Granted, I agree with the implication that he probably changed his mind due to the influence of lobbying $.
But I disagree that "sticking to one's original convictions" is necessarily a bad thing. IF Hatch carefully analysed both sides of the argument, and decided his first take was wrong, and therefore changed his mind after careful reflection on the merits, that's entirely appropriate, and in fact the kind of behavior we should encourage in our government officials.
As I said, I suspect that he more likely changed his mind due to the pernicious influence of lobbying money. But I think the implication that changing one's mind is necessary a bad thing also represents sloppy thinking.
Re:Best examples of heresy I can think of
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Two quibbles (with aspects of your post that don't go to your main points):
Yes, women have the right to vote, and I don't know of any evidence that they are unable to use it, though the still terribly few number of women in the political arena suggests we still have a long way to go there.
Implicit in this statement is a belief that women will vote for and elect women because they are women (rather than vote for the candidate they think is best suited for the job and most likely to represent them) and that the system must be broken if women aren't electing women to represent them. Personally, I don't think that belief is justified. Most of the women I know vote for the person they think is the best candidate, and that best shares their views -- women with Republican views won't vote for a Democratic candidate because she is female any more than African Americans with Democratic views will vote for a Republican candidate because he is black. Representative democracy is supposed to work based on the representation of political thought, not on the representation of some accident of genetics, such as sex or ethnic group.
But it's not illegal for a guy to pull up next to me as I'm walking home and describe what filthy things he wants to do to me... that's protected under the First Amendment. No matter how terrifying it is. (Yes, I called the police. They're who told me they couldn't do anything, even though I had his description and the license plate.)
Your police failed you. It is illegal to put someone in fear of bodily harm - the crime is called "assault" (it becomes "assault and battery" if you are actually touched), and your police should have heard of it, as I'm pretty sure it is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Undoubtedly, the police were either too lazy to follow up or too sexist to care. Either problem is one you should address with your local government (either through a citizen's ombudsman in the police department, through the local district attorney, or through politicians in your city council). But you should not have been waived off if you wanted to press charges.
FYI, as a U.S. Citizen, I do not have a "Congressman" (neither a Representative nor two Senators). Instead, I live in the land of "Taxation Without Representation," the District of Columbia. At least the Puerto Ricans get an exemption from Federal taxes; not for us.
This is offtopic to the offtopic rant which is context to this post, but no one should assume that all U.S. citizens are represented in Congress.
Unfortunately, given globalization, this is no longer a matter of domestic legislation that a country can change on its own with only domestic consequences.
A great number of countries have signed treaties that require the signatories to have certain IP provisions in their domestic laws. See, for example, the 1994 WTO TRIPS agreement, to which most of the world is a signatory. A number of bilateral treaties contain far more restrictive provisions than TRIPs -- a number of them actually require DCMA-like provisions to be enacted. Violation of these treaty obligations has consequences: you will be subject to trade sanctions. If your country knows that when its breaks a deal which it voluntarily signed, the result will be that the major content-producing countries (say the US, the EU and maybe Japan) impose severe trade sanctions on your country, which cripple your economy and the well-being of all your citizens, well, a lot of reasonable people in your country might find it very hard to agree to break the deal.
Or where it really came from - Philip K Dick
on
Virtual Simerica
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The Three Stigmata Of Palmer Eldritch, to be exact.
Stephenson, Bah! Have you no sense of history, Man?!
"Abuse of the legal process" and making frivolous claims can get you disbarred under the rules of Professional Responsibility in almost every jurisdiction. Complaint to the Office of Bar Council is the relevant jurisdiction would be appropriate. Be prepared to show that it was absolutely clear under the law that the information was not subject to copyright.
"Extortion" is of course a crime, for both the lawyer and the client who authorized the lawyer. I believe that threatening baseless legal action designed to harass the target qualifies for the "threat" part of extortion.
