Note, the Japanese oraganization mentioned is the "fair" trade commission, not the "free" trade commission. Fair trade and Free trade are usually mutually exclusive.
Now you're just compounding your ignorance: the US has term limits for the Presidency, so Bush cannot run for re-election in 2008. Regardless of that minor inconvenient fact, you may have noticed that Bush's approval rating *rose* immediately after 9/11, hitting 85%. Not bad for a guy elected without a popular majority.
Beats me. They take a chemical reaction known since antiquity (cf. Greek Fire), and stick it in a cup of coffee. Maybe all the $$$ went into designing the container. Then again, on the corporate scale, $24m ain't really that much.
1) IIRC, Northern Ireland voted to remain a part of the UK, doing nothing to slow down terrorism. Irridentism is nice, but it causes a considerable number of problems, such as those seen in the last decade or so in the former Yugoslavia. And what about regions in which there is no democratic tradition?
2) Saudia Arabia *asked* the US to get involved in Gulf War I. bin Laden and his band of merry mujaheddin resented that, and drove a truck bomb into the WTC. Next question.
2a) Good idea. The repeated invitations for Arafat to visit the White House--and his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize--were really instrumental in ending terrorism in Israel.
3) If the rest of the world didn't want Coca Cola, McDonalds, Marlboro, and blue jeans, they wouldn't buy them. The market says you're wrong.
4) Lack of respect isn't why people blow themselves up. Rodney Dangerfield never killed anyone.
That's right. Punitive damages awarded for mass torts are dischargeable in Chapter 11 for the big boys, but if Billy or Sally can't repay their student loans, tough titty. Now they want to do the same with other kinds of consumer debt. Bastards.
Picture this:
You pay for your entire college education with loans. Every last dollar. Instead of looking for a job, or going to graduate school, you blow what little money and assets you have and declare bankruptcy. Wow, a free education (if you don't give a damn about your credit rating). Imagine that. Most recent college graduates are on the threshold of bankruptcy, anyway. If they could all spend a few years with a bad credit rating in order to get a free education, many undoubtedly would.
There is at least one other quality online Scrabble site that has been up since 1999 and seems to be a bit more under-the-radar. Probably since the operator didn't choose an intentionally provocative name like e-scrabble.
Here's a link to a somewhat more formatted version of what the parent posted. It's about halfway down the page; it's also linked from TFA for those who read it;)
Just out of interest, I wonder what would happen if, say, Japan had imprisoned a bunch of innocent US citizens at an offshore location, held them there for several years, and tortured them, without even charging them, let alone any other due process?
Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:...
(3) entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
"US Citizens" captured in Afghanistan fighting against the US, quite simply, aren't US Citizens.
In the US the plaintiff has to prove that what was said was false, and in a case such as this, that there was malice. In the UK the defendant has to prove that what was said is true, which can be much more difficult, especially if off the record sources are used.
Not sure I get it either. It does seem suspicious that the suit was able to be successfully filed in Ontario instead of DC, but other than the venue, this is just a plain old libel suit.
Arguing where the suit is allowed to be filed is just what you do when you're uncertain of your ability to win on the facts;)
More like having someone put up a giant sign outside that says "The acceptance letters are spread out on a table in room D14; check them out while you can!" and having the door to the room be wide open, with no guard, no staff, and a lone security camera in the corner to catch the "burglars".
Even if that were the case, the applicants would still need to trespass in order to see their letters!
A more fitting analogy would be if the applicants were given instructions on how to break into the admissions office.
I'd be screaming entrapment
It would only be entrapment in the highly unlikely scenario that Harvard were responsible for leaking the information about how to break into the online system.
Presumably, then, you'd also have no problem if the applicants had instead broken into a building to view their not-yet-mailed acceptance letters (and maybe killed a security guard, for good measure).
It matters not whether bloggers are journalists. Judges can compel journalists (or "journalists") to reveal their sources for a variety of reasons, most pertinent being if a crimehas been committed, gathering evidence for a civil trial or any other reason for which a judge decides to subpoena a journalist.
