True but I'm thinking of Jo Schmoe putting a few pics up on his personal interest website.
Again, I agree with you - but this isn't a case of Jo Schmoe
But it is all going a bit too far if you ask me. If someone starts turning out reproduction works then they should pay royalties and I can even accept that calendars, art books or posters should be covered but there is a point where fare use must apply. That would seem to cover something like a low res photograph on the Web... commercial site or not.
Key word: commercial. Somehow, I don't think "But your honour - I only made a *little* bit of money from ripping them off...." is gonna cut it as a legal defence
Treaties don't really come into play here, because the Berne Convention is not self-enacting.
You're right there - no treaty has *any* affect untill it's been ratified by the signatory. But I'm willing to bet that the USA *has* ratified the Berne Conventions. Whether or not it's "self-enacting", as you say, doesn't seem to have a lot to do with anything, and does nothing to counter my arguments. If it's been signed, and ratified, whether or not it's "self-enacting" is moot.
Who the copyright holder is doesn't matter.
Agree What matters is where the alleged infringement takes place.
Yes and No. It would be more correct to say here that what matters is where it takes place in a signatory country to the Berne (or other applicable) Conventions
When an American (or anyone) distributes copyrighted material in the US, they are under US law. When they distribute copyrighted material in France, they're under French law.
Agreed
Of course, getting a ruling in France based on French law for a US company with none of its assets in France, isn't very useful, unless you can convince a US court to enforce the ruling. Under the principle of comity, US courts will usually do this. Then, once the US court makes its ruling, it can be enforced, using injunctions, attachments, liens, and levies, if necessary.
Agreed - and this is where we part. When the USA signed the conventions (and any other aplicable treaties, they don't sign it and say "..... when it's convenient". A treaty is kind of an all or nothing deal - you agree to it, or you don't. That why you sigh and ratify them.
a) The USA has copyright laws that protect certain types of IP, and is a party to a treaty
b) France has copyright laws, very similar in detail & scope, that protects the same types of IP.
c) The Supremes have ruled in the past that copyright protection is constitutional
Whether or not fashion designs are considered to be copyrightable in France and not in the USA is (IMHO) a legal detail, and not something that the Supreme Count is going to be likely to consider to be any different from any other form of copyrightable artistic work.
Therefore:
Arguing that it's "freedom of speech" is bullshit, has no legal standing, and won't do anything other than slightly increasing the air temperature around the heads of the lawyers spouting this crap.
The courts may, in fact, find that it's unenforacable for some reason (fair use, maybe?) - who the hell knows. But I would bet you my mortage, my first born, AND my left testicle that "freedom of speech" has the square root of 0 chance of being the reason for it.
You're ignoring (intentionally?) my point. It is not a claim that the guy should be charged with "crimes against humanity" in the USA. We're not talking about criminal law here.
We're talking about treaties, freely entered into by all countries involved, designed to encourage & facilitate commerce between economies.
Most favored nation trading status in the USA - "we won't charge you duties on this stuff and you won't charge us duties on THAT stuff". It's a reciprocal agreement, and good for business for both parties.
NAFTA - same thing. You may agree with it or not, but that's why it's there, and that's the intention.
And then *this* case.... "we'll respect your copyrights in our country, if you respect ours in yours". That's it. That's all. There's nothing criminal, there's nothing about freedom of speech, nowhere.
In practice, what you're talking about is a technical difference in what is considered to be copyrightable in France as opposted to in the United States. There are examples, I'm sure, of the reverse, but that's beside the point. If an American copyright holder in one of those areas was having his American IP rights violated in France, he would be just as capable of suing and gaining satisfaction.
You cannot claim that it goes against free speech unless you're willing to say that all copyright is a violation of free speech.
You may, in fact, think that - and it's certainly your right to have that opinion. But given that that Supreme Court has yet to strike down copyright in general, they have no basis to to rule that a reciprocal agreement between two soverign nations violates free speech any more than the domestic equivalent.
Problem is, Burst did it years BEFORE Quicktime, Akaimi or anyone else. What is obvious now wasn't back then. Do your research. Look at the filing dates of those patents.
Do YOUR research.
Resuming downloads? FTP
Load Balancing? Pretty well any large-scale internet router, database management system, web server, or any of a large number of system software packages, and most modern operating system network subsystems.
Play while spooling? Not a whole hellova lot different from double-buffering, except you're writing it to disk instead of an in-memory structure.
