First, 11th amendment: The eleventh amendment is a jurisdictional bar to suit (aka a 'prevention') against a federal court hearing an action by a private party or foreign government against a state. This means that you cannot sue a state in federal court unless the state has consented. See, e.g., Hans v. Lousiana, 134 US 1 (1890). There are more nuances to it (e.g. federal gov't can sue a state in federal court), but that is enough for this conversation. As for suing the state in its own courts...
Next, sovereign immunity: Okay, severely generalizing, sovereign immunity dates back to when states/nations were run by kings, and the theory that kings could theoretically do no wrong. To avoid embarrassing your own or foreign governments, this generally meant that you could not sue a state without its permission. In present day, this has been somewhat relaxed where foreign governments are engaging in commercial activities, and you can sue them in the US if certain conditions are met. Whether or not the defendant country will allow you to enforce the judgment in their own courts is another matter, so hopefully you can find some assets to seize that are outside of their borders (if you want to have a fun time, go read the "Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act").
In terms of how this has worked out in the US, well, first things first, we have two sets of sovereigns here: the individual states, and the federal government. The states, through the constitution, have surrenderred some aspects of their sovereignty to the the federal government (such as regulation of interstate trade and foreign relations), the rest, they retain for themselves. Part of sovereignty, again, is that you cannot be sued without permission. Try reading the "Federal Tort Claims Act" for actions you can bring against the US or read about the federal court of claims, which has jurisdiction over contract suits between whoever and the US government. For a good summary of sovereign immunity in the US in general, go check out the recent opinion of Alden v. Maine, 527 US 706 (1999).
People do seem to think that titanium is some kind of indestructable super-metal
I recall one time I saw AC/DC, a fellow next to me in front of the stage (read mosh pit) lost his glasses. Normally, one would be concerned - but not this guy. "My glasses have titanium frames, they will be fine!" We found them at the end of the show.
I still remember the look on his face when we found them - he just stared slack-jawed at the twisted ball of metal in his palm.
Number 1, they are not "his" stores. As CEO of Apple, he has a fiduciary responsible to Apple's owners (i.e., the shareholders). Pulling Wiley's books does not uphold this in any way; Steve Jobs is not Apple.
Actually, Jobs is widely viewed (read: by shareholders) - whether or not it's actually true - as the driving force behind Apple's recent successes. Therefore a smear/expose on Jobs that could tarnish his reputation could seem to Apple to be a threat to the corporation itself. In that respect, Jobs 'is' Apple.
In the same vein, Apple could be pandering to its golden boy to keep him happy, having weighed Jobs' ego as more important than allegations of bullying or censorship.
Well, I haven't played SC I, but I can say that the parent's complaints accurately depict SC: Chaos Theory.
You can wax the first few guys in a raging gunbattle, yet none of the other enemies seem to notice (your weapons may be silenced, but theirs certainly aren't). Parts of it seem unnaturally dark, which is great for hiding from enemies, but once they are alerted to your presence, they apparently can see you as if it were noon.
Those comments aside, it really is a fun, challenging game. I think while certain aspects of 'realism' were left out, it seems like it was done so in the name of gameplay.
Okay, short answer, and sorry if someone already answered this. (This is oversimplified, so if you are a high-strung first-year law student, don't go flippin' out)
When something done in one country has an effect in another country, the courts of the affected country often will have jurisdiction to hear matters related. For example, if someone in Australia shot an arrow into the United States and hurt someone, the US could ask for them to be extradited. That this was an economic crime rather than a homicide doesn't make much difference as far as this principle is concerned.
This isn't something done by the US alone; if you are seriously bored (and have serious fortitude), take a look at some of the EU's competition (aka antitrust) regulations that have forbidden companies wholly outside of the EU from merging because of the 'effect' it would have on competition inside the EU.
Antitrust regulations are a cause for much debate in the international community in terms of whether a country can assert that kind of power on persons and corporations outside of its borders. Of less debate (though still debated when it comes to some legal areas) are criminal issues like the one in the article.
It's not surprising that a state-sponsored murderer (which is what a soldier is) tries to deceive people that way . . .
First off, you did read in my post that the conversation is a fake, right?
While I agree with your point that killing people and prostitution are two different things, the point the author of the conversation was trying to make was that just because you have the capability to do something subjectively or objectively bad, doesn't mean that you will.
National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation:
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one,... are you?
Good question. I got the impression it was from the digital projection (or digital production or whatever it was). When I saw Ep. II I noticed that high-contrast areas were a bit blurred and upon closer scrutiny noticed quite a bit of pixelization; the little field-of-flowers scene where Anakin declares his contempt for democratic institutions comes to mind.
I was going to mod you 'Funny', but somehow I don't think that you would understand that it was signifying that your post was 'unintentionally hillarious.'
Your post(s?) have a good point - some company is receiving free advertising. However: "Considering my status in the Linux world"? Come on, man (or, should I say, 'Mr. Very Important Linux Man'), if you are going to throw out that line, don't post anonymously. Also, if you are so important, why do you have to send a physical letter? Couldn't you just email the Slashdot admins and expect it to be read?.
Your point is lost behind the foolish tone of your post.
Hits the nail on the head. The blogging = open source is more of an analogy than a truism. Nitpicking the definition of 'open source' misses the point the article was trying to make.
True, and don't forget that the government can go after you in civil court (an alternative to criminal prosecution are certain kinds of fines).
In the US, the government relies on private parties to enforce many of its laws ("exporting enforcement" in legal buzz ). This is (partly) why the US has a 'plaintiff friendly' court system that doesn't punish you for an unsuccessful suit (compare to the UK, where the losing party pays lawyer fees). The theory goes that by leaving it to private parties, those who are harmed by the 'illegal' doings will take action and save the gov't prosecution costs, which can in turn be spent on other things.
Trademark, patent and copyright are interesting hybrid areas where civil parties can get petition the government to get involved and block importation of (possibly confiscate and destroy) patent-busting or trademark/copyright infringing items at the border.
Just a guess, but DHS is probably a foreign government's main US contact for US crime issues. The DHS probably handed it off the the FBI rather than local police (since the child porn stuff crosses state borders, it becomes a 'federal' issue).
SS shipping probably will still be available, because it encourages people to spend $25 at a minimum. Not everyone is going to want to shell out $80 for free shipping.
The point of my post wasn't to shine the light on how amazon is encouraging people to spend $25, but rather to point out that once you spend the $80, you won't feel compelled to add on that extra purchase to hit $25.
(On the other hand, you will instead feel compelled to buy everything you can from amazon to get the most out of your $80. But then you knew that didn't you, Mr. Snarkypants?)
After having so many SS items arrive ahead of their scheduled dates, I am beginning to get the impression that amazon gives you the worst-case scenario in an attempt to sell you the 'guaranteed' quick shipping options.
I cannot count the number of times I have recieved my confirmation email giving a date two weeks away for arrival, along with the option to 'upgrade my shipping'; I do nothing and the next day I get a 'your order has shipped' email giving the arrival date as 2-4 days.
So much easier to knock down than to build up? If you want to see that in action, see if the Slashdot community can make a list of the Top Ten Microsoft Success Stories!
Re:A lot like Gamesworkshops' Space Hulk
on
DOOM: The Boardgame
·
· Score: 1
You also meant "Games Workshop" and "Genestealer"!
Not in the fashion implied by the uber-parent. 'Non citizens' can include quite a wide range of legal immigrants; some of them can vote whether you are in the US or EU.
Slashdot Mirror
First, 11th amendment: The eleventh amendment is a jurisdictional bar to suit (aka a 'prevention') against a federal court hearing an action by a private party or foreign government against a state. This means that you cannot sue a state in federal court unless the state has consented. See, e.g., Hans v. Lousiana, 134 US 1 (1890). There are more nuances to it (e.g. federal gov't can sue a state in federal court), but that is enough for this conversation. As for suing the state in its own courts...
Next, sovereign immunity: Okay, severely generalizing, sovereign immunity dates back to when states/nations were run by kings, and the theory that kings could theoretically do no wrong. To avoid embarrassing your own or foreign governments, this generally meant that you could not sue a state without its permission. In present day, this has been somewhat relaxed where foreign governments are engaging in commercial activities, and you can sue them in the US if certain conditions are met. Whether or not the defendant country will allow you to enforce the judgment in their own courts is another matter, so hopefully you can find some assets to seize that are outside of their borders (if you want to have a fun time, go read the "Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act").
In terms of how this has worked out in the US, well, first things first, we have two sets of sovereigns here: the individual states, and the federal government. The states, through the constitution, have surrenderred some aspects of their sovereignty to the the federal government (such as regulation of interstate trade and foreign relations), the rest, they retain for themselves. Part of sovereignty, again, is that you cannot be sued without permission. Try reading the "Federal Tort Claims Act" for actions you can bring against the US or read about the federal court of claims, which has jurisdiction over contract suits between whoever and the US government. For a good summary of sovereign immunity in the US in general, go check out the recent opinion of Alden v. Maine, 527 US 706 (1999).
I recall one time I saw AC/DC, a fellow next to me in front of the stage (read mosh pit) lost his glasses. Normally, one would be concerned - but not this guy. "My glasses have titanium frames, they will be fine!" We found them at the end of the show.
I still remember the look on his face when we found them - he just stared slack-jawed at the twisted ball of metal in his palm.
Sovereign immunity applies to suits against the US as well. It also applies to suits against the states, for that matter.
People do in fact sue the US all the time, but that suit will only be successful if the US has waived its sovereign immunity in that area.
The link in the topic post is bunk.
