Ajax is a liquid *or* powdered cleaner apparently by Colgate-Palmolive (soft teeth and white hands brand)
I seem to remember the liquid, I don't think I ever bought the powder.
Also there was Jif or Cif or Vim or whatever it is called now, that was a cleaning fluid, thick and quite good at its job, stopped buying it when I couldn't tell it apart from its rivals (never rename a perfectly good product it doesn't work as well (Ethereal vs Wireshark?). Now I just use whatever Tesco has that looks like its a cleaning fluid (the amuot of times I though I bought a bottle of brand X when actually buying a knock off or own brand product is remarkable, but they I usually shop in a hurry.
(Now this really is spurious, but thought I used Jif when I was about 7 with my chemistry set to make a "soliquid" (as it was termed on the kit))
Any further questions about my exciting domestic cleaning or shopping style, please contact u.t.t.e.r.l.y.@.u.r.a.n.d.o.m.co.uk (without the punctuation)
Call bullshit on it if you like, that was the sales patter I had to listen to when I tried to get a stylus (quickly) for my PDA, the conversation was between a 40ish year old man and a sales person, PC World are great if you know what you want and don't mind paying over the odds for it (i.e. you need something now!!) but they seem to play at car salesman when they sell PC's to people who want advice - "you don't want that one sir its no good, here try this one its a little more expensive but if you are doing anything intensive like spreadsheets or storing photographs its what you need" I'm not saying PC world don't have a right to up sell, or that people should be entitled to impartial advice from the shops they visit, but selling someone something they don't need and claiming they do is unfair. I just wish they were honest. I tried to buy a Laptop a few Christmases ago from PC world (they were in stock and reduced) and was told that I'd be much better off with one of the newer product lines (they seemed to be switching from AMD to Intel at the time) if I was going to be using it to do any real work, that was a 2600+AMD Mobile with 512M RAM, perfectly suitable for most tasks, the machine being offered was not even substantially better in terms of specification (and it was from the same manufacturer) but the price was significantly higher.
Last point - the one thing I really don't understand is why when they are selling PC's they don't try and sell the software at the same time, when relative of mine recently bought a PC*, he went specifically for a machine that he could do his small business accounts on, the machine he bought was most certainly capable of the task, but the sales person managed to omit the fact that he would need to buy a copy of office or an accounts package to actually use it. Could it be that there is a commission on hardware sales, but not on software?
Not at PC world to be fair.
It strikes me that the people who buy things like computers in shops (as opposed to on-line) do so so that they can see the item and talk to someone about it, yet half of that benefit (for which you pay with significantly higher prices) has been devalued and converted into up-selling.
I ended up buying crossover just for visio, so if you find a good replacement do tell me. It is so far the one thing I cant replace with something better.
I say this half jokingly, but we are talking about the same people who replaced their records with tapes, tapes with CD's, video's with DVD's and some of them went through mini disks, laser disks VCD's and betamax too, some people replace their PC's entirely because someone at a PC shop tells them they need X to run the next version of office (according to PC World (UK) a dual core Pentium and 2Gb of RAM are required to "write letters" and browse the web, apparently because there have recently been upgrades (to the net) and there is a new version coming out soon). Replacing your media library every few years seems to be OK by most people, people actually do!.
Saying that maybe this will be the generation that say "no more".
The problem Microsoft have with this regard is that a) there *are* security issues with windows that simply do not occur elsewhere and popularity *is* an issue. Windows is less secure than its OSS counterparts when coupled with a user and an internet connection, this isn't just poor design or poor planning, much of it has to do with how applications use the Win32 API and the sheer complexity of the same. b) When a Windows exploit is identified, whether it is an Office issue, a OS issue, IE issue, a driver issue etc. (even a totally third party application issue) it is seen as a Microsoft issue (not an office team/explorer team etc..). In the OSS world an exploit is at most associated with whichever application it found contained in*, it is rarely seen as a *Linux* issue, and frankly that is fair, Linux is far more modular than windows (and as such (at least in places) less well integrated)
As for twitter, I have to say its getting a little bit boring, both reading that everything is Microsoft's fault and the twitter bashing. twitter seems to have valid points sometimes and as such I wish people would respond with regard to the post rather than the person posting.