How a patent like that got granted in the first place is absolutly beyond me. If I can come up with reasonable (thought not necessarily *legally* acceptable) examples like that off the top of my head at 7AM after having been up all night WITHOUT doing any research, you're gonna have a very hard time convincing me that the patents should have been granted in the first place.
ctually, I don't see what you're seeing at all. France has every right to bar this person from entering their country again unless he pays the judgment against him, and if that's what they want to do, no problem. They would also have had the right to arrest and charge him or enter a civil judgment against him had he broken their laws while in their country. What they -do not- have the right to do is dictate what he may or may not do once he leaves. French law applies to actions taken in France. The publication of the photos (even if not the taking) took place in the US, and is therefore subject to US, not French, law.
Totally, catagorically, %100 not true
ANd here's a whole area of perfect examples, in the reverse:
How many times have you heard of companies suing companies & individuals for illegal copies of software?
In some of those countries, it's NOT illegal to do so.... but you cure as hell still want your IP (copyrights) protected and enforced. And they are - *if* the other country involved is a signatory to the Bern Conventions or something similar.
How long do you think it would take Microsoft to sue somebody for publishing the source code to Vista in France? About 30 seconds.
I seriously doubt that Microsoft registered their copyrights in France, and they don't have to. Because by treaty and convention, the IP that was registered in the USA *is* respected in France.
That's all that's happening here - nothing more, nothing less.
Why the bloody hell does everything that happens in the USA have to boil down to an issue of free speech and the constitution? There really *isn't* a world wide jewish military-industrial complex plot to grind you under the heels of the vested interests, you know.
By your reasoning you could just as easily say an internationally accessible server with web sites about democracy should be subject to Chinese censorship laws even if the server is physically in America and operated by an American company. Do you seriously want to see the censorship laws of oppressive nations applied universally to the Internet?
*sigh*.... THIS ISN'T A CENSORSHIP ISSUE!
This is simply a matter of the United States agreeing to respect French copyright law in return for the French respting american copyright law.
They also respect each other's laws concering marriage, divorce, child custody issues, and a host of other things, both criminal and civil.
It is no more and no less an issue of censorship than your ability to use any other copywrited work for commercial purposes without the owner's permission.
He would have to prove a loss. For a poster or other commercial reproduction that could be the case. For a photograph published on the Internet that would be harder to justify
Actually, if they make *any* coin from liscensing the use of their pictures, proving loss would be trivial.
Worst case would be confining the estimated loses as the liscense fees from the single copy of a photo that was published.
The French would raise hell if we tried to exercise a US law against a French citizen, and rightfully so. Similarly, French law does not and should not apply to those outside France's borders
Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't this the other side of the coin that everybody got so pissy about just a few weeks ago, when yahoo co-operated with the Chinese government regarding activities taking place in China?
The US government has historically tried to use laws regarding the behaviour of FOREIGN companies (owned wholey or partially by American companies) to extend it's foreign policy abroad.
I can't remember the number of times the American government has passed laws like that to try to affect the behaviour of CANADIAN companies who have the *temerity* to try to do business with Cuba, for example.
That being said, inter-governmental agreements and/or treaties between governements agreeing to respect each other's laws in specific areas is no more an abridgement of free speech than *american* copyright laws are.
Isaid "simply quit", because I do believe it to be the easiest way. It may not work the first time, or the second, or even the third. But if the desire to quit is really there, it will eventually work. By "simply quit", I mean to make the firm decision to stop smoking. I do NOT mean that you tell yourself "I will try to quit this week and see how it goes." I do NOT mean that you tell yourself "I am quitting, but will keep a pack around just in case I fail." I mean that you must tell yourself "as of this date I no longer smoke cigarettes.".
That's as silly as telling an alchololic to just "stop drinking". It worked for you - kudos, and well deserved. But not everybody is like you, and not everybody can do it as (relativly) easily AT ALL. Which is precicely the point I was trying to make originally.
p.s. You don't help an addict by telling him they can't quit. I'm doing the opposite, I'm telling them they CAN quit.
No, actually, you're not. You'e telling them that if they aren't successfull, it's because they don't really want to. To quote: But if the desire to quit is really there, it will eventually work.
Again - with repeated atttempts, most people WILL be able to quit.... eventually. Some with your methods, some with others. And some , regardless of desire, methods or number of attempts, will not. That's the nature of addiction.
Please show me where I said America is responsible for guerilla attacks
You didn't, nor did I say you did. But it was implied in what you said.
Meh, Al Jazeera is not that bad. Ever actually watched it or read it? Please tell me your criterion for your judgement and how you're not just copying what Fox News says.
Yes, actually, I have.
My "criterion for judgement", so to speak, is at least an attempt to be unbiased - which Al Jazerra is catagorically NOT. If somebody/something is trying to push an agenda, it's propoganda, regardless of which side they take.
As far as Fox News is concerned, I'm in Canada - I've never seen it. It's not available here.
As for Juan Cole's post, that day's post was a JOKE. Did you read past it?
Yes, I did - and if you had read MY post, you would see that I adressed the item he had posted directly underneath that.
