Subj : Re: How much should I charge for fixed-price software contract? To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Mon Aug 22 2005 10:22 am Richard Heathfield wrote (in article ): >> 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. Actually they are important to me, on certain topics, just not this one. :-) > 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 do as well, but "civil" law is reserved for filling up our court system with lawsuits over someone spilling hot coffee in their lap and wanting compensation from the purveyor of the coffee for the resulting loss of conjugal activities, usually in the amount of millions of dollars. *sigh* > We view breach of > contract, copyright violation, patent infringement, reverse engineering, > and so on, as matters for civil law. That used to be the case here. However, the bittorrent crown pretty much made it such a "crisis" that people got congress to see it differently I guess. Now it's a witch hunt. "We have ways of telling whether she is a witch..." > We have a thing called freedom of speech, you see. Don't make me laugh. That right is even weaker in Britain than in the US, where it is supposed to be a guarantee not even subject to laws. > (It's on its way out, though, so get some while stocks last.) Same here. Along with every other right brave 'patriots' once fought and died for against your folks a couple centuries ago. >> 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 doubt Adobe would acknowledge anything like that, but you're welcome to contact their press office and try to obtain one. :-) > I am under the impression that a US law which contradicts the US > Constitution cannot be enforced. Is that impression incorrect? In theory it is correct. In practice, it's completely false. The Supreme Court has decided in the last half century or so, perhaps a bit longer, that it will do "interpret" what is good for the people, instead of abiding strictly by the Constitution. It is called "legislating from the bench" instead of its proper name, "treason". Of course, one way to make the passage by congress of unconstitutional laws far less likely, is to require the death by hanging of any congressman or senator which votes for a law which is later found to be unconstitutional, along with the president that signed it into law. That would obviously make them far, far more careful about such stretches on reason, but will never happen, since they have to vote for it now. :-( >>> 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. I don't see why foreign nationals should be treated better than citizens in their own country. It's quite often true here (note the billions in free health care for non-US citizens here illegally), but shouldn't be the case. I certainly don't expect to be treated better than a citizen in any foreign country that I visit. > 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. Especially these days. I have heard it claimed that there are so many laws, in fact many of them are contradict each other, that practically anyone (in the US anyway) could be arrested at any time on something. They basically have the entire space covered, and you are, simply be existing, guilty of something. I wish I was joking, but I suspect it is far more true than I like to contemplate. > 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. I doubt he was arrested for what he said while speaking at a conference. If you can point to a copy of the arrest paperwork, let me know. >> 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. Lot's of people have tried. >> 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. Even more depressingly, nobody in the US Government is going to pay the slightest attention to my opinion either. Unless I can come up with about 40 million registered voters that all loudly and violently share my opinion after waking up from their television and high-fructose corn syrup induced coma, the feds couldn't care less. It's all part of their plan to help us, because they are convinced that they know better than we do how we should live our own lives. > 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. Civil liberties groups don't care about much beside minority rights today. The bulk of the Bill of Rights, is completely ignored by them, and even worse, by the education system. Primary level education in the US pretends like the Constitution consists of Freedom of Speech, and nothing else. A couple more generations through the system, and the bulk of the US population will have been completely indoctrinated into the notion that the government itself is their new religion. Of course, when the government itself controls the educational system, what would you expect? >> 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. Unless the first one was an accident, and the rest were put there to make the first one stand out less. But you are probably correct. Unless someone decides to come clean, the truth will never be known, and almost assuredly not by the general population. It might be written down in some little notebook somewhere in a file in the British secret service. Next time you stop in to file a report on eddie, be sure and look it up. :-) -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .