The argument seems oddly narrow, as it hinges solely on the equivalence of the concepts of "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" as justifications for an arrest.
No mention is made of the relevant provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, of Titles 3 and 8 of the same act in particular which claim for the US the right to prosecute for crimes committed outside US jurisdiction.
The issue is that "technically" it's reciprocal, a judge examining the treaty recently acknowledged this.
Citation needed, I do believe.
The problem isn't so much legal, or technical, it's that US courts tend to be far more patriotic, in protecting US citizens and interests - they ignore the fact the treaty is stupidly unfair for the average joe who can get extradited at will, and protect American interests- they ignore the terms of the agreement.
If this has happened even once, it is sufficient grounds for the UK to pull out of the treaty. Again, a citation would be nice.
You would, but you'd be wrong to so hope. Things are what they are.
It works like this: from the point of view of the international community, the UK (as represented by its government and HM the Queen) has sovereign rights over its citizens. It has unilaterally (if partially) surrendered one of these rights (that of jurisdiction) to the US of A. It is the prerogative of the UK, as a sovereign nation, to do so.
No, not really. In this case, it is the government of the USA asserting power over the government and the people of the UK. This bears repeating until it gets through even the thickest skulls.
I don't usually reply to my own comments, but I realized I got distracted and forgot to present my argument. Here it is: The extradition arrangement is not reciprocal.
The entire framework of diplomacy and international relations is predicated on the principle of sovereignty, which is being joyously trampled here.
It just means that the UK is not a real country, but rather a protectorate or colony of the US. Here's to hoping the Scots wake up and head for the exit this time around.
I still have my old-style unlimited data plan for my iPhone, but I can't get unlimited for the others.
You are getting worse service than you used to, iow. Phone insurance? Family plan? Are you serious? You are overpaying for the phone, then giving them even MORE money for... nothing, really.
Probably my shiny metal ass. No innovator's dilemma here. Just optimizing NOT for maximum profit, but for maximum profit _rate_.
One could indeed make more money by selling more service. But that money would "cost" more.
This would not be a problem for consumers in a normal market, as a competitor would soon appear who by tweaking the supply costs can lower the price a bit thus selling more while keeping the same profit rate etc etc.
But in the absence of competition, there is no incentive to move away from the optimum, (invest in new capacity, retrain or whatever), because all the things you could do to lower your costs actually cost money to implement, which would immediately cut into your profit and get you fired.
TL;DR: It sucks to be a consumer in a monopolized market.
How in the name of Stinky Pete can Iran be a significant threat to the entire world? Russia could de-populate Iran in four weeks, using just conventional forces. The US could glass it all and still have nukes left over to kill everyone else... twice. China could wipe out all its cities, so could Israel for that matter. Its Arab neighbors (who don't really dig Persians, btw) could gang up on them tomorrow - and win, eventually, nukes or no nukes. Even Turkey vs. Iran would be an even match.
In the meantime, Iran has no nukes at all and isn't even projected BY ITS ENEMIES to be able to build one in less than 5 years. Not that anyone is claiming they are trying to build one NOW, just that they could if they wanted to.
And somehow THIS is a threat to the world? How come North Korea gets to slip under the radar? How come Israel can threaten all its neighbors with nuclear holocaust and no-one bats an eyelid? On a much more related note, how come the world's biggest, most disorganized, most terrorist-friendly Muslim state (yep, Pakistan) gets to have nukes and NOT be declared an imminent danger to mankind?
I think you are a bit confused. This embargo will not produce regime change in Iran. It will not "jack up prices at the pump" in the US, either. Generally speaking, it will have no good/desirable effects (or at least, that's what I believe).
What it will do is make oil more expensive for the EU, less so for China and consolidate the Iran regime by means of strengthening the (already strong) public perception of the US as an aggressor state.
Oh, and if you really believe the people of Iran can't wait to be "liberated" by the US, you should know I have a beautiful historic bridge in Bosnia for sale.
Ah, but increasingly the tax base is made of people who do NOT work. It is not profitable to be working, anyway.
At the extremes, you have people who are too poor to work (yes, really) and people who are too rich to work. In the middle, there is a mass of losers who make ends meet on a paycheck.
Whom do you tax? Which segment is least impacted by a tax increase?
I don't usually reply to ACs. However. Where in heck did I say that the GOOD option is to do nothing? I just stated that i think this embargo is a BAD option.
Had you yourself read the fine article, you would have seen that the claim in the title is significantly watered down, by this statement, uttered by someone who actually read the fine scientific paper, presumably:
Commenting on the work, Dr Christopher Holland from the University of Oxford, said that the development represented a step toward being able to produce toughened silk commercially.
"Essentially, what this paper has shown is that they are able to take a component of spider silk and make a silkworm spin it into a fibre alongside its own silk," he said. [...] They have also managed to show that this composite, which contains bits of spider silk and mainly the silkworms' own silk, has improved mechanical properties."
There comes a point when the circus entertainers start miming the fact that the emperor has no clothes. At that point, the plebs, who are already pissed off because a steady diet of bread and olive oil ain't exactly fun, decides the Imperial Gardens have fruit which would be a nice source of variety in their diet.
Sorry for the mixed metaphors, but it is the best way to explain it.
Slashdot Mirror
If wired claims it, it's wrong. No exceptions.
The argument seems oddly narrow, as it hinges solely on the equivalence of the concepts of "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" as justifications for an arrest.
No mention is made of the relevant provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, of Titles 3 and 8 of the same act in particular which claim for the US the right to prosecute for crimes committed outside US jurisdiction.
The issue is that "technically" it's reciprocal, a judge examining the treaty recently acknowledged this.
Citation needed, I do believe.
