost, (down to say $20-25) and make up for it in the volume due to the lower cost AND due to being on a friendly store.
Software distribution is going to be almost exclusively digital download soon. And most people just aren't willing to shell out big dollars for a double-click, regardless of what it is. But if you can get your product in front of many eyes, and make it uber-easy to buy, you have a good shot at getting the volume to make up the difference.
Possibly, but not necessarily, or at least, not primarily. Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is the one witholding the information. He's an elected official whose job is probably more to collect campaign contributions than to actually serve the public.
He very likely discussed the content of that report with the "parties" he is protecting, and was told exactly where he wasn't going to be receiving any more money from if that evaluation wasn't buried. He's probably very well aware that it's going to get pried out of his hands and plastered on page 1 eventually, but this will at least give him a "but I tried to stop it!" when those parties blow up his phone, and he's hoping this will at least do a little damage control.
But things like that can turn and bite you. This may be a very big thorn in his side, come election day. Depending on how close the competition is, his opposition may drag this issue back above ground for a month of mud slinging. But money can really help to bury things. Depends on how much he can throw at it, and how deep it needs to go.
"Never give a man a gun unless you know where he's going to point it." Same goes for inviting in a team of investigators to get to the bottom of any mess you are even remotely related to. You'd better either make sure you're squeaky clean, or make sure their opinion is already properly paid for.
how is that even a legal reason to refuse a Freedom of Information request? Last I checked, "we don't want to" isn't an acceptable reason to refuse.
Knowledge and experience are not synonymous with skill. An experienced, trained monkey is still a monkey.
If all the monkey needs to do is push the same buttons over and over again, he'll probably do very well at it. He may even enjoy it. But if that's the kind of job they have you doing, that'd drive me crazy anyway. If that's all they want to replace you with, you're better off being replaced anyway, there's no future there for you. The monkey may end up actually having skill, or maybe not. What you train him to do may be all he ever does till the day he retires.
On the other hand, they may want you to train up their monkey so they can drop the maintenance cost of that project, to clear up the checkbook for the next project they're getting ready to start... using you. (keep you maintaining an established project, and hire a monkey to start the new project... or train the monkey to run the established project, and have YOU start the new one... they cost the same, which makes more sense?) That's what you want to see. Run around their company getting new projects off the ground and moving, train a monkey, hand it off, and on to the next project. That's a great way for a company to grow and for you to have stable business from them.
And just how are they getting their pockets lined? These aren't elected officials, there are no campaign contributions. They sit till they retire, and then a new one gets appointed.
looks like another grammar nazi got lose
appeals and scope. A decision by a small court somewhere is anywhere from mostly to totally irrelevant in another court in another place, particularly in another state. But when handling a case in a lower court, citing a decision made by a higher court on the same subject generally gets the lower court to make the same decision as the higher court did. So, ironically, the best way to broaden the scope of a good decision made in a lower court is to have someone appeal it, to a higher court. Then if that court upholds the decision, the scope of the ruling is increased. If this can be taken all the way to the supreme court, the scope is national.
Of course this also runs the risk of the good decision being overturned, either for legal or technicality reasons. And the SCOTUS is too busy to hear all appeals, they only hear the ones that have merit. (either the decision being appealed probably needs to be overturned due to injustice, or needs to be upheld so it goes national. (due to lower court decisions frequently going the wrong way on it in the past)
to support this and help it get driven all the way to the top SCOTUS?) so it gets set in concrete?
That's the first website I've been to in a long time where the www is required in the domain name. plain ol "vadican.va" doesn't work
Actually, it's far more entertaining watching the hypocrisy of dozens of people reposting the exact same quote (after reading the many that have already done so) while wagging a finger at me.
In the end, it all balances out. I'm lazy for not reading the article too closely, and you're lazy for romping on the Reply button without bothering to scroll two inches down to see the ten others that have already said what you're about to repeat again. (see .sig)
why gold, an excellent conductor and with resistance to corrosion, is causing problems with electronics here?
I'd have thought the more gold the better, to a point of being too soft anyway. (say 20 or 22k gold?)
But then again I'm neither chemist nor metallurgist, so I'll invite one or both to explain to myself and everyone else here scratching their heads.
I think that sort of prior work history would work against you in an interview.
(that wikipedia article needs updating, it lists him as the only pope to resign)
They don't pick a pope that's promising reform, they pick one that will carry on just like the previous popes. Religions appear to prefer stagnation, at least at their upper levels. I wonder if it has anything to do with their age? "Clinging to the past" seems to be a common hobby with most old farts ;)
I like the "he has no previous experience" thing they mentioned. I don't think "have you ever been a pope before?" was part of the the interview...
So true. It'd be like if the US wanted to go into talks with China to agree to stop spying on each other. Really? That's just not going to go anywhere. These are just countries looking after their best interests abroad. Why should they stop? Give me one good reason. (morals don't count. morals never count on a national scale, only things that get results count where entire nations are concerned)
throwing gear away or giving it away. Just because you have it doesn't mean to have to, or should use it. If energy and space efficiency are important, you need to carefully consider what you are reusing. Sure, what you have now may have already fallen off the depreciation books, but if it's going to draw twice the power and take double the space that newer used kit would, it may not be the best option, even when the other options involve purchasing new or newer-used gear.
Not saying you need to do this, just recommending you keep an open mind and don't be afraid to do what needs to be done if you find it necessary.
That's like saying you (you, personally) shouldn't be able to trust your father because there are some fathers that have molested their children.
People "in a position of trust" are, by definition, people that you should be able to trust. That trust can be abused. Nothing is absolute. But we as a society try to keep those groups trustworthy. We won't get them all, but we should still try to keep the faith in them. Saying otherwise is like being that woman that was abused by her last boyfriend and now is afraid to date again. Trust can be abused, and lost in specific cases. But it doesn't mean the entire world cannot trust in general as a result.
It's a fairly well-established rule in personal relations, that you should be honest, but in most cases, avoid being "brutally honest". That's an example of how withholding information is widely considered something that can be a positive thing.
So you're against being honest with your doctor because you want to scam your insurance provider? There's a proven statistical reason smokers should pay more for medical insurance - they, on the statistical average, ring up larger medical bills as a result of their drug habit. You want to trash your body, fine, it's yours to trash. I don't like your trying to trick the system into making me chip in for your intentionally unhealthy behavior.
(some might even call it "insurance fraud")
Though really your example isn't even valid to begin with. If your doctor can't figure out you're a smoker (and you smoke more than say, two packs a week) then you're going to be receiving some really crappy medical care from that quack.