Use of interstate mail or wire to conduct extortion forms a predicate act for a RICO violation. Not only a criminal violation, but also a civil offense that lets the target sue for triple damages and attorney's fees.
The key to all this is establishing that the attorney (and hir client) knew or should have known that their actions had no support in the law. That's not easy, unless the law is crystal-clear. And, come on, how many laws are crystal-clear?
Yes. UC is the government, not a private institution. As such, under current US First Amendment law, they do not have the right to limit protected speech in the way a private entity would.
The question is whether speech such as this is protected under the First Amendment. Most people probably think the answer is yes. Five years ago, the answer clearly would have been yes. Time will tell if that has changed.
My question is "How will you compensate me for my time?" Oh, I should participate in market research and benefit your company and your client for free? I see....
The problem with this stems from the fact that not everyone assigns the same value to content. Let's say Joe finds a piece of info on the Internet and he's willing to pay $10 for it, Jack finds that same piece of info but only thinks it is worth $2, and Jill finds the information not useful at all. Now if the information provider sets the value of that piece of information at $5, he's lost 2 customers, not one. Content providers need to find their way around this problem if they want to start reaping monetary rewards.
How is this different from any other business?
All businesses have to figure out how to price their products to reap maximum profits. This almost always involves setting a price above marginal costs that some people won't pay, thereby losing some sales. But the profits on the other sales at the higher price make up for
lost sales.
In the example Cliff gives, a company prices the content at $10. They make ten dollars. If they price the content any lower, they make less profit. I.e., price it at $2 to pick up Jack's business, and you only make $4.
Or does Cliff want a market with perfect price discrimination? This is great for firms, but almost always equally bad for consumers. And the profits usually get arbitraged away, though not without transaction costs that harm overall wealth.
But i've yet to see anything online that even remotely offers something truly unique and exclusive that i cannot find anywhere else [like HBO] that merits paying additional fees just to view it.
The Wall Street Journal is commonly considered to be, as you put it, "the HBO of websites". (we will leave aside pr0n). Many people gladly pay a regular subscription fee for the content. I'm not saying the content is of interest to everyone (neither is the content of HBO), but the Journal does, by popular account, run a profitable subscription-only website. (I'm not sure how they account for sharing the cost of the content with the print version, however. Presumably pro-rata per reader).
Browser-based solutions are a good idea. I would love to block images that match certain dimensions (1x1) or have a URL that matches some regexp (/ads/).
For the Mac OS, try iCab. Let's you block images by both of the above. It also has a fantastic set of cookie management functions.
The MPAA argues that DeCSS is not speech in any way. They are saying that computer programs are "black boxes".
If that is the case, then how could you have copyright on software? Doesn't the fact that software is copyright-able indicate that it is a form of expression, like written/spoken words, recordings, music, graphic art, or even films.
How can the courts in one instance rule that software has the protection afforded to other forms of creative expression when it comes to copyright (intended to be limited in scope), but then rule that it does not have those protections when it comes to protecting speech (intended to be a broad, unassailable right)?
You know, somebody in a position to do so (not me)really ought to bring this point to the attention of Microsoft, the BSA, etc. These companies ought to be very interested in filing a friend-of-the-court brief making sure that the court understands that software is a form of protectable expression. That point has already been recognized by another appeals court in the First Amendment context even in the Bernstein encryption/exportation case, if I recall correctly.
The bottom line is that, as a matter of what law applies in the United States, the Constitution trumps all laws and treaties enacted by the various branches of government.
As a general matter, modern treaties signed and ratified by the U.S. do not have any direct effect on U.S. domestic law. Instead, signing a treaty creates an international obligation of the United States, not of its citizens. In other words, the U.S. goverment has to answer to the government of Freedonia when the treaty isn't respected by a US citizen. But that doesn't mean the US citizen has to respect the treaty.
For a treaty to have domestic impact, there must usually be some form of implementing legislation or regulation. I'm sure we all know that US courts will strike down legislation and regulations that conflict with the requirements of the Constitution (as they interpret it).