Not that my wishing for things gets me anywhere!
*Unless it is a study comparing open and closed source, in that instance whichever method is better for the study sponsor will prevail.
I'm not a gamer and I don't own a console, so I may be missing something but does
Going aggressive only on price without being able to back it up with content doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, mean what I think it means? i.e. "We are not dropping our prices because we have don't have much content as yet, but when we do have more content we will drop our prices".
I mean I can see the sense in the fact that more games will drive sales, but I don't see why people would pay more for a console when there are only a few titles* why not drop the price, have people buy it as a blueray player and then *not* drop the price again when the titles are out (after all it will already be as cheap enough as if they dropped the prices when the titles came out). Wouldn't that mean that more people would consider buying the console before the content is available (albeit at a lower price)
Anyway,makes no sense to me, but as I said I'm not a gamer.
*I have no real idea how many titles are available for the PS3 or how it stacks up against its rivals, so take that statement at face value rather than assume I am insinuating that the platform is not as good as or worse off than $otherplatform.
Slightly off topic, however if you have the time...
You have explained the situation rather neatly, and in itself the system seems fairly straight forward (in so far as any legal procedure can be), but I note that you have not indicated an opinion of the system (not that you needed to). Id be interested to know if you thought that the system you described regarding precedents, where they are established and where they are valid is satisfactory, or, if you would prefer either that each case be judged purely on its own merits, or whether you felt more amenable to the formal use of precedents from outside of each court / circuit. I guess the third option would be a mechanism to codify precedents, although that would be a step closer to "legislating from the bench", but at least in that scenario those doing the legislating are qualified.
That would explain why the EU only ever investigates foreign companies...
Oh wait, what's that? they investigate Foreign and EU companies.. Oh The US investigates US and foreign companies for this kind of behaviour too? Oh and the commission is to ensure that *customers* don't get a poor deal? its not about promoting one company over another?
My god, how can we live with this horrible intrusion into the free market, which only effects all companies?
Wait a minute - how come you didn't complain when VW or SAS or Maersk Air, or Hoechst AG, or Peaugot were fined? See what a 2 minute web search can do? That's from a single page, all in one year, take a look at the EU website and see how many fines have been issued against EU and foreign companies. Whilst you are at it, take a look at how many companies have been investigated, because at the end of the day, all that is happening is that a deal that Google has put together that clearly *does* change the on-line advertising market, the EU wants to make sure that that change will not be detrimental to consumers. Hardly a protectionist and anti-American attack (OR should I say that it is not commercial-terrorism?). The EU *is* in part there to encourage and grow EU business, it is also there to protect its own internal market (see the tariffs and penalties imposed against foreign nations, in the same way as they are imposed on the EU), and if it didn't exist Google would be facing investigations not by one commission, but by the individual bodies of each of the current member states (I'm sure some are investigating anyway).
I'm sick and tired of US bashing in the EU and EU bashing from the US. Much of what is discussed in the media in terms of economics is nothing short of propaganda (Although I must say that the US is better at propaganda, or maybe European's are better at seeing through it), see what we have had recently with china, or the reaction in the UK to the US sub prime credit collapse.
If people could put aside their national bias for a day, we might be able to make this free-market globalisation thing work, but that is not likely, instead we will take taxpayers money and use it to prop up ailing businesses (as if they have a *right* to survive) or use it to prevent others from entering our markets. That's the US and Europe (and much of the rest of the world). Either practice capitalism, or scrap it and work out a way of organising an economy that benefits the citizens of the world rather than a few mega-corporations.
Bit of a rant, but come on, this is so far a non story, for the EU it is the sensible thing to do, it s not anti-American, it is ensuring that the consumer (thats me and you) get a good deal.
Using your example of "Monsoon built a box, and put the BusyBox software on it, and uses the BusyBox software as a "black box" utility package."
I think the issues would arise if:
1) They are not telling anyone that they are using GPL software and not passing on the license or an offer for the source, 2) They have not modified BusyBox and are not passing on where they got the sourc0e for it from or passing on an offer for the source, 3) They have modified BusyBox and wont share the changes to their customers. 4) They are making some sort of claim that the GPL means that copyright doesn't apply - I have heard it before but never from a top lawyer.
