In the U.S., a gallon is 128 ounces. The Imperial gallon is 160 ounces (and Imperial fluid ounces are bigger than U.S. fluid ounces, too, so it's really more like 154 real ounces).
Get your nomenclature right: the U.S. uses U.S. Customary. The British used Imperial. They're related, but not the same. (And Canadian Imperial is not quite the same as Imperial either, but it's more similar.)
Goddam Slashdot. As for how to do it, it depends on your operating system and settings. (I see that an Anonymous Coward Apple fanboy has already responded with how to do it on a Mac.)
An acute accent () is not an apostrophe ('). They are completely different. And it completely depends on one's computer's settings. As this is
Actually, no. The shutdown would begin at 2011-04-09T00:01-04. (The federal government reckons midnight always as the last minute of the preceding day, not the first minute of the following day.)
You libertarian freaks had better move to Somalia, where the stateless, lawless paradise you seek awaits you. In the real world, there are rules, and most of those rules exist for a very good reason.
Grow the F up.
(1) No one on here has given a libertarian response to this (as if there even were only one).
(2) Somalia is stateless but not lawless. Grow the F up and recognize the difference.
(3) Few libertarians see Xeer as ideal, either.
You misunderstand. Internet is not a magical no-law zone.
And no one said that it was.
When twitter opens an account with a EU citizen, this transaction happened in the EU.
For the European, perhaps. Twitter didn't go anywhere. That EU citizen sent a request to a server west of the Rockies.
They are bound, for this account, by EU law.
No, they're not.
Your whole argument is that this is unworkable.
That seems to be an exaggeration of one argument he used.
In fact, it works very well:
In fact, it doesn't. If it did, there would be no Twitter, because Iran, China, and North Korea would kill it.
laws are mostly compatible,
Not at all compatible.
and citizens are mostly allowed to do as they please in the privacy of their own homes.
You know, when you say shit like that “as they please in the privacy of their own homes,” it makes Americans want to free the shit out of you, too. You should do as you please anywhere so long as it does not interfere with another's ability to do as he pleases.
Once in a while, there is some incompatibility, and it needs to get resolved. But the greater point is that you, US citizen, do not lose rights because you use a Chinese website,
That's just a non sequitur. “Lose rights?” You mean like the right to make contracts, to bargain for a service according to mutually beneficial terms? (Like Twitter's supposedly illegal-in-a-foreign-jurisdiction-where-they-have-no-operations terms of service?)
nor does a EU citizen loses his when dealing with twitter.
And no one claimed he does.
This, in turns means that when twitter agreed to provide a service to a EU citizen,
They didn't agree to provide a service to a [sic] EU citizen. They agreed to provide service to a person. They don't ask nationality (and they shouldn't have to and never should).
they also agreed to abide by EU privacy laws.
If someone in Germany calls me on the telephone, am I agreeing to follow German laws? No. Bullshit.
In practice, this is incompatible with US law, because there, citizens have less [sic] rights.
(1) Fewer rights.
(2) Bullshit. In the US, people (not even citizens, immigrants, too) have the right to create companies like Twitter without having to have a dozen lawyers in every country around the world to maintain a 140-character microblogging site.
Again, in practice, this means that twitter ought to have a twitter EU subsidiary which does the data collection and management for EU citizens.
No, it means they shouldn't if they don't want to quintuple their expenses.
And for technical reasons,I also expect them to do that anyway.
If you are a tiny company, this sucks, and you will have to decide which country enforces the stiffest penalty... But again, usually, this poses no problem. And if you cared about the privacy of you users, there would be no data to subpoena anyway.
(1) Without those data, Twitter could not operate. That's like an airplane with no engine.
(2) It was a warrant, not a subpoena. (They wanted data, not testimony.)
You are wrong, and getting amusingly hysterical about this.
If a US citizen comes to Germany, sets up business in Berlin
Full stop.
That's where you analogy ends. Twitter has not set up business in Berlin.
German Twitter users do indeed fall under German law. Twitter does not. A Twitter user in Germany is communicating with a server west of the Rockies. Twitter has no obligation to block people in countries whose laws they have no obligation to follow. Should they block Iran now?
And no, you [sic] analogy or scenario fails on several levels. The first and most obvious is that the computer trespass would have actually been a US company going to an EU citizen and they would therefor [sic] be subject to EU law by default. The second failing is that if the british citizen is located in the US at the time of the attack, then EU law doesn't play in at all unless physical harm happened to the person.