There is the rare "self-executing" treaty, which has the force of law upon ratification by the U.S. government. But it has been decided that those treaties are also subservient to the Constitution. The undecided issue is whether those treaties outrank Acts of Congress.
On topic: the patent and copyright provisions of the Constitution say very little, and say it vaguely. A U.S. court would almost certainly follow whatever policy the rest of the U.S. government set on intellectual property, except where it violates explicit provisions of the Bill of Rights. For example, freedom of speech and freedom of religion will be protected. But so will the property rights under the 5th Amendment (no property shall be taken without just compensation). To the extent that people have established intellectual property rights under the current regime, any change that takes those rights away may well require compensation from the U.S. treasury.
What seems like a good deal is often not. The indians thought it was a good deal to sell manhatten for some beads. Of course to an Indian the concept of owning land was strange and nonsensical. Maybe to the Tongans (is that the right word) it seems silly that somebody would be paying them money for genes.
We can only hope they can avoid the fate of the indians.
Completely off topic, but I have heard (disclaimer: note the lack of a citation) that if the Indian Tribe had taken the $24 that was part of the purchase price (leaving them free to consume the trade goods that were also part of the deal) and put the money in an interest-bearing account, the power of compound interest would have resulted in enough money to buy back the entire island of Manhattan even at today's real estate prices. (I don't know if that is just the land, or if it includes the buildings). If this is true, it's really not like the Indians got rooked, now is it?
Or write Rep. Miller. Miller's site cleverly does not include his email address, but according to this site turned up by Google , Miller's email is miller13@mail.house.gov. Seems plausible, since he represents the 13th district in Florida. It won't be his personal email address, however. Ask him or his flacks to explain the apparent inconsistency in his two positions, as indicated by the links in the header. Note that http://www.house.gov/danmiller/census/faq.htm , the official FAQ of the Census Subcommittee, hosted by Miller's office, encourages people to divulge all the requested information to the Census, and states the following to assuage their privacy concerns:
5. Is the information I provide contained in my Census 2000 questionnaire private?
Yes. In fact, it is against the law for Census employees to disclose the information you provide. Information that is gathered and released by the Census Bureau is not connected with your household's address. By law, the Bureau cannot and will not share your households census information with the IRS, FBI, INS -- or any other government agency for that matter. There is no court of law that can subpoena this information, not even the President of the United States.
If you live in his District, write your local paper. Get them to ask him to explain the apparent inconsistency in his public statements. He's up for reelection. Make it an issue if you are a constituent.
You only have yourself to blame for your cynicism and inaction. Bitching on Slashdot won't change the world. At least not in politics. Slashdot is useful to let you know what's going on, but bitching here won't do much of anything except give you some catharsis.
C'mon, why do you think Americans pay per gallon of gasoline what Europeans pay per liter? Farm subsidies? Research grants? There are already billions of tax dollars going directly or indirectly into U.S. corporations
To correct the poster: We Americans pay dramatically less per unit of gasoline because the government taxes it at much lower rate than the various European governments do. Sure, maybe half the US price for retail gas is taxes -- but that figure is more like 80% in Europe.
I don't dispute the poster's contention that, like in most countries, billions of tax dollars are funneled to U.S. corps, directly or indirectly. But the price of gas has nothing to do with this assertion. The differential in the price of gas has to do with government decisions abouttax policy, not redistribution policy.
I was pointing out the absurdity of friends calling a movie character "gay" being compared to homophobia (fear of man?) and/or bias-based violence against anyone. Political correctness started as a "system" of respect, and soon devolved into a system of control. It creates an (anti)hostile environment where everyone is afraid to say anything less it gets misinterperted as biased. Nobody is allowed to have opionons, or even mind their own damn business. Apathy isn't even an option unless you want to get pelted with slogans. You're feeding the fires, part of the problem... STFU! Never once did I advocate accosting strangers. If I call my friend a "fag" for wearing a tight shiny shirt, and I get compared to the KKK (who's hosts.deny list I am most assuridly on). Yea, that's the same thing. Following your exercise in illogic, I can say your thought-bullying is a cross-hair away from reeducation camps and lobotomies.
