The Geneva convention is not a reciprocal arrangement. Once you've signed it you have to abide by it with respect to all prisoners of war irregardless of wether they're from a country which has also signed. The term Enemy Combatant was thus invented so as to avoid calling people captured during the present conflict PoWs.
The present situation (fighting what is essentially a war against people who are not acting for a particular state) is completely new, and has been handled badly by inventing a new term so as to avoid calling people who are essentially PoWs PoWs.
if you have no citizenship, you can't commit treason. Also, there's various international treaties covering stateless persons, and one of them bans countries from deliberately creating stateless persons by retracting their citizenship. Anyone know if the US is signed up to that one?
Firstly, the Geneva conventions cover civilians who take up arms to defend against an invader (e.g. the Norwegian rifle club which set up a roadblock and annihilated an entire German airborne unit in 1940), Secondly the convention requires the capturing power to ask questions first and do their executing later - by implication the Geneva conventions do not authorise summary shooting of anyone, ever. You want to shoot someone who you've captured? You have to prove (if necessary to the satisfaction of his side's courts when you lose) that he's not entitled to the protection of the convention.
And what rank do these UAV operators normally hold? Who is the highest person up the chain who authorizes an assassination? When Admiral Yamamoto (a serving member of the military in a nation that the US was very definitely at war with) was killed the decision was taken by President Roosevelt. Do these hits get authorized by President Obama?
If you're actually deaf, and live in a first world country, get yourself registered deaf and tell potential employers about it before you go to interview.
She for example introduced a bill that mandated they employ women over men if both are equally qualified. They also placed no limits on how far this should go or when it should end. This bill directly impacts jobs that are already dominated by women so they cannot employ men.
It also encourages widening of the qualification gap between men and women, since men will now have to get themselves higher qualified to get a job.
nonetheless, if a company wanted to build (say) a shopping mall on your house, and you wouldn't sell, they may decide that the costs resulting from their bulldozing your house while you're on vacation are worth the payoff (ignoring the fact that you would still own the land underneath) and that it would therefore still be a sound business decision.
It's more like if I paid someone to go to IKEA, get me a flat-pack wardrobe & put it together. I would still expect them to give me the allen key which came in the box so I can take it apart & put it back together myself.
He also seems to have confused 'own' with 'right to use'. There's no reason why he can't give his source to his client and still retain the right to use it again himself.
Starting development without a contract sounds like a thoroughly foolish idea, as the terms will be essentially decided by a judge if there's ever a dispute. What the client reasonably expected (a copy of all the source and right to modify it) will be taken into account.
Finally, demanding a large up-front payment is not protecting himself from litigation. You take lots of money up-front and then don't provide the client with what they were expecting (with no contract) you'll end up with no money and lumbered with costs when they sue.
$2000 is one not-particularly-brilliant workstation. If he's running a business which is heavily computation-oriented (which multi-TB datasets implies that it is) then $2000 is not a large one-time outlay.
his lawyer appealed the ticket, the prosecution refused to drop the case, they were ridiculed in the national press and THEN they dropped it. So far, afaik, the officer who issued the ticket (a) still has his job (b) still has his liberty (c) has not been ordered to pay any compensation.
What if he'd just buckled and paid? We can see now that the man committed no offence, if he'd buckled then he'd have a criminal record, the government would be up by whatever the amount of the ticket was, and the officer would have another resolved crime for his statistics.
Switzerland has a large element of a direct democracy. It's still a republic, however, because the head of state is not a king\queen.
There is no 'distinction' between a direct democracy and a republic. The sentence doesn't make sense - one describes the mode of government, the other the nature of the head of state. It's like saying that a force acting on an object along the X-axis means that the object can't have a co-ordinate on the Y-axis.
