IANAL or even a USian, but even I can read. Releasing classified information that is detrimental to the United States is a violation of USC Title 18 Section 798, not treason, and carries at most a prison term. The offense of treason (USC Title 18 Sect 2381) requires "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies,..." There's a fair gap betwixt the two, not least of which is the death penalty. It's also worth noting that even the action of Manning did not attract a charge of treason in the wheelbarrow of offenses alleged and he _really_ released information.
Sounds like someone is owed a huge bonus if the show makes it to a sixth season, the producers don't want to pay it, and the legal weasels are only to happy to oblige.
Election of this candidate was no accident. This is not first-past-the-post voting and the individual did not gain a quota outright. He won because other parties passed their votes to him after they were eliminated. As the LDP candidate points out, the senate voting preference system is open, well documented and the specific preferences are available to the public for weeks before the election. If electors cannot be bothered to vote with their own preferences (an admittedly tedious affair) then they take the parties preferences as published. In this case, there were tight preference deals between the litany of single-issue and minor parties. That minor parties can use that system to their own advantage is neither a surprise nor unexpected. It's equally naive to think the major parties do not play the same game... they are just not as "looney" or "fringe" and less worthy of media sensationalism.
My first was from the.txt family but she would go to pieces in confined spaces and it didn't last. I dated the.gif girl for a while but she was encumbered with too much baggage. So far my Pretty New Girl is working out OK.
Sure, after you go back to grade school English comprehension. The post reads:
a bit under 1/3 the diameter.... of Earth
The diameter of Mars is 53% of the diameter of Earth, plainly much larger than the 33% poster thinks. I made no comment on the surface area claim, which is more-or-less correct.
I dare say Her Majesty could invite herself around as the GG is only acting in a capacity as Her Majesty's representative.
I would not be surprised to see a challenge under Section 44(i) if he were elected. The section declares invalid as a Senator any person who
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:
Australian Aborigines have never been of white skin. Only 2.5% of the Australian population is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (down from 100% in 1787) but were not counted for federal government purposes until 1967 when Section 121 of our constitution was amended. The top five ancestries are English, Australian, Irish, Scottish, and Italian making up more than 68% of the respondents (http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0?opendocument&navpos=220) The last overtly "White Australia Policy" legislation favouring white-only immigration was not dismantled until 1973.
There is no requirement in Section 42 of the Australian Constitution that the oath or affirmation of office be taken in Australia or that the Governor-General takes it in person. The GG can take Assange's oath in London personally or appoint someone else to do it. Unusual but possible.
If Julian Assange were elected he could wait until the 1 July date for taking up his seat and resign his Senate position (Section 19) or wait for it to be declared vacant (Section 20). Then under Section 15 another Wikileaks Party member would be appointed to hold the seat. Typically this would be the next highest-polling Wikileaks candidate but need not be. The Wikileaks Party is running three candidates in the Senate election for Victoria so they will have a fall back option.
The NSA has worked out fusion?! Excellent, at least then some of the dollars spent might have a useful offshoot... if only we could get them to declassify it.
Between the two world wars the precursor to GCHQ, the Government Code & Cypher School, and various earlier organisations were tapped into international telegraph lines/carriers (e.g. in the UK and Malta) in order to obtain copies of diplomatic traffic. The British companies acquiesced to this with little coercion and the US companies took a little more convincing but eventually complied. There's nothing much new here, only the scale has changed.
Some of our data is classified under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which requires that all data to remain inside the US, including any cloud storage or redundant backups.
It is much tighter than that. You must ensure that only "US Persons" have access to that data without appropriate export licences/approvals/agreements. Can you guarantee that no foreign national, dual citizen, or employee of a foreign company is working at your cloud host or in any data centre that might be housing your data?
I assume so. However, if it is anything like Australia the award of costs is to the winning party to partly (only) offset their costs in bringing the action. It is not the cost of the court itself. Some of the court's actual costs are recouped through fees for lodgement, transcripts and the like.
Last I checked it was the State that paid for judges, court officers, court facilities, jury expenses, etc. It matters because tax payer money was expended supporting a series of shameless private money-grabs through through to its (some would say inevitable) conclusion. The time and money expended from public coffers could have better been spent on legal matters of public worth.
But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used? That seems pretty basic. It wouldn't exist at all if not for them.
So you would have no objection to GM telling you that you can only drive their cars on Tuesday or roads they approve? Or perhaps that you can only sell your car to people within 50 miles of where it was bought? Or that you can only use fuel they supply? Or that you cannot loan your car to another person? Or that they can take back to car without recourse? Or that their control over the vehicle exists for 90 years after manufacture or the last designer dies? All of these things are what the big lobby interests insist should apply to their "intellectual property" but clearly would be utterly unacceptable in the world of real goods. These interests have lobbied for, and won, laws that make it a crime to do any of these things if they'd rather you didn't. This incongruity is being opposed. That is not the same thing as removing the ability of the original creator to try to recoup fair recompense for their effort.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL or even a USian, but even I can read. Releasing classified information that is detrimental to the United States is a violation of USC Title 18 Section 798, not treason, and carries at most a prison term. The offense of treason (USC Title 18 Sect 2381) requires "Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies,..." There's a fair gap betwixt the two, not least of which is the death penalty. It's also worth noting that even the action of Manning did not attract a charge of treason in the wheelbarrow of offenses alleged and he _really_ released information.
Sounds like someone is owed a huge bonus if the show makes it to a sixth season, the producers don't want to pay it, and the legal weasels are only to happy to oblige.
