Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
What's the story with these ads on Slashdot? Check out our new blog post to find out. ×

Comment Re: How about "no"? (Score 1) 723

No, Gumbercules. I don't now about Australia, but the vast majority of US criminal laws do not apply extraterritorially. It's not just that the US doesn't bother prosecuting people who use drugs outside of the US; they couldn't even if they wanted to. US law applies in US territory, and not elsewhere, except in certain limited cases.

One exception I'm aware of is that US citizens or permanent residents who have sex with child prostitutes in other countries can be tried in the US, and most likely treason or similar crimes would apply to US citizens overseas, but that's me speculating.

However, almost all other US laws apply only in the US. Extraterritorial laws are the rare exception and not the rule. If you smoke pot in Amsterdam, that's between you and Amsterdam. If you are 18 and get drunk in Puerto Rico (where it is legal), your home state won't go after you.

And, taken to the extreme, even serious crimes like murder are typically only crimes under the jurisdiction in which the murder occurs. If you go kill someone in Mexico, it's Mexico whose law you have violated and Mexico who will punish you. Now, if you go to the US after murdering someone in Mexico, the US will arrest you and send you to Mexico to face justice under Mexico's laws -- but only if Mexico asks. Extradition is not the same as extraterritorial application of law.

Here's a document with information on US extraterritorial application of law, considering it from constitutional, statutory, international law, and lots of other perspectives. Piracy (real piracy; guys on ships with guns or other "stateless vessels") is an extraterritorial application of law that had slipped my mind in my first comment. A few other cases seem to be things like, if you kill the President (or another high-ranking federal official) when he's in Japan, the US will have some beef with you even if Japan doesn't care. But these tend to be limited. Also, it's almost all federal criminal laws that apply extraterritorially; state criminal laws (which are the vast majority of criminal laws in the US) almost never do.


Comment Re: How about "no"? (Score 1) 723

That's more than a little messed up, and the US does not follow Australia's example on this, with the sole example (afaik -- maybe not sole but if not there are VERY few others) of hiring overseas child prostitutes. If you go to Amsterdam and get high, the US won't lock you up when you come back.

And that's as it should be: applying laws to your citizens when they're not in your territory is a problematic concept. You can be a citizen of a country without even knowing it, for a recent example Ted Cruz was a dual Canadian citizen from birth until very recently when he renounced his citizenship, and he didn't know he was until some members of the press discovered it when he started campaigning for President.

Comment Re:Laugh (Score 1) 192

It's a hard problem. My only contention is that the solution is not "do the recall only if we expect lawsuits would cost more". Some people affected wouldn't know to file suit, the victims' lawyers would take a cut of the proceeds, human life is impossible to value monetarily and attempts to do so necessarily fall short, etc.

We have regulatory agencies which sometimes force car companies to initiate recalls. They are the ones ultimately in charge of making that judgement call. That seems to me to be a reasonable approach.

Comment Re:Laugh (Score 1) 192

That's a good point.

However, there's a difference between inevitable engineering tolerance failures and flaws in the design or construction. If there's a known flaw in the vehicle's construction, because the wrong materials were used, etc., and the company doesn't initiate a recall because they think they can "get away with it" and have to pay less by not doing the recall, that's different, and many could consider that sociopathic/evil.

Comment Re:Laugh (Score 1) 192

Not your point (not sure what is, precisely), but high sugar intake doesn't cause diabetes. That's an urban legend. There are multiple risk factors; obesity is probably the biggest one that people can do much about.

There are some very recent studies that seem to indicate a relation between extremely high sugar intake and diabetes, but even that is uncertain.

Comment Re:Lying scum (Score 1) 303

What you said is utter nonsense.

Even if the document is "born classified", it only matters if she created it -- receiving an email isn't an action. Hillary Clinton is not politically dead; she will get the Democratic nomination for President and there's probably a greater than 50% chance she'll win the general election.

Sending someone to prison for receiving emails is necessarily making that person a political prisoner. Political imprisonment is injustice per se. Perhaps it's best that everyone in important executive branch offices is usually of the same political party; the temptation to make political prisoners out of people is less that way.

There was always going to be a political scandal involving Hillary Clinton, because of the media. No, not because of a "vast right-wing conspiracy", because "Hillary Clinton still is a shoe-in for the nomination" is not a story and the media likes stories. So they have to go, "OMG Bernie Sanders MIGHT WIN!" and "OMG SCANDAL WILL IT MAKE HILLARY FALL???".

There's nothing, or at most very little, substance to the email thing.

Comment Re:Where the choice for Roger Goodell (Score 1) 686

I'll read that as "Republicans don't support gay marriage." Let me help you understand the difference between not having gay marriage and putting people in concentration camps.

When you put people in concentration camps, you take them out of society and put them all together in a big prison. People in prison don't have nearly the same liberties as people not in prison. For example, people in prison can't travel freely, because they're in prison. They can't work -- except maybe in prison jobs, which generally pay below minimum wage -- because, again, they are in prison. They have limited contact with the outside world and limited ability to interact with others outside the prison, including forming friendships and romantic relationships, because their days are spent -- notice the pattern here -- in the prison.

In a society without gay marriage, gay people lose a small tax benefit because they can't marry each other. That's about it. In contrast to being in a concentration camp (prison), gay people in this society are able to work at jobs they choose, move freely around the country, and associate freely with other non-prisoners in society.

There is a huge difference between being in a prison and paying slightly higher taxes. By not recognizing this difference and engaging in this hyperbole, you trivialize the grave injustices suffered by those throughout history who have been wrongly imprisoned and especially those who have suffered the horrors of actual concentration camps.

Comment Re:Where the choice for Roger Goodell (Score 1) 686

It's hard to tell whether you're a troll, but let's assume not.

Arrogant name-calling isn't an argument, political or otherwise. There are plenty Republicans who aren't racists. In fact, most probably aren't racists, for any reasonable definitions of "racist". There are crazies in both parties.

The Republican party does not advocate the re-enslavement of black people, nor does it advocate putting gay people in concentration camps. Not a single one of the candidates who debated on Fox News advocated anything remotely similar to those statements, either. That statement doesn't even qualify as putting up a strawman because it's so far from the truth. It's closer to just libel.

Comment Groklaw Needed More Than Ever (Score 5, Insightful) 457

It's a shame Pamela Jones shuttered Groklaw ... her insight into this case would have been invaluable.

We need to stop the dangerous idea that interfaces can be copyrighted before it becomes as much a bane on software as software patents were before Alice vs. CLS Bank.

Comment Re: But but but.. (Score 1) 278

But that's wrong, you fucking lying sack of shit. There WERE flipper babies in the US. THOUSANDS of them.

Umm, according to this, there were fewer than 100 Thalidomide-related birth defects in the US:


Given the obvious incorrectness of your statement about thalidomide, please forgive my skepticism that you actually cured AIDS.

"Old age and treachery will beat youth and skill every time." -- a coffee cup