If the papers they sign state that they are responsible for their own actions, it would get WB out of any counter-lawsuits for thing done.
Curiously, this would leave the WB "employee" liable for any sharing of WB material that they participate in while attempting to entrap others. Let me think, how could that be useful to WB... I see, wait six months after you hire your tranche of stooges, fire and then sue them using the evidence they supplied (thinking this was about others). Win the cases and then point to the stack of precedent you have amassed when you go after future cases. Sweet;)
Parliamentary privilege does exist in Australian Parliaments. However, the Pirate Party has no seats in any Australian Parliament AFAICT. The majority of seats are held by members of the two parties that have been happily "negotiating" this in secret, so I guess they won't do it. We might be able to get an independent MP or senator to do it, but I wouldn't be holding my breathe on that. Of the independents in the Federal House of Representatives, we have a farmer with economics education, a lawyer, and a former Liberal odd-ball. In the Senate the independents you might get one of the 5 Greens to do it, everyone else strikes me as unlikely.
Sending your nuclear armed and powered submarine under the northern ice sheet is the only way to place these weapons along the north coast of the USSR (conversely North America) during the northern winter when the entire region is icebound. A lot of data was gathered so that the parties knew where the ice was passable and thin enough to surface without fatally damaging the submarine. The proximity to a perceived foe and suicidal political imperative to do this does not exist in the south.
Quite a few unmanned, research vehicles have explored under the edges of the Antarctic sea ice. The ice sheet over the continent is also being explored under, although not with submarines (Lake Vostok).
A law can be invalidated by the High Court of Australia if found to be in violation of the Australian Constitution or in conflict with overriding legislation. They did this, for example, in deciding that certain laws of the State of Queensland were in violation of racial discrimination law in the landmark Mabo cases that lead to the introduction of the Native Title Act. They also, subsequently, declared the West Australian law devised to negate the federal Native Title Act as invalid.
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/brennanj/brennanj_canada.htm
If operators were having to put aside the money required to safely store the run-time waste outputs, decommission the reactor at the end of its life, and store all the medium level waste that this generates for hundred or thousands of years, then maybe it wouldn't look so attractive. As it stands now, the government is expected to pick up that tab (just as it is for insurance costs with Obama's offer). We historically have not put a price on the polluting outputs of coal-fired power generation and this mistake has been repeated with nuclear energy. As we try to change this equation for greenhouse gas emitters continuing to allow the nuclear "competition" a free run on their waste is a mistake.
The Minister concerned, Stephen Conroy, was interviewed by the satirical "current affairs" programme Hungry Beast (aired 10 Feb). When asked about how the blacklist could possibly deal with something like YouTube where thousands of things _someone_ will find offensive can pop up in instant his response was enlightening. He stated that they (the Govt.) were in negotiations with Google about how this could be achieved. He went on to say that Google already filter substantial content for the Govt. of China, and that all we are saying is "these are our laws", please help enforce them. I think he completely missed the obvious problems with using China as an example.
I expect that, in the fullness of time, average Joe will be unable to find information on how Australia treats asylum seekers, the dark underside of European treatment of the indigenous inhabitants of the country, any information on how to circumvent the filter, and anything else that's politically unpalatable. Not because the current Govt. intends to, but ultimately because they can.
They have a call centre that you can talk to from Australia (I say "from" because I'm fairly sure it isn't in Aus). However, given that they will not talk to the merchant about any individual transaction (e.g. why did you reject this known good card?), the remaining comments about the lack of usefulness apply.
"the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another"
Curious, then, the amount of activity that the Australian Customs Service and police services puts into detecting "illegal" movies on behalf of private entities claiming to be copyright holders. Effort also goes into the related area of protecting trademarks for private entities (e.g. Louis Vuiton) from "counterfeit" goods at public expense. Clearly law enforcement officers are not "any person", which might come as a shock to some of them.
Art or not, the physical device is owned by whoever last purchased it. The device then lists itself using the artist's credentials. Caleb Larson is then offering for sale an item that he does not own, have physical possession of, or title to (title passed to the last Collector). Strikes me that, beyond the sale to the first "Collector", this is a flagrantly fraudulent auction and that no contract can abrogate the law. I wonder how long before someone that parted with a substantial sum to possess the physical item (it is a nice looking cube after all) decides to challenge this through eBay.
