?
You don't need to bring the capital in; the company can just borrow inside the US whilst securing the loan on the capital that never entered the country you are borrowing in.
185 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Feb 2010
Linus rants for good reasons, yes. He's actually quite reserved; I recall being in an IRC channel in the mid 90s when someone was debating kernel design with him and heavily implying that he was an idiot at every turn in a really remarkably condescending way. Linus conceded the point at issue and left.
After Linus left the other people on channel told the person who the user account belonged to. Some level of amusement occurred.
Oh, and a bonus quote:
"Peck v United Kingdom (2003) 36 EHRR 41 Mr Peck was filmed on a public street in an embarrassing moment by a CCTV camera. Subsequently, the film was broadcast several times on the television. The Strasbourg court said (at p. 739) that this was an invasion of his privacy contrary to article 8:
"the relevant moment was viewed to an extent which far exceeded any exposure to a passer-by or to security observation and to a degree surpassing that which the applicant could possibly have foreseen when he walked in Brentwood on August 20, 1995.""
I repeat to you, get your legal advice somewhere qualified.
It did indeed have something to do with being photographed in the street, given that the court explicitly stated that "The complaint regarding the photographs is of precisely the same character as the nature of the complaints regarding the text of the articles: the information conveyed by the photographs was private information."
and
"In my opinion, therefore, the widespread publication of a photograph of someone which reveals him to be in a situation of humiliation or severe embarrassment, ****even if taken in a public place**** [emphasis added], may be an infringement of the privacy of his personal information. Likewise, the publication of a photograph taken by intrusion into a private place (for example, by a long distance lens) may in itself by such an infringement, even if there is nothing embarrassing about the picture itself: Hellewell v Chief Constable of Derbyshire [1985] 1 WLR 804, 807. As Lord Mustill said in R v Broadcasting Standards Commission, Ex p BBC [2001] QB 885, 900, "An infringement of privacy is an affront to the personality, which is damaged both by the violation and by the demonstration that the personal space is not inviolate.""
This is explicitly to do with the publication of photographs taken in a public place. You may wish to seek your legal advice elsewhere.
This is untrue; see Campbell v Mirror News Group for an example of a case where privacy was infringed with a photo in a public area. The case involved a photo being taken of Campbell walking up to a medical centre for drugs treatment, and the freedom to publish was outweighed by the right to medical privacy (as a part of an ECHR right to a private life). MNG lost.
TL;DR: post ECHR It's more complex than an absolute right to photograph.
I just sent this:
"The RIANZ have recently claimed that mere possession of a Bittorrent client is evidence of copyright infringement.
I shall merely note that I use Bittorrent to download Linux updates, and although I'm not a gamer the program World of Warcraft uses Bittorrent to download updates for the game. The RIANZ argument is rather like saying that owning a modern car is evidence of speeding.
Is there likely to be any forum where you can challenge this bunkum?"
It's not that curious, it's SOP for MS. They prioritised the fancy UI, and didn't bother to fill in standards support.* My sympathy for them if they really had that much warning is pretty much zero.
*and, indeed, for WinPhone 7 didn't even bother to do dual core before release and screwed over all their customers 1 year later.
I'm curious who you would imagine responsibility laid with if not the people providing the map and presenting the data to the end user. An entire 'city' located with no visible urbanisation on the satelite image shouldn't even be missed by the automated flag-this-for-human-review check routine.
@David Neil You seem to be responding to a comment the most recent AC didn't make. AC is stating that spending money on advocacy is not wasting money. I'm not sure, to pick a random example, that Liberty or the ACLU are loved by the state. If you want to attempt to guarantee civil liberties, it's probably best to talk to the people with legislative power a lot.
"AIUI Apple's grievances against Samsung are about Trade Dress (design patents, trademarks, service-marks, etc.), which boils down to a company attempting to piggy-back on another's success by cloning their product - rather than doing their own homework, and coming up with their own designs."
Apart from their claims based on the utility patents, it's all non-utility patents and trade dress, yes.
You are incorrect:
"http://www.apt.ch/tld/Overview.pdf:
"Passive personality jurisdiction
Article 5(1)(c) UNCAT covers jurisdiction over acts
committed against the State party’s nationals
(passive personality jurisdiction), again wherever
these acts have allegedly been committed. This
competence is however optional, meaning the State
is not compelled by the UNCAT to establish such a
jurisdiction."
The victims were Spanish. Spain therefore has jurisdiction if it wishes to assert it, regardless of any other state,
This is incorrect; torture has universal jurisdiction under both the customary international law concept of jus cogens and, specifically, under the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 5(1)(c).
"1. Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
(c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate."
The Spanish court thus had jurisdiction; the question was more if Pinochet should be protected by the immunity traditionally extended to heads of state.
"What possible reason could there be for you to not email us? Certainly ignorance shouldn’t be a bar. You might not know anything about the issue, but I bet you reckon something. So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uniformed, ad hoc reckon by going to bbc.co.uk/meandmyimportantthoughts (all one word), clicking on ‘What I Reckon’ and simply beating on the keyboard with your fists or head." -- Mitchell and Webb
A lawyer stating on the court record that
a) they're seizing assets for evidence for a case where jurisdiction is not established;
b) that the case might never go further than a threatened indictment or indictment without intent to actually prosecute "to hang around their heads", and;
c) they have the intention of maintaining possession of the siezed property regardless of any actual court case being possible.
Well, it sounds awfully like a tort problem question regarding abuse of process.