Election of this candidate was no accident. This is not first-past-the-post voting and the individual did not gain a quota outright. He won because other parties passed their votes to him after they were eliminated. As the LDP candidate points out, the senate voting preference system is open, well documented and the specific preferences are available to the public for weeks before the election. If electors cannot be bothered to vote with their own preferences (an admittedly tedious affair) then they take the parties preferences as published. In this case, there were tight preference deals between the litany of single-issue and minor parties. That minor parties can use that system to their own advantage is neither a surprise nor unexpected. It's equally naive to think the major parties do not play the same game... they are just not as "looney" or "fringe" and less worthy of media sensationalism.
I am certainly glad they sold off Qt first. If Microsoft got their hands on it the writing would be on the wall even in the face of pledges to KDE.
The American government has a very low level of support from everyone.
Our Aussie politicians and Defence Signals Directorate would beg (snivel, grovel, plead and generally be a toady) to differ ;)
My first was from the .txt family but she would go to pieces in confined spaces and it didn't last. I dated the .gif girl for a while but she was encumbered with too much baggage. So far my Pretty New Girl is working out OK.
Sure, after you go back to grade school English comprehension. The post reads:
a bit under 1/3 the diameter .... of Earth
The diameter of Mars is 53% of the diameter of Earth, plainly much larger than the 33% poster thinks. I made no comment on the surface area claim, which is more-or-less correct.
You greatly understate the size of Mars.
Equatorial radius of Earth: 6,378.1 km. Equatorial radius of Mars: 3396.2 km, or about 53% of the radius of Earth.
Exploiting the difference between ethical and legal for the betterment of one's hip pocket. The American Corporate Dream.
I hate to disappoint, but birds lay eggs through exactly the same channel as they crap. It's called a Cloaca. Go forth and educate thyself.
Maybe it's the alcohol...
More specifically, the lack of strong tipples sufficient to deliver one into the alternate universe where this article was news.
Those who check smartphones 50 times a day would probably get tired of that.
Further aiding and abetting their addiction is probably not a good idea.
I dare say Her Majesty could invite herself around as the GG is only acting in a capacity as Her Majesty's representative.
I would not be surprised to see a challenge under Section 44(i) if he were elected. The section declares invalid as a Senator any person who
(i.) Is under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power:
(Italics are mine).
Australian Aborigines have never been of white skin. Only 2.5% of the Australian population is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (down from 100% in 1787) but were not counted for federal government purposes until 1967 when Section 121 of our constitution was amended. The top five ancestries are English, Australian, Irish, Scottish, and Italian making up more than 68% of the respondents (http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/quickstat/0?opendocument&navpos=220) The last overtly "White Australia Policy" legislation favouring white-only immigration was not dismantled until 1973.
There is no requirement in Section 42 of the Australian Constitution that the oath or affirmation of office be taken in Australia or that the Governor-General takes it in person. The GG can take Assange's oath in London personally or appoint someone else to do it. Unusual but possible.
If Julian Assange were elected he could wait until the 1 July date for taking up his seat and resign his Senate position (Section 19) or wait for it to be declared vacant (Section 20). Then under Section 15 another Wikileaks Party member would be appointed to hold the seat. Typically this would be the next highest-polling Wikileaks candidate but need not be. The Wikileaks Party is running three candidates in the Senate election for Victoria so they will have a fall back option.
... only to be arrested and extradited to Sweden from Australia.
The NSA has worked out fusion?! Excellent, at least then some of the dollars spent might have a useful offshoot... if only we could get them to declassify it.
electrocuted to death
Classic tautology. There is no other way to be electrocuted. Anything short of dying and it is not electrocution.
Between the two world wars the precursor to GCHQ, the Government Code & Cypher School, and various earlier organisations were tapped into international telegraph lines/carriers (e.g. in the UK and Malta) in order to obtain copies of diplomatic traffic. The British companies acquiesced to this with little coercion and the US companies took a little more convincing but eventually complied. There's nothing much new here, only the scale has changed.
What if they made a baby-killing simulator and used his likeness. Shouldn't he be able to stop that?
That would be the reasonable time for defamation law
BTW: IANAL but I am a "foreign national" that has been at the receiving end of ITAR fun and games.
Some of our data is classified under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which requires that all data to remain inside the US, including any cloud storage or redundant backups.
It is much tighter than that. You must ensure that only "US Persons" have access to that data without appropriate export licences/approvals/agreements. Can you guarantee that no foreign national, dual citizen, or employee of a foreign company is working at your cloud host or in any data centre that might be housing your data?
I assume so. However, if it is anything like Australia the award of costs is to the winning party to partly (only) offset their costs in bringing the action. It is not the cost of the court itself. Some of the court's actual costs are recouped through fees for lodgement, transcripts and the like.
Last I checked it was the State that paid for judges, court officers, court facilities, jury expenses, etc. It matters because tax payer money was expended supporting a series of shameless private money-grabs through through to its (some would say inevitable) conclusion. The time and money expended from public coffers could have better been spent on legal matters of public worth.
But why should someone who creates something not be able to control how it's used? That seems pretty basic. It wouldn't exist at all if not for them.
So you would have no objection to GM telling you that you can only drive their cars on Tuesday or roads they approve? Or perhaps that you can only sell your car to people within 50 miles of where it was bought? Or that you can only use fuel they supply? Or that you cannot loan your car to another person? Or that they can take back to car without recourse? Or that their control over the vehicle exists for 90 years after manufacture or the last designer dies? All of these things are what the big lobby interests insist should apply to their "intellectual property" but clearly would be utterly unacceptable in the world of real goods. These interests have lobbied for, and won, laws that make it a crime to do any of these things if they'd rather you didn't. This incongruity is being opposed. That is not the same thing as removing the ability of the original creator to try to recoup fair recompense for their effort.