And if it wasn't for the one comment about McDonalds in that first item, it would very easilly have passed for serious comment by somebody who was reading him because he was "an acklowledged expert/trusted source"
If you still believe Baghdad is safer that America, please go over and tell me how safe you feel. The Samarra bombing is estimated to have killed 1000 nationwide, and I doubt I'll be able to convince you by now.
I never said Baghdad was safer than the states - what I DID say was that Iraq was nowhere near the state that you had said it was in - and I did that by showing that even though the country is in a state of civil war/insurrection, it's STILL not much "less safe" than a a few of the more violet US cities.
Yes, Dan Rather screwed up, so you're saying don't trust ANY expert. Ignorance is bliss eh?
You entirely missed my point. Dan Rather is an expert on absolutly nothing - he's a talking head, and hasn't been more than that in years. The point I was making was that just becase somebody is TRUSTED, doesn't mean they ARE an expert - and Dan Rather is/was a perfect example of that, which is exactly what I used him for.
I'm not going by experts then, I'm going by ordinary Iraqi civillians who post their outrage online, or Arabic-speaking journalists.
Anecdotal evidence. For every outraged civilian who posts his rage on-line, I can find you another who is quitely going about his business, hoping that things continue to get better. The reality is that the vast majority of the violence is restricted to a few parts of the country. Should I look at those areas and conclude that the entire country is awash with blood? Or should I look at those areas that are much more peacefull, and conclude that there's nothing wrong over there at all?
I'm not saying that all is well and peachy-keen in Iraq - only an idiot would try to tell you that, and I maybe a lot of things, but an idiot isn't one of them.
What I AM trying to say is that here in the west, we're getting a very unrealistic view of the actual situation over there - just as those who listen to Al Jazeera et. al. are getting just as unrealistic view on the OTHER side of the debate.
If you are so against Al Jazeera, try American reporter Anthony Shadid then.
I'm not "against" Al Jazerra at all, per se - I just don't consider them to be an even semi-reliable NEWS source. A source of information, perhaps - but by the time you run it throught the filters to try to eliminate their political bias, there's precious little information left to work with. And yes, I apply those same filters to *any* source of information I have - including CNN, CBS/NBC/ABC, the beeb, CBC/CTV/Global/Newsnet here in Canada, and the various print & on-line papers I have access to.
... so does this mean that laws made in Britain prior to the US Constitution are binding now in the USA? I think I am confused and I have not RTA so maybe someone could enlighten me.
It's the concept of precidence. That is, in the absence of "black letter law" (statutes), the court looks to past decisions for guidance. The american courts will still look all the way back to British cases on occasion, but I doubt it happens that often any more, with your own 200 year body of decisions and an explicit constitution.
Here in Canada, we didn't have a written constitution until very recently, and post decisions were effectivly our "constitution" - a judge would generally want to have very good reasons for not following precident. I believe that it's pretty well the same in all of the commonwealth countries - indeed, any country who's judicial system is based or was derived from the British.
This is absolutly news to me (I'm in Kingston), but it's about bloody well time, if it's true.
I believe the last percentage I heard was down to something like 13% of Ontarians are smokers. Not too bad. Although it seems like I'm friends with all of that 13% which makes it doubly hard to quit.
I dunno - that seems to be pretty low to me, looking around. Do you know if that's 13% of the TOTAL population, or the percentage of people of legal age? That could effectively double the rate to 26% or so, which strikes me as a bit more realistic.
Same position they're currently in, but with a little added motivation to stop procrastinating, and actually put their mind to it, rather than giving up, saying it's "too hard", blaming it on psych studies, finding any excuse other than accepting the fact that they're too complacent with their current situation.
a) Who said anything about not trying to quit?
b) Who was blaming psych studies? I was simply trying to make the point that it *is* an addition, and about just how "easy" it is to quit. And the point is that it's NOT easy. Do you honestly think that so many people around the world - given what we know now - would still be smoking if it was just a matter of not bothering to buy the next pack?
What you are saying there illustrates my point perfectly. Too complacent? Looking for an excuse? That's just as absurd as what people said about clinical depression 20 years ago..... "Oh, don't be so lazy - just get off your arse and DO something"
just don't come running to me when you're diagnosed with a life threatening illness you brought on with your own behavior...
I would have no intentions of doing so - I'm very well aware of the fact that I started of my own free will, and I not going to be a hypocryte and blame the tobacco companies, either.
Oh, yeah - that reminds me.
Some of us are still around that started when it *wasn't* obvious or clear - to *anybody* - that smoking would do anything other than affect your wind. Hell - I competed in provincial long-distance cross-country and steeple-chase competitions while smoking a pack a day, and was on my varsity basketball & volleyball teams, and was able to run the mile in just under 6 minites. (I think my best time was around 5:53 or thereabouts - it was a LONG time ago). And I've been smoking a pack a day since I was 13 (it WAS cool to smoke back then, believe it or not). If you think I haven't tried numerous times over the years to stop, you'r e dreaming.
