Which part of your cited document requires this action on the part of Apple? It makes the girl in violation of the law - it does not justify nor compel Apple's activities.
It's only 3 paragraphs. It's perfectly clear. It's not difficult to understand.
Al three paragraphs are relevant. Not every word in those paragraphs are, but I'm not going to edit it down to spoon feed you. Read it, understand it, or just accept that you're too stupid to have entered into this discussion.
Hint: in your zeal, you completely ignored the "third country" requirement of the relevant portion.
And you've missed the earlier word "including". Which means that that clause is including an extra category, not that it's a requirement. It seems you really are too stupid to understand 3 paragraphs.
Actually, probability does suggest that. If the law indeed requires this happen, then I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect it happened elsewhere.
Oh, probability only "suggests" it now? It doesn't "demand" it any more?
It's certainly not unreasonable to suspect it might have happened elsewhere. But probability does not demand it. It might have happened, it might not. It's irrelevant.
And once again, probability never "demands" anything. Some things are just more likely than others.
None of that unambiguously required Apple's actions in either case.
We're already established your lack of comprehension skills. You really are a fucktard aren't you. Nothing will make you divert from your first reaction, regardless of how much more stupid you're looking with every post.
"Â 560.204 Prohibited exportation, reexportation, sale or supply of goods, technology, or services to Iran. Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, including Â560.511, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to May 7, 1995, the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited, including the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply of any goods, technology, or services to a person in a third country undertaken with knowledge or reason to know that: (a) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran; or (b) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling with, or for incorporation into goods, technology, or services to be directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped, or reexported exclusively or predominantly to Iran or the Government of Iran." http://law.justia.com/cfr/title31/31-3.1.1.1.14.2.1.4.html
Wait, really? Bigot for saying if you buy an Apple product you weren't thinking
Yes. Your hatred of Apple extends to anyone associated. Even simply buying a product. Clearly people buying a product costing 100s or 1000s of dollars have thought about it. You can't accept that not everyone is like you, and has different opinions. You're a bigot.
It also doesn't correlate with the fact she was apparently asked what language it was
"fact" or "apparently"?
Actually it's hearsay from the Iranian woman doing the complaining via a reporter.
Given that she WAS trying to export the iPad to Iran, and that's illegal, and Apple did have a duty not to knowingly sell the iPad for that purpose, it seems more likely that the Apple clerk knew full well what she was saying, whether in Farsi or in English.
If you're buying from Apple, I think it's fair to say you're not really thinking to begin with.
Bigot.
However, I just find this astounding. This wouldn't happen at the hickish farming supply store here in the deep south if someone speaking Farsi bought a half a ton of fertilizer - why is it happening in a store which sells to people who at least think themselves to be progressives?
Because the sales clerks at Apple know the law and the clerks at the "hickish farming supply store" don't?
From the article, it's happened at at least 2 stores. And it is following the law. EIther they are are getting trained, or Apple happens to have some very well informed sales clerks.
OK, so your definition (or I should say, "the courts definition") means that sheet music is factual data.
So what if is is? Sheet music (and other forms of music) is specifically covered by copyright legislation. Your slasdottish creative interpretation of a law you haven't even read doesn't take priority over legislation that refers specifically to copyright on musical works.
Really, asking rhetorical questions about a law you've never read just because a slashdot article mentions it, and trying to use that as an argument against IP? How utterly specious.
The flip side is well, you also want legislators who have current real-world experience, not some career politician who's been at it for 30 years and completely out of touch (e.g., the ivory tower).
Oh absolutely, MPs need real world experience. It's a terrible idea for people to go straight into politics from University. They should go out and experience the real world for a far period of time before standing for parliament. But not when they actually are MPs. Then, there job is to be an MP. And that's a demanding and time consuming job. If they're doing it properly there shouldn't be time for other jobs.
Not only that but current employment means that they can't be independent. They are almost inevitably employed either because it gives their employers a vehicle for lobbying, or because it gives them information that they shouldn't be privvy to.
And it's part of the job for MPs to listen to people telling them "how it is", because even if they moonlight they only get experience of a small niche of "real life". And generally it will be people sitting round a table talking politics, just as it is in parliament. Moonlighting as a city company director, or an author, or a web entrepreneur won't give them insight to the health service, or education, or policing, or transport. They have to go and find out about those things. It's part of their job. And a part of the job that they will distracted from if they're using time outside of parliament to persue a particular moonlighting avenue.