In all cases the appropriate result would be that Monsoon either release the source, plus and modifications and derivatives, plus the license, to their customers, or they must stop using the software and presumably pay some compensation to both the copyright holder (for copyright violation / contract violation) and preferably also pay compensation to their customers (they are also harmed by this after all). In no case should they be compelled to release code that does not fall under the GPL (as decided by the court - if it gets there.)
Well that's my view anyway, but then I am not a top lawyer and have never worked for a $billion company. - IANAL this is not advice.
If they do that then I will add the following predictions
1: The GPhone will be free, but you can buy one if you wish to use your own number. 2: It will never leave Beta. 3: Microsoft and Yahoo will release rival Phones, but they wont be as good, and will look ugly. 4: People will complain that the Gphone is clearly a monopoly as it is Google leverage its advertising monopoly into another market to take it over....*
* Not that I think Google is a monopolist, nor can I see why they would be classed as such
Just to take your last paragraph, I wish more people knew about the various less obvious rights they have. A number of useful ones are
If you buy goods that turn out to be faulty, the seller is in breach of contract, you are entitled to the usual remedies, either they fix the problem quickly (replace, repair or refund..), or you fix the situation yourself and require that they foot the bill (go buy a new one, ship broke one back to them, ask them for the difference).
These apply to new goods AND used goods, (although with used goods caveat emptor applies) so if you buy a used car, it is described as being in good nick and you check for any reasonable deficiencies then if anything that is not reasonable happens (some deficiency or wear that you would not expect of a car of that age/accident damage repair that you were not told of.. etc) you can go back to the seller.
It applies on Ebay, at the local market everywhere, it is intended to stop companies from screwing their customers and in most cases if you know what you are talking about you will get what is right without much of a fight (in my experience its quite painless)
Many people don't realise that the law isn't there to screw them, its to give you some power in a system that is stacked against the buyer in favour of the seller. If your TV dies just out of warranty contact the Retailer and have them sort it, if not take them to small claims and get your money back, - no need for a solicitor and no or only minor costs involved.
May have rambled on a bit, forgot why I was posting to be honest, must be getting old. Oh IANAL and TINLA This is definitely not legal advice.
OK, My point is that even if the capabilities of a given system are unknown to the buying party and even if there are known or non-obvious restrictions on the transfer of this technology, the buyer *should* have been aware of them. If you are willing to use espionage to "unlock" a system, then presumably a bit of pre-purchase research (or due diligence if ou like) is not beyond you. So to quote an American politician, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns... All the buyer has to do is ensure that as far as is known the product will be suitable for the job.
If, as in this case it appears that some element was contentious with regard to US export restrictions, that should be clear to the buyer (through their own research) prior to purchase. The US entities can do whatever they want when selling something to someone else, place whatever restrictions they wish, but whoever signed the deal (or rather those responsible for the detail) should not have allowed a system that did not meet requirements to be delivered without assurances from the appropriate people that they are getting what they paid for. Its a buyers mistake. Anything else would imply that the US entities involved misrepresented they sale (which would come with redress), they lied about the sale (again leaving the door open to action against them and more importantly scaring off other potential buyers) or the buyer screwed up. I am going with the latter, as all the others should have been mitigated by using those intelligence assets that came in to play later in ensuring that what was being sought was what was bought.
Aha! so it does come down to whoever inked this deal not doing the job he should have done.
To be honest without seeing what else was riding on this deal, (or possibly what deal this deal was riding on) it is impossible to see whether Australia got a poor deal over all, but as I have said previously, if you are buying military kit, the first and foremost objective should be to ensure that you are doing right by your country (The UK seems to manage it, if it wasn't for the policy of only being operationally capable on a large scale with US support...). That clearly is subjective (based upon what else surrounded this deal and how it was made) but still. Buy an aircraft you cannot use against your enemy? not much point in buying that aircraft.