On the other hand, it does point out some of the ludicrous goings-on with respect to trailing commissions in all sorts of fields.
Why do you think that the person who takes the bomb onto the plane is the person who carries the bomb through security?
I don't, and I didn't say that either.
How does the imagery help? You don't know who took the putative explosives, guns, or whatever through security and into the departure lounge.
Perhaps, as you say, the unwanted device is carried in by a third party or parties, assembled and ferried by another onto the aircraft. So what? As soon as the aircraft incident becomes suspicious, and hence a criminal investigation, the FBI/Australian/ Federal Police/Met/whoever is sure as hell going to want to work out how it got air-side. They are going to want every piece of information they can get to rule people in or out from the affected flight, and any other within a day or two. Unlike the scope dope, they have the luxury to pick over the imagery with a fine tooth comb, an intelligent eye, and lower time constraints, and therefore will be less likely to miss something. Of course, if the imagery is not kept then there will be the predictable OMG uproar about "inadequate security", "incompetent police" etc. and usual political knee jerk reactions to follow.
Another approach is to assemble a device in terminal over an extended period. However, beyond a few days the likelihood of device being secreted in the terminal air-side and remaining undiscovered during routine security, cleaner and dog sweeps diminishes. Should such a device be found (or detonate) in the terminal then the law enforcement/sheeple reaction will be similar.
The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action. Further, they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief (accident or deliberate). Can you imagine the "scandal" if a plane goes down, it's suspicious, and the investigating body does not have this imagery?
The Net Generation spend two hours a day talking on the phone and still use e-mail frequently
Am I the only one here that, were it not for work calls, would not spend two hours per month on the phone? I cannot for the life of me see where you can can get enough of consequence to talk about for two hours every day (on average) with people that you do not also meet in person in the average day. My mistake, I think, is assuming that the "Net generation" is talking about anything of substance in that phone time.
Let's say that the a range of software authors read the patent and comment, but the patent is granted anyway. The freshly-minted patent holder then has a ready made list of parties interested enough to read and comment on a patent, which is probably a good approximation of those that thought they might be infringing. Send the list to the lawyers and you reduce the underpants-to-profit time. The patent holder also knows that these people have read the patent so they cannot claim ignorance and the settlements can be increased.
I guess you take comments in confidence but that defeats the transparency that is being called for.
For example, I had a free week of vacation but wasn't to share that information with other employees.
Surely your colleagues, particularly those who sign your leave applications, can add weeks away and will fairly quickly work out your sweet deal. Further, since they are not party to your confidentiality clauses it will be around the office faster than the flu. Morale will still suffer. Ultimately, trying to hide something that is obviously public will achieve nothing positive.
You are correct though, the confidentiality clauses are not to protect the company from employees it has already signed up: they are already screwed and morale has no direct measure on a balance sheet. These clauses serve to protect the company from the next person they recruit. If the prospective employee doesn't start from a position of knowledge regarding salary and entitlements already being paid then you maximise your chances that they'll undersell themselves.
I fail to see how a "large, round battered pie common to Northern Ireland" (Pastie) is going to help secure an aircraft... but then I don't see that banning nail clippers does either:)
Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane.
The typical dictionary does not equate "nuts" exclusively with "legally insane" (example below) so I don't think this will get far. Definition 8b is the one you wish to take offence to, but there are many others. Heck, definitions 7a and 7b could be taken as positive. Definition 8a is negative but is also a statement of opinion that cannot be proved either way although, IMHO, the good representative has demonstrated Def'n 8a quite well in bringing this charge. The writer may have been using metaphor and equating to a "a dry fruit consisting of an edible kernel or meat enclosed in a woody or leathery shell." There'd be long argument over what the writer meant and not what the reader interpreted, followed by argument of free speech protection in your Constitution and law. Only the lawyers would be happy at the end if it.
7. Slang.
a. a person who is very enthusiastic about something; buff; enthusiast; devotee: He's a real circus nut.
b. an extremely concerned or zealous person: My boss is a nut on double-checking everything.