Yes this applies to both sides. But it would be remiss not to notice that this is far more prevalent on the Tory benches.
By the Ed Millibands of this world, you presumably mean MPs who concentrate their time on the parliamentary work that they are paid for, rather than sending time writing novels and setting up vanity project websites.
Obviously by your comment you're a conservative. But I'm sure even the Tories must have at least some MPs who aren't moonlighting to make extra cash.
And the postscript to that story is that the queue stretching outside the door of Starbucks wasn't even for coffee. It was to use the toilets. People wanting to purchase coffee could just go straight to the counter.
That's not to say that no protester ever bought coffee from Starbucks. I'm sure they did. Starbucks not being a bank isn't actually responsible for the banking crisis. However the basic premise of Mench's comments couldn't be more wrong since it wasn't people buying coffee that made the long queue. Everyone's got to pee, from bankers to protesters. It's a great leveller.
If there were still plenty of public conveniences around, people wouldn't have to impose on Starbucks and McDonalds when they're caught short.
Slashdot Mirror
Which part of your cited document requires this action on the part of Apple? It makes the girl in violation of the law - it does not justify nor compel Apple's activities.
It's only 3 paragraphs. It's perfectly clear. It's not difficult to understand.
Al three paragraphs are relevant. Not every word in those paragraphs are, but I'm not going to edit it down to spoon feed you. Read it, understand it, or just accept that you're too stupid to have entered into this discussion.
Hint: in your zeal, you completely ignored the "third country" requirement of the relevant portion.
And you've missed the earlier word "including". Which means that that clause is including an extra category, not that it's a requirement. It seems you really are too stupid to understand 3 paragraphs.
This is why lawyers make more money than you.
You really enjoy making a twat of yourself.
Actually, probability does suggest that. If the law indeed requires this happen, then I don't think it is unreasonable to suspect it happened elsewhere.
Oh, probability only "suggests" it now? It doesn't "demand" it any more?
It's certainly not unreasonable to suspect it might have happened elsewhere. But probability does not demand it. It might have happened, it might not. It's irrelevant.
And once again, probability never "demands" anything. Some things are just more likely than others.
None of that unambiguously required Apple's actions in either case.
We're already established your lack of comprehension skills. You really are a fucktard aren't you. Nothing will make you divert from your first reaction, regardless of how much more stupid you're looking with every post.
Read it.
http://law.justia.com/cfr/title31/31-3.1.1.1.14.2.1.4.html
That, to me, says a lot about the people defending these activities.
That they are right and you are wrong.
So if someone adheres to the 70MPH speed limit, they are somehow wrong? Or only if it's an Apple employee that does it.
"African-America" is a race. "Iran" is a country.
I am not convinced this is actually the law.
Well it is.
"Â 560.204 Prohibited exportation, reexportation, sale or supply of goods, technology, or services to Iran.
Except as otherwise authorized pursuant to this part, including Â560.511, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to May 7, 1995, the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply, directly or indirectly, from the United States, or by a United States person, wherever located, of any goods, technology, or services to Iran or the Government of Iran is prohibited, including the exportation, reexportation, sale, or supply of any goods, technology, or services to a person in a third country undertaken with knowledge or reason to know that:
(a) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for supply, transshipment, or reexportation, directly or indirectly, to Iran or the Government of Iran; or
(b) Such goods, technology, or services are intended specifically for use in the production of, for commingling with, or for incorporation into goods, technology, or services to be directly or indirectly supplied, transshipped, or reexported exclusively or predominantly to Iran or the Government of Iran."
http://law.justia.com/cfr/title31/31-3.1.1.1.14.2.1.4.html
Probability demands this happened AT LEAST ONCE somewhere else
It seems we can add probability to the list of things you know nothing about. Probability doesn't demand anything. Least of all that.
"Bigot."
Wait, really? Bigot for saying if you buy an Apple product you weren't thinking
Yes. Your hatred of Apple extends to anyone associated. Even simply buying a product. Clearly people buying a product costing 100s or 1000s of dollars have thought about it. You can't accept that not everyone is like you, and has different opinions. You're a bigot.
Refusing to sell a piece of electronics to Iranians because they might send it to Iran
Comprehension failure. There was no "might". Read the article.
If they know you are intending to export it to Iran, then they are not allowed to sell it to you. Is that too difficult to understand?
