a system which has it's upsides and it's downsides:
on the one hand, it's harder to buy votes (how much so depends on how the party is organized. NZ's Labour party, for example, you'd basically have to buy off the majority of it's MPs, minimum. some of the others you'd actually have to buy off their constituents, the rest, their leadership, which is always more than one person) even before getting into other regulations.
on the other hand, the 'party line' can be quite problematic in it's own right. i'm sure there's been a few bills that, if conscience votes (that is, the members are free to vote independently, rather than by party), would have had Very different results.
of course, Officially, anyone can 'cross the floor'(metaphorically speaking) at any time... they just have very good odds of loosing all support from their party... which for electorate MPs means their odds of winning the next election, if they even run, plummet, and list MPs aren't getting back in at ALL (unless they pull off something awesome. and i'm not entirely sure if they get to keep their seat for the rest of the term as independents having got in on the party list if the party throws them out for such actions.)... but that doesn't happen.
conscience votes are usually saved for constitutional questions, which mostly means things that affect the election process, and occasionally issues with a significant moral aspect where the public will is hard to read and guessing wrong will screw the party over... so they make it a conscience vote, bailing on any responsibility for the outcome... (which also has odd results. the 'anti-smacking bill' which, despite it's 'think of the children' type goals (not just rhetoric, though there was plenty of that) for example, was a highly problematic piece of legislation which there was great public outcry against... was introduce as a 'private member's bill' (which means it was not submitted by way of party policy and the like, but by an individual acting as an individual, went through a lottery process, and was pulled as one of the issues to be considered), voted on as a conscience vote... don't think it quite got 100% of parliament, but it came damn close... despite it's many issues and the fact that for most, in the public mind, it was not 'pro child welfare' or 'anti abuse' but 'anti-parent' or 'pro state control of individual's home lives' so you didn't even have that 'no one wants to vote against laws to stop child porn' type effect going on...
ultimately, representative democracy, isn't...
and governance under such a system i one of the very few jobs in the world where the skills required to attain it have NOTHING to do with the skills required to perform it.
(winning popularity contests is not the same as making wise choices for the long term well being of a nation.)
and Americans seem generally obsessed with them :P
usual practice here (so far as i've seen, and in written form) is to use the full term the first time the thing appears in a given document/article/whatever and mark the abbreviation in parentheses immediately after, then use it. (or, if the abbreviation is in wide circulation as the common term, the other way around)
of course, eventually, if used enough, such abbreviations sort of morph into words in their own right and that stops happening... but they also stop getting written in all caps :)
well, that and modern tech makes it crazy-impractical to maintain a militia that could actually have a hope of being more than a speed bump in the face of an Empire's worth of regular armed forces. (which is the situation that would occur in the USA) ... they're not getting anywhere unless the army splits or sides with them, the navy stays out of it or sides with them, and the airforce splits, stays out of it, or sides with them, Anyway. at which point, why bother with the militia?
(also, of Course the government's going to act to curtail the existence of something who's ENTIRE POINT is to smash their faces in if they fall into corruption and tyranny...)
somewhere in the course of writing that, my brain swapped 'megaupload' and 'Kim Dotcom', hence talking about Dotcom's situation rather than Megaupload's.
well, the USG has some weird law about them having to give you permission to sue them... and NZ's government is having budget issues to the point where suing Them as an entity would damage a lot of good will here...
though he might be able to wrangle suing the individuals responsible for gross failure at doing their jobs properly or something (i don't know the actual law for this)...
he could certainly do a Lot to prevent the current lot of idiots getting back in in the next election (there was some interestingness with donations for an election campaign recently, where the official in question tried to claim he was unaware of what was happening etc, and Dotcom, rather than being a good old boy and helping cover for the guy, simply trotted out the actual proper records of the transactions involved. (He, after all, hadn't actually done anything wrong.))
while you're entirely correct on the deportation/extradition issue...
the rest of this post is just so much Stupid.
others can say it better than i, (and have, Repeatedly) but your 'third' point is so insane once you actually stop and apply reality to it as to leave one questioning your mental capacity.
it would place Everyone under the restrictions on the internet in china, Everyone under Shia(sp?) law... the list goes on. it's crazy and stupid.
and MOST countries are small enough that their people realise how Moronic the US habit of locking things to not be visible outside their own country is. 'oh, sure, let's deny over 90% of the viable market for our product legitimate access to it, that'll reduce piracy!' is stupid logic. everyone else goes 'it's the internet. the point is to be able to access stuff.'