I'm glad the previous poster WAS able to quit - I'm sure he sees numerable improvements in his life because of it. But to say that not being able to quite is a sign of lazyness or just a lack of willpower shows a total ignorance of the subject.
Yes, I - and every other smoker - started of our own free will. And yes, it IS hard to quit - so try supporting those who are trying and hopefully succeeding, instead of pissing on those who *haven't* been able to do it yet.
I woke up one day and said "I'm going to quit next monday." I spent that week tapering off somewhat, and used the patch when I quit. I don't know how much of an effect the tapering and patch had, but they were isignificant compared to the effect of simply quitting.
This is why there are so many intolerant anti-smoking crusaders out there. "I did it, so you can".
That is catagorically not the case. Some people are more highly addicted than others. For some, the psyc component is stronger, and in others, the physical.
Studies of people with multiple addictions have repetedly shown that of all the "addictions" out there (coke, heroin, booze, etc) that the one the addicts find the most difficult to give up is smoking.
Some people can have a drink and leave the bar. Some can't. Some of those that can't lave the bar will eventually be able to successfully give it up - and some never will.
Society recognises the difficulty addicts have, and the cost to society - and they fund things like needle exchanges, all sorts of rehab and drop in programmes, etc, to try to help them BECAUSE of the difficulty they face in trying to get rid of a highly addictive habit.
All smokers get is taxed to death and intollerance. Just because one approach worked for you - your particular personality, your specific body chemestry, and the wiring of your individual brain does NOT mean that it will work for everybody else.
Yes, a lot of people have quit cold turkey, and quite successfully.... and some have not. Don't assume that it's because "they just didn't try hard enough".
What society needs to do is recognise the difficulty that current smokers have, and try to come up with ways to HELP them, as they do other addicts, not turn them into outcasts who are just considered to have no willpower.
People who don't smoke, drink or do drugs, who eat properly, exercise regularly, watch their fat intake, get plenty of fiber, and do everything else right do NOT, in fact, live longer.
It just SEEMS like it's taking them forever to die.
I'd never heard of this new "cars/quarter" unit (invented by the same guy who gave us the LoC unit, presumably), so I had to look it up to see that this glue can hold around 10,000 psi (70,000 kPa).
Congradulations for having been taken in by a deceptive marketing scam.
It seems that the "3 cars" analogy is intentionally misrepresentative. They used hydrogen fuel cell cars for their measurements, and everybody knows that hydrogen is lighter than air, and gas is heave as shit.
Maybe I wouldn't mind so much if the fuel cell used helium... at least the marketing campaign would have *sounded* somewhat entertaining.
I've worked in a slaughterhouse. Pigs are bred to become food... seals are not.
That makes a difference how? It's still meat, it's still eaten, it still sustains life.
This, of course, totally ignores the fact that I was referring to the manner in which the seals are killed, which is essentially the same way domestic animals are killed - either by having their brains bashed in, a spike driven through their head, or their throats cut.
The only difference is that seal pups are cute, and red blood looks *spectacular* against white ice.
Anybody who derides the seal hunt on cruelty grounds needs to give up their leather undies and porterhouse steaks before they have any moral authority whatsoever.
Well, Canadians can beat the crap out of cute little seals without any iinternational sanctions
Over the years, there have been a LOT of international sanctions.
And before you start dumping on the seal hunt... have you ever been to a slaughterhouse to see what was done to bessie before she wound up on your plate, or as your shoes & belt?
Last time I checked, income taxes paid by americans averaged $22,000 per capita. I doubt it's that high in Canada, however you could be right as the numbers I used were on income tax (I didn't know employers paid so much).
I don't know about the multipliers there, or even the current ones here in Canada. But back in 2000 or so, I remember that the rough calculation at the time was 1.5. That is, it would cost me about $75,000/year to have an employee at $50,000, by the time you added in the statutory benifits.
Slashdot Mirror
True but I'm thinking of Jo Schmoe putting a few pics up on his personal interest website.
...." is gonna cut it as a legal defence
Again, I agree with you - but this isn't a case of Jo Schmoe
But it is all going a bit too far if you ask me. If someone starts turning out reproduction works then they should pay royalties and I can even accept that calendars, art books or posters should be covered but there is a point where fare use must apply. That would seem to cover something like a low res photograph on the Web... commercial site or not.
Key word: commercial. Somehow, I don't think "But your honour - I only made a *little* bit of money from ripping them off
Guess that's why us Canucks so blissfully unaware of it :-)
Treaties don't really come into play here, because the Berne Convention is not self-enacting.
