They also don't have a choice if there ordered to help contain the violence. The riot police though, should have a choice as to what side their on.
I disagree, you've got that backwards. The soldiers are there to protect the country, the police are there to protect the government. The soldiers have every right to refuse orders to deploy against the population.
As a matter of principle, it's one of the few things which can keep a government straight - if you antagonise enough of the population that they can rise up and defeat your civilian police force, your army should not (and hopefully will not) protect you.
What they should do, symbolically at least, is march up to the border of the country, spread out (on their side), and turn to face outwards.
refer them to the response given in the case of Arkell V Pressdram.
This should be interesting - you can normally only achieve in the courts that which isn't actually supported by law if you have sufficient resources to browbeat the other side into backing down, or bamboozle the judge. How does the RIAA propose to do this against what is essentially an arms-length agency of the US government? (unless they plan to lobby the government for ICANN not to be given the funding it needs to defend itself - which is probably what they'll do)
Really they could just shoove the computers in some dark area of Whitehall and nobody will touch them.
"Shall I file it?" "Shall you file it? Shred it!" "Shred it?!" "No-one must ever be able to find it again!" "In that case, Minister, I think it's best I file it"
Yep, but that's not exclusive to Blixxard. Almost every 'real time strategy' game is really a 'real time tactics' game. Also, the speed at which units appear is mind bending for 'real time' - it's really an 'accelerated-time tactics' game, where there's no time to give real strategic thought to the game, not the style of control necessary for strategic activities. About the only thing which even comes close to a true strategy game is Supreme Commander 1 (not 2) - and that's still accelerated-time.
Let me see if I've got this right - somewhere in the mists of time, someone at your organisation decided that it would be a good idea to write programs which relied on proprietary extensions not actually found in the F77 standard. Eventually, when you were forced to migrate to different machines, the compilers didn't recognise the attempt to use non-compliant extensions. Therefore, F77\F90 are both evil and should be done away with in favour of C.
This makes sense... how? Your quarrel is with the original design of the program, not with the standards. Compliant F77 still compiles perfectly in an F90 compiler. Or, to put it more bluntly, it's no fault of Fortran that you've tried to bring bad code with you.
Taking the bald original text of the convention is misleading - everyone except Russia has signed protocol 6 - the death penalty is banned in peace time, and the now modified convention also blocks signatories being party to its use, such as by extraditing. Trying to attribute to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights an effect which has actually been provided by the EConvHR seems a little unfair, even if the EUCoFR would have the same effect. It's also important to note that the EUCoFR has only been in force for a little over a year, and there don't seem to be any situations where it has actually been used to stop such an extradition - whereas there are extraditions which have been blocked by the ECourtHR (on the basis of EConvHR) because someone would likely be executed.
In short; they both prohibit it in the present situation, but it is only EConvHR which has actually been used to prevent it.
Indeed, which is why you look to see if it's already been moderated funny. If it hasn't you moderate it 'funny', if it has you moderate it 'underrated', giving karma without changing the way the post is described.
Protocols 6 & 13. Particularly 6 which has been signed & ratified by everyone except Russia (which has only signed), and is the only one which need count since there isn't a war going on. In any case, if death row is prohibited by the EConvHR, how is it wrong to say that countries can't extradite if someone may face the death penalty (and hence being put on it)?
They might make the Hail-Herod play and knock off every pizza shop owner called Mohammed just to get the right one. (not expressing an opinion on whether wikileaks is right or wrong, just expanding on the 'taliban are asshats' theme)
The prohibition on extraditing if the death penalty is not taken off the table is a European thing, but it isn't an EU thing. It's a result of the European Convention on Human Rights, which encompases more countries (like Switzerland) and is substantially older than the EU. The only thing the EU has to do with it, is that the EU is, as of fairly recently, as bound to it as the signatory nations.
Interestingly, there is some evidence that the convention may start being used to argue against extradition due to the combination of the length of sentences typically handed out and the poor conditions in US prisons.
Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution;
from wikipedia, obviously. The government is not the state, sovereign immunity does not apply to governments.
A quick scan of the countries mentioned in the wikipedia article indicates that only the governments of the United States and possibly Nigeria claim to be protected by sovereign immunity. Almost everywhere else has abolished the idea of the government being immune (if they ever had it at all). This, I would say, is recognition that in a society taking a decent run at being democratic, the government has to be accountable for its actions in more that the most general sense*. I would be interested to see the statute in which the government of the Unites States is actually laid down to be immune to suit, or if it is merely judges erring by allowing the Government to successfully claim immunity that, as a principle of common law, it isn't entitled to.
*With the government immune to suit, the only action that can be taken against it is for the mass of the people to elect representatives who would use the (limited) powers available to them to remove existing members of the executive from their jobs, or block their re-appointment. This provides absolutely no protection against specific individual harms, and doesn't offer a remedy for damage already caused.
Having more money provides diminishing returns. If you have lots of money and go after someone who has to get a bad lawyer to spend 20 hours on it, being rich will help you. But someone with a few 10s of millions to spend isn't going to be any worse off for not having billions. Whatever the going rate for the very best lawyers is ($1000 per hour? $2000? I've never hired one), once both parties can afford more top-notch lawyer-hours than they could realistically use on the case anyway there's no advantage to being substantially richer than the other side.
I'm not sure what to think about this - on the one had patent trolls = bad, on the other hand, it's high time some assinine and inappropriate litigation kicked Blizzard up the backside.
Nope. No negligence, since the ordinary standard of care is that which is practiced by the patent office. Therefore, they are meeting it.
By that logic, so long as they are always negligent, they're not negligent.
But, in any case, I can believe that the US is still in the 18th century mindset that the government doesn't have to answer to anyone when it makes mistakes.
Never assume that just because plain words mean something in plain English, that a law hasn't redefined them. You can get a DUI despite not being driving, or despite a blood test showing that you weren't under the influence.
I had assumed that particular element of common law had survived in the US. But it turns out that in most states, it just isn't the case anymore. When this article was written, it was down to only a dozen states which still recognised the right to resist a false arrest. Everywhere else, you just have to let yourself be arrested, hope to $deity that you don't get convicted of anything, and then discover that there's no effective remedy available in the courts because the government will claim immunity.
Let's apply your argument to some other crimes. Why make it special when someone kills a police officer? We already have laws for murder, so why do we need to make that a more serious crime? Same goes for judges and any elected official. Why make assassination a crime at all, it's just a murder like any other.
I read that thinking "finally, some sanity", until I realised that you were trying to be sarcastic. Killing a Police Officer should not be a seperate or more serious crime. To do so means that killing anyone else is a less serious crime, and results in the law essentially de-valuing the lives of everyone else.
Not that I've RTFA, but don't take it for granted that Google can be held responsible for YouTube's actions, especially given the complex web of companies used by an organisation that size. In any case, how hard would it really be for Google to pack up their Milan office?
The principle of the first amendment is free speech. It may bind only the government, but that's not to say that it's a nonsense for a private entity to voluntarily uphold the principle as well. I don't think it was ever intended that the government being the only entity against which a person has an enforceable right to protection of freedom speech should mean that free speech should naturally exist nowhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
They also don't have a choice if there ordered to help contain the violence. The riot police though, should have a choice as to what side their on.
I disagree, you've got that backwards. The soldiers are there to protect the country, the police are there to protect the government. The soldiers have every right to refuse orders to deploy against the population.
As a matter of principle, it's one of the few things which can keep a government straight - if you antagonise enough of the population that they can rise up and defeat your civilian police force, your army should not (and hopefully will not) protect you.
What they should do, symbolically at least, is march up to the border of the country, spread out (on their side), and turn to face outwards.
if?
It's virtually certain.
Also, the number is probably already blocked.
But did Sony make the actual panel?
Does anyone actually proofread anything anymore?
Just what sort of website do you think you've stumbled upon here, buddy?
refer them to the response given in the case of Arkell V Pressdram.
This should be interesting - you can normally only achieve in the courts that which isn't actually supported by law if you have sufficient resources to browbeat the other side into backing down, or bamboozle the judge. How does the RIAA propose to do this against what is essentially an arms-length agency of the US government? (unless they plan to lobby the government for ICANN not to be given the funding it needs to defend itself - which is probably what they'll do)
Really they could just shoove the computers in some dark area of Whitehall and nobody will touch them.
"Shall I file it?"
"Shall you file it? Shred it!"
"Shred it?!"
"No-one must ever be able to find it again!"
"In that case, Minister, I think it's best I file it"
Yep, but that's not exclusive to Blixxard. Almost every 'real time strategy' game is really a 'real time tactics' game. Also, the speed at which units appear is mind bending for 'real time' - it's really an 'accelerated-time tactics' game, where there's no time to give real strategic thought to the game, not the style of control necessary for strategic activities. About the only thing which even comes close to a true strategy game is Supreme Commander 1 (not 2) - and that's still accelerated-time.
Let me see if I've got this right - somewhere in the mists of time, someone at your organisation decided that it would be a good idea to write programs which relied on proprietary extensions not actually found in the F77 standard. Eventually, when you were forced to migrate to different machines, the compilers didn't recognise the attempt to use non-compliant extensions.
Therefore, F77\F90 are both evil and should be done away with in favour of C.
This makes sense... how?
Your quarrel is with the original design of the program, not with the standards. Compliant F77 still compiles perfectly in an F90 compiler. Or, to put it more bluntly, it's no fault of Fortran that you've tried to bring bad code with you.
Taking the bald original text of the convention is misleading - everyone except Russia has signed protocol 6 - the death penalty is banned in peace time, and the now modified convention also blocks signatories being party to its use, such as by extraditing. Trying to attribute to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights an effect which has actually been provided by the EConvHR seems a little unfair, even if the EUCoFR would have the same effect.
It's also important to note that the EUCoFR has only been in force for a little over a year, and there don't seem to be any situations where it has actually been used to stop such an extradition - whereas there are extraditions which have been blocked by the ECourtHR (on the basis of EConvHR) because someone would likely be executed.
In short; they both prohibit it in the present situation, but it is only EConvHR which has actually been used to prevent it.
Indeed, which is why you look to see if it's already been moderated funny. If it hasn't you moderate it 'funny', if it has you moderate it 'underrated', giving karma without changing the way the post is described.
...and when we got home, our dad used to murder us in cold blood, and dance about on our graves saying 'hallelujah!"
Protocols 6 & 13. Particularly 6 which has been signed & ratified by everyone except Russia (which has only signed), and is the only one which need count since there isn't a war going on.
In any case, if death row is prohibited by the EConvHR, how is it wrong to say that countries can't extradite if someone may face the death penalty (and hence being put on it)?
They might make the Hail-Herod play and knock off every pizza shop owner called Mohammed just to get the right one.
(not expressing an opinion on whether wikileaks is right or wrong, just expanding on the 'taliban are asshats' theme)
The prohibition on extraditing if the death penalty is not taken off the table is a European thing, but it isn't an EU thing. It's a result of the European Convention on Human Rights, which encompases more countries (like Switzerland) and is substantially older than the EU. The only thing the EU has to do with it, is that the EU is, as of fairly recently, as bound to it as the signatory nations.
Interestingly, there is some evidence that the convention may start being used to argue against extradition due to the combination of the length of sentences typically handed out and the poor conditions in US prisons.
Generally speaking it is the doctrine that the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution;
from wikipedia, obviously.
The government is not the state, sovereign immunity does not apply to governments.
A quick scan of the countries mentioned in the wikipedia article indicates that only the governments of the United States and possibly Nigeria claim to be protected by sovereign immunity. Almost everywhere else has abolished the idea of the government being immune (if they ever had it at all). This, I would say, is recognition that in a society taking a decent run at being democratic, the government has to be accountable for its actions in more that the most general sense*. I would be interested to see the statute in which the government of the Unites States is actually laid down to be immune to suit, or if it is merely judges erring by allowing the Government to successfully claim immunity that, as a principle of common law, it isn't entitled to.
*With the government immune to suit, the only action that can be taken against it is for the mass of the people to elect representatives who would use the (limited) powers available to them to remove existing members of the executive from their jobs, or block their re-appointment. This provides absolutely no protection against specific individual harms, and doesn't offer a remedy for damage already caused.
Having more money provides diminishing returns. If you have lots of money and go after someone who has to get a bad lawyer to spend 20 hours on it, being rich will help you. But someone with a few 10s of millions to spend isn't going to be any worse off for not having billions.
Whatever the going rate for the very best lawyers is ($1000 per hour? $2000? I've never hired one), once both parties can afford more top-notch lawyer-hours than they could realistically use on the case anyway there's no advantage to being substantially richer than the other side.
I'm not sure what to think about this - on the one had patent trolls = bad, on the other hand, it's high time some assinine and inappropriate litigation kicked Blizzard up the backside.
Nope. No negligence, since the ordinary standard of care is that which is practiced by the patent office. Therefore, they are meeting it.
By that logic, so long as they are always negligent, they're not negligent.
But, in any case, I can believe that the US is still in the 18th century mindset that the government doesn't have to answer to anyone when it makes mistakes.
Never assume that just because plain words mean something in plain English, that a law hasn't redefined them. You can get a DUI despite not being driving, or despite a blood test showing that you weren't under the influence.
I had assumed that particular element of common law had survived in the US.
But it turns out that in most states, it just isn't the case anymore. When this article was written, it was down to only a dozen states which still recognised the right to resist a false arrest. Everywhere else, you just have to let yourself be arrested, hope to $deity that you don't get convicted of anything, and then discover that there's no effective remedy available in the courts because the government will claim immunity.
Let's apply your argument to some other crimes. Why make it special when someone kills a police officer? We already have laws for murder, so why do we need to make that a more serious crime? Same goes for judges and any elected official. Why make assassination a crime at all, it's just a murder like any other.
I read that thinking "finally, some sanity", until I realised that you were trying to be sarcastic. Killing a Police Officer should not be a seperate or more serious crime. To do so means that killing anyone else is a less serious crime, and results in the law essentially de-valuing the lives of everyone else.
and it would be impossibly hard for them to sell advertising space to the Italian market from an office in southern France? or Malta?
It isn't a right if you've chosen to sign it away.
On the contrary, it isn't a right if you can sign it away.
Not that I've RTFA, but don't take it for granted that Google can be held responsible for YouTube's actions, especially given the complex web of companies used by an organisation that size. In any case, how hard would it really be for Google to pack up their Milan office?
The principle of the first amendment is free speech. It may bind only the government, but that's not to say that it's a nonsense for a private entity to voluntarily uphold the principle as well.
I don't think it was ever intended that the government being the only entity against which a person has an enforceable right to protection of freedom speech should mean that free speech should naturally exist nowhere else.
must add, every camera not in the log filed the day before should be assumed to be working.