Not to mention the small fact that an unstable and declining dollar is not an attractive currency to price commodities in, especially for international markets. (I should rephrase, it is attractive to the US and the Buyers, but not for the seller, who wants their real income to drop when they can avoid it?) If raw materials and oil start being priced with say Euros then it becomes a disaster. Here is why;
No one will want to hold dollars, they are not useful for exchange, they will get rid of them and replace them with Euro's - net result? The dollar loses more value US Manufacturers will find that the resources to make their products are more expensive, and not stable in price, as such they will find it difficult to export (even if the dollar is low, because they need to exchange dollars for a higher value currency in the first place to produce their product) as their prices will be higher. This also impacts on the US market, foreign goods will become more expensive and so will US products. Fuel will become more expensive *and* there may be issues with supply, after all the US will need to acquire foreign currency to buy it in the first place, not easy if you already have a trade defect and no chance of changing it, you need to pay for your oil before it gets to you to be refined, if you haven't got the cash you wont get the oil. If fuel is more expensive that will further drive prices of goods and food up, most things require fuel or oil derivatives at some point in their manufacture or in their transport to consumers.
That's a middle case (not worst case by far) scenario, but its possible. The only good news is that with a bit of luck the move away from the dollar as a reserve currency will hit other countries too, (they currently hold it) so there is some incentive not to allow the American economy to tank, more over many of the other interconnections between global economies will be impacted by a US economy collapse (or)bump. Of course if it does happen, the global economy post collapse will be quite different, the US will find that much of its economic clout (and hence its ability to maintain its military capabilities) will be gone. Frankly I am worried what an economically declining, military powerful America (with the prospect of losing that military power) would do, this is the kind of thing that starts major wars.
Although I have seen region free DVD players from Sanyo[?] (I think) which don't honour it, I set one up for a relative and was surprised to find that it would play VCD's of all types, DIVx and other video files on CDR/DVDR's and all manner of audio files. I was surprised because there was no mention of this capability on the box, and, well you tend not to expect nice features on those kind of products.
Don't worry, It survives in other places, although I doubt it is safe from suspension anywhere. It is one of those things that is convenient to get rid of on occasion for the perceived common good.
I have no idea what the legal position is and frankly US constitutional law is an internal American matter (if the US violates my rights then my government can deal with the US on my behalf), that said however, looking at your quote in isolation I would read it as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States Right, it would appears that this element applies to what states can do to *citizens* clearly any non citizen doesn't get this protection.
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law This seems to apply to any person, US citizen or not.
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. And again, any person so I would assume that this too seems to apply to any person, US citizen or not.
That for me makes sense, Citizens have basic rights plus additional privileges and immunities, whilst everyone else just gets a basic subset of rights.
It does not suggest that the entire statement applies only to Citizens. As I said, I cant comment on the legal situation, but in my opinion detention without charge of anyone, anywhere is unjust. If you hold someone for something charge them with something and give them the opportunity to defend themselves, that prevents injustices being committed, more importantly it also means that a decent standard is being adhered to and prevents people from having to justify the actions of a "proud, free and just" nation by comparing it to regimes run by despots and tyrants.
But the procurement of Military hardware (which isn't going to be dual use, its not like Australia bought the F18's for crop dusting...) is done by diplomats at a fairly high level, not by company execs. At that level there is scope for all sorts of things ranging from simple technology transfers through to special dispensation. What I was commenting on was that whoever forged this deal either was always aware of the limitations and presumed there was a way around them, assumed that they wouldn't apply in this case or outright failed to realise that it would be an issue. Further, it is not as if the US is the only supplier of aircraft of this nature, granted this is cold war era, so buying tech or aircraft from the Russians would have been impossible, but there would have been UK and French manufacturers with comparable products, and (especially in the case of France) less restrictions, so you could either use that as a bargaining chip to get what you want or avoid the issue entirely.
When you are talking the amounts involved in buying fighter aircraft, you'd think the end product would meet the needs of the buyer, more over, without doing any research I cant tell, but I would bet this purchase came on the heels of other agreements, (whether military or trade related) which also potentially gives leverage to both parties. This isn't the US shipping F14's to iran for peanuts, this is a first world nation trading with another first world nation to aquire a product that is essential for national security. I would hope that the buyer would do the right thing as far as possible where the saftey of their nation is concerned, and not have to fall back on a (fairly hostile and potentially damaging) mechanism like espionage.