I'm sure someone else will explain this better than i (again) but the level of... frustration... i experience when i run into this kind of stupidity over and over again... it is too high.
i dunno, if it's mean to do what the name Sounds like it's meant to do, then having such a law sounds like a good idea.
it also sounds like the UK law to that effect is rubbish.
'conspiracy to defraud' would require several people organized to take actions which would result in fraudulent payments to them (that came out worded worse than i hoped) so... i guess it's not fraud if the other guy catches on Before you manage to actually defraud him? or perhaps if you're knowingly part of such an action despite not being the one who Actually took the fraudulent actions (failure to report at minimum?)
so... yeah. sounds like something designed to bust people when someone catches them 'in the act' before their plan resolves...
but yeah, i'm not a lawyer and it does sound like, whatever it's Supposed to do, it is broken if it applies in this situation.
... too much so, in some of the former dominions, actually...
parliament with total control is as bad as the monarch having total control... either is a loss of separation of powers. in Practice, if not yet on paper, parliament has usurped the role of the monarch (except the monarch's role as final court of appeal, here... the created a new court to take that one... it'd be nice to have govenors who actually took their role as representative of the interests of the monarch seriously...) this is no more a good thing than the reverse would be.
... and the consequences when the entire population of the country ignores this nonsense, imports stuff anyway, and gets their stuff they already payed for confiscated at the border? (ok, yeah, i know a lot of people in the US probably don't import much of anything personally, so it's not the Entire population, but it's still gonna be significant, i think.)
nah, actual property isn't a government granted monopoly. it's a pointy-stick granted 'monopoly'. you just outsource the pointy-stick-using to the government with your taxes.
On the post: Anonymous Courtroom Notes Raise Serious Questions About SurfTheChannel Conviction
Re: Re: Re:
physics is mostly the interaction of variables anyway.
On the post: Another One Bites The Dust: Australian Parliament Committee Recommends Rejecting ACTA
Re: Re: Re:
on the one hand, it's harder to buy votes (how much so depends on how the party is organized. NZ's Labour party, for example, you'd basically have to buy off the majority of it's MPs, minimum. some of the others you'd actually have to buy off their constituents, the rest, their leadership, which is always more than one person) even before getting into other regulations.
on the other hand, the 'party line' can be quite problematic in it's own right. i'm sure there's been a few bills that, if conscience votes (that is, the members are free to vote independently, rather than by party), would have had Very different results.
of course, Officially, anyone can 'cross the floor'(metaphorically speaking) at any time... they just have very good odds of loosing all support from their party... which for electorate MPs means their odds of winning the next election, if they even run, plummet, and list MPs aren't getting back in at ALL (unless they pull off something awesome. and i'm not entirely sure if they get to keep their seat for the rest of the term as independents having got in on the party list if the party throws them out for such actions.)... but that doesn't happen.
conscience votes are usually saved for constitutional questions, which mostly means things that affect the election process, and occasionally issues with a significant moral aspect where the public will is hard to read and guessing wrong will screw the party over... so they make it a conscience vote, bailing on any responsibility for the outcome... (which also has odd results. the 'anti-smacking bill' which, despite it's 'think of the children' type goals (not just rhetoric, though there was plenty of that) for example, was a highly problematic piece of legislation which there was great public outcry against... was introduce as a 'private member's bill' (which means it was not submitted by way of party policy and the like, but by an individual acting as an individual, went through a lottery process, and was pulled as one of the issues to be considered), voted on as a conscience vote... don't think it quite got 100% of parliament, but it came damn close... despite it's many issues and the fact that for most, in the public mind, it was not 'pro child welfare' or 'anti abuse' but 'anti-parent' or 'pro state control of individual's home lives' so you didn't even have that 'no one wants to vote against laws to stop child porn' type effect going on...
ultimately, representative democracy, isn't...
and governance under such a system i one of the very few jobs in the world where the skills required to attain it have NOTHING to do with the skills required to perform it.
(winning popularity contests is not the same as making wise choices for the long term well being of a nation.)
On the post: Another One Bites The Dust: Australian Parliament Committee Recommends Rejecting ACTA
Re:
On the post: Another One Bites The Dust: Australian Parliament Committee Recommends Rejecting ACTA
Re: Re:
...
...
she should probably be grateful she lives in a 'civilized' country where assassination is not considered a viable response to such nonsense.
