You are correct: this kind of business would quickly run into trouble if it tried operating in Europe.
Distributing and processing personal data without consent is an offence under the UK Data Protection Act, and much of the rest of Europe has similar laws. IAALBINMY (I am a lawyer but it's not my area), but I'm fairly sure it covers personal data in a business context.
No you can't - copying and modifying is a breach of copyright law in most jurisdictions.
If you want to produce a phone book yourself then you need to compile the information yourself. Perhaps you'll use the same sources they used; perhaps different. Perhaps some/all of these sources are themselves copyrighted and you'll need to pay a licence fee.
Makers of phone books and similar directories will sometimes insert phony entries so they can catch any competitors who copy their data.
Definitely agree, but I'm not sure it is more error prone. With a sufficient number of eyes checking each ballot, and representatives of the candidates scrutinising the checking, it's actually quite difficult to make a mistake. I've attended several counts in the UK with 40,000 or so ballots being counted: when there's been a recount, the margin of error has been very small or even zero.
Strongly agree. Paper voting is easily understood, and the voting, security arrangements and counting can be observed in plain sight by representatives of the candidates. Fraud is very difficult indeed. I'm not sure how, even in principle, you could obtain equivalent security and transparency with an electronic system.
As far as practicality goes, with sufficient manpower, counting tens of thousands of ballots in a voting district can be accomplished surprisingly speedily, and to a very high degree of accuracy. Most countries do this without a problem. It perhaps gets more difficult if you have Californian-style ballots which include dozens of separate items (e.g. citizens' referenda). Not sure how practicable it is to count all this by hand, but perhaps the Presidential ballot could be treated differently?
Retrospect is great, if a little slow, and I use it myself (with scheduled backups and a standard external drive). However it creates proprietary backup files and so may not be what the original poster is looking for.
"a law in one country (say, the US) can sometimes apply to a person in another (say, the UK). It may not be possible to enforce in the UK, but if he owns property in the US, or plans to travel there, then the law can be enforced against him in the US."
I'm explaining how, for example, a person in the UK can be subject to US law.
I am, I'm afraid, a little bored giving that I've repeated the same damn thing ten times without anything sinking in. This is pretty basic stuff, and if you prefer not to understand it I'm happy to leave you that way.
Section 22 applies to the importing of physical objects. When a person in the UK downloads an MP3 then he is copying a file, and section 17(2) means that he is breaching section 16(a) if he doesn't have authorisation from the UK copyright holder. Whether allopfmp3.com has authorisation from the Russian copyright holder is not relevant to this.
I don't understand what you're saying. The point is this: as a technical matter, a law in one country (say, the US) can sometimes apply to a person in another (say, the UK). It may not be possible to enforce in the UK, but if he owns property in the US, or plans to travel there, then the law can be enforced against him in the US. Which of this do you disagree with?
The Yahoo case is of limited relevance to the English contempt of court laws, but the litigation was rather more complex than your summary. Wikipedia has a good outline.
No it doesn't - it assumes that you care about the foreign court's own jurisdiction. You will do if you carry out business or own property in that country, or if you (or your employees) plan to visit it and are sufficiently high profile that you could get spotted and arrested. Both are likely true of the New York Times, so it can't just ignore UK court judgments. Both may not be true of you, so you can.
Not correct. Anybody, anywhere, who publishes something which is distributed, physically or electronically, to anyone in the UK is subject to the UK's contempt of court rules. The question is whether or not they care about this, as the laws almost certainly can't be enforced in the US or any other foreign jurisdiction. My post gave some reasons why the NYT might care in this instance.
There's nothing unusual about this - many countries apply their laws to foreigners with whom they have no connection at all. See the Helms Burton Act, for example.
Perhaps they are worried about being fined by a UK court - I'd bet the NYT has assets in the UK so they can't simply ignore a UK court decision. Perhaps they think the English law of contempt of court is reasonable, and are happy to comply with it. Perhaps they don't want the defendants to argue that the trial has been prejudiced because of the NYT's article, and the case to collapse?