Slashdot Mirror
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=306887&cid=20743711
Ajax is a liquid *or* powdered cleaner apparently by Colgate-Palmolive (soft teeth and white hands brand)
I seem to remember the liquid, I don't think I ever bought the powder.
Also there was Jif or Cif or Vim or whatever it is called now, that was a cleaning fluid, thick and quite good at its job, stopped buying it when I couldn't tell it apart from its rivals (never rename a perfectly good product it doesn't work as well (Ethereal vs Wireshark?). Now I just use whatever Tesco has that looks like its a cleaning fluid (the amuot of times I though I bought a bottle of brand X when actually buying a knock off or own brand product is remarkable, but they I usually shop in a hurry.
(Now this really is spurious, but thought I used Jif when I was about 7 with my chemistry set to make a "soliquid" (as it was termed on the kit))
Any further questions about my exciting domestic cleaning or shopping style, please contact u.t.t.e.r.l.y.@.u.r.a.n.d.o.m.co.uk (without the punctuation)
Call bullshit on it if you like, that was the sales patter I had to listen to when I tried to get a stylus (quickly) for my PDA, the conversation was between a 40ish year old man and a sales person, PC World are great if you know what you want and don't mind paying over the odds for it (i.e. you need something now!!) but they seem to play at car salesman when they sell PC's to people who want advice - "you don't want that one sir its no good, here try this one its a little more expensive but if you are doing anything intensive like spreadsheets or storing photographs its what you need" I'm not saying PC world don't have a right to up sell, or that people should be entitled to impartial advice from the shops they visit, but selling someone something they don't need and claiming they do is unfair. I just wish they were honest. I tried to buy a Laptop a few Christmases ago from PC world (they were in stock and reduced) and was told that I'd be much better off with one of the newer product lines (they seemed to be switching from AMD to Intel at the time) if I was going to be using it to do any real work, that was a 2600+AMD Mobile with 512M RAM, perfectly suitable for most tasks, the machine being offered was not even substantially better in terms of specification (and it was from the same manufacturer) but the price was significantly higher.
Last point - the one thing I really don't understand is why when they are selling PC's they don't try and sell the software at the same time, when relative of mine recently bought a PC*, he went specifically for a machine that he could do his small business accounts on, the machine he bought was most certainly capable of the task, but the sales person managed to omit the fact that he would need to buy a copy of office or an accounts package to actually use it. Could it be that there is a commission on hardware sales, but not on software?
Not at PC world to be fair.
It strikes me that the people who buy things like computers in shops (as opposed to on-line) do so so that they can see the item and talk to someone about it, yet half of that benefit (for which you pay with significantly higher prices) has been devalued and converted into up-selling.
I ended up buying crossover just for visio, so if you find a good replacement do tell me. It is so far the one thing I cant replace with something better.
AJAX was and will always be a cleaning fluid.
I say this half jokingly, but we are talking about the same people who replaced their records with tapes, tapes with CD's, video's with DVD's and some of them went through mini disks, laser disks VCD's and betamax too, some people replace their PC's entirely because someone at a PC shop tells them they need X to run the next version of office (according to PC World (UK) a dual core Pentium and 2Gb of RAM are required to "write letters" and browse the web, apparently because there have recently been upgrades (to the net) and there is a new version coming out soon). Replacing your media library every few years seems to be OK by most people, people actually do!.
Saying that maybe this will be the generation that say "no more".
The problem Microsoft have with this regard is that a) there *are* security issues with windows that simply do not occur elsewhere and popularity *is* an issue. Windows is less secure than its OSS counterparts when coupled with a user and an internet connection, this isn't just poor design or poor planning, much of it has to do with how applications use the Win32 API and the sheer complexity of the same. b) When a Windows exploit is identified, whether it is an Office issue, a OS issue, IE issue, a driver issue etc. (even a totally third party application issue) it is seen as a Microsoft issue (not an office team/explorer team etc..). In the OSS world an exploit is at most associated with whichever application it found contained in*, it is rarely seen as a *Linux* issue, and frankly that is fair, Linux is far more modular than windows (and as such (at least in places) less well integrated)
As for twitter, I have to say its getting a little bit boring, both reading that everything is Microsoft's fault and the twitter bashing. twitter seems to have valid points sometimes and as such I wish people would respond with regard to the post rather than the person posting.