The problem isn't so much legal, or technical, it's that US courts tend to be far more patriotic, in protecting US citizens and interests - they ignore the fact the treaty is stupidly unfair for the average joe who can get extradited at will, and protect American interests- they ignore the terms of the agreement.
If this has happened even once, it is sufficient grounds for the UK to pull out of the treaty. Again, a citation would be nice.
It turns out one of them is an FBI plant, who was after Vin Diesel all along. He gets the girl. And the brat.
You would, but you'd be wrong to so hope. Things are what they are.
It works like this: from the point of view of the international community, the UK (as represented by its government and HM the Queen) has sovereign rights over its citizens. It has unilaterally (if partially) surrendered one of these rights (that of jurisdiction) to the US of A. It is the prerogative of the UK, as a sovereign nation, to do so.
No, not really. In this case, it is the government of the USA asserting power over the government and the people of the UK. This bears repeating until it gets through even the thickest skulls.
Wish I had modpoints right now. This person is exactly right.
I don't usually reply to my own comments, but I realized I got distracted and forgot to present my argument. Here it is:
The extradition arrangement is not reciprocal.
Google is "grandfathered in". Don't be ridiculous. It's a matter of control, not legality.
The first and most difficult step in ending an abusive relationship is realizing that you can just walk away.
It's funny you should mention that.
The entire framework of diplomacy and international relations is predicated on the principle of sovereignty, which is being joyously trampled here.
It just means that the UK is not a real country, but rather a protectorate or colony of the US. Here's to hoping the Scots wake up and head for the exit this time around.
I still have my old-style unlimited data plan for my iPhone, but I can't get unlimited for the others.
You are getting worse service than you used to, iow. Phone insurance? Family plan? Are you serious? You are overpaying for the phone, then giving them even MORE money for... nothing, really.
Probably my shiny metal ass. No innovator's dilemma here. Just optimizing NOT for maximum profit, but for maximum profit _rate_.
One could indeed make more money by selling more service. But that money would "cost" more.
This would not be a problem for consumers in a normal market, as a competitor would soon appear who by tweaking the supply costs can lower the price a bit thus selling more while keeping the same profit rate etc etc.
But in the absence of competition, there is no incentive to move away from the optimum, (invest in new capacity, retrain or whatever), because all the things you could do to lower your costs actually cost money to implement, which would immediately cut into your profit and get you fired.
TL;DR: It sucks to be a consumer in a monopolized market.
Occupy whoever the heck is stifling competition in this space. Probably gov't regulation.
It won't skew the data. It will just make them drop the caps even lower. Frankly, unless and until competition is allowed again, you're screwed.
It's funny because it's true. If you do it, only Amazon will know what you shop and where you live and what your CCN is. Win-win!
How in the name of Stinky Pete can Iran be a significant threat to the entire world? Russia could de-populate Iran in four weeks, using just conventional forces. The US could glass it all and still have nukes left over to kill everyone else... twice. China could wipe out all its cities, so could Israel for that matter. Its Arab neighbors (who don't really dig Persians, btw) could gang up on them tomorrow - and win, eventually, nukes or no nukes. Even Turkey vs. Iran would be an even match.
In the meantime, Iran has no nukes at all and isn't even projected BY ITS ENEMIES to be able to build one in less than 5 years. Not that anyone is claiming they are trying to build one NOW, just that they could if they wanted to.
And somehow THIS is a threat to the world? How come North Korea gets to slip under the radar? How come Israel can threaten all its neighbors with nuclear holocaust and no-one bats an eyelid? On a much more related note, how come the world's biggest, most disorganized, most terrorist-friendly Muslim state (yep, Pakistan) gets to have nukes and NOT be declared an imminent danger to mankind?
Seriously, what the fuck?
I see zero benefits. What benefits do you see?
I think you are a bit confused. This embargo will not produce regime change in Iran. It will not "jack up prices at the pump" in the US, either. Generally speaking, it will have no good/desirable effects (or at least, that's what I believe).
What it will do is make oil more expensive for the EU, less so for China and consolidate the Iran regime by means of strengthening the (already strong) public perception of the US as an aggressor state.
Oh, and if you really believe the people of Iran can't wait to be "liberated" by the US, you should know I have a beautiful historic bridge in Bosnia for sale.
Ah, but increasingly the tax base is made of people who do NOT work. It is not profitable to be working, anyway.
At the extremes, you have people who are too poor to work (yes, really) and people who are too rich to work. In the middle, there is a mass of losers who make ends meet on a paycheck.
Whom do you tax? Which segment is least impacted by a tax increase?
I don't usually reply to ACs. However.
Where in heck did I say that the GOOD option is to do nothing? I just stated that i think this embargo is a BAD option.
"Guise! Guise! I know! I have it! Listen up, guise! Let's all give China cheap oil, they really need it!"
Sort of like what the new management at /. is doing.
Meh
Had you yourself read the fine article, you would have seen that the claim in the title is significantly watered down, by this statement, uttered by someone who actually read the fine scientific paper, presumably:
Commenting on the work, Dr Christopher Holland from the University of Oxford, said that the development represented a step toward being able to produce toughened silk commercially.
"Essentially, what this paper has shown is that they are able to take a component of spider silk and make a silkworm spin it into a fibre alongside its own silk," he said.
[...]
They have also managed to show that this composite, which contains bits of spider silk and mainly the silkworms' own silk, has improved mechanical properties."
formatting mine
lrn2 reading comprehension, iow
There comes a point when the circus entertainers start miming the fact that the emperor has no clothes. At that point, the plebs, who are already pissed off because a steady diet of bread and olive oil ain't exactly fun, decides the Imperial Gardens have fruit which would be a nice source of variety in their diet.
Sorry for the mixed metaphors, but it is the best way to explain it.
What he said, basically.