Your comparison with China is a little overheated, isn't it?
The atom bomb was dropped on Japan to avoid the hundreds of thousands of US casualities (and, incidentally, millions of Japanese casualities) that would have resulted from an "island by island" invasion. Even after Nagasaki, the Japanese Government only narrowly agreed to surrender, and a subsequent coup attempted to overturn that decision.
Yuck. The idea that the number of estimated deaths at Auschwitz has been reduced is a standard Holocaust denier line.
Every history of the period I've ever read puts the figure at just over one million - both the postwar books by Hilberg etc and the more recent stuff. The four million figure was invented by the Soviet Union (and used in its museum at Auschwitz) to maximise the number of Soviet (non-Jewish) victims. This figure was not, to my knowledge, ever given any credence by Western historians. So it is a lie to claim that the number of estimated deaths has gone down.
I am assuming that you did not know the background - however, if you really want to learn some history, read Gilbert, Noakes and Pridham etc and take dubious unsourced websites with a huge pinch of salt.
I'd think there is an obvious difference between deaths in war, which sadly have happened throughout human history, and deliberately targetting certain groups for extermination. I'm sorry you don't understand that. The mass murder of Jews tends to be highlighted for several reasons: the Nazis were obsessed with Jews more than any other group and the sheer number of Jews killed was so great - both as an absolute number and a percentage of the Jewish community in Nazi-occupied territory. Before the Holocaust, there was a huge and culturally rich Jewish commnunity in Germany and Eastern Europe. Afterwards it was almost totally destroyed.
None of this should minimise in any way the suffering of the other groups targetted by the Nazis, or indeed those who were killed in the war. I've no idea why you think the horror of the war is "ignored" - this is a very strange idea. I'm also not sure why you think there's something radical about the idea that the Treaty of Versailles led to World War II - is there any school history class that hasn't written an essay on the subject? And, for what it's worth, the current consensus amongst historians is that this is an unsatisfactory explanation.
After the Holocaust there was an understanding that a State should never be permitted to commit genocide. Sadly, after Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur, saying "never again" rings a little hollow.
There are almost no Holocaust deniers who say that "there was no Holocaust" - instead their standard operating procedure is to claim the numbers were exaggerated, say the deaths were an unintentional or inevitable part of the wider war, and to claim there is uncertainty about the history without making the slightest attempt to read the extensive literature (which must amount to literally millions of pages). Those who take this approach *are* denying the reality of the Holocaust, as it is generally understood, whether they admit it or not. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric - his use of the word "myth", his attempts to setup a Holocaust Conference, fits right in with the likes of David Irving, and it is not at all unfair to say that he is a Holocaust denier.
I said "most". There is a clear difference between the significant threat in Europe in previous decades (from the IRA, the Red Brigades and similar organisations) and that from Al Qaeda-influenced groups today. The former didn't generally try to maximise civilian targets; the latter do. The fact there are a (limited) number of exceptions you can point to does not change the general argument.
The important difference is that most of these terrorists were not trying to maximise civilian casualties (although they often had twisted ideas as to who constituted a "civilian") and few were willing to be suicide bombers. The current generation of terrorists have no such qualms.
I think the distinction is that, if the pagerank wasn't lowered manually then it's impossible for kinderstart to show malice. If the pagerank was lowered manually then it is possible (i.e. if kinderstart can show the decision to lower the pagerank was malicious). But kinderstart still have a large hill to climb, as Google potentially had numerous good-faith reasons to lower the pagerank (if that is what they did).
Does anyone actually find this usable? It's impressive it works at all, but I've always been frustrated by it, even when writing phone numbers and addresses.
Slashdot Mirror
The claim is that the ring could put payloads into orbit for $745 per kilogram.
What's the bet that, like most estimates of this kind, it ignores the cost of building the ring to start with...
You are correct: this kind of business would quickly run into trouble if it tried operating in Europe.