Beating up or oppressing someone for being gay is wrong. Calling someone a fag is a schoolyard taunt. This difference is not subtle. Stop trying to bully everyone into being as damn sensitive as you are. I for one don't want to live in your humorless milktoast aftershool special world, homo.
I'll take a million Norm Colemans before I'd take a single mealy-mouthed retard named Sharon Sayles Belton. I am no fan of Norm either. During the stupid ballpart debates, he refered to a crowd I was a part of as "Probably not from St.Paul." I yelled back "Let's compare birth certificates, Norm." He didn't say anyhting after that.
I am a lawyer, but this isn't legal advice. If you need legal advice, see an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
IAAL also, and ditto on the disclaimer.
Hawk is right. Such a tactic would have no effect on the proposed split, contrary to the majority view expressed here by non-lawyers.
BTW, IMO, Hawk should be moderated up, so that all the non-lawyers who are speculating here can see his points.
Furthermore, even if MS left the US, this would not get them out of future trouble. Foreign companies that do a sufficient amount of business in the United Statesare subject to the laws of the United States and the jurisdiction of its courts. "Sufficient" is a wriggly lawyer term, but one that MS probably couldn't escape from. (BTW, this principle holds true in most countries of the world -- the concept is that if you avail yourself of the benefits of the laws of a jurisdiction by participating in activities there, you are also subject to its rules -- a pretty fair concept, on its face).
The question then becomes how such a court enforces its judgment on extra-nationals. Many of you seem to think that court orders could only affect MS product shipped into the US. Wrong! The powers of a U.S. federal court are vast, particularly if MS were to engage in criminal contempt of court by ignoring the judgment.
Do you know why indicted/convicted drug kingpins (and in the assumed scenario, MS would be little better in the eyes of US law enforcement) don't openly live in Canada and don't openly conduct their business in the U.S.? Because (1) the Canadians have treaty obligations, if not the desire, to cooperate with the USG in bringing lawbreakers to U.S. justice, including through extradition and the like, and (2) the USG has large resources devoted to tracking any "laundered" legitimate business activity they carry out in this country (and globally) and then freezing or seizing the assets involved.
MS would have a hard time operating without access to its bank accounts (and note that even the Swiss cooperate in matters like this - they only won't help other governments when the allegations are tax evasion). A company like MS must have access to the international banking system to do business -- they would have a hard time indeed if they had to rely on the Caymans to the point where they could only pay and accept money from other people with Caymans accounts.
Believe me, the USG doesn't tolerate public displays of disobediance to its laws. The more public and egregious the disobediance, the harder the government will come down on you. Often disproportionately and often to public approval (forex, witness the defiance of Elain's Miami relatives, and the subsequent force used to bring them to heel). For whatever historical reason, the U.S. federal judicary (though often not the political branches) commands an almost mystical respect from the American people. Any number of popular (at least at some level) causes have lost considerable credibility with the masses after a decision was made to defy the law, as interpreted by the courts (e.g., Elian, desegregation resistance, and to a lesser extent right-to-lifers).
MS and the DoJ both know this, and know that the full force of the U.S. government will be used to enforce whatever the final ruling turns out to be. That is why neither one of them is likely to be giving this British Columbia scheme even as much though as I just have.
This is a symptom of an obsolete naming system...
on
Who Bought Linux.Net?
·
· Score: 1
The fact that domain names sell for millions is a sign of obsolescence of the current naming system. Who should own the domain, say... diamond.com? Diamond Multimedia? A diamond retailer? How about a South African diamond mine? or a New York cutter? All could claim to have some right to the name, among thousands of others. But who gets it? The first to register it. The fact that there is competition for domain names, and squatters of those names, exposes the weakness of DNS. When there were a handful of domains on the Internet, this wasn't an issue. I'm sure the folks who thought up DNS never imagined the present commercialization of the internet, but this system is stifled, and at the end of it's useful life.
