Which means very little under international law. There is no joint ownership of property. That's one of the points of using an international limited liability corporation in the first place..

Under some legal systems, no, they don't. If your legal system doesn't recognise joint ownership of property (which is the case for international corporate law) then one person obviously does not have the right to sell the property of another.

But this is not a family car. This is a system where you and your wife live apart in two countries under different legal systems, and those legal systems don't recognise any concept of joint ownership, but do recognise that you each have an individual property right in that country. Transnational corporations do not have joint ownership of property.

It's more like: "If your brother registers a trademark in one country, and you register the same trademark in another, then your brother licenses his trademark, you have still not licensed yours."

Now, there may be an argument that transnational corporations should be liable and bound by actions of their subsidiaries or sister corps, but that would require some form of unified worldwide regulations, and that is not how the international corporate legal framework works at the moment.

Spoken like a person who doesn't understand the complex realities surrounding animal cruelty and animal care. There are plenty of respectable animal shelters that do put animals down. Here's why: some proportion of the animals that are brought in will never, ever be re-homed. For example, around 25% of the dogs brought in to dogs homes are from police seizures of illegal fighting dogs. These dogs have been raised to fight, and used in illegal dog fights. These animals are, and will always be, dangerous. It is just not usually possible to re-home them in a family environment. The larger animal centers get tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of animals in this kind of state every year. Their funding is limited, and they can't afford to house and feed and pay veterinary bills for every animal until it reaches the end of its natural life. At this point there is a difficult choice: a) let the animal starve (obviously cruel) b) kill the animal in a humane way (not nice, but less cruel). The shelters choose option b. It should be no surprise why, even some nation's Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals have spoken in favour of culling when faced with the alternative of having uncared for animals starve to death.

Until you posted this I'd never actually noticed that my account is also on the list. My crime appears to be making two comments (1 2) at the beginning of January calling out someone obviously posting from multiple accounts. I have a feeling this "list" is going to grow and grow...

http://w2.eff.org/Privacy/printers/docucolor/ has some magnified images. At 10x zoom I would guess the diameter is about 1mm, so maybe 0.1mm for the original dots...

There is no technical reason why you couldn't have a self driving bus, but the industry they are in is rather conservative when it comes to procurement. Very few early adoptors. Car buyers are less conservative, and there are more early adoptors. The cost of a "driver" is more - with a bus, the cost of the driver is effectively split between everyone on the bus, so there isn't as large a saving to be made. There is also a huge class of users who will buy a self driving car to free themselves of driving duties (parents). Hence, it makes sense to target cars first. Once the tech is working and proved, I would expect haulage firms will be quick to adopt, since wages there are a greater percentage of the shipping cost, and liability cost is higher for drivers who spend many hours on the road every day. From there it will be a short step to self driving buses, but there are other issues - we could've had self driving trains years ago, but social resistance prevented it. We might see the same attitudes holding back self driving buses.

No, since you can't do Java on iOS, it is easier to do a cross-platform app in C with SDL for the graphics and audio stuff. There are some other options: C# via monotouch/monoforandroid, Javascript via phonegap or titanium.

Sure, you can try, but you won't succeed. If your doctor, or someone employed by your doctor, really wants to leak your medical records then there is very little that you can do about it. No organisation in a free society has ever eliminated leakers and whistleblowers.

The only reason we have an expectation of privacy with respect to medical records is because people don't habitually communicate them to others. This is the opposite situation to the content industry; it is estimated that around 75% of people pirate music and video. If 75% of the doctors in a democratic society were leaking patient's medical records, then, regardless of the moral aspect, we wouldn't have an expectation of privacy. The reason the vast majority of medical records are safe isn't due to technical countermeasures, or the diligence of our police and legal system - it is because, apart from maybe a few celebrities, there is no widespread demand for medical records.

No, you're still just a copyright infringer. Nobody is being deprived of their property.

thief: "A person who steals another person's property, esp. by stealth and without using force or violence."

steal: "Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it"