The First Amendment doesn't protect you from your employer; it protects you from the government (and even then, only congrefs). Read through it sometime, it might clear some things up.
Isn't this more of a CONTRACT being broken, not a law ? Someone broke ther NDA CONTRACT. Not quite the same as breaking "the law".
Unless, of course, the "law" in question is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act of California, which allows a corporation to recover damages for misappropriation of technichal information by its employees. Either an Apple employee was this blogger's source, and violated the USTA, or the blogger's source wasn't an apple employee, thus needing to violate innumerable other laws in order to acquire the information in question.
It applies to TORTS as well as crimes. Someone else has already elaborated on this.
Journalists' sources are, of course, *not* protected when laws have been broken, as seen in these cases. The obstructing journalists in question weren't protected, either.
Patents encourage innovation in a quite simple and straightforward manner, by providing financial incentive to innovate. If you invent something, you can exclusively profit from it for a period of time. Otherwise, those with more marketing power (or anyone capable of making a ripoff of your software/device/drug/&c.) can flood the market with copies of your invention, in which case you make no money and you and your family die of starvation. Dead inventors stifle innovation.
Slashdot Mirror
Second Law of Thermodynamics: There is no such thing as "renewable energy."
Yeah, nothing says "free market" like "multi-national bureaucracy raids corporate offices."
Note, the Japanese oraganization mentioned is the "fair" trade commission, not the "free" trade commission. Fair trade and Free trade are usually mutually exclusive.
Now you're just compounding your ignorance: the US has term limits for the Presidency, so Bush cannot run for re-election in 2008. Regardless of that minor inconvenient fact, you may have noticed that Bush's approval rating *rose* immediately after 9/11, hitting 85%. Not bad for a guy elected without a popular majority.
#4) I think he's saying that if the IRA types respected the English and Scottish minorities, then there wouldn't have been any terrorism!
"what the hell did they spend $24 million on?"
Beats me. They take a chemical reaction known since antiquity (cf. Greek Fire), and stick it in a cup of coffee. Maybe all the $$$ went into designing the container. Then again, on the corporate scale, $24m ain't really that much.
1) IIRC, Northern Ireland voted to remain a part of the UK, doing nothing to slow down terrorism. Irridentism is nice, but it causes a considerable number of problems, such as those seen in the last decade or so in the former Yugoslavia. And what about regions in which there is no democratic tradition?
2) Saudia Arabia *asked* the US to get involved in Gulf War I. bin Laden and his band of merry mujaheddin resented that, and drove a truck bomb into the WTC. Next question.
2a) Good idea. The repeated invitations for Arafat to visit the White House--and his winning of the Nobel Peace Prize--were really instrumental in ending terrorism in Israel.
3) If the rest of the world didn't want Coca Cola, McDonalds, Marlboro, and blue jeans, they wouldn't buy them. The market says you're wrong.
4) Lack of respect isn't why people blow themselves up. Rodney Dangerfield never killed anyone.
Nice recipe for bullshit, though.
That's right. Punitive damages awarded for mass torts are dischargeable in Chapter 11 for the big boys, but if Billy or Sally can't repay their student loans, tough titty. Now they want to do the same with other kinds of consumer debt. Bastards.
Picture this:
You pay for your entire college education with loans. Every last dollar. Instead of looking for a job, or going to graduate school, you blow what little money and assets you have and declare bankruptcy. Wow, a free education (if you don't give a damn about your credit rating). Imagine that. Most recent college graduates are on the threshold of bankruptcy, anyway. If they could all spend a few years with a bad credit rating in order to get a free education, many undoubtedly would.
There is at least one other quality online Scrabble site that has been up since 1999 and seems to be a bit more under-the-radar. Probably since the operator didn't choose an intentionally provocative name like e-scrabble.
A quick googling of "play scrabble online" should bring up a number of other sources.
