then shes clearly breaking the law for which she ought to be charged and imprisoned.
I'm reading this as someone from another country, and I am surprised. Yes, _if_ a law has been broken then she should be charged if that is believed to be the correct way of dealing with this 'offence'. I agree with you upto this point and then our paths diverge rapidly. The case should then come to court and the _degree_ of transgression should be ascertained. Any _mitigating_ factors should also be considered. Then, and only _if_ she is found guilty, an appropriate punishment should be awarded based upon the facts that have been ascertained during the court case. The punishment is _not_ automatically a custodial sentence. Your 'charged and imprisoned' statement seems to capture so much of what many of us view as the current American Illness - lets not worry about right and wrong, facts or allegations. The accusation that a crime has been committed should convince all that someone is guilty, no court case should be necessary, and any cruel but arbitrary punishment is therefore justified. We see it time and time again applied to music piracy, hacking, terrorism or any number of other offences.
If court cases automatically follow anyone being stopped for an alleged offence, then please do not come crying that the policeman should have simply given you a warning when you are caught doing 32 mph in a 30 zone. After all, you committed the offence. Next, lets not bother with the details of the case, lets immediately incarcerate you in prison. You committed the offence so, by your logic, the prison sentence must automatically follow. As we are not considering the nature of the offence we will just award an arbitrary duration of 100 years to ensure that those who have committed particularly heinous crimes are punished appropriately.
I understand what you might have been trying to say, but it is not what you actually said. I wonder if I can deduce your politics from your statement....?
Look, I can accept a degree in art, but one which covers only collage seems to be rather limited. Does it include the use of different adhesives to stick the pictures to your chosen background? Do you study the pros and cons of using dried leaves as opposed to, say, petals or seed pods?
OK, I'm sorry, but it just made me chuckle to read what you had written.
If I released software that was not allowed to be redistributed at all, and claimed it was "open source", are you telling me you'd agree
If you can read the source then the source is open. Being open does NOT give you the right to distribute it. The licence, e.g. GPL, says what the conditions are for distribution. So do the other licences. Some give you far more freedom than others but being open source does not legally mean you can distribute it. Tivo can read the code but, under the GPL3, they cannot use it commercially without releasing it to those who purchase their product. This prevents Tivoisation. So the limited distribution imposed by the licence is a GOOD thing and unlimited distribution is not something that you or I can demand as a right. Microsoft have interpreted open source in their licence to mean that you can read the code (i.e. it is open source) but you can only use it on Windows-based systems. Now the OSI has created 10 conditions which it says 'should' be met by all code that wishes to be called open source but it cannot enforce those conditions in a court of law. OSI and Microsoft differ on the interpretation but what gives the OSI the right to define laws? If I understand it correctly, the trademark on the term 'Open Source' was allowed to lapse so they cannot enforce its usage.
We choose to interpret the OSI laws as being a definitive standard but, in legal terms, they probably have no more 'right' in a court than if I declare all software to be free. I suspect that many companies and programmers would object to that statement as they have proprietary rights to their code. Microsoft can call its code open source if it can be read, which it can. What conditions it then applies to the usage of that code might not be within the limits of 'open source' as you or I would like them to be interpreted but I wouldn't bet much on a court upholding our interpretation as being the only true legal interpretation. They might, but I wouldn't put any money on the outcome.
We are free to point out that Microsoft's interpretation and usage of the phrase 'open source' differs from that understood by many people to be the correct interpretation. So point it out but that does not mean that Microsoft is doing anything illegal, simply that it is playing dirty and is attempting to confuse the market as to the 'correct' definition.
but also violates the basic definition of "Open Source" used by the OSI
... which places no legal obligations upon Microsoft whatsoever. The community can decide what is open source by using genuine open source software as they wish and by ignoring this code. However, nothing that the OSI defines places any legal obligation or commitment on any commercial body. The definitions have not been enshrined in law by any government. In fact, adherence to OSI definition has not even been debated nor has the list of definitions been accepted as being definitive.