10 or 100 watt radio stations with decent tuned antennas simply will not interfere with other radio stations. Here in Minnesota, we have a terrible classic rock station that puts out 50,000 watts and bleeds all over the dial. No one but me seems to be bothered by this broadcasting blowtorch. (But first hint of any pirate radio station in the area, and the FCC gets "dozens" of interferance complaint calls. I suspect most are from 'rival' PR, or goliath stations feeling threatened but the unlicensed david.) They are running a business catering to regular people who generally know nothing about antenna theory; they want the listeners to be able to pick up the station on a paper clip. A dedicated listener could be expected to have an antenna, even if it's a radio shack wire antenna hanging down behind the tuner. But most big station listeners are fickle, and will change the station at the slightest hint of static- hence the "need" for 50 KWatts. This station is one of the several in the local ABC radio juggernaut that commands a third of the FM dial. I believe this is what the FCC is (finally) addressing. I think they should go one step further and limit output to a maximum of 20 KWatts. This would clear up the dial for more stations, especially micro and low powered non commercial stations. I love radio, but hate the business. I have thought of starting a pirate radio station, but found the penaltys too steep. Maybe this will provide me with an oppurtunity to get on the air.
I will have a lot of red licorish, dried apples and vodka. I have an inflatable raft in the trunk of my car in case the heat cased by all those vaporising christians at rapture casues the polar ice caps to melt, bringing about a waterworld scenario.
Slashdot Mirror
Granted, I agree with the implication that he probably changed his mind due to the influence of lobbying $.
But I disagree that "sticking to one's original convictions" is necessarily a bad thing. IF Hatch carefully analysed both sides of the argument, and decided his first take was wrong, and therefore changed his mind after careful reflection on the merits, that's entirely appropriate, and in fact the kind of behavior we should encourage in our government officials.
As I said, I suspect that he more likely changed his mind due to the pernicious influence of lobbying money. But I think the implication that changing one's mind is necessary a bad thing also represents sloppy thinking.
Two quibbles (with aspects of your post that don't go to your main points):
Yes, women have the right to vote, and I don't know of any evidence that they are unable to use it, though the still terribly few number of women in the political arena suggests we still have a long way to go there.
Implicit in this statement is a belief that women will vote for and elect women because they are women (rather than vote for the candidate they think is best suited for the job and most likely to represent them) and that the system must be broken if women aren't electing women to represent them. Personally, I don't think that belief is justified. Most of the women I know vote for the person they think is the best candidate, and that best shares their views -- women with Republican views won't vote for a Democratic candidate because she is female any more than African Americans with Democratic views will vote for a Republican candidate because he is black. Representative democracy is supposed to work based on the representation of political thought, not on the representation of some accident of genetics, such as sex or ethnic group.
But it's not illegal for a guy to pull up next to me as I'm walking home and describe what filthy things he wants to do to me... that's protected under the First Amendment. No matter how terrifying it is. (Yes, I called the police. They're who told me they couldn't do anything, even though I had his description and the license plate.)
Your police failed you. It is illegal to put someone in fear of bodily harm - the crime is called "assault" (it becomes "assault and battery" if you are actually touched), and your police should have heard of it, as I'm pretty sure it is a crime in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Undoubtedly, the police were either too lazy to follow up or too sexist to care. Either problem is one you should address with your local government (either through a citizen's ombudsman in the police department, through the local district attorney, or through politicians in your city council). But you should not have been waived off if you wanted to press charges.
FYI, as a U.S. Citizen, I do not have a "Congressman" (neither a Representative nor two Senators). Instead, I live in the land of "Taxation Without Representation," the District of Columbia. At least the Puerto Ricans get an exemption from Federal taxes; not for us.