Here's a link to a somewhat more formatted version of what the parent posted. It's about halfway down the page; it's also linked from TFA for those who read it;)
Just out of interest, I wonder what would happen if, say, Japan had imprisoned a bunch of innocent US citizens at an offshore location, held them there for several years, and tortured them, without even charging them, let alone any other due process?
It happened. We nuked them afterward.
Open up your passport. Turn to pages 4 and 5. Read number 8.
Or go here:
"US Citizens" captured in Afghanistan fighting against the US, quite simply, aren't US Citizens.
In the US the plaintiff has to prove that what was said was false, and in a case such as this, that there was malice. In the UK the defendant has to prove that what was said is true, which can be much more difficult, especially if off the record sources are used.
Right. But what about Canada?
Not sure I get it either. It does seem suspicious that the suit was able to be successfully filed in Ontario instead of DC, but other than the venue, this is just a plain old libel suit.
;)
Arguing where the suit is allowed to be filed is just what you do when you're uncertain of your ability to win on the facts
Unfortunately, "I know a software patent when I see one" probably wouldn't cut it in the courts.
Didn't that standard come from the courts (Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio)?
It might finally get a court to acknowledge that the GPL is not "unconstitutional" (*cough* SCO *cough)
Perhaps this is way off-topic, but IANAL, and I've always wondered about it, so I must ask:
Is the GPL even enforceable? Nothing's being exchanged, so you can't really consider the licence agreement as contractually binding in any sense.
More like having someone put up a giant sign outside that says "The acceptance letters are spread out on a table in room D14; check them out while you can!" and having the door to the room be wide open, with no guard, no staff, and a lone security camera in the corner to catch the "burglars".
Even if that were the case, the applicants would still need to trespass in order to see their letters!
A more fitting analogy would be if the applicants were given instructions on how to break into the admissions office.
I'd be screaming entrapment
It would only be entrapment in the highly unlikely scenario that Harvard were responsible for leaking the information about how to break into the online system.
Presumably, then, you'd also have no problem if the applicants had instead broken into a building to view their not-yet-mailed acceptance letters (and maybe killed a security guard, for good measure).
It matters not whether bloggers are journalists. Judges can compel journalists (or "journalists") to reveal their sources for a variety of reasons, most pertinent being if a crime has been committed, gathering evidence for a civil trial or any other reason for which a judge decides to subpoena a journalist.
How about merging Pakistan and Bangaladesh with India like they originally were? That would be even finer solution.
Yeah, that's it. Reinstating British colonial rule is always the answer.
The First Amendment doesn't protect you from your employer; it protects you from the government (and even then, only congrefs). Read through it sometime, it might clear some things up.
Questioning the sanity of Utah leaders is close to the real issue.
And that's why the Mormons colonized Utah in the first place--so they could do things that seem odd to people in "normal" places like Ohio.
It is not necessary to be intelligent to get elected. It is only necessary to be popular.
"Popular" in Utah is likely much different from "popular" in the rest of the US.
Isn't this more of a CONTRACT being broken, not a law ? Someone broke ther NDA CONTRACT. Not quite the same as breaking "the law".
Unless, of course, the "law" in question is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act of California, which allows a corporation to recover damages for misappropriation of technichal information by its employees. Either an Apple employee was this blogger's source, and violated the USTA, or the blogger's source wasn't an apple employee, thus needing to violate innumerable other laws in order to acquire the information in question.
It applies to TORTS as well as crimes. Someone else has already elaborated on this.
Journalists' sources are, of course, *not* protected when laws have been broken, as seen in these
cases. The obstructing journalists in question weren't protected, either.
Patents encourage innovation in a quite simple and straightforward manner, by providing financial incentive to innovate. If you invent something, you can exclusively profit from it for a period of time. Otherwise, those with more marketing power (or anyone capable of making a ripoff of your software/device/drug/&c.) can flood the market with copies of your invention, in which case you make no money and you and your family die of starvation. Dead inventors stifle innovation.
eh? Where exactly is the "right to record shows" in the Constitution?