I'm not arguing with your post. I am supporting it but stating that, in my opinion, there is nothing that we can do.
that would require changing the current accepted definition of open source
Accepted by whom? There is no legally binding definition that everyone must accept and use. The one that you and I accept means nothing to those that do not want it to be recognised.
We may not like it - indeed, I most certainly do not - but as a previous poster has already noted this is simply another move by Microsoft to muddy the water in an effort to counter the growing popularity of 'open source'. I bet a fair number of people will fall for this and claim that they support OS or are even using OS software where in actual fact they are simply using what Microsoft has said they may use.
they don't get just how big and spread out this nation is
Oh, why don't you imagine the country divided into an arbitrary number of smaller entities - about the size of countries that can solve the problem - and treat each one individually? Its funny, or at least it is to me, that US forces deploy around the world and can always have internet access and yet your folks who live at home cannot. It doesn't seem to me that the size of the country or distance are, per se, insurmountable problems.
The problems with the business is that it is playing within current laws but making it suit themselves rather than the customer. Well those laws didn't exist 50 years ago, they were written by man. Man can change the laws again to make it a more competitive environment. I often read on/. how the government is under the control of the corporations. Again, that wasn't always the case. Man can change it but it will require effort. Some will say it is 'too difficult' - its a good job that your forefathers didn't have the same view of each obstacle that they encountered. No, they looked at what they wanted to achieve and, slowly, built the country that they wanted.
So the final problem is cost? For a country that can propose $700Bn to rescue Wall Street, can spend $1Bn a day in Iraq and Afghanistan, another billion to solve the problem doesn't seem too impossible to me as an outsider. And over time some of the money will be recovered from the customer. All these remote places that you mention all have roads going to them - somebody found a way of making that work in a cost effective manner.
So I read your comment with dismay. I am a European and I mustn't understand how big your country is, or cannot imagine the technical challenges associated with it. No, wrong! I understand just how great a challenge it will be and how much effort Americans will have to expend to accomplish what we smaller countries can do now, but unless Americans try to fix the problem all these comments on/. are nothing more than whinging. Perhaps not every farm and homestead can expect fantastic broadband speeds but they can expect some form of connectivity at a reasonable cost.
So, is your argument intended to suggest that the USA cannot improve its internet access? If that is the case, then I, for one, am pleased that I don't live there. No, I'm not knocking the US, but if your nation cannot rise to the challenge and solve the problems that face you then something is seriously wrong. However, I think your argument is flawed. You might not be able to reproduce internet access to the levels enjoyed by many other countries at the same cost, but you can improve it so that people are not tied to a a single provider - and then watch the prices fall as competition takes over. You might argue that this isn't cost effective. Tell me that again in a few years time when your businesses cannot compete because they cannot communicate, when one side of the US has to 'book access time' to the other side because the infrastructure cannot cope, when a large proportion of your population cannot get adequate TV coverage because the digital revolution has left them unable to get analogue signals yet they cannot get the programs via streaming (or at least not in an affordable manner). In my view, you cannot afford NOT to invest in improving the access of everybody to the internet.
I'm a Brit! And I am not wrong. Yes, of course it is possible to get a shotgun licence. Now go and get one for a handgun, or an automatic weapon. A bit more difficult, eh? Firearms exist in the UK, but they are far from common. Farmers, clay-shooting, vermin control etc all entitle you to apply for a shotgun licence, but nevertheless they are hardly a common item in the majority of homes in the UK. So I believe I was correct in saying 'for common ownership', but I did not say could not be obtained at all. However, try getting a licence for a shotgun while using 'personal defence' as justification and let me know what the police allow in this particular instance.
I would venture that the use of shotguns in crime has not changed significantly in the last quarter century or so. Yes, they are used from time to time but it is still so unusual that such an event becomes a major national news item. Handguns and automatic weapons are used, but again far less so than in those countries where firearms are easier to obtain. I accept that the use of all kinds of weapons in crime is increasing.
And if, in your experience, it is easier to obtain a shotgun licence than a motorcycle licence then I would question how your local bobbies carry out their checks on prospective licence holders. I can assure you that it is not easier in the middle of Manchester, for example.