This is offtopic to the offtopic rant which is context to this post, but no one should assume that all U.S. citizens are represented in Congress.
Unfortunately, given globalization, this is no longer a matter of domestic legislation that a country can change on its own with only domestic consequences.
A great number of countries have signed treaties that require the signatories to have certain IP provisions in their domestic laws. See, for example, the 1994 WTO TRIPS agreement, to which most of the world is a signatory. A number of bilateral treaties contain far more restrictive provisions than TRIPs -- a number of them actually require DCMA-like provisions to be enacted. Violation of these treaty obligations has consequences: you will be subject to trade sanctions. If your country knows that when its breaks a deal which it voluntarily signed, the result will be that the major content-producing countries (say the US, the EU and maybe Japan) impose severe trade sanctions on your country, which cripple your economy and the well-being of all your citizens, well, a lot of reasonable people in your country might find it very hard to agree to break the deal.
The Three Stigmata Of Palmer Eldritch, to be exact.
Stephenson, Bah! Have you no sense of history, Man?!
"They" do. Many in fact.
"Abuse of the legal process" and making frivolous claims can get you disbarred under the rules of Professional Responsibility in almost every jurisdiction. Complaint to the Office of Bar Council is the relevant jurisdiction would be appropriate. Be prepared to show that it was absolutely clear under the law that the information was not subject to copyright.
"Extortion" is of course a crime, for both the lawyer and the client who authorized the lawyer. I believe that threatening baseless legal action designed to harass the target qualifies for the "threat" part of extortion.
Use of interstate mail or wire to conduct extortion forms a predicate act for a RICO violation. Not only a criminal violation, but also a civil offense that lets the target sue for triple damages and attorney's fees.
The key to all this is establishing that the attorney (and hir client) knew or should have known that their actions had no support in the law. That's not easy, unless the law is crystal-clear. And, come on, how many laws are crystal-clear?
Yes. UC is the government, not a private institution. As such, under current US First Amendment law, they do not have the right to limit protected speech in the way a private entity would.
The question is whether speech such as this is protected under the First Amendment. Most people probably think the answer is yes. Five years ago, the answer clearly would have been yes. Time will tell if that has changed.
No, part of the cost of blank tapes goes to the copyright holder. Not the same thing, as many an artist will tell you.
My question is "How will you compensate me for my time?" Oh, I should participate in market research and benefit your company and your client for free? I see....
All businesses have to figure out how to price their products to reap maximum profits. This almost always involves setting a price above marginal costs that some people won't pay, thereby losing some sales. But the profits on the other sales at the higher price make up for lost sales.
In the example Cliff gives, a company prices the content at $10. They make ten dollars. If they price the content any lower, they make less profit. I.e., price it at $2 to pick up Jack's business, and you only make $4.
Or does Cliff want a market with perfect price discrimination? This is great for firms, but almost always equally bad for consumers. And the profits usually get arbitraged away, though not without transaction costs that harm overall wealth.
For the Mac OS, try iCab. Let's you block images by both of the above. It also has a fantastic set of cookie management functions.
Just a happy user on my home machine.
The bottom line is that, as a matter of what law applies in the United States, the Constitution trumps all laws and treaties enacted by the various branches of government.
As a general matter, modern treaties signed and ratified by the U.S. do not have any direct effect on U.S. domestic law. Instead, signing a treaty creates an international obligation of the United States, not of its citizens. In other words, the U.S. goverment has to answer to the government of Freedonia when the treaty isn't respected by a US citizen. But that doesn't mean the US citizen has to respect the treaty.
For a treaty to have domestic impact, there must usually be some form of implementing legislation or regulation. I'm sure we all know that US courts will strike down legislation and regulations that conflict with the requirements of the Constitution (as they interpret it).
There is the rare "self-executing" treaty, which has the force of law upon ratification by the U.S. government. But it has been decided that those treaties are also subservient to the Constitution. The undecided issue is whether those treaties outrank Acts of Congress.