You're right there - no treaty has *any* affect untill it's been ratified by the signatory. But I'm willing to bet that the USA *has* ratified the Berne Conventions. Whether or not it's "self-enacting", as you say, doesn't seem to have a lot to do with anything, and does nothing to counter my arguments. If it's been signed, and ratified, whether or not it's "self-enacting" is moot.
Who the copyright holder is doesn't matter.
Agree
What matters is where the alleged infringement takes place.
Yes and No. It would be more correct to say here that what matters is where it takes place in a signatory country to the Berne (or other applicable) Conventions
When an American (or anyone) distributes copyrighted material in the US, they are under US law. When they distribute copyrighted material in France, they're under French law.
Agreed
Of course, getting a ruling in France based on French law for a US company with none of its assets in France, isn't very useful, unless you can convince a US court to enforce the ruling. Under the principle of comity, US courts will usually do this. Then, once the US court makes its ruling, it can be enforced, using injunctions, attachments, liens, and levies, if necessary.
Agreed - and this is where we part. When the USA signed the conventions (and any other aplicable treaties, they don't sign it and say "..... when it's convenient". A treaty is kind of an all or nothing deal - you agree to it, or you don't. That why you sigh and ratify them.
a) The USA has copyright laws that protect certain types of IP, and is a party to a treaty
b) France has copyright laws, very similar in detail & scope, that protects the same types of IP.
c) The Supremes have ruled in the past that copyright protection is constitutional
Whether or not fashion designs are considered to be copyrightable in France and not in the USA is (IMHO) a legal detail, and not something that the Supreme Count is going to be likely to consider to be any different from any other form of copyrightable artistic work.
Therefore:
Arguing that it's "freedom of speech" is bullshit, has no legal standing, and won't do anything other than slightly increasing the air temperature around the heads of the lawyers spouting this crap.
The courts may, in fact, find that it's unenforacable for some reason (fair use, maybe?) - who the hell knows. But I would bet you my mortage, my first born, AND my left testicle that "freedom of speech" has the square root of 0 chance of being the reason for it.
You're ignoring (intentionally?) my point. It is not a claim that the guy should be charged with "crimes against humanity" in the USA. We're not talking about criminal law here.
.... "we'll respect your copyrights in our country, if you respect ours in yours". That's it. That's all. There's nothing criminal, there's nothing about freedom of speech, nowhere.
We're talking about treaties, freely entered into by all countries involved, designed to encourage & facilitate commerce between economies.
Most favored nation trading status in the USA - "we won't charge you duties on this stuff and you won't charge us duties on THAT stuff". It's a reciprocal agreement, and good for business for both parties.
NAFTA - same thing. You may agree with it or not, but that's why it's there, and that's the intention.
And then *this* case
In practice, what you're talking about is a technical difference in what is considered to be copyrightable in France as opposted to in the United States. There are examples, I'm sure, of the reverse, but that's beside the point. If an American copyright holder in one of those areas was having his American IP rights violated in France, he would be just as capable of suing and gaining satisfaction.
You cannot claim that it goes against free speech unless you're willing to say that all copyright is a violation of free speech.
You may, in fact, think that - and it's certainly your right to have that opinion. But given that that Supreme Court has yet to strike down copyright in general, they have no basis to to rule that a reciprocal agreement between two soverign nations violates free speech any more than the domestic equivalent.
Problem is, Burst did it years BEFORE Quicktime, Akaimi or anyone else. What is obvious now wasn't back then. Do your research. Look at the filing dates of those patents.
Do YOUR research.
Resuming downloads? FTP
Load Balancing? Pretty well any large-scale internet router, database management system, web server, or any of a large number of system software packages, and most modern operating system network subsystems.
Play while spooling? Not a whole hellova lot different from double-buffering, except you're writing it to disk instead of an in-memory structure.
How a patent like that got granted in the first place is absolutly beyond me. If I can come up with reasonable (thought not necessarily *legally* acceptable) examples like that off the top of my head at 7AM after having been up all night WITHOUT doing any research, you're gonna have a very hard time convincing me that the patents should have been granted in the first place.
ctually, I don't see what you're seeing at all. France has every right to bar this person from entering their country again unless he pays the judgment against him, and if that's what they want to do, no problem. They would also have had the right to arrest and charge him or enter a civil judgment against him had he broken their laws while in their country. What they -do not- have the right to do is dictate what he may or may not do once he leaves. French law applies to actions taken in France. The publication of the photos (even if not the taking) took place in the US, and is therefore subject to US, not French, law.
.... but you cure as hell still want your IP (copyrights) protected and enforced. And they are - *if* the other country involved is a signatory to the Bern Conventions or something similar.