8. Slang.
a. a foolish, silly, or eccentric person.
b. Offensive. an insane person; psychotic.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuts
Not to mention it is not possible at the store to read the massive thing you sign when "buying" it
Sure it is. Just stand there, read it, and refuse to pay or sign until you are finished. The retailer will quickly see the stupidity of the document and tell their supplier if everybody actually did this. If the document is unnecessarily large then you can be sure that it is only that way to bolster the seller's advantage and your detriment. Mobile phone peddlers are particularly good at this sort of crap also. In Australia at the moment they are fond of hiding a fee for processing a payment to them (e.g. $2 to process a CC payment or a cash payment over the counter) in the fine print.
Intriguing that the registration body was happy to take the money and not do the checks first though. When I transferred my last.com.au the registration crowd wouldn't accept the digitally signed and encrypted certificate from the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation on its own as proof of claim to the name... for some reason they felt a scanned image of my Driver Licence was good insurance %-) This registrar seems to accept vapour as proof. Is AuDA going to kick their butt... somehow I don't think so.
They really need to find another Stephen Conroy to act as a sole trader, or register "Stephen Conroy Commentary" as a business name, to make the problem go away.
There happen to be a lot of carbon atoms in the universe, due to its relatively low atomic mass. There's also a ton of helium. It is not really surprising that these common elements might be found, in combination, in large quantities.
Carbon in chemical combination with helium would be exceptionally interesting. Unfortunately, what we have here is carbon and hydrogen in the form of methane and ethane, a combination that would hardly raise an eyebrow except for the observation that it's in liquid form. If it were frozen solid like the tonnes of water ice on Titan, things would look much less likely for any sort of complex chemistry. As it is now there are at least some possibilities.
I agree, it's madness. Why banks feel the urge to charge an annual fee for a credit card account I don't know; you'd have to ask them (it's high rent for 46 sq cm of plastic) It's possible that it covers the cost of, and profit on, the onerous duty of billing you each month and so-called "rewards programs". If you have a mortgage with a bank they typically bundle a credit card for "free".
AFAICT there is no way to get a fee-free American Express or Diners charge/credit card in Australia. Further, since their commissions are higher than Visa/Mastercard you end up paying in surcharges for using these cards in many retail outlets.
Slashdot Mirror
If the papers they sign state that they are responsible for their own actions, it would get WB out of any counter-lawsuits for thing done.
Curiously, this would leave the WB "employee" liable for any sharing of WB material that they participate in while attempting to entrap others. Let me think, how could that be useful to WB... I see, wait six months after you hire your tranche of stooges, fire and then sue them using the evidence they supplied (thinking this was about others). Win the cases and then point to the stack of precedent you have amassed when you go after future cases. Sweet ;)
Parliamentary privilege does exist in Australian Parliaments. However, the Pirate Party has no seats in any Australian Parliament AFAICT. The majority of seats are held by members of the two parties that have been happily "negotiating" this in secret, so I guess they won't do it. We might be able to get an independent MP or senator to do it, but I wouldn't be holding my breathe on that. Of the independents in the Federal House of Representatives, we have a farmer with economics education, a lawyer, and a former Liberal odd-ball. In the Senate the independents you might get one of the 5 Greens to do it, everyone else strikes me as unlikely.
Sending your nuclear armed and powered submarine under the northern ice sheet is the only way to place these weapons along the north coast of the USSR (conversely North America) during the northern winter when the entire region is icebound. A lot of data was gathered so that the parties knew where the ice was passable and thin enough to surface without fatally damaging the submarine. The proximity to a perceived foe and suicidal political imperative to do this does not exist in the south.
Quite a few unmanned, research vehicles have explored under the edges of the Antarctic sea ice. The ice sheet over the continent is also being explored under, although not with submarines (Lake Vostok).
A law can be invalidated by the High Court of Australia if found to be in violation of the Australian Constitution or in conflict with overriding legislation. They did this, for example, in deciding that certain laws of the State of Queensland were in violation of racial discrimination law in the landmark Mabo cases that lead to the introduction of the Native Title Act. They also, subsequently, declared the West Australian law devised to negate the federal Native Title Act as invalid. http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/brennanj/brennanj_canada.htm
If operators were having to put aside the money required to safely store the run-time waste outputs, decommission the reactor at the end of its life, and store all the medium level waste that this generates for hundred or thousands of years, then maybe it wouldn't look so attractive. As it stands now, the government is expected to pick up that tab (just as it is for insurance costs with Obama's offer). We historically have not put a price on the polluting outputs of coal-fired power generation and this mistake has been repeated with nuclear energy. As we try to change this equation for greenhouse gas emitters continuing to allow the nuclear "competition" a free run on their waste is a mistake.