What needs to happen now is for everyone who can get legal aid to do it to launch a suit against the relevant police force quoting a) that ruling from the ECHR and b) the section of the Human Rights act which requires British courts to obey rulings from the ECHR. With a few thousand of those battering at the doors things might get changed. If that doesn't work, a few thousand fresh complaints at the ECHR which are completely open & shut against the government are in order. Sadly, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for our politicos incompetence.
afaik there are very narrow circumstances where you can be forced to identify yourself on the street, and only some of those make it specifically illegal not to. vis. Section 44 of the terrorism act (only applies in areas designated by the secretary of state) When being issued with a fixed penalty notice or caution When being cited for prosecution (i.e. you're being accused of an offence) I think there's a fourth, but I can't remember what it is.
You do not normally have to identify yourself when being stopped and searched (except for a section 44 search), and there's no general right to go around demanding names and addresses from people. The only time that you have to produce documents is in relation to driving, and then you have 7 days to do so. That, of course, does not preclude officers from demanding that information in an authoritative manner where no genuine authority actually exists, and getting it immediately from 99.9% of people. Like you.
sorry, that one is from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Although the current rabble can be blamed for not having repealed that section during the 13 years that they've had
IANAL, but my interpretation of it is that silence will only be effective if it's complete. The jury may make 'reasonable inferrences' from refusal to answer questions, and there's a lot less inference that can be made from a tape which only has a police officer asking questions on it than one where the defendant suddenly gums up incase they same something incriminating. Your lawyer can point out that you follow the obvious advice which follows from the statement by that great statesman Cardinal Richelieu; "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.". Also, never enter the witness box, a defendant volunteering to be cross-examined is collecting just enough rope to hang themselves with.
Slashdot Mirror
The Geneva convention is not a reciprocal arrangement. Once you've signed it you have to abide by it with respect to all prisoners of war irregardless of wether they're from a country which has also signed.
The term Enemy Combatant was thus invented so as to avoid calling people captured during the present conflict PoWs.
The present situation (fighting what is essentially a war against people who are not acting for a particular state) is completely new, and has been handled badly by inventing a new term so as to avoid calling people who are essentially PoWs PoWs.
if you have no citizenship, you can't commit treason.
Also, there's various international treaties covering stateless persons, and one of them bans countries from deliberately creating stateless persons by retracting their citizenship. Anyone know if the US is signed up to that one?
Mod this guy up.
Firstly, the Geneva conventions cover civilians who take up arms to defend against an invader (e.g. the Norwegian rifle club which set up a roadblock and annihilated an entire German airborne unit in 1940),
Secondly the convention requires the capturing power to ask questions first and do their executing later - by implication the Geneva conventions do not authorise summary shooting of anyone, ever. You want to shoot someone who you've captured? You have to prove (if necessary to the satisfaction of his side's courts when you lose) that he's not entitled to the protection of the convention.
And what rank do these UAV operators normally hold?
Who is the highest person up the chain who authorizes an assassination?
When Admiral Yamamoto (a serving member of the military in a nation that the US was very definitely at war with) was killed the decision was taken by President Roosevelt. Do these hits get authorized by President Obama?
China's per-capita GDP is tiny
time to set up a cartel...
If you're actually deaf, and live in a first world country, get yourself registered deaf and tell potential employers about it before you go to interview.
She for example introduced a bill that mandated they employ women over men if both are equally qualified. They also placed no limits on how far this should go or when it should end. This bill directly impacts jobs that are already dominated by women so they cannot employ men.
It also encourages widening of the qualification gap between men and women, since men will now have to get themselves higher qualified to get a job.
how often has this happened to you?
And predated transistors. If computers were still powered by valves there probably would only be demand for a handful of them.
and there's a (slightly) more realistic chance of the fund going bankrupt and nobody getting anything.
In an NHS-type system you have the buffer of the whole of the rest of the national budget that COULD be eaten into before the money actually runs out.
nonetheless, if a company wanted to build (say) a shopping mall on your house, and you wouldn't sell, they may decide that the costs resulting from their bulldozing your house while you're on vacation are worth the payoff (ignoring the fact that you would still own the land underneath) and that it would therefore still be a sound business decision.