Totally, catagorically, %100 not true
ANd here's a whole area of perfect examples, in the reverse:
How many times have you heard of companies suing companies & individuals for illegal copies of software?
In some of those countries, it's NOT illegal to do so
How long do you think it would take Microsoft to sue somebody for publishing the source code to Vista in France? About 30 seconds.
I seriously doubt that Microsoft registered their copyrights in France, and they don't have to. Because by treaty and convention, the IP that was registered in the USA *is* respected in France.
That's all that's happening here - nothing more, nothing less.
Why the bloody hell does everything that happens in the USA have to boil down to an issue of free speech and the constitution? There really *isn't* a world wide jewish military-industrial complex plot to grind you under the heels of the vested interests, you know.
By your reasoning you could just as easily say an internationally accessible server with web sites about democracy should be subject to Chinese censorship laws even if the server is physically in America and operated by an American company. Do you seriously want to see the censorship laws of oppressive nations applied universally to the Internet?
.... THIS ISN'T A CENSORSHIP ISSUE!
*sigh*
This is simply a matter of the United States agreeing to respect French copyright law in return for the French respting american copyright law.
They also respect each other's laws concering marriage, divorce, child custody issues, and a host of other things, both criminal and civil.
It is no more and no less an issue of censorship than your ability to use any other copywrited work for commercial purposes without the owner's permission.
He would have to prove a loss. For a poster or other commercial reproduction that could be the case. For a photograph published on the Internet that would be harder to justify
Actually, if they make *any* coin from liscensing the use of their pictures, proving loss would be trivial.
Worst case would be confining the estimated loses as the liscense fees from the single copy of a photo that was published.
The French would raise hell if we tried to exercise a US law against a French citizen, and rightfully so. Similarly, French law does not and should not apply to those outside France's borders
Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't this the other side of the coin that everybody got so pissy about just a few weeks ago, when yahoo co-operated with the Chinese government regarding activities taking place in China?
The US government has historically tried to use laws regarding the behaviour of FOREIGN companies (owned wholey or partially by American companies) to extend it's foreign policy abroad.
I can't remember the number of times the American government has passed laws like that to try to affect the behaviour of CANADIAN companies who have the *temerity* to try to do business with Cuba, for example.
That being said, inter-governmental agreements and/or treaties between governements agreeing to respect each other's laws in specific areas is no more an abridgement of free speech than *american* copyright laws are.
He's been a front man for the lumber company involved in the deforestation of much of Canada for a long time.
...... All those damned trees are getting in the way of the scenery.
Canada is being "deforested"? (looking around in confustion)
Well, it's about freaking time
Isaid "simply quit", because I do believe it to be the easiest way. It may not work the first time, or the second, or even the third. But if the desire to quit is really there, it will eventually work. By "simply quit", I mean to make the firm decision to stop smoking. I do NOT mean that you tell yourself "I will try to quit this week and see how it goes." I do NOT mean that you tell yourself "I am quitting, but will keep a pack around just in case I fail." I mean that you must tell yourself "as of this date I no longer smoke cigarettes.".
.... eventually. Some with your methods, some with others. And some , regardless of desire, methods or number of attempts, will not. That's the nature of addiction.
That's as silly as telling an alchololic to just "stop drinking". It worked for you - kudos, and well deserved. But not everybody is like you, and not everybody can do it as (relativly) easily AT ALL. Which is precicely the point I was trying to make originally.
p.s. You don't help an addict by telling him they can't quit. I'm doing the opposite, I'm telling them they CAN quit.
No, actually, you're not. You'e telling them that if they aren't successfull, it's because they don't really want to. To quote:
But if the desire to quit is really there, it will eventually work.
Again - with repeated atttempts, most people WILL be able to quit
"Hey Joe! Does the reactor look like it'll be ok for 5 minites? I have to do the weekly scheduled reboot of the emergency shutdown system ........"
I would have some SEVERE issues with any product or service that was using any windows platform for safety-critical systems.
Just the fact that they're trying to do "safety" on such an unreliable platform should make you wonder about their compotence
Please show me where I said America is responsible for guerilla attacks
You didn't, nor did I say you did. But it was implied in what you said.
Meh, Al Jazeera is not that bad. Ever actually watched it or read it? Please tell me your criterion for your judgement and how you're not just copying what Fox News says.
Yes, actually, I have.
My "criterion for judgement", so to speak, is at least an attempt to be unbiased - which Al Jazerra is catagorically NOT. If somebody/something is trying to push an agenda, it's propoganda, regardless of which side they take.
As far as Fox News is concerned, I'm in Canada - I've never seen it. It's not available here.
As for Juan Cole's post, that day's post was a JOKE. Did you read past it?
Yes, I did - and if you had read MY post, you would see that I adressed the item he had posted directly underneath that.