Not that my wishing for things gets me anywhere!
*Unless it is a study comparing open and closed source, in that instance whichever method is better for the study sponsor will prevail.
I mean I can see the sense in the fact that more games will drive sales, but I don't see why people would pay more for a console when there are only a few titles* why not drop the price, have people buy it as a blueray player and then *not* drop the price again when the titles are out (after all it will already be as cheap enough as if they dropped the prices when the titles came out). Wouldn't that mean that more people would consider buying the console before the content is available (albeit at a lower price)
Anyway,makes no sense to me, but as I said I'm not a gamer.
*I have no real idea how many titles are available for the PS3 or how it stacks up against its rivals, so take that statement at face value rather than assume I am insinuating that the platform is not as good as or worse off than $otherplatform.
Slightly off topic, however if you have the time...
You have explained the situation rather neatly, and in itself the system seems fairly straight forward (in so far as any legal procedure can be), but I note that you have not indicated an opinion of the system (not that you needed to). Id be interested to know if you thought that the system you described regarding precedents, where they are established and where they are valid is satisfactory, or, if you would prefer either that each case be judged purely on its own merits, or whether you felt more amenable to the formal use of precedents from outside of each court / circuit. I guess the third option would be a mechanism to codify precedents, although that would be a step closer to "legislating from the bench", but at least in that scenario those doing the legislating are qualified.
Anyway, thanks.
That would explain why the EU only ever investigates foreign companies...
Oh wait, what's that? they investigate Foreign and EU companies.. Oh
The US investigates US and foreign companies for this kind of behaviour too?
Oh and the commission is to ensure that *customers* don't get a poor deal? its not about promoting one company over another?
My god, how can we live with this horrible intrusion into the free market, which only effects all companies?
Wait a minute - how come you didn't complain when VW or SAS or Maersk Air, or Hoechst AG, or Peaugot were fined? See what a 2 minute web search can do? That's from a single page, all in one year, take a look at the EU website and see how many fines have been issued against EU and foreign companies. Whilst you are at it, take a look at how many companies have been investigated, because at the end of the day, all that is happening is that a deal that Google has put together that clearly *does* change the on-line advertising market, the EU wants to make sure that that change will not be detrimental to consumers. Hardly a protectionist and anti-American attack (OR should I say that it is not commercial-terrorism?). The EU *is* in part there to encourage and grow EU business, it is also there to protect its own internal market (see the tariffs and penalties imposed against foreign nations, in the same way as they are imposed on the EU), and if it didn't exist Google would be facing investigations not by one commission, but by the individual bodies of each of the current member states (I'm sure some are investigating anyway).
I'm sick and tired of US bashing in the EU and EU bashing from the US. Much of what is discussed in the media in terms of economics is nothing short of propaganda (Although I must say that the US is better at propaganda, or maybe European's are better at seeing through it), see what we have had recently with china, or the reaction in the UK to the US sub prime credit collapse.
If people could put aside their national bias for a day, we might be able to make this free-market globalisation thing work, but that is not likely, instead we will take taxpayers money and use it to prop up ailing businesses (as if they have a *right* to survive) or use it to prevent others from entering our markets. That's the US and Europe (and much of the rest of the world). Either practice capitalism, or scrap it and work out a way of organising an economy that benefits the citizens of the world rather than a few mega-corporations.
Bit of a rant, but come on, this is so far a non story, for the EU it is the sensible thing to do, it s not anti-American, it is ensuring that the consumer (thats me and you) get a good deal.
Piracy is not steel-ing!!
Pirates generally commandeer ships and steel your shit(and hten most likely kill you)
Arr etc..
Using your example of "Monsoon built a box, and put the BusyBox software on it, and uses the BusyBox software as a "black box" utility package."
I think the issues would arise if:
1) They are not telling anyone that they are using GPL software and not passing on the license or an offer for the source,
2) They have not modified BusyBox and are not passing on where they got the sourc0e for it from or passing on an offer for the source,
3) They have modified BusyBox and wont share the changes to their customers.
4) They are making some sort of claim that the GPL means that copyright doesn't apply - I have heard it before but never from a top lawyer.
