sorry, i forgot the source

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

they can rule against them in an international tribunal

The Philippines' attempt to haul China to an international tribunal is a problem because it is invoking the very compulsory jurisdiction which China has disavowed since 2006. But even if the Philippine attempt to arbitrate fails, any marshaled argument can subsist, and that case may be fielded in other venues. If a military engagement were to ensue, the same case could be brought to the United Nations Security Council -- the principal repository of enforcement powers under the UN system. A state can be found to be in violation of a substantive legal norm even without a coercive or compulsory judgment in a given venue, provided, of course, that there is truth to the argument supporting a violation, and that it is acknowledged by an alternative venue.

While China is disavowing the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) against the Philippines, it is expressly invoking UNCLOS provisions in its claims against Japan -- so it wants to have its cake and eat it, too. In 2009, China submitted a claim over the Senkaku Islands (which, like Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys, are believed to be fuel rich) and turned to UNCLOS rules in defining and delineating its continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone, again within the meaning of UNCLOS. There is some international legal doctrine supporting the view that a state's acts in one place can be used as an admission and adversely bind that State in another set of circumstances.

a legal claim against china won't make the han imperialists move, but the ruling will stay dormant

then, after any sort of conflict in the future where china loses, china is going to lose these islands in the peace treaty

this is an interesting, informative, and comprehensive post

mod +6

That just means they haven't gotten to that yet, not that they expect it to be very hard.

thank you

The actual spec is behind a paywall, as with most tech specs, but Wikipedia says.

You may be right, and this is just the physical consequence of the spec, but 28 AWG is quite thin wire. (One poster said his long cable has a booster, so maybe that's another way, but that's not "cheapest" either).

perhaps

and here you are, reading and responding

you are what you hate

good, glad to entertain, that's the right attitude

The FSF does not include those qualifiers. Their statements as written are misleading.

For example "regulating every use of movies downloaded from iTunes" clearly is meant to imply "all movies". If they said "regulated every use of some movies.." that would be better. Even better would be to put the onus where it belongs, "allowing the system to implement the regulations publishers request on the use of movies allowing for either/both/neither of time locks & machines locks ". You see the difference?

As for the FSF being right on software they aren't right they don't include the qualifiers.

Their statements are simply false.

Hey, now, this isn't Sony we're talking about. ("Sony timer" was a common phrase in Japan for a few years, with a strong urban legend that actual timers were built in to pop the day the warrantee expired. My favorite urban legend was that Sony employees carried a remote that could expire all your Sony timers early if you annoyed them.)

usually, if someone is not nice to you, you avoid them. are you a masochist? do you crave social contact so badly abuse is acceptable?

if you see a comment of mine, don't read it. and don't respond to it. is this concept too complicated and confusing for you?

Wouldn't bother me any, but then I shattered the glass on my phone about 3 years ago, and it has many seams. Still works fine for me.

It is a private agreement between the French and a corporate entity.

wow! really? did you read the fucking sentence right after the one you quoted genius?

I have no idea what you are talking about with "music sharing" since I never mentioned it once. I'm going to assume you are trolling at this point.

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

What a laugh. They can certainly do so. All they need to do is ask Google and Google needs to agree to it in order for it to happen. DMCA requests to Google already expunge data from Google IN ALL COUNTRIES, not just the US.

any other help you need today moron?

at this point i have to conclude you're just trolling me

I hope you don't work with technology in any way. Sure, buy the cheapest cable that meets spec, but remember the first rule of engineering: the vendor is a lying bastard. There's a reason the cheapest cable is the cheapest cable. Paying $45 for a 6-foot HDMI cable is silly. Paying $45 for a 50-foot HDMI cable isn't.

Also, for HDMI specifically, the different numbered specs matter depending on use case. If your doing "4K" video, you'll want the HDMI 1.4 (or above) cable. If you want high color depth for a specific application, you'll want at least 1.3.

Sure, cheap is good, but as always in life, avoid the cheapest crap in the store.

I've had cheap longer mini-jack cables fail - just break inside the insulation. I've had cheap RCA cables break, short, and most annoyingly have the center-pins break off and get stuck in my equipment.

Yeah, avoid the $40 job with the weird connectors, but a $4 patch cable can save a lot of headache over a $1 cable.