There has been a significant increase in knife crime in the UK over the last decade. Guns however, have never been legal for common ownership in the UK (at least in recent history) and so it is entirely wrong to try to connect the recent increase in knife crime with the fact that guns have never been permitted. There is no connection between the two. You might have been correct had you said that many youths are using knives because of the difficulties they face when trying to obtain guns, but you didn't. Violent crime, particularly armed violent crime, is on the increase and those that commit it will use whatever weapon they can find. That doesn't justify making guns more readily available. Incidentaly, firearms are also being used increasingly in the UK by criminals but at a much lower level than, say, in the USA where such weapons are more readily available.
And finally, for those outside the UK who don't keep abreast of developments but who like to make statements based upon their imperfect knowledge of other countries, you need to be aware that there are armed police in the UK. Some people actually think that there are too many of them. But the UK does not find it necessary to arm all of the policemen all of the time
I know nothing about legal procedure in the USA, and precious little about it in my own country. But I suspect that it would not be wise for NYCL to comment on his own case here on/. and it might also be against the legal rules in the USA. Of course, we all wish Ray well but we might just have to wait until this one is over before we can get the full story.
Good Luck, Ray, for the way you have helped others you deserve some good fortune yourself.
When someone mentions CP to me, it does not conjure up the same images in my mind as it appears to do in yours.... I'm not sure what that says about either of us but I wouldn't like to visit the sort of websites that you seem to frequent, or at least you appear to have 'heard' about.
Not all Asian manufacturers use child labour. They can also make big savings by not having to pay the same wage as would be required in the USA, but an acceptable one for local labour nonetheless. They also can make efficiencies elsewhere, perhaps in fuel costs or in the price of raw materials, or simply by economies of scale. Have you also noticed how many immigrants arrive in western countries almost penniless and yet, within a year or two, are running a thriving business? Yes they work long hours but that is by choice, because they want to benefit from the fruits of their labour. Nobody is forcing them to work longer hours than perhaps you or I might be prepared to do, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong to do so. Yes, western countries will lose jobs but it is not always child labour or sweatshops that are to blame. Sometimes we just want too much money for too little work and, when the market can no longer bear that demand, then the jobs will move somewhere where the workforce is more accommodating.
They just have to prove it was more likely than not it was you.
That might be the case under US law, but I am not sure that it applies in Britain. However, I'm sure someone will be able to give an authoritative answer - i.e. not just pulled out of the ether but with a credible cite.
Of course it is. Not a single vehicle was mentioned, nor is there any similarity between the subject argument and roads, vehicle taxes or anything else related to transport. It is obvious that/. is going to the dogs....
KSB travelled to Pakistan from Afghanistan in an attempt to evade capture. Fortunately, his security in Pakistan was not as good as it had been in Afghanistan.
Torture of various kinds has been used against those who have been captured in the War on Terror. Waterboarding is only one example. The use of torture, rendition, illegal detention is being used because the USA hasn't got a case that will stand up in court. It matters not whether the individual was detained in Pakistan, Afghanistan or the USA. I still cannot agree that "None of the people in the second group is believed to be innocent by even the harshest critics of the Bush Administration." They are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - which the US has failed to do.
As for the rest of your argument, it goes out of scope of even the original anti-Bush posting, which was, in itself, largely off-topic, so I'll skip responding to it.
No response because it is off-topic, or perhaps because it cannot be countered by reasonable argument?
not even the harshest of their critics doubts the guilt of the "victims"
I strongly disagree - that might be your view but it is by no means universal. However, being captured in Afghanistan is not, of itself, a crime. You might be correct in what you allege someone is guilty of but, if you are so sure, why not give those individuals their day in court? I believe it is because, without torture, you haven't got a case that would pass legal scrutiny anywhere in the world. And even with torture you haven't got a case but at least you can claim you have information. If you are so sure of your cause, why does the USA have to use rendition flights to hide its activities? Why does it conduct its interrogations outside of the USA but also outside of the theatre in which the individuals were captured? Tell me how many others have been captured in the USA as a result of that information that has been gathered by torture? If it is nothing more than a handful (and I think it is none at all!) then I cannot accept your argument that the torture is justified. It is NOT saving American lives. I suspect that you have lost far more American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq than you could ever hope to save by gaining information by torture. It looks increasingly like an act of revenge by a country that didn't realise until 9/11 that it was as vulnerable to terrorists as any other, an act that is now being justified by 'protecting American lives'. Terrorism is not new in Europe but we have learned to deal with it, and to continue our lives without our Governments collapsing into a fear-induced panic.