In all cases the appropriate result would be that Monsoon either release the source, plus and modifications and derivatives, plus the license, to their customers, or they must stop using the software and presumably pay some compensation to both the copyright holder (for copyright violation / contract violation) and preferably also pay compensation to their customers (they are also harmed by this after all). In no case should they be compelled to release code that does not fall under the GPL (as decided by the court - if it gets there.)
Well that's my view anyway, but then I am not a top lawyer and have never worked for a $billion company. - IANAL this is not advice.
You forgot to add "Maybe" to the end.
If they do that then I will add the following predictions
1: The GPhone will be free, but you can buy one if you wish to use your own number.
2: It will never leave Beta.
3: Microsoft and Yahoo will release rival Phones, but they wont be as good, and will look ugly.
4: People will complain that the Gphone is clearly a monopoly as it is Google leverage its advertising monopoly into another market to take it over....*
* Not that I think Google is a monopolist, nor can I see why they would be classed as such
Just to take your last paragraph, I wish more people knew about the various less obvious rights they have. A number of useful ones are
If you buy goods that turn out to be faulty, the seller is in breach of contract, you are entitled to the usual remedies, either they fix the problem quickly (replace, repair or refund..), or you fix the situation yourself and require that they foot the bill (go buy a new one, ship broke one back to them, ask them for the difference).
These apply to new goods AND used goods, (although with used goods caveat emptor applies) so if you buy a used car, it is described as being in good nick and you check for any reasonable deficiencies then if anything that is not reasonable happens (some deficiency or wear that you would not expect of a car of that age/accident damage repair that you were not told of.. etc) you can go back to the seller.
It applies on Ebay, at the local market everywhere, it is intended to stop companies from screwing their customers and in most cases if you know what you are talking about you will get what is right without much of a fight (in my experience its quite painless)
Many people don't realise that the law isn't there to screw them, its to give you some power in a system that is stacked against the buyer in favour of the seller. If your TV dies just out of warranty contact the Retailer and have them sort it, if not take them to small claims and get your money back, - no need for a solicitor and no or only minor costs involved.
May have rambled on a bit, forgot why I was posting to be honest, must be getting old. Oh IANAL and TINLA This is definitely not legal advice.
No the US needs fuel to both carry out farming and to distribute food.
The US would become a country with a huge military and a need for resources.
You where right the first time, its a potential catastrophe.
OK, My point is that even if the capabilities of a given system are unknown to the buying party and even if there are known or non-obvious restrictions on the transfer of this technology, the buyer *should* have been aware of them. If you are willing to use espionage to "unlock" a system, then presumably a bit of pre-purchase research (or due diligence if ou like) is not beyond you. So to quote an American politician, there are known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns... All the buyer has to do is ensure that as far as is known the product will be suitable for the job.
If, as in this case it appears that some element was contentious with regard to US export restrictions, that should be clear to the buyer (through their own research) prior to purchase. The US entities can do whatever they want when selling something to someone else, place whatever restrictions they wish, but whoever signed the deal (or rather those responsible for the detail) should not have allowed a system that did not meet requirements to be delivered without assurances from the appropriate people that they are getting what they paid for. Its a buyers mistake. Anything else would imply that the US entities involved misrepresented they sale (which would come with redress), they lied about the sale (again leaving the door open to action against them and more importantly scaring off other potential buyers) or the buyer screwed up. I am going with the latter, as all the others should have been mitigated by using those intelligence assets that came in to play later in ensuring that what was being sought was what was bought.
Aha! so it does come down to whoever inked this deal not doing the job he should have done.
To be honest without seeing what else was riding on this deal, (or possibly what deal this deal was riding on) it is impossible to see whether Australia got a poor deal over all, but as I have said previously, if you are buying military kit, the first and foremost objective should be to ensure that you are doing right by your country (The UK seems to manage it, if it wasn't for the policy of only being operationally capable on a large scale with US support...). That clearly is subjective (based upon what else surrounded this deal and how it was made) but still. Buy an aircraft you cannot use against your enemy? not much point in buying that aircraft.