And if it wasn't for the one comment about McDonalds in that first item, it would very easilly have passed for serious comment by somebody who was reading him because he was "an acklowledged expert/trusted source"
If you still believe Baghdad is safer that America, please go over and tell me how safe you feel. The Samarra bombing is estimated to have killed 1000 nationwide, and I doubt I'll be able to convince you by now.
I never said Baghdad was safer than the states - what I DID say was that Iraq was nowhere near the state that you had said it was in - and I did that by showing that even though the country is in a state of civil war/insurrection, it's STILL not much "less safe" than a a few of the more violet US cities.
Yes, Dan Rather screwed up, so you're saying don't trust ANY expert. Ignorance is bliss eh?
You entirely missed my point. Dan Rather is an expert on absolutly nothing - he's a talking head, and hasn't been more than that in years. The point I was making was that just becase somebody is TRUSTED, doesn't mean they ARE an expert - and Dan Rather is/was a perfect example of that, which is exactly what I used him for. I'm not going by experts then, I'm going by ordinary Iraqi civillians who post their outrage online, or Arabic-speaking journalists.
Anecdotal evidence. For every outraged civilian who posts his rage on-line, I can find you another who is quitely going about his business, hoping that things continue to get better. The reality is that the vast majority of the violence is restricted to a few parts of the country. Should I look at those areas and conclude that the entire country is awash with blood? Or should I look at those areas that are much more peacefull, and conclude that there's nothing wrong over there at all?
I'm not saying that all is well and peachy-keen in Iraq - only an idiot would try to tell you that, and I maybe a lot of things, but an idiot isn't one of them.
What I AM trying to say is that here in the west, we're getting a very unrealistic view of the actual situation over there - just as those who listen to Al Jazeera et. al. are getting just as unrealistic view on the OTHER side of the debate.
If you are so against Al Jazeera, try American reporter Anthony Shadid then.
I'm not "against" Al Jazerra at all, per se - I just don't consider them to be an even semi-reliable NEWS source. A source of information, perhaps - but by the time you run it throught the filters to try to eliminate their political bias, there's precious little information left to work with. And yes, I apply those same filters to *any* source of information I have - including CNN, CBS/NBC/ABC, the beeb, CBC/CTV/Global/Newsnet here in Canada, and the various print & on-line papers I have access to.
... so does this mean that laws made in Britain prior to the US Constitution are binding now in the USA? I think I am confused and I have not RTA so maybe someone could enlighten me.
It's the concept of precidence. That is, in the absence of "black letter law" (statutes), the court looks to past decisions for guidance. The american courts will still look all the way back to British cases on occasion, but I doubt it happens that often any more, with your own 200 year body of decisions and an explicit constitution.
Here in Canada, we didn't have a written constitution until very recently, and post decisions were effectivly our "constitution" - a judge would generally want to have very good reasons for not following precident. I believe that it's pretty well the same in all of the commonwealth countries - indeed, any country who's judicial system is based or was derived from the British.
This is absolutly news to me (I'm in Kingston), but it's about bloody well time, if it's true.
I believe the last percentage I heard was down to something like 13% of Ontarians are smokers. Not too bad. Although it seems like I'm friends with all of that 13% which makes it doubly hard to quit.
I dunno - that seems to be pretty low to me, looking around. Do you know if that's 13% of the TOTAL population, or the percentage of people of legal age? That could effectively double the rate to 26% or so, which strikes me as a bit more realistic.
Same position they're currently in, but with a little added motivation to stop procrastinating, and actually put their mind to it, rather than giving up, saying it's "too hard", blaming it on psych studies, finding any excuse other than accepting the fact that they're too complacent with their current situation.
..... "Oh, don't be so lazy - just get off your arse and DO something"
a) Who said anything about not trying to quit?
b) Who was blaming psych studies? I was simply trying to make the point that it *is* an addition, and about just how "easy" it is to quit. And the point is that it's NOT easy. Do you honestly think that so many people around the world - given what we know now - would still be smoking if it was just a matter of not bothering to buy the next pack?
What you are saying there illustrates my point perfectly. Too complacent? Looking for an excuse? That's just as absurd as what people said about clinical depression 20 years ago
just don't come running to me when you're diagnosed with a life threatening illness you brought on with your own behavior...
I would have no intentions of doing so - I'm very well aware of the fact that I started of my own free will, and I not going to be a hypocryte and blame the tobacco companies, either.
Oh, yeah - that reminds me.
Some of us are still around that started when it *wasn't* obvious or clear - to *anybody* - that smoking would do anything other than affect your wind. Hell - I competed in provincial long-distance cross-country and steeple-chase competitions while smoking a pack a day, and was on my varsity basketball & volleyball teams, and was able to run the mile in just under 6 minites. (I think my best time was around 5:53 or thereabouts - it was a LONG time ago). And I've been smoking a pack a day since I was 13 (it WAS cool to smoke back then, believe it or not). If you think I haven't tried numerous times over the years to stop, you'r e dreaming.