On the post: Another One Bites The Dust: Australian Parliament Committee Recommends Rejecting ACTA
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm Confused
and Americans seem generally obsessed with them :P
usual practice here (so far as i've seen, and in written form) is to use the full term the first time the thing appears in a given document/article/whatever and mark the abbreviation in parentheses immediately after, then use it. (or, if the abbreviation is in wide circulation as the common term, the other way around)
of course, eventually, if used enough, such abbreviations sort of morph into words in their own right and that stops happening... but they also stop getting written in all caps :)
On the post: Free Culture Is The Response To The Ethical Failings Of The Old Entertainment Industry
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Get ready for...
save, perhaps, hysterically.
*looks waaaaaaaaaaaaaay off into the distance to see the left margin*
On the post: USTR Needs To Reread Both The Constitution & The Definition Of Transparency
Re: Re: Re: Well how about that: It IS a joke
(also, of Course the government's going to act to curtail the existence of something who's ENTIRE POINT is to smash their faces in if they fall into corruption and tyranny...)
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re: Re:
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re:
though he might be able to wrangle suing the individuals responsible for gross failure at doing their jobs properly or something (i don't know the actual law for this)...
he could certainly do a Lot to prevent the current lot of idiots getting back in in the next election (there was some interestingness with donations for an election campaign recently, where the official in question tried to claim he was unaware of what was happening etc, and Dotcom, rather than being a good old boy and helping cover for the guy, simply trotted out the actual proper records of the transactions involved. (He, after all, hadn't actually done anything wrong.))
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re:
still true and made of fail though.
On the post: Yet Another (Yes Another) Error In Megaupload Case: Search Warrants Ruled Illegal
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: UK Politician Speaks Out Against The Travesty Of Trying To Deport Richard O'Dwyer To Feed Hollywood's Anger
Re:
the rest of this post is just so much Stupid.
others can say it better than i, (and have, Repeatedly) but your 'third' point is so insane once you actually stop and apply reality to it as to leave one questioning your mental capacity.
it would place Everyone under the restrictions on the internet in china, Everyone under Shia(sp?) law... the list goes on. it's crazy and stupid.
and MOST countries are small enough that their people realise how Moronic the US habit of locking things to not be visible outside their own country is. 'oh, sure, let's deny over 90% of the viable market for our product legitimate access to it, that'll reduce piracy!' is stupid logic. everyone else goes 'it's the internet. the point is to be able to access stuff.'
I'm sure someone else will explain this better than i (again) but the level of... frustration... i experience when i run into this kind of stupidity over and over again... it is too high.
On the post: UK Politician Speaks Out Against The Travesty Of Trying To Deport Richard O'Dwyer To Feed Hollywood's Anger
Re:
also having intelligent thoughts actually worth doing anything about seems to be uncommon...
On the post: UK Politician Speaks Out Against The Travesty Of Trying To Deport Richard O'Dwyer To Feed Hollywood's Anger
Re: Re: Re: Re: Outrageous. That's what this is.
it also sounds like the UK law to that effect is rubbish.
'conspiracy to defraud' would require several people organized to take actions which would result in fraudulent payments to them (that came out worded worse than i hoped) so... i guess it's not fraud if the other guy catches on Before you manage to actually defraud him? or perhaps if you're knowingly part of such an action despite not being the one who Actually took the fraudulent actions (failure to report at minimum?)
so... yeah. sounds like something designed to bust people when someone catches them 'in the act' before their plan resolves...
but yeah, i'm not a lawyer and it does sound like, whatever it's Supposed to do, it is broken if it applies in this situation.
On the post: Darrell Issa Asks To 'Observe' Next Round Of TPP Negotations
Re: Re: Re: Best case scenario
parliament with total control is as bad as the monarch having total control... either is a loss of separation of powers. in Practice, if not yet on paper, parliament has usurped the role of the monarch (except the monarch's role as final court of appeal, here... the created a new court to take that one... it'd be nice to have govenors who actually took their role as representative of the interests of the monarch seriously...) this is no more a good thing than the reverse would be.
On the post: Speak Out Against Copyright Holders Destroying True Property Rights
Re: Re:
also: where did you think smuggling came from?
On the post: Speak Out Against Copyright Holders Destroying True Property Rights
Re:
On the post: Taiwan Denies Use Of 'Pirate Party' Name Because People Might Think They're Actual Sea-Faring Pirates
Re:
those are the Best things.
On the post: Canadian Court Issues Triple-Whammy Ruling In Favor Of Free Speech And Commentary Online
Re:
On the post: EU Commissioner Reveals He Will Simply Ignore Any Rejection Of ACTA By European Parliament Next Week
Re:
Next >>