Not to mention the small fact that an unstable and declining dollar is not an attractive currency to price commodities in, especially for international markets. (I should rephrase, it is attractive to the US and the Buyers, but not for the seller, who wants their real income to drop when they can avoid it?) If raw materials and oil start being priced with say Euros then it becomes a disaster. Here is why;
No one will want to hold dollars, they are not useful for exchange, they will get rid of them and replace them with Euro's - net result? The dollar loses more value
US Manufacturers will find that the resources to make their products are more expensive, and not stable in price, as such they will find it difficult to export (even if the dollar is low, because they need to exchange dollars for a higher value currency in the first place to produce their product) as their prices will be higher. This also impacts on the US market, foreign goods will become more expensive and so will US products.
Fuel will become more expensive *and* there may be issues with supply, after all the US will need to acquire foreign currency to buy it in the first place, not easy if you already have a trade defect and no chance of changing it, you need to pay for your oil before it gets to you to be refined, if you haven't got the cash you wont get the oil.
If fuel is more expensive that will further drive prices of goods and food up, most things require fuel or oil derivatives at some point in their manufacture or in their transport to consumers.
That's a middle case (not worst case by far) scenario, but its possible. The only good news is that with a bit of luck the move away from the dollar as a reserve currency will hit other countries too, (they currently hold it) so there is some incentive not to allow the American economy to tank, more over many of the other interconnections between global economies will be impacted by a US economy collapse (or)bump. Of course if it does happen, the global economy post collapse will be quite different, the US will find that much of its economic clout (and hence its ability to maintain its military capabilities) will be gone. Frankly I am worried what an economically declining, military powerful America (with the prospect of losing that military power) would do, this is the kind of thing that starts major wars.
see this
Although I have seen region free DVD players from Sanyo[?] (I think) which don't honour it, I set one up for a relative and was surprised to find that it would play VCD's of all types, DIVx and other video files on CDR/DVDR's and all manner of audio files. I was surprised because there was no mention of this capability on the box, and, well you tend not to expect nice features on those kind of products.
Some of us don't have Microsoft let alone hearts...
:)
I quite like that
Anyone care to improve it its not quite perfect (My favourite being, "In a world without walls and fences, who need windows and gates" - somone )
Don't worry, It survives in other places, although I doubt it is safe from suspension anywhere. It is one of those things that is convenient to get rid of on occasion for the perceived common good.
That for me makes sense, Citizens have basic rights plus additional privileges and immunities, whilst everyone else just gets a basic subset of rights.
It does not suggest that the entire statement applies only to Citizens. As I said, I cant comment on the legal situation, but in my opinion detention without charge of anyone, anywhere is unjust. If you hold someone for something charge them with something and give them the opportunity to defend themselves, that prevents injustices being committed, more importantly it also means that a decent standard is being adhered to and prevents people from having to justify the actions of a "proud, free and just" nation by comparing it to regimes run by despots and tyrants.
Yeah I get it.
But the procurement of Military hardware (which isn't going to be dual use, its not like Australia bought the F18's for crop dusting...) is done by diplomats at a fairly high level, not by company execs. At that level there is scope for all sorts of things ranging from simple technology transfers through to special dispensation. What I was commenting on was that whoever forged this deal either was always aware of the limitations and presumed there was a way around them, assumed that they wouldn't apply in this case or outright failed to realise that it would be an issue. Further, it is not as if the US is the only supplier of aircraft of this nature, granted this is cold war era, so buying tech or aircraft from the Russians would have been impossible, but there would have been UK and French manufacturers with comparable products, and (especially in the case of France) less restrictions, so you could either use that as a bargaining chip to get what you want or avoid the issue entirely.
When you are talking the amounts involved in buying fighter aircraft, you'd think the end product would meet the needs of the buyer, more over, without doing any research I cant tell, but I would bet this purchase came on the heels of other agreements, (whether military or trade related) which also potentially gives leverage to both parties. This isn't the US shipping F14's to iran for peanuts, this is a first world nation trading with another first world nation to aquire a product that is essential for national security. I would hope that the buyer would do the right thing as far as possible where the saftey of their nation is concerned, and not have to fall back on a (fairly hostile and potentially damaging) mechanism like espionage.
I was looking forward to doing that. You sir, have ruined my day.
I would demand satisfaction, but it turns out that is complicated via the medium of the internet.