Incidentally, what was your stance when the IRA were murdering and bombing on the British mainland for nigh on 30 years? Did you doubt their guilt, or did you, like many Americans, choose to support the terrorist with funds or arms? Did you campaign like some of your countrymen that the Irish terrorist could not receive a fair trial in the UK? You have suffered a single attack and now the President believes that it justifies any crime. How does it make the USA better than any other third rate nation who uses similar tactics?
And in case you feel the need to accuse me of being an armchair warrior, I have served in uniform at the sharp end in 3 conflicts but I have never felt the need to use tactics or procedures that did not have the full backing of the law, or which did not comply with the relevant international treaties and obligations.
I don't love the waterboarding, but I don't think, it is a big deal.
And that is the problem. If you now believe that, as a nation, it is entirely normal to torture people, then you you are no longer the nation that you once were, no longer the nation that you think you are, and you are no longer the nation that will be respected elsewhere. Of course, if that is not 'a big deal' then your argument is lost.
When anyone, celebrity or otherwise, is acquitted then they are deemed to be not guilty of the crime. Now, you and I might think that in this instance it was probably a poorly presented case rather than Kelly's innocence that resulted in the acquittal but, I for one accept the premise that he is innocent until proven guilty.
As you say, it is a different country. However, the laws in Germany have their equivalents in many other European countries. Muscle powered vehicles rarely need a licence, insurance or any examination of driving competence. Anything that provides power assistance is more likely to be controlled by some form of regulation. The licence is simply a formal permission to use the vehicle on public roads i.e. it is usually issued when you have proven that you can operate the vehicle safely with regard to other road users. As you say, the insurance is the method by which payment of damage is guaranteed. And, if you have more than your share of accidents, then your annual premium will increase significantly or, ultimately, the company will no longer provide insurance. The motorized chair in Germany was (probably - in true Slashdot fashion I haven't read TFA) being operated without a licence, without the users having any insurance, not would the chair have been checked to ensure that it could stop in an emergency, that it could be effectively steered to avoid other road users or hazards and to ensure that it was operated with due regard to other road users' safety. The police don't care if you hurt yourself, but, for example, if the engine was exposed it poses health and physical injury risk to others. That is why the police stopped the prank.
You fail to see the need to differentiate the different requirements for bicycles, motor scooters and cars. Reading between the lines I suspect that you are probably leaning towards suggesting that none of them should require a licence but I take the opposing view. I wish cyclists, indeed all road users, had to pass some kind of proficiency test before being allowed to use busy public roads. Equally, why don't they have to be insured? If a cyclists drives on the wrong side of the road and ends up going through someone else's windscreen, why shouldn't he have to pay for the damage that he caused? The vast majority of cyclists are competent, but when you meet an idiot in any kind of vehicle he poses a hazard not only to himself, but others also.
Come on, I'm sure you can work it out yourself if you read it over a few more times. OK, I give in, here's the answer. If the 'bicycle' is 'motorized' then it "needs to pass a regular safety test*1 , has to have vehicle insurance and you'll need the right driving license."
Slashdot Mirror
then shes clearly breaking the law for which she ought to be charged and imprisoned.
