When will we throw off the tyranny of Europe and their wild view of copyright? I for one am tired of having to jump every time some Dutch or French bureaucrat decides our copyright enforcement is too lax.
Ah, that is a different question that the one you posed before. The concept of something being just isn't constrained by jurisdiction. If you give someone a gun and tell them to kill a third party in a different country, and they do, it would obviously be just to hunt you down (how you are hunted is yet a different matter). How about just telling them to kill? Or telling them to steal something?
The theory is that if you are involved in a statute crime involving US interests, it is just to seek you out for punishment.
You can argue if something should be a crime, or the level of involvement. You can also argue if seeking someone is worth it (i.e. conspiracy to jaywalk). But that's the theory.
My #2 has nothing to do with leaking information or obligations to keep a secret. It concerns Assange hypothetically assisting Manning in hiding Mannings involvement. I'm not talking about Assange saying he won't say it was Manning. I'm saying if Assange offered any technical advice to Manning on how to secretly transfer information in order to hide Mannings involvement, that could fall under the area of conspiracy. Discussion or assistance of a crime is conspiracy. Doesn't matter if the party would otherwise be shielded by law. The conspiracy itself strips those protections. Same would happen with a lawyer.
As for where the law applies, many laws apply outside territories.
It won't be a total flop. They'll market the hell out of it. Heck, the IE9 ads are so flashy, you'd think they reinvented the internet and if you don't use IE9, you're SOL.
If they can do that for IE, imaging what they can do with Win8.
If you had read the article, you'd see that it is based on the Australians speculating. There's not much to quibble with the speculation (though the Slashdot title is misleading).
But you'll also note that they think an indictment would be based on conspiracy. And in that area, journalists can get nailed. If you are just receiving information, journalistic protections are fairly powerful. But if you work too closely with the informant, then conspiracy can raise its head.
Let me give two examples (hypothetical):
1) Manning sends Assange the files unsolicited. Assange would be protected. 2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.
The first was just receiving information. The second crosses the line from just transferring information to other activities.
You'll note you still haven't actually heard anyone threaten to storm an embassy. You've heard Ecuador claim that's what the note says. And it might. But I'd like to see the note. The exact wording may make a difference.
There's a chance it points out that harboring a fugitive is against certain rules and that they would be within their rights to enter and detain him. There's a big difference between saying "We will do X" and "We could do X." And it's a negotiating gambit.
The normal response is to claim you've been threatened. It would be smart for Ecuador to do just that. Maybe that's what they did.
This is what happens every time someone hides out at an embassy. The host country sends a letter protesting, noting what response is within their legal rights. Then negotiations begin.
Nope. It's correct. They are launching over the Pacific ocean. They expect it to disappear off the left side of the map and reappear on the right side of the map about 14 seconds later. 24,000 miles divided by 14 seconds gives you 1700 miles/sec.
Since 11 March 2011, there have been a number of abnormalities in they iPhone species. Several new variants have been noted in the wild and some characteristics disappearing altogether. One variant since Fukishima has even been seen with dual nervous systems.
The study concludes that electronics sources have been mutated due to ionizing radiation.
Frail? Hell! I was scared shitless every time my pregnant wife picked up scissors. Anything sharper than a butter knife was an excuse to go to the store.
An assault rifle in the house would have meant waking up to a loud bang in the middle of the night and bloody "can I sleep on your face" cat entrails blasted across the room. If I was lucky.
It would apply if they were anonymous. Google and Oracle know who they are. They paid them. And if they were paid, then there exists the possibility that the content (speech) was not entirely theirs, but Google's and Oracle's.
The judge is asking Google and Oracle for list of who may have spoken on their behalf.
The alternative is to not build a SILEX plant in the US.
And what will the results be? Will no one else build them? If the technical hurdle, as the article claims, is the laser system, and if they are getting easier to produce, then it seems unlikely that no one else will produce a SILEX plant.
Therefore, the danger does not stem from the US building a SILEX plant. It stems from laser research. So why doesn't the article insist we stop researching lasers?
Slashdot Mirror
* Not effective against effects of a bomb if you are the one wearing the bomb.
Yes. I'll have to rethink my dreams of supporting an extravagant lifestyle by posting on Slashdot.
Seems satire is harder to recognize than I thought.
When will we throw off the tyranny of Europe and their wild view of copyright? I for one am tired of having to jump every time some Dutch or French bureaucrat decides our copyright enforcement is too lax.
Did you even read the summary? It has nothing to do with illegal drugs. It's about illegally selling prescription (legal) drugs.
They guy was selling to people that didn't have a prescription.
Ah, that is a different question that the one you posed before. The concept of something being just isn't constrained by jurisdiction. If you give someone a gun and tell them to kill a third party in a different country, and they do, it would obviously be just to hunt you down (how you are hunted is yet a different matter). How about just telling them to kill? Or telling them to steal something?