Being black isn't against the law. Buying an iPad to export to Iran is.
It also doesn't correlate with the fact she was apparently asked what language it was
"fact" or "apparently"?
Actually it's hearsay from the Iranian woman doing the complaining via a reporter.
Given that she WAS trying to export the iPad to Iran, and that's illegal, and Apple did have a duty not to knowingly sell the iPad for that purpose, it seems more likely that the Apple clerk knew full well what she was saying, whether in Farsi or in English.
If you're buying from Apple, I think it's fair to say you're not really thinking to begin with.
Bigot.
However, I just find this astounding. This wouldn't happen at the hickish farming supply store here in the deep south if someone speaking Farsi bought a half a ton of fertilizer - why is it happening in a store which sells to people who at least think themselves to be progressives?
Because the sales clerks at Apple know the law and the clerks at the "hickish farming supply store" don't?
"What "race" is "Iranian"?"
Iranian, maybe?
You seem to be confused about the concepts of race and nationality.
Even putting that aside, there cannot be anything racist about following the law regarding sanctions against Iran.
From the article, it's happened at at least 2 stores. And it is following the law. EIther they are are getting trained, or Apple happens to have some very well informed sales clerks.
Huh? You want evidence of other electronics stores obeying the law just like Apple, otherwise hatred of Apple is justified?
Except for the fact that lots of inventors have and do profit from their patented inventions.
How do you explain that a "mistake" was made when the site is so "obviously not a gambling website", eh?
Because it's using an IP address (or is within a range) that is/was also used by a gambling site?
OK, so your definition (or I should say, "the courts definition") means that sheet music is factual data.
So what if is is? Sheet music (and other forms of music) is specifically covered by copyright legislation. Your slasdottish creative interpretation of a law you haven't even read doesn't take priority over legislation that refers specifically to copyright on musical works.
Really, asking rhetorical questions about a law you've never read just because a slashdot article mentions it, and trying to use that as an argument against IP? How utterly specious.
Ah, the Yanks. Oversexed, overpaid and over here.
It's possible!
The flip side is well, you also want legislators who have current real-world experience, not some career politician who's been at it for 30 years and completely out of touch (e.g., the ivory tower).
Oh absolutely, MPs need real world experience. It's a terrible idea for people to go straight into politics from University. They should go out and experience the real world for a far period of time before standing for parliament. But not when they actually are MPs. Then, there job is to be an MP. And that's a demanding and time consuming job. If they're doing it properly there shouldn't be time for other jobs.
Not only that but current employment means that they can't be independent. They are almost inevitably employed either because it gives their employers a vehicle for lobbying, or because it gives them information that they shouldn't be privvy to.
And it's part of the job for MPs to listen to people telling them "how it is", because even if they moonlight they only get experience of a small niche of "real life". And generally it will be people sitting round a table talking politics, just as it is in parliament. Moonlighting as a city company director, or an author, or a web entrepreneur won't give them insight to the health service, or education, or policing, or transport. They have to go and find out about those things. It's part of their job. And a part of the job that they will distracted from if they're using time outside of parliament to persue a particular moonlighting avenue.
Yes this applies to both sides. But it would be remiss not to notice that this is far more prevalent on the Tory benches.
By the Ed Millibands of this world, you presumably mean MPs who concentrate their time on the parliamentary work that they are paid for, rather than sending time writing novels and setting up vanity project websites.
Obviously by your comment you're a conservative. But I'm sure even the Tories must have at least some MPs who aren't moonlighting to make extra cash.
And the postscript to that story is that the queue stretching outside the door of Starbucks wasn't even for coffee. It was to use the toilets. People wanting to purchase coffee could just go straight to the counter.
That's not to say that no protester ever bought coffee from Starbucks. I'm sure they did. Starbucks not being a bank isn't actually responsible for the banking crisis. However the basic premise of Mench's comments couldn't be more wrong since it wasn't people buying coffee that made the long queue. Everyone's got to pee, from bankers to protesters. It's a great leveller.
If there were still plenty of public conveniences around, people wouldn't have to impose on Starbucks and McDonalds when they're caught short.
Certainly a lot of the attacks on her have been (a) unmerited and (b) seem to come from people who are not quite right in the head.
Or (c) come from people who heard her imbecilic comments about protesters drinking coffee and being able to afford tents on HIGNFY.