I'm reading this as someone from another country, and I am surprised. Yes, _if_ a law has been broken then she should be charged if that is believed to be the correct way of dealing with this 'offence'. I agree with you upto this point and then our paths diverge rapidly. The case should then come to court and the _degree_ of transgression should be ascertained. Any _mitigating_ factors should also be considered. Then, and only _if_ she is found guilty, an appropriate punishment should be awarded based upon the facts that have been ascertained during the court case. The punishment is _not_ automatically a custodial sentence. Your 'charged and imprisoned' statement seems to capture so much of what many of us view as the current American Illness - lets not worry about right and wrong, facts or allegations. The accusation that a crime has been committed should convince all that someone is guilty, no court case should be necessary, and any cruel but arbitrary punishment is therefore justified. We see it time and time again applied to music piracy, hacking, terrorism or any number of other offences.
If court cases automatically follow anyone being stopped for an alleged offence, then please do not come crying that the policeman should have simply given you a warning when you are caught doing 32 mph in a 30 zone. After all, you committed the offence. Next, lets not bother with the details of the case, lets immediately incarcerate you in prison. You committed the offence so, by your logic, the prison sentence must automatically follow. As we are not considering the nature of the offence we will just award an arbitrary duration of 100 years to ensure that those who have committed particularly heinous crimes are punished appropriately.
I understand what you might have been trying to say, but it is not what you actually said. I wonder if I can deduce your politics from your statement....?
....for the career my collage degree is in....
Look, I can accept a degree in art, but one which covers only collage seems to be rather limited. Does it include the use of different adhesives to stick the pictures to your chosen background? Do you study the pros and cons of using dried leaves as opposed to, say, petals or seed pods?
OK, I'm sorry, but it just made me chuckle to read what you had written.
You are confusing 'open source' and 'Open Source'.
If I released software that was not allowed to be redistributed at all, and claimed it was "open source", are you telling me you'd agree
If you can read the source then the source is open. Being open does NOT give you the right to distribute it. The licence, e.g. GPL, says what the conditions are for distribution. So do the other licences. Some give you far more freedom than others but being open source does not legally mean you can distribute it. Tivo can read the code but, under the GPL3, they cannot use it commercially without releasing it to those who purchase their product. This prevents Tivoisation. So the limited distribution imposed by the licence is a GOOD thing and unlimited distribution is not something that you or I can demand as a right. Microsoft have interpreted open source in their licence to mean that you can read the code (i.e. it is open source) but you can only use it on Windows-based systems. Now the OSI has created 10 conditions which it says 'should' be met by all code that wishes to be called open source but it cannot enforce those conditions in a court of law. OSI and Microsoft differ on the interpretation but what gives the OSI the right to define laws? If I understand it correctly, the trademark on the term 'Open Source' was allowed to lapse so they cannot enforce its usage.
We choose to interpret the OSI laws as being a definitive standard but, in legal terms, they probably have no more 'right' in a court than if I declare all software to be free. I suspect that many companies and programmers would object to that statement as they have proprietary rights to their code. Microsoft can call its code open source if it can be read, which it can. What conditions it then applies to the usage of that code might not be within the limits of 'open source' as you or I would like them to be interpreted but I wouldn't bet much on a court upholding our interpretation as being the only true legal interpretation. They might, but I wouldn't put any money on the outcome.
We are free to point out that Microsoft's interpretation and usage of the phrase 'open source' differs from that understood by many people to be the correct interpretation. So point it out but that does not mean that Microsoft is doing anything illegal, simply that it is playing dirty and is attempting to confuse the market as to the 'correct' definition.
but also violates the basic definition of "Open Source" used by the OSI
... which places no legal obligations upon Microsoft whatsoever. The community can decide what is open source by using genuine open source software as they wish and by ignoring this code. However, nothing that the OSI defines places any legal obligation or commitment on any commercial body. The definitions have not been enshrined in law by any government. In fact, adherence to OSI definition has not even been debated nor has the list of definitions been accepted as being definitive.
I'm not arguing with your post. I am supporting it but stating that, in my opinion, there is nothing that we can do.
that would require changing the current accepted definition of open source
Accepted by whom? There is no legally binding definition that everyone must accept and use. The one that you and I accept means nothing to those that do not want it to be recognised.
