New converter VCL to FireMonkey !!!! [Edit]

I have found a new program (MIDA) for convert automatically DFM and Pas in FMX and pas.

it's GREAT !!!

don't convert all, of course, but it is very useful. I converted a project VCL , 20 forms, and I have spent using a morning instead of a week:)

i was any TMS Pack component in my project and it work in FM :)


The next version will support more pascal update ( application.MessageBox / application.exename ... ). 


two picture from site :

Win 32 VCL :
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9877/vcl.png


FireMonkey :
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1294/firemonkey.png


------------------
Mark Emilthon

Edited by: delphi001 delphi001 on Sep 3, 2011 1:20 AM
0
delphi001
9/3/2011 10:41:40 AM
embarcadero.delphi.non-tech 5933 articles. 1 followers. Follow

244 Replies
1659 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 33

> {quote:title=delphi001 delphi001 wrote:}{quote}
> I have found a new program for convert automatically DFM and Pas in FMX and pas.

Sounds like a fake.

> i was any TMS Pack component in my project and it work in FM :)

Sounds strange. 
Not only the English syntax is intriguing, also the fact that TMS packs is no FM ready.

So we wait and see for a link.
0
Arnaud
9/3/2011 7:11:42 AM
- i'm a beta tester

- this is not a fake

- TAdvGlowButton is converted to TButton of course ( FMX and Pas declaration )

- not all speak english very well   :)


------------------
Mark Emilthon
0
delphi001
9/3/2011 10:20:06 AM
On 2011-09-03 11:20:06 +0100, delphi001 delphi001 said:

> - i'm a beta tester
> 
> - this is not a fake
> 
> - TAdvGlowButton is converted to TButton of course ( FMX and Pas declaration )
> 
> - not all speak english very well   :)
> 
> 
> ------------------
> Mark Emilthon

If you are a beta tester for XE2, you have just violated the NDA you 
agreed to, by revealing you are on the beta test.

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
0
Joanna
9/3/2011 10:46:29 AM
i'm a beta tester for this program (mida) , not for delphi xe2.
0
delphi001
9/3/2011 10:48:29 AM
You have posted the same message three times now.

Why?

Mike
<delphi001 delphi001> wrote in message news:395667@forums.embarcadero.com...
>I have found a new program (MIDA) for convert automatically DFM and Pas in 
>FMX and pas.
>
> it's GREAT !!!
>
> don't convert all, of course, but it is very useful. I converted a project 
> VCL , 20 forms, and I have spent using a morning instead of a week:)
>
> i was any TMS Pack component in my project and it work in FM :)
>
>
> The next version will support more pascal update ( application.MessageBox 
> / application.exename ... ).
>
>
> two picture from site :
>
> Win 32 VCL :
> http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9877/vcl.png
>
>
> FireMonkey :
> http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1294/firemonkey.png
>
>
> ------------------
> Mark Emilthon
>
> Edited by: delphi001 delphi001 on Sep 3, 2011 1:20 AM
1
Mike
9/3/2011 10:50:31 AM
On 2011-09-03 11:48:29 +0100, delphi001 delphi001 said:

> i'm a beta tester for this program (mida) , not for delphi xe2.

OK, thanks for clarifying that :-)

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
0
Joanna
9/3/2011 11:09:55 AM
> {quote:title=Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:}{quote}

> If you are a beta tester for XE2, you have just violated the NDA you 
> agreed to, by revealing you are on the beta test.

DXE2 is out so please be so nice and shut up.
0
Captain
9/3/2011 12:04:24 PM
Captain America wrote:

> > {quote:title=Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:}{quote}
> 
> > If you are a beta tester for XE2, you have just violated the NDA
> > you agreed to, by revealing you are on the beta test.
> 
> DXE2 is out so please be so nice and shut up.

Take care of your words!