What?
But that is more of a long reach assertion most countries take in which they guarantee the protection of their citizens anywhere in the world. If you murder a US citizen in Germany, the US will prosecute you for that murder.
No, it won't. Germany will.
If I do the same to a British citizen, England will prosecute me.
What if that British citizen is a Scotsman? Again, British law will apply in the UK (and criminal law in Scotland is different from criminal law in England and Wales).
And of course, Germany can prosecute either of us as well as out [sic] own countries too.
Not can. Will. (And most likely will be the only one.)
It all depends on who can get their hand on who first and if they can be persuaded to extradite or not.
No, but the rest is just as much nonsense and I only have so much patience.
Just because the user agrees to be governed by US laws during the course of their normal usage of Twitter does not mean Twitter, Inc. is not subject to the laws of the country in which the user is accessing their service,
That's a non sequitur (and also irrelevant to the claim). If Twitter cannot require that users consent to their interaction with Twitter being regulated by U.S. law because the user is located elsewhere, how can that person (the one initiating the connection) demand immunity from U.S. law? If European law prohibits Twitter from answering subpoenas and Twitter's terms of service require accepting that service will be governed under U.S. law (which they do), any European knowing this and still using Twitter is in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1621 (perjury generally), punishable by up to five years imprisonment and $250,000. (Convincing others to do likewise is covered under 18 U.S.C. 1622 (subornation of perjury) and the penalty is the same.) We're not talking about civil penalties anymore; we're talking criminal conduct.
Do you really want to go down this road?
especially so if they happen to have subsidiaries or other business operations in those countries, e.g. a sales office to handle advertising.
And I can't find anything saying they do. It was only in the last six months they got their own data center (yes, singular) and they deal in 140 characters at a time. I can't find anything saying Twitter has any operations in Europe.
Wow, I'm surprised they didn't offer up anal probes in area 51 to go along with the rest... This guy needs to get a grip, get off his ego trip and realize that his stunts cause real harm to people the world over.
Of course the US is seeking to extradite him,
No, it's not. (Not yet, anyway.)
to put him on trial for spying and other damages.
Aggregating information and releasing it is completely different from collecting it.
That being said, execution for spies is a legal tradition going back to prehistory, so there's a few thousand plus years of precedent to call on.
Like I said though, he's not a spy. He's an aggregator and publisher of classified information. He's also an asshole, but unless Congress declared war without telling the country, or someone can prove that his direct transmission of classified information to an enemy foreign government resulted in the death of someone directly working for or operating with the United States, he cannot be put to death for what he's done. If charged, indicted, tried, and convicted, he'd have several charges for which ten year imprisonment and a $500,000 fine are the maximum penalty.
Just remember, wikileaks next victim might be someone or something that you support. That's the problem with anarchy groups like wikileaks, they're as likely to turn against you as anything else.
No, the UK extradites people to the U.S. for otherwise capital offenses all the time. Part of the procedure for extradition to the U.S. from many countries is a guarantee from the American court that the accused will, if convicted, not be sentenced to death. (I'm waiting for someone who wasn't found in a country where that's the required procedure for extradition to claim that that practice violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.)
No, he could not be. (Unless Congress declared war and told no one or unless they can prove that someone directly employed by the federal government lost his life as a result of that information being directly transmitted to a foreign enemy government.)
If he's charged with anything in the U.S., the most likely charges will each carry a ten-year imprisonment and $500,000 fine (at most). But he hasn't been charged with anything. The grand jury investigation is underway and we'll know when they're done whether or not the U.S. will try to extradite him.
Yes, you're absolutely right. No federal laws in the U.S. have been changed since mid-1953. There is certainly no 18 U.S.C. 3594 limiting the application of the death penalty in federal cases to loss of life (of a non-participant in the same crime) or narcotics trafficking (thank Clinton for that one) and 18 U.S.C. 793 (the most serious offense he's likely to be charged with (gathering, transmitting or losing defense information) doesn't set the maximum penalty at ten years and $500,000 fine.
Proven by whom? In what court? He has not been charged with anything in the United States (yet). In the U.S. though, no one will ever need to prove that he didn't do something (so it never will be proved). The government will have to prove that he did if he is ever charged.
Please get an education and grow up. The world does not work the way you think it does.
It's the pot calling the kettle black.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