We may not like it - indeed, I most certainly do not - but as a previous poster has already noted this is simply another move by Microsoft to muddy the water in an effort to counter the growing popularity of 'open source'. I bet a fair number of people will fall for this and claim that they support OS or are even using OS software where in actual fact they are simply using what Microsoft has said they may use.
they don't get just how big and spread out this nation is
Oh, why don't you imagine the country divided into an arbitrary number of smaller entities - about the size of countries that can solve the problem - and treat each one individually? Its funny, or at least it is to me, that US forces deploy around the world and can always have internet access and yet your folks who live at home cannot. It doesn't seem to me that the size of the country or distance are, per se, insurmountable problems.
The problems with the business is that it is playing within current laws but making it suit themselves rather than the customer. Well those laws didn't exist 50 years ago, they were written by man. Man can change the laws again to make it a more competitive environment. I often read on /. how the government is under the control of the corporations. Again, that wasn't always the case. Man can change it but it will require effort. Some will say it is 'too difficult' - its a good job that your forefathers didn't have the same view of each obstacle that they encountered. No, they looked at what they wanted to achieve and, slowly, built the country that they wanted.
So the final problem is cost? For a country that can propose $700Bn to rescue Wall Street, can spend $1Bn a day in Iraq and Afghanistan, another billion to solve the problem doesn't seem too impossible to me as an outsider. And over time some of the money will be recovered from the customer. All these remote places that you mention all have roads going to them - somebody found a way of making that work in a cost effective manner.
So I read your comment with dismay. I am a European and I mustn't understand how big your country is, or cannot imagine the technical challenges associated with it. No, wrong! I understand just how great a challenge it will be and how much effort Americans will have to expend to accomplish what we smaller countries can do now, but unless Americans try to fix the problem all these comments on /. are nothing more than whinging. Perhaps not every farm and homestead can expect fantastic broadband speeds but they can expect some form of connectivity at a reasonable cost.
So, is your argument intended to suggest that the USA cannot improve its internet access? If that is the case, then I, for one, am pleased that I don't live there. No, I'm not knocking the US, but if your nation cannot rise to the challenge and solve the problems that face you then something is seriously wrong. However, I think your argument is flawed. You might not be able to reproduce internet access to the levels enjoyed by many other countries at the same cost, but you can improve it so that people are not tied to a a single provider - and then watch the prices fall as competition takes over. You might argue that this isn't cost effective. Tell me that again in a few years time when your businesses cannot compete because they cannot communicate, when one side of the US has to 'book access time' to the other side because the infrastructure cannot cope, when a large proportion of your population cannot get adequate TV coverage because the digital revolution has left them unable to get analogue signals yet they cannot get the programs via streaming (or at least not in an affordable manner). In my view, you cannot afford NOT to invest in improving the access of everybody to the internet.
Er...
Do USians never get tired of being wrong?
I'm a Brit! And I am not wrong. Yes, of course it is possible to get a shotgun licence. Now go and get one for a handgun, or an automatic weapon. A bit more difficult, eh? Firearms exist in the UK, but they are far from common. Farmers, clay-shooting, vermin control etc all entitle you to apply for a shotgun licence, but nevertheless they are hardly a common item in the majority of homes in the UK. So I believe I was correct in saying 'for common ownership', but I did not say could not be obtained at all. However, try getting a licence for a shotgun while using 'personal defence' as justification and let me know what the police allow in this particular instance.
I would venture that the use of shotguns in crime has not changed significantly in the last quarter century or so. Yes, they are used from time to time but it is still so unusual that such an event becomes a major national news item. Handguns and automatic weapons are used, but again far less so than in those countries where firearms are easier to obtain. I accept that the use of all kinds of weapons in crime is increasing.
And if, in your experience, it is easier to obtain a shotgun licence than a motorcycle licence then I would question how your local bobbies carry out their checks on prospective licence holders. I can assure you that it is not easier in the middle of Manchester, for example.
I'm afraid that you are talking crap.