Distributing and processing personal data without consent is an offence under the UK Data Protection Act, and much of the rest of Europe has similar laws. IAALBINMY (I am a lawyer but it's not my area), but I'm fairly sure it covers personal data in a business context.
No you can't - copying and modifying is a breach of copyright law in most jurisdictions.
If you want to produce a phone book yourself then you need to compile the information yourself. Perhaps you'll use the same sources they used; perhaps different. Perhaps some/all of these sources are themselves copyrighted and you'll need to pay a licence fee.
Makers of phone books and similar directories will sometimes insert phony entries so they can catch any competitors who copy their data.
Definitely agree, but I'm not sure it is more error prone. With a sufficient number of eyes checking each ballot, and representatives of the candidates scrutinising the checking, it's actually quite difficult to make a mistake. I've attended several counts in the UK with 40,000 or so ballots being counted: when there's been a recount, the margin of error has been very small or even zero.
Strongly agree. Paper voting is easily understood, and the voting, security arrangements and counting can be observed in plain sight by representatives of the candidates. Fraud is very difficult indeed. I'm not sure how, even in principle, you could obtain equivalent security and transparency with an electronic system.
As far as practicality goes, with sufficient manpower, counting tens of thousands of ballots in a voting district can be accomplished surprisingly speedily, and to a very high degree of accuracy. Most countries do this without a problem. It perhaps gets more difficult if you have Californian-style ballots which include dozens of separate items (e.g. citizens' referenda). Not sure how practicable it is to count all this by hand, but perhaps the Presidential ballot could be treated differently?
Retrospect is great, if a little slow, and I use it myself (with scheduled backups and a standard external drive). However it creates proprietary backup files and so may not be what the original poster is looking for.
Did you misread what I wrote?
"a law in one country (say, the US) can sometimes apply to a person in another (say, the UK). It may not be possible to enforce in the UK, but if he owns property in the US, or plans to travel there, then the law can be enforced against him in the US."
I'm explaining how, for example, a person in the UK can be subject to US law.
I am, I'm afraid, a little bored giving that I've repeated the same damn thing ten times without anything sinking in. This is pretty basic stuff, and if you prefer not to understand it I'm happy to leave you that way.
Section 22 applies to the importing of physical objects. When a person in the UK downloads an MP3 then he is copying a file, and section 17(2) means that he is breaching section 16(a) if he doesn't have authorisation from the UK copyright holder. Whether allopfmp3.com has authorisation from the Russian copyright holder is not relevant to this.
I don't understand what you're saying. The point is this: as a technical matter, a law in one country (say, the US) can sometimes apply to a person in another (say, the UK). It may not be possible to enforce in the UK, but if he owns property in the US, or plans to travel there, then the law can be enforced against him in the US. Which of this do you disagree with?
The Yahoo case is of limited relevance to the English contempt of court laws, but the litigation was rather more complex than your summary. Wikipedia has a good outline.
No it doesn't - it assumes that you care about the foreign court's own jurisdiction. You will do if you carry out business or own property in that country, or if you (or your employees) plan to visit it and are sufficiently high profile that you could get spotted and arrested. Both are likely true of the New York Times, so it can't just ignore UK court judgments. Both may not be true of you, so you can.
Not correct. Anybody, anywhere, who publishes something which is distributed, physically or electronically, to anyone in the UK is subject to the UK's contempt of court rules. The question is whether or not they care about this, as the laws almost certainly can't be enforced in the US or any other foreign jurisdiction. My post gave some reasons why the NYT might care in this instance.
There's nothing unusual about this - many countries apply their laws to foreigners with whom they have no connection at all. See the Helms Burton Act, for example.
Perhaps they are worried about being fined by a UK court - I'd bet the NYT has assets in the UK so they can't simply ignore a UK court decision. Perhaps they think the English law of contempt of court is reasonable, and are happy to comply with it. Perhaps they don't want the defendants to argue that the trial has been prejudiced because of the NYT's article, and the case to collapse?