That XE2 has been released does release no one from the NDA.
-- 
Uwe Schuster | Hero of the Delphi 2010 FT
http://www.bitcommander.de/blog
0
Uwe
9/3/2011 12:29:01 PM
On 2011-09-03 13:04:24 +0100, Captain America said:

> DXE2 is out so please be so nice and shut up.

The release of XE2 doesn't release testers from the NDA, especially 
when there are further developments in the pipeline.

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
0
Joanna
9/3/2011 12:31:36 PM
> {quote:title=Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:}{quote}
> On 2011-09-03 13:04:24 +0100, Captain America said:
> 
> > DXE2 is out so please be so nice and shut up.
> 
> The release of XE2 doesn't release testers from the NDA, especially 
> when there are further developments in the pipeline.


Those NDA's are a joke anyway. They may be valid in the US but not in Europe. I'm gonna give you one reason why: if I live in Hungary any piece of paper I sign which is not in Hungarian can't be considered a legal document here. I'm sure there are other clauses in those papers which are not compliant with country specific regulations.
0
Captain
9/3/2011 2:02:33 PM
On 9/3/2011 5:31 AM, Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:
> On 2011-09-03 13:04:24 +0100, Captain America said:
>
>> DXE2 is out so please be so nice and shut up.
>
> The release of XE2 doesn't release testers from the NDA, especially
> when there are further developments in the pipeline.
>
> Joanna
>

Not having been a beta tester for XE2 (and since I'm not, I can say that 
<G>), I don't know what the current NDA says, but in past times, the NDA 
stated that you couldn't discuss things until after product release 
(with the obvious inference that after release, you could).

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/3/2011 2:44:33 PM
On 2011-09-03 15:44:33 +0100, David Erbas-White said:

> Not having been a beta tester for XE2 (and since I'm not, I can say that
> <G>), I don't know what the current NDA says, but in past times, the NDA
> stated that you couldn't discuss things until after product release
> (with the obvious inference that after release, you could).

But, apparently, you are still not meant to tell people you are a beta 
tester <confused> :-)

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
0
Joanna
9/3/2011 3:07:52 PM
Captain America wrote:

> They may be valid in the US but not in Europe.

People in Europe aren't expected to keep their word?  Wow.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 4:13:20 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:
> People in Europe aren't expected to keep their word?  Wow.

Until now the breaking of words and treaties has been a US specialty.
Including torture. Major "wow."
0
Dominique
9/3/2011 4:18:43 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Captain America wrote:
> 
> > They may be valid in the US but not in Europe.
> 
> People in Europe aren't expected to keep their word?  Wow.

You did not understand: they can not be sued.
0
Captain
9/3/2011 4:21:38 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> Until now the breaking of words and treaties has been a US specialty.
> Including torture. Major "wow."

Oh please.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 5:01:35 PM
Captain America wrote:

> You did not understand: they can not be sued.

So?  What's your point?

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 5:01:58 PM
> {quote:title=Captain America wrote:}{quote}
> > {quote:title=Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:}{quote}
> > On 2011-09-03 13:04:24 +0100, Captain America said:
> > 
> > > DXE2 is out so please be so nice and shut up.
> > 
> > The release of XE2 doesn't release testers from the NDA, especially 
> > when there are further developments in the pipeline.
> 
> 
> Those NDA's are a joke anyway. They may be valid in the US but not in Europe. I'm gonna give you one reason why: if I live in Hungary any piece of paper I sign which is not in Hungarian can't be considered a legal document here. I'm sure there are other clauses in those papers which are not compliant with country specific regulations.

This is true.  Same rules for Norway, actually.  Any agreement or contract has to be in native tongue to be legally binding.
Still - most people still consider themselves bound to english NDAs by their "moral obligation".
That, and the fact that if you spill the beans - you won't get to play in the next round.

--
http://delphi.fosdal.com - Delphi Programming
http://plus.lars.fosdal.com - Google+
0
Lars
9/3/2011 5:02:16 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:
> Oh please.