Actually, Jobs is widely viewed (read: by shareholders) - whether or not it's actually true - as the driving force behind Apple's recent successes. Therefore a smear/expose on Jobs that could tarnish his reputation could seem to Apple to be a threat to the corporation itself. In that respect, Jobs 'is' Apple.
In the same vein, Apple could be pandering to its golden boy to keep him happy, having weighed Jobs' ego as more important than allegations of bullying or censorship.
Well, I haven't played SC I, but I can say that the parent's complaints accurately depict SC: Chaos Theory. You can wax the first few guys in a raging gunbattle, yet none of the other enemies seem to notice (your weapons may be silenced, but theirs certainly aren't). Parts of it seem unnaturally dark, which is great for hiding from enemies, but once they are alerted to your presence, they apparently can see you as if it were noon. Those comments aside, it really is a fun, challenging game. I think while certain aspects of 'realism' were left out, it seems like it was done so in the name of gameplay.
When something done in one country has an effect in another country, the courts of the affected country often will have jurisdiction to hear matters related. For example, if someone in Australia shot an arrow into the United States and hurt someone, the US could ask for them to be extradited. That this was an economic crime rather than a homicide doesn't make much difference as far as this principle is concerned.
This isn't something done by the US alone; if you are seriously bored (and have serious fortitude), take a look at some of the EU's competition (aka antitrust) regulations that have forbidden companies wholly outside of the EU from merging because of the 'effect' it would have on competition inside the EU.
Antitrust regulations are a cause for much debate in the international community in terms of whether a country can assert that kind of power on persons and corporations outside of its borders. Of less debate (though still debated when it comes to some legal areas) are criminal issues like the one in the article.
Bastard. You made me spit my drink on my keyboard!
First off, you did read in my post that the conversation is a fake, right?
While I agree with your point that killing people and prostitution are two different things, the point the author of the conversation was trying to make was that just because you have the capability to do something subjectively or objectively bad, doesn't mean that you will.
National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US Marine Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting his military installation: ... are you?
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the rifle range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one,
Good question. I got the impression it was from the digital projection (or digital production or whatever it was). When I saw Ep. II I noticed that high-contrast areas were a bit blurred and upon closer scrutiny noticed quite a bit of pixelization; the little field-of-flowers scene where Anakin declares his contempt for democratic institutions comes to mind.
Good camera work, my ass.
Your post(s?) have a good point - some company is receiving free advertising. However: "Considering my status in the Linux world"? Come on, man (or, should I say, 'Mr. Very Important Linux Man'), if you are going to throw out that line, don't post anonymously. Also, if you are so important, why do you have to send a physical letter? Couldn't you just email the Slashdot admins and expect it to be read?.
Your point is lost behind the foolish tone of your post.
Hits the nail on the head. The blogging = open source is more of an analogy than a truism. Nitpicking the definition of 'open source' misses the point the article was trying to make.
In the US, the government relies on private parties to enforce many of its laws ("exporting enforcement" in legal buzz ). This is (partly) why the US has a 'plaintiff friendly' court system that doesn't punish you for an unsuccessful suit (compare to the UK, where the losing party pays lawyer fees). The theory goes that by leaving it to private parties, those who are harmed by the 'illegal' doings will take action and save the gov't prosecution costs, which can in turn be spent on other things.
Trademark, patent and copyright are interesting hybrid areas where civil parties can get petition the government to get involved and block importation of (possibly confiscate and destroy) patent-busting or trademark/copyright infringing items at the border.
Just a guess, but DHS is probably a foreign government's main US contact for US crime issues. The DHS probably handed it off the the FBI rather than local police (since the child porn stuff crosses state borders, it becomes a 'federal' issue).
The point of my post wasn't to shine the light on how amazon is encouraging people to spend $25, but rather to point out that once you spend the $80, you won't feel compelled to add on that extra purchase to hit $25.
(On the other hand, you will instead feel compelled to buy everything you can from amazon to get the most out of your $80. But then you knew that didn't you, Mr. Snarkypants?)
I cannot count the number of times I have recieved my confirmation email giving a date two weeks away for arrival, along with the option to 'upgrade my shipping'; I do nothing and the next day I get a 'your order has shipped' email giving the arrival date as 2-4 days.
Anyone else see a pattern here?
(e.g., I want something for $20, but shipping would be $5, so I buy some $6 book and get free shipping)
So much easier to knock down than to build up? If you want to see that in action, see if the Slashdot community can make a list of the Top Ten Microsoft Success Stories!
You also meant "Games Workshop" and "Genestealer"!
You beat me to it! I saw those cardstock bulkheads and instinctively started trying to figure out how to best use my flamer shots. . .
They can probably cross reference the purchases you made with the use of a club card.
Not in the fashion implied by the uber-parent. 'Non citizens' can include quite a wide range of legal immigrants; some of them can vote whether you are in the US or EU.
The over-rated post it is referring to is misinformed.