There has been a significant increase in knife crime in the UK over the last decade. Guns however, have never been legal for common ownership in the UK (at least in recent history) and so it is entirely wrong to try to connect the recent increase in knife crime with the fact that guns have never been permitted. There is no connection between the two. You might have been correct had you said that many youths are using knives because of the difficulties they face when trying to obtain guns, but you didn't. Violent crime, particularly armed violent crime, is on the increase and those that commit it will use whatever weapon they can find. That doesn't justify making guns more readily available. Incidentaly, firearms are also being used increasingly in the UK by criminals but at a much lower level than, say, in the USA where such weapons are more readily available.
And finally, for those outside the UK who don't keep abreast of developments but who like to make statements based upon their imperfect knowledge of other countries, you need to be aware that there are armed police in the UK. Some people actually think that there are too many of them. But the UK does not find it necessary to arm all of the policemen all of the time
I know nothing about legal procedure in the USA, and precious little about it in my own country. But I suspect that it would not be wise for NYCL to comment on his own case here on /. and it might also be against the legal rules in the USA. Of course, we all wish Ray well but we might just have to wait until this one is over before we can get the full story.
Good Luck, Ray, for the way you have helped others you deserve some good fortune yourself.
It would be if you'd upgraded your machine. ...what?! But that would reset his uptime!
This comment has been given '4 Informative' - do mods not have a sense of humour any more?
underage girl getting nailed by a horse
When someone mentions CP to me, it does not conjure up the same images in my mind as it appears to do in yours.... I'm not sure what that says about either of us but I wouldn't like to visit the sort of websites that you seem to frequent, or at least you appear to have 'heard' about.
Not all Asian manufacturers use child labour. They can also make big savings by not having to pay the same wage as would be required in the USA, but an acceptable one for local labour nonetheless. They also can make efficiencies elsewhere, perhaps in fuel costs or in the price of raw materials, or simply by economies of scale. Have you also noticed how many immigrants arrive in western countries almost penniless and yet, within a year or two, are running a thriving business? Yes they work long hours but that is by choice, because they want to benefit from the fruits of their labour. Nobody is forcing them to work longer hours than perhaps you or I might be prepared to do, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong to do so. Yes, western countries will lose jobs but it is not always child labour or sweatshops that are to blame. Sometimes we just want too much money for too little work and, when the market can no longer bear that demand, then the jobs will move somewhere where the workforce is more accommodating.
They just have to prove it was more likely than not it was you.
That might be the case under US law, but I am not sure that it applies in Britain. However, I'm sure someone will be able to give an authoritative answer - i.e. not just pulled out of the ether but with a credible cite.
I'd say that analogy is absurd.
Of course it is. Not a single vehicle was mentioned, nor is there any similarity between the subject argument and roads, vehicle taxes or anything else related to transport. It is obvious that /. is going to the dogs....
So let me get this right. You gave a link to a scam which no longer resolves under DNS? So what good is the link?
Ooops s/KSB/KSM/ . Sorry about that :-)
KSB travelled to Pakistan from Afghanistan in an attempt to evade capture. Fortunately, his security in Pakistan was not as good as it had been in Afghanistan.
Torture of various kinds has been used against those who have been captured in the War on Terror. Waterboarding is only one example. The use of torture, rendition, illegal detention is being used because the USA hasn't got a case that will stand up in court. It matters not whether the individual was detained in Pakistan, Afghanistan or the USA. I still cannot agree that "None of the people in the second group is believed to be innocent by even the harshest critics of the Bush Administration." They are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - which the US has failed to do.
As for the rest of your argument, it goes out of scope of even the original anti-Bush posting, which was, in itself, largely off-topic, so I'll skip responding to it.