The Minister concerned, Stephen Conroy, was interviewed by the satirical "current affairs" programme Hungry Beast (aired 10 Feb). When asked about how the blacklist could possibly deal with something like YouTube where thousands of things _someone_ will find offensive can pop up in instant his response was enlightening. He stated that they (the Govt.) were in negotiations with Google about how this could be achieved. He went on to say that Google already filter substantial content for the Govt. of China, and that all we are saying is "these are our laws", please help enforce them. I think he completely missed the obvious problems with using China as an example.
I expect that, in the fullness of time, average Joe will be unable to find information on how Australia treats asylum seekers, the dark underside of European treatment of the indigenous inhabitants of the country, any information on how to circumvent the filter, and anything else that's politically unpalatable. Not because the current Govt. intends to, but ultimately because they can.
Actually, this position has had a series of silly tits (great expression BTW :) from both side of politics over the past decade or so. Who can forget Senator "Luddite" Alston: Senator Luddite says broadband takeup linked to porn or World's biggest Luddite to retire
Nobody would grab the obviously fake torrents of Neighbours.
From memory it was in Australia.
They have a call centre that you can talk to from Australia (I say "from" because I'm fairly sure it isn't in Aus). However, given that they will not talk to the merchant about any individual transaction (e.g. why did you reject this known good card?), the remaining comments about the lack of usefulness apply.
"the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another"
Curious, then, the amount of activity that the Australian Customs Service and police services puts into detecting "illegal" movies on behalf of private entities claiming to be copyright holders. Effort also goes into the related area of protecting trademarks for private entities (e.g. Louis Vuiton) from "counterfeit" goods at public expense. Clearly law enforcement officers are not "any person", which might come as a shock to some of them.
Art or not, the physical device is owned by whoever last purchased it. The device then lists itself using the artist's credentials. Caleb Larson is then offering for sale an item that he does not own, have physical possession of, or title to (title passed to the last Collector). Strikes me that, beyond the sale to the first "Collector", this is a flagrantly fraudulent auction and that no contract can abrogate the law. I wonder how long before someone that parted with a substantial sum to possess the physical item (it is a nice looking cube after all) decides to challenge this through eBay.
On the other hand, it does point out some of the ludicrous goings-on with respect to trailing commissions in all sorts of fields.
I don't, and I didn't say that either.
Perhaps, as you say, the unwanted device is carried in by a third party or parties, assembled and ferried by another onto the aircraft. So what? As soon as the aircraft incident becomes suspicious, and hence a criminal investigation, the FBI/Australian/ Federal Police/Met/whoever is sure as hell going to want to work out how it got air-side. They are going to want every piece of information they can get to rule people in or out from the affected flight, and any other within a day or two. Unlike the scope dope, they have the luxury to pick over the imagery with a fine tooth comb, an intelligent eye, and lower time constraints, and therefore will be less likely to miss something. Of course, if the imagery is not kept then there will be the predictable OMG uproar about "inadequate security", "incompetent police" etc. and usual political knee jerk reactions to follow.
Another approach is to assemble a device in terminal over an extended period. However, beyond a few days the likelihood of device being secreted in the terminal air-side and remaining undiscovered during routine security, cleaner and dog sweeps diminishes. Should such a device be found (or detonate) in the terminal then the law enforcement/sheeple reaction will be similar.
The machines must be able to produce a hard copy for use in any court action. Further, they probably have to store the image for a few days in case any aircraft carrying a person that passed through the machine comes to grief (accident or deliberate). Can you imagine the "scandal" if a plane goes down, it's suspicious, and the investigating body does not have this imagery?
The Net Generation spend two hours a day talking on the phone and still use e-mail frequently
Am I the only one here that, were it not for work calls, would not spend two hours per month on the phone? I cannot for the life of me see where you can can get enough of consequence to talk about for two hours every day (on average) with people that you do not also meet in person in the average day. My mistake, I think, is assuming that the "Net generation" is talking about anything of substance in that phone time.
Strikes me that there is a flaw in this process.
Let's say that the a range of software authors read the patent and comment, but the patent is granted anyway. The freshly-minted patent holder then has a ready made list of parties interested enough to read and comment on a patent, which is probably a good approximation of those that thought they might be infringing. Send the list to the lawyers and you reduce the underpants-to-profit time. The patent holder also knows that these people have read the patent so they cannot claim ignorance and the settlements can be increased.