Your comparison with China is a little overheated, isn't it?
There's this organisation called Al Qaeda you may have heard of...
The atom bomb was dropped on Japan to avoid the hundreds of thousands of US casualities (and, incidentally, millions of Japanese casualities) that would have resulted from an "island by island" invasion. Even after Nagasaki, the Japanese Government only narrowly agreed to surrender, and a subsequent coup attempted to overturn that decision.
Yuck. The idea that the number of estimated deaths at Auschwitz has been reduced is a standard Holocaust denier line.
Every history of the period I've ever read puts the figure at just over one million - both the postwar books by Hilberg etc and the more recent stuff. The four million figure was invented by the Soviet Union (and used in its museum at Auschwitz) to maximise the number of Soviet (non-Jewish) victims. This figure was not, to my knowledge, ever given any credence by Western historians. So it is a lie to claim that the number of estimated deaths has gone down.
I am assuming that you did not know the background - however, if you really want to learn some history, read Gilbert, Noakes and Pridham etc and take dubious unsourced websites with a huge pinch of salt.
I'd think there is an obvious difference between deaths in war, which sadly have happened throughout human history, and deliberately targetting certain groups for extermination. I'm sorry you don't understand that. The mass murder of Jews tends to be highlighted for several reasons: the Nazis were obsessed with Jews more than any other group and the sheer number of Jews killed was so great - both as an absolute number and a percentage of the Jewish community in Nazi-occupied territory. Before the Holocaust, there was a huge and culturally rich Jewish commnunity in Germany and Eastern Europe. Afterwards it was almost totally destroyed.
None of this should minimise in any way the suffering of the other groups targetted by the Nazis, or indeed those who were killed in the war. I've no idea why you think the horror of the war is "ignored" - this is a very strange idea. I'm also not sure why you think there's something radical about the idea that the Treaty of Versailles led to World War II - is there any school history class that hasn't written an essay on the subject? And, for what it's worth, the current consensus amongst historians is that this is an unsatisfactory explanation.
After the Holocaust there was an understanding that a State should never be permitted to commit genocide. Sadly, after Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur, saying "never again" rings a little hollow.
There are almost no Holocaust deniers who say that "there was no Holocaust" - instead their standard operating procedure is to claim the numbers were exaggerated, say the deaths were an unintentional or inevitable part of the wider war, and to claim there is uncertainty about the history without making the slightest attempt to read the extensive literature (which must amount to literally millions of pages). Those who take this approach *are* denying the reality of the Holocaust, as it is generally understood, whether they admit it or not. Ahmadinejad's rhetoric - his use of the word "myth", his attempts to setup a Holocaust Conference, fits right in with the likes of David Irving, and it is not at all unfair to say that he is a Holocaust denier.
I said "most". There is a clear difference between the significant threat in Europe in previous decades (from the IRA, the Red Brigades and similar organisations) and that from Al Qaeda-influenced groups today. The former didn't generally try to maximise civilian targets; the latter do. The fact there are a (limited) number of exceptions you can point to does not change the general argument.
The important difference is that most of these terrorists were not trying to maximise civilian casualties (although they often had twisted ideas as to who constituted a "civilian") and few were willing to be suicide bombers. The current generation of terrorists have no such qualms.
What about all those arrested for the failed London bombing last July? What about today's arrests?
Einstein was Swiss
You are most certainly on US soil if you're at a US airport getting connecting flights. You may be thinking of embassies.
I think the distinction is that, if the pagerank wasn't lowered manually then it's impossible for kinderstart to show malice. If the pagerank was lowered manually then it is possible (i.e. if kinderstart can show the decision to lower the pagerank was malicious). But kinderstart still have a large hill to climb, as Google potentially had numerous good-faith reasons to lower the pagerank (if that is what they did).
Does anyone actually find this usable? It's impressive it works at all, but I've always been frustrated by it, even when writing phone numbers and addresses.
Thanks awfully, but there's something called the "future conditional tense" you might want to look up.