The theory is that if you are involved in a statute crime involving US interests, it is just to seek you out for punishment.
You can argue if something should be a crime, or the level of involvement. You can also argue if seeking someone is worth it (i.e. conspiracy to jaywalk). But that's the theory.
Google is your friend. Here's the theory:
http://www.davidzapp.com/2011/11/10/application-of-u-s-laws-outside-u-s/
This one gives a list of potential laws that might be enforced:
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/94-166.pdf
Note that the crime does not have to be direct. That's why there is the whole "conspiracy to commit."
My #2 has nothing to do with leaking information or obligations to keep a secret. It concerns Assange hypothetically assisting Manning in hiding Mannings involvement. I'm not talking about Assange saying he won't say it was Manning. I'm saying if Assange offered any technical advice to Manning on how to secretly transfer information in order to hide Mannings involvement, that could fall under the area of conspiracy. Discussion or assistance of a crime is conspiracy. Doesn't matter if the party would otherwise be shielded by law. The conspiracy itself strips those protections. Same would happen with a lawyer.
As for where the law applies, many laws apply outside territories.
It won't be a total flop. They'll market the hell out of it. Heck, the IE9 ads are so flashy, you'd think they reinvented the internet and if you don't use IE9, you're SOL.
If they can do that for IE, imaging what they can do with Win8.
If you had read the article, you'd see that it is based on the Australians speculating. There's not much to quibble with the speculation (though the Slashdot title is misleading).
But you'll also note that they think an indictment would be based on conspiracy. And in that area, journalists can get nailed. If you are just receiving information, journalistic protections are fairly powerful. But if you work too closely with the informant, then conspiracy can raise its head.
Let me give two examples (hypothetical):
1) Manning sends Assange the files unsolicited. Assange would be protected.
2) Assange discusses with Manning how to hide his involvement in the disclosure. The discussion might lean towards conspiracy.
The first was just receiving information. The second crosses the line from just transferring information to other activities.
As someone also from Kentucky, I'm happy to point out that there don't seem to be very many of these guys. The article only mentions a couple.
Everyone is getting upset that "Kentucky is demanding ..." No, just two whack jobs. The legislature hasn't done anything.
You'll note you still haven't actually heard anyone threaten to storm an embassy. You've heard Ecuador claim that's what the note says. And it might. But I'd like to see the note. The exact wording may make a difference.
There's a chance it points out that harboring a fugitive is against certain rules and that they would be within their rights to enter and detain him. There's a big difference between saying "We will do X" and "We could do X." And it's a negotiating gambit.
The normal response is to claim you've been threatened. It would be smart for Ecuador to do just that. Maybe that's what they did.
This is what happens every time someone hides out at an embassy. The host country sends a letter protesting, noting what response is within their legal rights. Then negotiations begin.
I wasn't aware that Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis was a chemical.
Hear that whooshing sound? That's not the X-51. That's a joke going over your head.
Nope. It's correct. They are launching over the Pacific ocean. They expect it to disappear off the left side of the map and reappear on the right side of the map about 14 seconds later. 24,000 miles divided by 14 seconds gives you 1700 miles/sec.
Maybe they should use a globe.
Since 11 March 2011, there have been a number of abnormalities in they iPhone species. Several new variants have been noted in the wild and some characteristics disappearing altogether. One variant since Fukishima has even been seen with dual nervous systems.
The study concludes that electronics sources have been mutated due to ionizing radiation.
Since it is not expressly forbidden, they may be tempted to test if it is.
Whack!
"Is that cruel?"
Whack!
"How about now?"
Whack!
"How about now?"
Whack!
.
.
.
What does a Canadian band have to do with Obama and Romney?
Frail? Hell! I was scared shitless every time my pregnant wife picked up scissors. Anything sharper than a butter knife was an excuse to go to the store.
An assault rifle in the house would have meant waking up to a loud bang in the middle of the night and bloody "can I sleep on your face" cat entrails blasted across the room. If I was lucky.
And more likely to get down to serious business.
It would apply if they were anonymous. Google and Oracle know who they are. They paid them. And if they were paid, then there exists the possibility that the content (speech) was not entirely theirs, but Google's and Oracle's.
The judge is asking Google and Oracle for list of who may have spoken on their behalf.
From the title, I was hoping to be able to do some nano-scale woodworking.
The alternative is to not build a SILEX plant in the US.
And what will the results be? Will no one else build them? If the technical hurdle, as the article claims, is the laser system, and if they are getting easier to produce, then it seems unlikely that no one else will produce a SILEX plant.
Therefore, the danger does not stem from the US building a SILEX plant. It stems from laser research. So why doesn't the article insist we stop researching lasers?
Another botnet story?
Quezovercoatl