On topic: the patent and copyright provisions of the Constitution say very little, and say it vaguely. A U.S. court would almost certainly follow whatever policy the rest of the U.S. government set on intellectual property, except where it violates explicit provisions of the Bill of Rights. For example, freedom of speech and freedom of religion will be protected. But so will the property rights under the 5th Amendment (no property shall be taken without just compensation). To the extent that people have established intellectual property rights under the current regime, any change that takes those rights away may well require compensation from the U.S. treasury.
Or write Rep. Miller. Miller's site cleverly does not include his email address, but according to this site turned up by Google , Miller's email is miller13@mail.house.gov. Seems plausible, since he represents the 13th district in Florida. It won't be his personal email address, however. Ask him or his flacks to explain the apparent inconsistency in his two positions, as indicated by the links in the header. Note that http://www.house.gov/danmiller/census/faq.htm , the official FAQ of the Census Subcommittee, hosted by Miller's office, encourages people to divulge all the requested information to the Census, and states the following to assuage their privacy concerns:
If you live in his District, write your local paper. Get them to ask him to explain the apparent inconsistency in his public statements. He's up for reelection. Make it an issue if you are a constituent.
You only have yourself to blame for your cynicism and inaction. Bitching on Slashdot won't change the world. At least not in politics. Slashdot is useful to let you know what's going on, but bitching here won't do much of anything except give you some catharsis.
To correct the poster: We Americans pay dramatically less per unit of gasoline because the government taxes it at much lower rate than the various European governments do. Sure, maybe half the US price for retail gas is taxes -- but that figure is more like 80% in Europe.
I don't dispute the poster's contention that, like in most countries, billions of tax dollars are funneled to U.S. corps, directly or indirectly. But the price of gas has nothing to do with this assertion. The differential in the price of gas has to do with government decisions abouttax policy, not redistribution policy.
I was pointing out the absurdity of friends calling a movie character "gay" being compared to homophobia (fear of man?) and/or bias-based violence against anyone. Political correctness started as a "system" of respect, and soon devolved into a system of control. It creates an (anti)hostile environment where everyone is afraid to say anything less it gets misinterperted as biased. Nobody is allowed to have opionons, or even mind their own damn business. Apathy isn't even an option unless you want to get pelted with slogans. You're feeding the fires, part of the problem... STFU! Never once did I advocate accosting strangers. If I call my friend a "fag" for wearing a tight shiny shirt, and I get compared to the KKK (who's hosts.deny list I am most assuridly on). Yea, that's the same thing. Following your exercise in illogic, I can say your thought-bullying is a cross-hair away from reeducation camps and lobotomies.
Beating up or oppressing someone for being gay is wrong. Calling someone a fag is a schoolyard taunt. This difference is not subtle. Stop trying to bully everyone into being as damn sensitive as you are. I for one don't want to live in your humorless milktoast aftershool special world, homo.
I'll take a million Norm Colemans before I'd take a single mealy-mouthed retard named Sharon Sayles Belton. I am no fan of Norm either. During the stupid ballpart debates, he refered to a crowd I was a part of as "Probably not from St.Paul." I yelled back "Let's compare birth certificates, Norm." He didn't say anyhting after that.
IAAL also, and ditto on the disclaimer.
Hawk is right. Such a tactic would have no effect on the proposed split, contrary to the majority view expressed here by non-lawyers.
BTW, IMO, Hawk should be moderated up, so that all the non-lawyers who are speculating here can see his points.
Furthermore, even if MS left the US, this would not get them out of future trouble. Foreign companies that do a sufficient amount of business in the United States are subject to the laws of the United States and the jurisdiction of its courts. "Sufficient" is a wriggly lawyer term, but one that MS probably couldn't escape from. (BTW, this principle holds true in most countries of the world -- the concept is that if you avail yourself of the benefits of the laws of a jurisdiction by participating in activities there, you are also subject to its rules -- a pretty fair concept, on its face).