Sorry. Each time you, particularly, use the word "Europe," I feel the
need to shut you up. ;)
0
Dominique
9/3/2011 5:04:32 PM
New version of MIDA V. 0.81

add TPageControl,TTabSheet support and other component :) 


http://midafiremonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/vcl1.png

http://midafiremonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/firemonkey1.png


Temporary site 
http://midafiremonkey.wordpress.com/
0
delphi001
9/3/2011 5:22:31 PM
> People in Europe aren't expected to keep their word?  Wow.

That privilege is reserved for politicos and corporations
0
Konstantine
9/3/2011 5:37:32 PM
> But, apparently, you are still not meant to tell people you are a beta
> tester<confused>  :-)

Grasping at the straws?
0
Konstantine
9/3/2011 5:39:23 PM
On 2011-09-03 18:02:16 +0100, Lars Fosdal said:

> Any agreement or contract has to be in native tongue to be legally binding.

I wonder if we can claim that NDAs written in US English are not in the 
native tongue of the UK? :-)

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter [TeamB]
0
Joanna
9/3/2011 6:16:43 PM
Is there any option to do a converter from VCL to a ExtPascal(ExtJS support) 
too? I believe that this would be a winning solution(same idea as  compile 
for iOS)
Rgds,
Frenk

<delphi001 delphi001> wrote in message news:395667@forums.embarcadero.com...
>I have found a new program (MIDA) for convert automatically DFM and Pas in 
>FMX and pas.
>
> it's GREAT !!!
>
> don't convert all, of course, but it is very useful. I converted a project 
> VCL , 20 forms, and I have spent using a morning instead of a week:)
>
> i was any TMS Pack component in my project and it work in FM :)
>
>
> The next version will support more pascal update ( application.MessageBox 
> / application.exename ... ).
>
>
> two picture from site :
>
> Win 32 VCL :
> http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/9877/vcl.png
>
>
> FireMonkey :
> http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/1294/firemonkey.png
>
>
> ------------------
> Mark Emilthon
>
> Edited by: delphi001 delphi001 on Sep 3, 2011 1:20 AM
0
Frenk
9/3/2011 6:17:22 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Captain America wrote:
> 
> > You did not understand: they can not be sued.
> 
> So?  What's your point?

I  can sign an NDA, do whatever I want with it (for instance publish it online), and EMBT can do nothing with it. So all European beta testers are bound by their morals only, not legal paragraphs. And what do they get in return?  20-40%  higher price.
0
Captain
9/3/2011 6:30:08 PM
Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:
> I wonder if we can claim that NDAs written in US English are not in
> the native tongue of the UK? :-)

US aircraft carriers are by definition US territory, so you're screwed.

<gd&r>
0
Dominique
9/3/2011 6:36:06 PM
Captain America wrote:

> So all European beta testers are bound by their morals only, 

That's sad that the law doesn't enforce contracts.  

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 8:18:49 PM
> {quote:title=delphi001 delphi001 wrote:}{quote}
> I have found a new program (MIDA) for convert automatically DFM and Pas in FMX and pas.

Pretty cool, I like the idea very much! I hope it will be open source so everybody can improve it.
0
Tobias
9/3/2011 8:23:05 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Captain America wrote:
> 
> > So all European beta testers are bound by their morals only, 
> 
> That's sad that the law doesn't enforce contracts.  

It does. But if it is the US law then look coast to coast but no further!

Wanna work in Europe? Apply European law.
0
Captain
9/3/2011 9:00:20 PM
On 03.09.2011 22:18, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Captain America wrote:
>
>> So all European beta testers are bound by their morals only,
>
> That's sad that the law doesn't enforce contracts.
>

I would think the law enforces contracts that are made according to the 
law.  In this case "written in Hungarian".  Maybe EMB's lawyers just 
chose to ignore this?


-- 
Aage J.
0
Aage
9/3/2011 9:31:50 PM
Captain America wrote:

> It does. 

You just said it doesn't.

> Wanna work in Europe? Apply European law.

