Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract? To : comp.programming From : Richard Heathfield Date : Mon Aug 22 2005 09:47 am Randy Howard wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote > (in article > ): > >>> Millions visit each year. You can name /one/ example of someone >>> having this problem. >> >> Yep. I think it's a serious bug, and it needs fixing. Until then, I can't >> recommend the program. > > If you happened to be "Minister of Foreign Travel" (if such a > thing were to exist) then that would probably be important to > me. :-) My views are /always/ important to you. You know that. You /know/ that. >>> I know you understand, but fail to make it clear in your >>> comments, that people are arrested on suspicion of breaking the >>> law. They are convicted AFTER the arrest in civilized countries >>> if they are guilty and released otherwise. >> >> Actually, a great many people are /not/ arrested even when it is >> suspected that they have broken the law - at least, that's true here in >> the UK, and I think it's true in the USA too. Speeding offences are a >> typical example. > > It often depends upon Misdemeanor versus Felony charges and the > specific crime, true. That Misdemeanour/Felony distinction is a US thing, I guess. The terms are not used here, at least not in the same way. We do, however, have a distinction between "civil law" and "criminal law". We view breach of contract, copyright violation, patent infringement, reverse engineering, and so on, as matters for civil law. I am fairly sure that you can't be arrested for a civil law breach in the UK. I am equally (i.e. fairly) sure that, were Dmitri Sklyarov to have spoken at a UK convention, not only would he not have been arrested, but he would not even have been charged. (He might, however, have been shot dead on a tube train by police, I suppose!) The whole thing would just never have happened here. We have a thing called freedom of speech, you see. (It's on its way out, though, so get some while stocks last.) >> It >> is appropriate to arrest someone in some circumstances, but not all. To >> arrest someone on suspicion of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright >> Act is overkill. > > I tend to agree. However, I have more worrying things to be > concerned about, such as the so-called "PATRIOT Act", which is > basically a government coup over the US Constitution. Copyright > violations are oh so lesser in importance compared to the loss > of all freedom in the country. Indeed (although in fact even Adobe would have to acknowledge that Sklyarov and Elcomsoft did not breach copyright!). I am under the impression that a US law which contradicts the US Constitution cannot be enforced. Is that impression incorrect? >>> Here's a little hint from your uncle Randy, if you are arrested >>> for suspicion of a crime, and found not guilty, you (and your >>> employer) are /not/ compensated for lost time. The good news is >>> that it is possible to be found not guilty after being arrested, >>> a luxury not afforded in many countries even today. >> >> Here's a little reply from your nephew Richard. If the police arrested >> everyone they suspected of breaking any law, the jails would be full - >> and many of the inmates would be policemen! > > That's true, but doesn't really answer the issue of compensation > at all. When there is a so-called 'flight risk' with a foreign > national, arrest is apparently fairly common. And should be compensated if it turns out to be wrongful arrest. That's common courtesy - especially with foreign nationals. > >> Please bear in mind that we're not >> talking drug-running, murder, or arson here. > > That's true. However, the crime is a crime, or there wouldn't > be a law about it. If it happens to be thought severe enough to > make an arrest, then that's the breaks. If you don't like it, > you can stay clear of suspicion in that area and not have to > worry about it. Perhaps you may not even know it's a crime. They say "ignorance of the law is no defence", but of course it's actually impossible to know all the laws of your own country, let alone those of countries you may happen to visit at some point. So maybe you didn't know there was an area in which to stay clear of suspicion. Just maybe you thought you could say what you like in a land of free speech. > This is similar to those that think that /some drugs/ are ok, e.g. alcohol, caffeine, paracetamol, aspirin, codeine... > while /some other drugs/ are not ok. thalidomide, cocaine... > They don't want to be > arrested for using the former, Indeed. > but think it's okay to put people in the slammer for using the latter. I can't help thinking there must be a better solution to that problem than shutting people up in prison. > That's bull, and so is > dicing and slicing other laws to meet individual opinion. If the > law itself is suspect (which the DMCA almost assuredly is) then > work to have it reversed. Nobody in the US Government is going to pay the slightest attention to my opinion on DMCA. You know it, I know it. But I think your civil liberties groups might be able to do something to mitigate its effects. I mean, chucking a guy into the clink for writing program code in another country? Weird. > >>>> One police officer murdered an innocent man on >>>> a Tube train while others assisted by holding the guy down. >>> >>> It would appear so, but we get so little real news reporting >>> anymore, I don't pretend to possess even 5% of the true facts in >>> the matter. >> >> (It has emerged that the guy didn't know he was being followed, didn't >> run, didn't vault the barrier, wasn't wearing suspiciously capacious >> clothing, and was so calm and relaxed in his last few minutes of life >> that he even picked up a "Metro" (a free newspaper) to browse through >> whilst on the train. All of this contradicts initial police reports. > > Yes. I rather suspect negligent discharge myself, i.e. the cop > was under stress, thought he had a 'bad guy', and had his finger > on the trigger inappropriately. Anyone with even basic firearm > knowledge knows better than that unless they are ready to fire > and intend to blow away the object in front of the barrel. Seven shots in the back of the head, and one in the shoulder, while the victim was being restrained, face down, on the floor by other officers. I am not sure this can count as accidental or negligent discharge. You don't shoot a guy in the head multiple times unless you really mean to kill him. >>> To accomplish what worthy goal? Such "independent inquiries" >>> are just feel-good politics to smooth over the mob. >> >> To stop it happening again? > > How cute. Have you seen the movie 'Pollyanna'? No. So your reference is lost on me. -- Richard Heathfield "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999 http://www.cpax.org.uk mail: rjh at above domain .