The question then becomes how such a court enforces its judgment on extra-nationals. Many of you seem to think that court orders could only affect MS product shipped into the US. Wrong! The powers of a U.S. federal court are vast, particularly if MS were to engage in criminal contempt of court by ignoring the judgment.
Do you know why indicted/convicted drug kingpins (and in the assumed scenario, MS would be little better in the eyes of US law enforcement) don't openly live in Canada and don't openly conduct their business in the U.S.? Because (1) the Canadians have treaty obligations, if not the desire, to cooperate with the USG in bringing lawbreakers to U.S. justice, including through extradition and the like, and (2) the USG has large resources devoted to tracking any "laundered" legitimate business activity they carry out in this country (and globally) and then freezing or seizing the assets involved.
MS would have a hard time operating without access to its bank accounts (and note that even the Swiss cooperate in matters like this - they only won't help other governments when the allegations are tax evasion). A company like MS must have access to the international banking system to do business -- they would have a hard time indeed if they had to rely on the Caymans to the point where they could only pay and accept money from other people with Caymans accounts.
Believe me, the USG doesn't tolerate public displays of disobediance to its laws. The more public and egregious the disobediance, the harder the government will come down on you. Often disproportionately and often to public approval (forex, witness the defiance of Elain's Miami relatives, and the subsequent force used to bring them to heel). For whatever historical reason, the U.S. federal judicary (though often not the political branches) commands an almost mystical respect from the American people. Any number of popular (at least at some level) causes have lost considerable credibility with the masses after a decision was made to defy the law, as interpreted by the courts (e.g., Elian, desegregation resistance, and to a lesser extent right-to-lifers).
MS and the DoJ both know this, and know that the full force of the U.S. government will be used to enforce whatever the final ruling turns out to be. That is why neither one of them is likely to be giving this British Columbia scheme even as much though as I just have.
The fact that domain names sell for millions is a sign of obsolescence of the current naming system. Who should own the domain, say... diamond.com? Diamond Multimedia? A diamond retailer? How about a South African diamond mine? or a New York cutter? All could claim to have some right to the name, among thousands of others. But who gets it? The first to register it. The fact that there is competition for domain names, and squatters of those names, exposes the weakness of DNS. When there were a handful of domains on the Internet, this wasn't an issue. I'm sure the folks who thought up DNS never imagined the present commercialization of the internet, but this system is stifled, and at the end of it's useful life.
It's a Drake SW8. A little more than $1. I am an Extra class ham, and a former Special Forces Communications Sergeant.
10 or 100 watt radio stations with decent tuned antennas simply will not interfere with other radio stations. Here in Minnesota, we have a terrible classic rock station that puts out 50,000 watts and bleeds all over the dial. No one but me seems to be bothered by this broadcasting blowtorch. (But first hint of any pirate radio station in the area, and the FCC gets "dozens" of interferance complaint calls. I suspect most are from 'rival' PR, or goliath stations feeling threatened but the unlicensed david.) They are running a business catering to regular people who generally know nothing about antenna theory; they want the listeners to be able to pick up the station on a paper clip. A dedicated listener could be expected to have an antenna, even if it's a radio shack wire antenna hanging down behind the tuner. But most big station listeners are fickle, and will change the station at the slightest hint of static- hence the "need" for 50 KWatts. This station is one of the several in the local ABC radio juggernaut that commands a third of the FM dial. I believe this is what the FCC is (finally) addressing. I think they should go one step further and limit output to a maximum of 20 KWatts. This would clear up the dial for more stations, especially micro and low powered non commercial stations. I love radio, but hate the business. I have thought of starting a pirate radio station, but found the penaltys too steep. Maybe this will provide me with an oppurtunity to get on the air.
I will have a lot of red licorish, dried apples and vodka. I have an inflatable raft in the trunk of my car in case the heat cased by all those vaporising christians at rapture casues the polar ice caps to melt, bringing about a waterworld scenario.