I'm glad the previous poster WAS able to quit - I'm sure he sees numerable improvements in his life because of it. But to say that not being able to quite is a sign of lazyness or just a lack of willpower shows a total ignorance of the subject.
Yes, I - and every other smoker - started of our own free will. And yes, it IS hard to quit - so try supporting those who are trying and hopefully succeeding, instead of pissing on those who *haven't* been able to do it yet.
I woke up one day and said "I'm going to quit next monday." I spent that week tapering off somewhat, and used the patch when I quit. I don't know how much of an effect the tapering and patch had, but they were isignificant compared to the effect of simply quitting.
.... and some have not. Don't assume that it's because "they just didn't try hard enough".
This is why there are so many intolerant anti-smoking crusaders out there. "I did it, so you can".
That is catagorically not the case. Some people are more highly addicted than others. For some, the psyc component is stronger, and in others, the physical.
Studies of people with multiple addictions have repetedly shown that of all the "addictions" out there (coke, heroin, booze, etc) that the one the addicts find the most difficult to give up is smoking.
Some people can have a drink and leave the bar. Some can't. Some of those that can't lave the bar will eventually be able to successfully give it up - and some never will.
Society recognises the difficulty addicts have, and the cost to society - and they fund things like needle exchanges, all sorts of rehab and drop in programmes, etc, to try to help them BECAUSE of the difficulty they face in trying to get rid of a highly addictive habit.
All smokers get is taxed to death and intollerance. Just because one approach worked for you - your particular personality, your specific body chemestry, and the wiring of your individual brain does NOT mean that it will work for everybody else.
Yes, a lot of people have quit cold turkey, and quite successfully
What society needs to do is recognise the difficulty that current smokers have, and try to come up with ways to HELP them, as they do other addicts, not turn them into outcasts who are just considered to have no willpower.
People who don't smoke, drink or do drugs, who eat properly, exercise regularly, watch their fat intake, get plenty of fiber, and do everything else right do NOT, in fact, live longer.
It just SEEMS like it's taking them forever to die.
My code was rarely very OO, however. For a small, one-person project that doesn't talk to other systems I doubt it's much of a performance gain.
Object orientation is for a lot of things, but I've never heard performance as being a reason - it's usually a knock on it.
It's supposed to be for maintainability, reliability, and programming ease - not that I necessarily buy any of that.
There's precious little that OO gives you that compartmentalisation, abstraction and dicipline won't.
I'd never heard of this new "cars/quarter" unit (invented by the same guy who gave us the LoC unit, presumably), so I had to look it up to see that this glue can hold around 10,000 psi (70,000 kPa).
... at least the marketing campaign would have *sounded* somewhat entertaining.
Congradulations for having been taken in by a deceptive marketing scam.
It seems that the "3 cars" analogy is intentionally misrepresentative. They used hydrogen fuel cell cars for their measurements, and everybody knows that hydrogen is lighter than air, and gas is heave as shit.
Maybe I wouldn't mind so much if the fuel cell used helium
I've worked in a slaughterhouse. Pigs are bred to become food... seals are not.
That makes a difference how? It's still meat, it's still eaten, it still sustains life.
This, of course, totally ignores the fact that I was referring to the manner in which the seals are killed, which is essentially the same way domestic animals are killed - either by having their brains bashed in, a spike driven through their head, or their throats cut.
The only difference is that seal pups are cute, and red blood looks *spectacular* against white ice.
Anybody who derides the seal hunt on cruelty grounds needs to give up their leather undies and porterhouse steaks before they have any moral authority whatsoever.
Loosing" must be some weird way of "letting things out" - like: "Let loose the dogs of war"
... isn't it "Let SLIP the dogs of war?"
ummmmm
Well, Canadians can beat the crap out of cute little seals without any iinternational sanctions
... have you ever been to a slaughterhouse to see what was done to bessie before she wound up on your plate, or as your shoes & belt?
Over the years, there have been a LOT of international sanctions.
And before you start dumping on the seal hunt
Last time I checked, income taxes paid by americans averaged $22,000 per capita. I doubt it's that high in Canada, however you could be right as the numbers I used were on income tax (I didn't know employers paid so much).
I don't know about the multipliers there, or even the current ones here in Canada. But back in 2000 or so, I remember that the rough calculation at the time was 1.5. That is, it would cost me about $75,000/year to have an employee at $50,000, by the time you added in the statutory benifits.
Sure, even unions haven't figured out a way to make GM pay their personal income taxes for them.
There's really nothing to figure out - the public system already give them the benifits. That's why the savings per vehicle.