No response because it is off-topic, or perhaps because it cannot be countered by reasonable argument?
not even the harshest of their critics doubts the guilt of the "victims"
I strongly disagree - that might be your view but it is by no means universal. However, being captured in Afghanistan is not, of itself, a crime. You might be correct in what you allege someone is guilty of but, if you are so sure, why not give those individuals their day in court? I believe it is because, without torture, you haven't got a case that would pass legal scrutiny anywhere in the world. And even with torture you haven't got a case but at least you can claim you have information. If you are so sure of your cause, why does the USA have to use rendition flights to hide its activities? Why does it conduct its interrogations outside of the USA but also outside of the theatre in which the individuals were captured? Tell me how many others have been captured in the USA as a result of that information that has been gathered by torture? If it is nothing more than a handful (and I think it is none at all!) then I cannot accept your argument that the torture is justified. It is NOT saving American lives. I suspect that you have lost far more American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq than you could ever hope to save by gaining information by torture. It looks increasingly like an act of revenge by a country that didn't realise until 9/11 that it was as vulnerable to terrorists as any other, an act that is now being justified by 'protecting American lives'. Terrorism is not new in Europe but we have learned to deal with it, and to continue our lives without our Governments collapsing into a fear-induced panic.
Incidentally, what was your stance when the IRA were murdering and bombing on the British mainland for nigh on 30 years? Did you doubt their guilt, or did you, like many Americans, choose to support the terrorist with funds or arms? Did you campaign like some of your countrymen that the Irish terrorist could not receive a fair trial in the UK? You have suffered a single attack and now the President believes that it justifies any crime. How does it make the USA better than any other third rate nation who uses similar tactics?
And in case you feel the need to accuse me of being an armchair warrior, I have served in uniform at the sharp end in 3 conflicts but I have never felt the need to use tactics or procedures that did not have the full backing of the law, or which did not comply with the relevant international treaties and obligations.
OK, I'm ready. Let the flames begin....
I don't love the waterboarding, but I don't think, it is a big deal.
And that is the problem. If you now believe that, as a nation, it is entirely normal to torture people, then you you are no longer the nation that you once were, no longer the nation that you think you are, and you are no longer the nation that will be respected elsewhere. Of course, if that is not 'a big deal' then your argument is lost.
When anyone, celebrity or otherwise, is acquitted then they are deemed to be not guilty of the crime. Now, you and I might think that in this instance it was probably a poorly presented case rather than Kelly's innocence that resulted in the acquittal but, I for one accept the premise that he is innocent until proven guilty.
As you say, it is a different country. However, the laws in Germany have their equivalents in many other European countries. Muscle powered vehicles rarely need a licence, insurance or any examination of driving competence. Anything that provides power assistance is more likely to be controlled by some form of regulation. The licence is simply a formal permission to use the vehicle on public roads i.e. it is usually issued when you have proven that you can operate the vehicle safely with regard to other road users. As you say, the insurance is the method by which payment of damage is guaranteed. And, if you have more than your share of accidents, then your annual premium will increase significantly or, ultimately, the company will no longer provide insurance. The motorized chair in Germany was (probably - in true Slashdot fashion I haven't read TFA) being operated without a licence, without the users having any insurance, not would the chair have been checked to ensure that it could stop in an emergency, that it could be effectively steered to avoid other road users or hazards and to ensure that it was operated with due regard to other road users' safety. The police don't care if you hurt yourself, but, for example, if the engine was exposed it poses health and physical injury risk to others. That is why the police stopped the prank.
You fail to see the need to differentiate the different requirements for bicycles, motor scooters and cars. Reading between the lines I suspect that you are probably leaning towards suggesting that none of them should require a licence but I take the opposing view. I wish cyclists, indeed all road users, had to pass some kind of proficiency test before being allowed to use busy public roads. Equally, why don't they have to be insured? If a cyclists drives on the wrong side of the road and ends up going through someone else's windscreen, why shouldn't he have to pay for the damage that he caused? The vast majority of cyclists are competent, but when you meet an idiot in any kind of vehicle he poses a hazard not only to himself, but others also.
How does meeting safety standards have anything to do with your method of propulsion?
In much the same way that riding a bicycle doesn't require insurance or a driving licence. I'm sorry, what is your question again?
I'm not an American, but wasn't Kelly acquitted? In which case, he is not a child molester, or at least he has not been found guilty of being one.
Come on, I'm sure you can work it out yourself if you read it over a few more times. OK, I give in, here's the answer. If the 'bicycle' is 'motorized' then it "needs to pass a regular safety test*1 , has to have vehicle insurance and you'll need the right driving license."