Of course.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 9:32:57 PM
Aage Johansen wrote:

> I would think the law enforces contracts that are made according to
> the law.

How is an NDA not "made according to the law" unless the law has some
strange notion that two people agreeing not to talk about confidential
information is somehow illegal.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 9:35:55 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Aage Johansen wrote:
> 
> > I would think the law enforces contracts that are made according to
> > the law.
> 
> How is an NDA not "made according to the law" unless the law has some
> strange notion that two people agreeing not to talk about confidential
> information is somehow illegal.

What law? American law? In Hungary? You still don't get it. 

If a Hungarian sings an NDA with EMBT and breaks it they can not be sued in Hungary (because they did not break any Hungarian law). They can't also be sued in the US because they don't live there and the US has no jurisdiction over them in Hungary. Excluding Guantanamo and similar cases of course.
0
Captain
9/3/2011 9:47:07 PM
On 9/3/2011 2:35 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Aage Johansen wrote:
>
>> I would think the law enforces contracts that are made according to
>> the law.
>
> How is an NDA not "made according to the law" unless the law has some
> strange notion that two people agreeing not to talk about confidential
> information is somehow illegal.
>

Nick, are you deliberately obfuscating here?  The law can certainly make 
such a determination.  It may seem counter-intuitive to you, but if two 
people make a non-disclosure agreement, and the first tells the second 
that he killed someone to get that information, then the second person 
is not 'bound' to not disclose it.  Unless, of course, the second person 
is the attorney for the first person <G>.

Just because you agree 'not to talk about confidential information', 
doesn't make everything kosher.  Have you heard of the concept of 
conspiracy?  If you have knowledge of an illegal act, and fail to 
disclose it, you then become a party to the conspiracy.

These are just two examples -- there are obviously more (for example, 
one person 'agreeing' under threat of coercion, etc.).

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/3/2011 9:52:05 PM
Captain America wrote:

> 
> What law? American law? In Hungary? You still don't get it. 

No, I'm thinking that you are the one that doesn't get it.

If two people freely and without coersion agree to an NDA, then that
should be a legally binding. There shouldn't be any law that says you
can sign such a contract and have it not be legally binding.

If there *is* such a law in Europe, then it cannot be said that
contracts are honored in Europe.

Any law that says a perfectly acceptable contract between to people
doesn't have to be honored, then one cannot say that such a place that
has this a law honors contracts.

And for the record, I'm sure such silly laws exist here in the US as
well.

In addition, I don't understand the ethics of "Sure, I'll tell the
other guy I agree, but I really don't have any intention at all of
keeping  my word about it".

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 10:03:38 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> 
> These are just two examples -- there are obviously more (for example, 
> one person 'agreeing' under threat of coercion, etc.).

And of course, all of that is utterly immaterial to the topic at hand.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 10:04:27 PM
Will it ever be able to convert TStringGrid ?
To convert the VCL string grid with static columns for
FireMonkey columns must be added dynamically (until now).
That means if a TStringGrid exists, code has to be added.
Helmuth
Am 03.09.2011 19:22, schrieb delphi001 delphi001:
> New version of MIDA V. 0.81
>
> add TPageControl,TTabSheet support and other component :)
>
>
> http://midafiremonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/vcl1.png
>
> http://midafiremonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/firemonkey1.png
>
>
> Temporary site
> http://midafiremonkey.wordpress.com/
0
Helmuth
9/3/2011 10:50:29 PM
On 9/3/2011 3:04 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>>
>> These are just two examples -- there are obviously more (for example,
>> one person 'agreeing' under threat of coercion, etc.).
>
> And of course, all of that is utterly immaterial to the topic at hand.
>

No, I'm a frayed knot.

The point being made is that (for example), in Hungary, if the contract 
is not in Hungarian, it is not a binding contract.  I could assume (but 
won't) that in Hungary the same US issues regarding conspiracy are in 
place, but if they are NOT in place, then in Hungary you could have a 
contract that would be enforceable where you could not disclose 
knowledge of a murder, but ONLY if the contract was written in Hungarian.