It's more like if I paid someone to go to IKEA, get me a flat-pack wardrobe & put it together. I would still expect them to give me the allen key which came in the box so I can take it apart & put it back together myself.
He also seems to have confused 'own' with 'right to use'. There's no reason why he can't give his source to his client and still retain the right to use it again himself.
Starting development without a contract sounds like a thoroughly foolish idea, as the terms will be essentially decided by a judge if there's ever a dispute. What the client reasonably expected (a copy of all the source and right to modify it) will be taken into account.
Finally, demanding a large up-front payment is not protecting himself from litigation. You take lots of money up-front and then don't provide the client with what they were expecting (with no contract) you'll end up with no money and lumbered with costs when they sue.
Now I remember why I stopped getting PCPro
$2000 is one not-particularly-brilliant workstation. If he's running a business which is heavily computation-oriented (which multi-TB datasets implies that it is) then $2000 is not a large one-time outlay.
his lawyer appealed the ticket, the prosecution refused to drop the case, they were ridiculed in the national press and THEN they dropped it. So far, afaik, the officer who issued the ticket (a) still has his job (b) still has his liberty (c) has not been ordered to pay any compensation.
What if he'd just buckled and paid? We can see now that the man committed no offence, if he'd buckled then he'd have a criminal record, the government would be up by whatever the amount of the ticket was, and the officer would have another resolved crime for his statistics.
the law should still be abolished and then replaced with a new one. Trying to amend existing laws makes a mess of the law books.
How would you propse that the law in question be re-written so that these people get left alone?
Switzerland has a large element of a direct democracy.
It's still a republic, however, because the head of state is not a king\queen.
There is no 'distinction' between a direct democracy and a republic. The sentence doesn't make sense - one describes the mode of government, the other the nature of the head of state. It's like saying that a force acting on an object along the X-axis means that the object can't have a co-ordinate on the Y-axis.
then any law which, when enforced, would have insane consequences (like this) must be abolished.
Let's try and tot up what would survive...
Do you point out that unless the candidate that they vote for wins by a majority of one, their vote is wasted anyway?
no, but they did give someone a ticket for blowing his nose while his vehicle was stopped in a traffic jam.
Blackadder III, Episode 1.
Also, "accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving"
What needs to happen now is for everyone who can get legal aid to do it to launch a suit against the relevant police force quoting a) that ruling from the ECHR and b) the section of the Human Rights act which requires British courts to obey rulings from the ECHR. With a few thousand of those battering at the doors things might get changed. If that doesn't work, a few thousand fresh complaints at the ECHR which are completely open & shut against the government are in order. Sadly, the taxpayer will have to foot the bill for our politicos incompetence.
[citation needed]
afaik there are very narrow circumstances where you can be forced to identify yourself on the street, and only some of those make it specifically illegal not to. vis.
Section 44 of the terrorism act (only applies in areas designated by the secretary of state)
When being issued with a fixed penalty notice or caution
When being cited for prosecution (i.e. you're being accused of an offence)
I think there's a fourth, but I can't remember what it is.
You do not normally have to identify yourself when being stopped and searched (except for a section 44 search), and there's no general right to go around demanding names and addresses from people.
The only time that you have to produce documents is in relation to driving, and then you have 7 days to do so.
That, of course, does not preclude officers from demanding that information in an authoritative manner where no genuine authority actually exists, and getting it immediately from 99.9% of people. Like you.
sorry, that one is from the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Although the current rabble can be blamed for not having repealed that section during the 13 years that they've had
IANAL, but my interpretation of it is that silence will only be effective if it's complete. The jury may make 'reasonable inferrences' from refusal to answer questions, and there's a lot less inference that can be made from a tape which only has a police officer asking questions on it than one where the defendant suddenly gums up incase they same something incriminating. Your lawyer can point out that you follow the obvious advice which follows from the statement by that great statesman Cardinal Richelieu; "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.".
Also, never enter the witness box, a defendant volunteering to be cross-examined is collecting just enough rope to hang themselves with.