I guess you take comments in confidence but that defeats the transparency that is being called for.
Surely your colleagues, particularly those who sign your leave applications, can add weeks away and will fairly quickly work out your sweet deal. Further, since they are not party to your confidentiality clauses it will be around the office faster than the flu. Morale will still suffer. Ultimately, trying to hide something that is obviously public will achieve nothing positive.
You are correct though, the confidentiality clauses are not to protect the company from employees it has already signed up: they are already screwed and morale has no direct measure on a balance sheet. These clauses serve to protect the company from the next person they recruit. If the prospective employee doesn't start from a position of knowledge regarding salary and entitlements already being paid then you maximise your chances that they'll undersell themselves.
I fail to see how a "large, round battered pie common to Northern Ireland" (Pastie) is going to help secure an aircraft... but then I don't see that banning nail clippers does either :)
Were I in his shoes, I would have instead taken the angle of attack related to the title line of the site which is "Alan Grayson is Nuts" and proven that I am not legally insane.
The typical dictionary does not equate "nuts" exclusively with "legally insane" (example below) so I don't think this will get far. Definition 8b is the one you wish to take offence to, but there are many others. Heck, definitions 7a and 7b could be taken as positive. Definition 8a is negative but is also a statement of opinion that cannot be proved either way although, IMHO, the good representative has demonstrated Def'n 8a quite well in bringing this charge. The writer may have been using metaphor and equating to a "a dry fruit consisting of an edible kernel or meat enclosed in a woody or leathery shell." There'd be long argument over what the writer meant and not what the reader interpreted, followed by argument of free speech protection in your Constitution and law. Only the lawyers would be happy at the end if it.
7. Slang. a. a person who is very enthusiastic about something; buff; enthusiast; devotee: He's a real circus nut. b. an extremely concerned or zealous person: My boss is a nut on double-checking everything. 8. Slang. a. a foolish, silly, or eccentric person. b. Offensive. an insane person; psychotic. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nuts
Not to mention it is not possible at the store to read the massive thing you sign when "buying" it
Sure it is. Just stand there, read it, and refuse to pay or sign until you are finished. The retailer will quickly see the stupidity of the document and tell their supplier if everybody actually did this. If the document is unnecessarily large then you can be sure that it is only that way to bolster the seller's advantage and your detriment. Mobile phone peddlers are particularly good at this sort of crap also. In Australia at the moment they are fond of hiding a fee for processing a payment to them (e.g. $2 to process a CC payment or a cash payment over the counter) in the fine print.
D'oh! Australian Securities & Investments Commission
Intriguing that the registration body was happy to take the money and not do the checks first though. When I transferred my last .com.au the registration crowd wouldn't accept the digitally signed and encrypted certificate from the Australian Securities and Investments Corporation on its own as proof of claim to the name... for some reason they felt a scanned image of my Driver Licence was good insurance %-) This registrar seems to accept vapour as proof. Is AuDA going to kick their butt... somehow I don't think so.
They really need to find another Stephen Conroy to act as a sole trader, or register "Stephen Conroy Commentary" as a business name, to make the problem go away.
I'm glad I didn't let you down ;)
There happen to be a lot of carbon atoms in the universe, due to its relatively low atomic mass. There's also a ton of helium. It is not really surprising that these common elements might be found, in combination, in large quantities.
Carbon in chemical combination with helium would be exceptionally interesting. Unfortunately, what we have here is carbon and hydrogen in the form of methane and ethane, a combination that would hardly raise an eyebrow except for the observation that it's in liquid form. If it were frozen solid like the tonnes of water ice on Titan, things would look much less likely for any sort of complex chemistry. As it is now there are at least some possibilities.
I agree, it's madness. Why banks feel the urge to charge an annual fee for a credit card account I don't know; you'd have to ask them (it's high rent for 46 sq cm of plastic) It's possible that it covers the cost of, and profit on, the onerous duty of billing you each month and so-called "rewards programs". If you have a mortgage with a bank they typically bundle a credit card for "free".
AFAICT there is no way to get a fee-free American Express or Diners charge/credit card in Australia. Further, since their commissions are higher than Visa/Mastercard you end up paying in surcharges for using these cards in many retail outlets.