You are picking and choosing.  A contract is only viable and enforceable 
in a jurisdiction, if it has been drawn up in accordance with the rules 
of that jurisdiction.  You're picking and choosing in regards to 
'enforceable in a jurisdiction', assuming that if it is viable in the 
US, it's viable in Hungary (or elsewhere), and that's not (necessarily) 
the case.

If it weren't, there wouldn't be a need for contract lawyers in 
different jurisdictions (in the US, it's state-by-state, let alone 
looking overall at country-by-country).

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/3/2011 10:55:38 PM
> In addition, I don't understand the ethics of "Sure, I'll tell the
> other guy I agree, but I really don't have any intention at all of
> keeping  my word about it".

Happens all the time when talking to corporate people, US included.
Also if for example EMB ceases to function tomorrow and their licensing
servers stop do you think I am going to tell my clients to just
swallow it and stop development without finding 3d party solution
even though I've agreed to their EULA? When corporation starting
to squeeze customer's netherparts people would most likely feel
that they have no more moral obligations to keeping their
word/contract.
0
Konstantine
9/3/2011 11:16:57 PM
Konstantine Poukhov wrote:

> Happens all the time when talking to corporate people, US included.

Probably -- and it's reprehensible in all cases.


> When corporation starting
> to squeeze customer's netherparts people would most likely feel
> that they have no more moral obligations to keeping their
> word/contrac

Yeah, that's reprehensible as well.  

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 11:28:25 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> The point being made is that (for example), in Hungary, if the
> contract is not in Hungarian, it is not a binding contract.

Okay, that's fine.  


>   You're picking and choosing in regards to 
> 'enforceable in a jurisdiction', assuming that if it is viable in the 
> US, it's viable in Hungary (or elsewhere), and that's not
> (necessarily) the case.

No, I'm not picking and choosing anything. 

First, it's patently obvious and a given that a contract to circumvent
the law is illegal, and it's silly to have to point that out every
single time.  Such things should be assumed.

Second, if the contract laws in a country do anything other than ensure
(setting aside the exceptions discussed above <sigh>) that the people
who enter the contract are of sound mind and acting of their own free
will, then those laws cannot be said to be ensuring the honoring of
contracts.

For instance, if the laws of a country say "People don't have to honor
NDA's or EULA's that they agree to", then you can't say that country
enforces contracts, because prima facie they don't.





-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/3/2011 11:34:59 PM
On 9/3/2011 4:34 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> For instance, if the laws of a country say "People don't have to honor
> NDA's or EULA's that they agree to", then you can't say that country
> enforces contracts, because prima facie they don't.
>

No, prima facie they don't enforce NDA or EULA contracts.  They may 
honor real-estate contracts, employment contracts, warranties, etc., but 
if a country specifically says they don't allow an NDA or a EULA, then 
if you try to enforce one, then YOU are the one violating the law.

BTW, in terms of 'contracts' - there's a whole lot of consumer 
protection law we could discuss (you know, things like usability, etc.) 
that somehow software manufacturers are able to sidestep -- because to 
this point, no one has ever actually gone to court to enforce/dispute 
things such as EULAs (in relation to consumer protections).

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/4/2011 12:11:28 AM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> 
> No, prima facie they don't enforce NDA or EULA contracts.

Which are contracts.  

> BTW, in terms of 'contracts' - there's a whole lot of consumer 
> protection law we could discuss (you know, things like usability,
> etc.) that somehow software manufacturers are able to sidestep --

Understood -- and most of these laws are in my view counterproductive,
but I won't discuss that any further.


-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/4/2011 12:31:57 AM
On 9/3/2011 5:31 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>>
>> No, prima facie they don't enforce NDA or EULA contracts.
>
> Which are contracts.
>

Nick, you've lived in California.  In California, it is illegal to make 
a contract regarding consensual sex for money.  In Nevada (most 
counties), such a contract is legal.

Does the fact that California does not enforce a prostitution contract 
mean that they don't enforce contracts?

Get real...

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/4/2011 12:48:43 AM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> Does the fact that California does not enforce a prostitution
> contract mean that they don't enforce contracts?

Yes.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/4/2011 1:00:18 AM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> 
> Yes.

But you'll jump on this, so I'll be more precise.

They can't really say they "enforce contracts" because there are some
contracts they won't enforce.

So one can say "They enforce most contracts" or "some contracts".  So I
guess technically you can say "They enforce contracts" because they
they do enforce some contracts.

It seems to me that I've been clear on this particular point, so I'll
not pursue it further.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/4/2011 1:14:16 AM
> {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:
> > I wonder if we can claim that NDAs written in US English are not in
> > the native tongue of the UK? :-)
> 
> US aircraft carriers are by definition US territory, so you're screwed.
> 
> <gd&r>

US aircraft are US property, not us territory. An US carrier entering into other country seas is under that country soveragny and laws.
Off course, they always can claim that the Garmin give them a bad address :)
0
Sebastian
9/4/2011 1:25:32 AM
Sebastian Ledesma [Solidyne] wrote:

> An US carrier entering into other country seas is under that country
> soveragny and laws.  Off course, they always can claim that the
> Garmin give them a bad address :)

A warship entering another country's waters is itself subject to the
laws of that country -- that is, the ship must do what the visited
country says with regard to passage and berthing.  There are some
exceptions to this.

But the interior of the warship itself remains the sovereign territory
of that country.

I don't know what the rule are for merchant vessels.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/4/2011 1:40:26 AM
"Captain America" wrote in message news:395941@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> If a Hungarian sings an NDA with EMBT and breaks it they can not be sued 
> in Hungary (because they did not break any Hungarian law). They can't also 
> be sued in the US because they don't live there and the US has no 
> jurisdiction over them in Hungary. Excluding Guantanamo and similar cases 
> of course.


If this were generally true then there could not be any financial contracts 
safely made between parties in any two different countries. But yet that 
goes on daily and concerns many $billions. So what do you think protects 
them? It is because both countries equally recognize contract law as valid 
and hold their citizens to legally honouring contracts they enter into 
whether it is with another person or fim in that country or any other.

Individual clauses of a given contract may not be valid in a given 
jurisdiction and thus the common contract clauses concerning severability. 
But the idea that a you can just walk away from a contract you willingly 
entered into just because the other party is not in the same country is 
completely invalid. An NDA is no less such a contract.

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/4/2011 2:06:08 AM
> I don't know what the rule are for merchant vessels.

It is the same for Aircraft
0
Konstantine
9/4/2011 2:10:21 AM
"David Erbas-White" <derbas@arachneering.com> wrote in message 
news:395945@forums.embarcadero.com...
> It may seem counter-intuitive to you, but if two
> people make a non-disclosure agreement, and the first tells the second
> that he killed someone to get that information, then the second person
> is not 'bound' to not disclose it.  Unless, of course, the second person
> is the attorney for the first person <G>.
>
> Just because you agree 'not to talk about confidential information',
> doesn't make everything kosher.  Have you heard of the concept of
> conspiracy?  If you have knowledge of an illegal act, and fail to
> disclose it, you then become a party to the conspiracy.


David, we are not talking about taking part in or helping to conceal 
criminal acts. You are absolutely right that a legal contract cannot 
*require illegal activity*. I.e. when I fail to hit the guy you contracted 
me to hit, you are not going to be able to sue me in court.

Thus an NDA must concern perfectly legal activities about perfectly legal 
products, but then it is a perfectly legal contract.

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/4/2011 2:10:34 AM
On 9/3/2011 7:06 PM, Wayne Niddery wrote:
> "Captain America" wrote in message news:395941@forums.embarcadero.com...
>>
>> If a Hungarian sings an NDA with EMBT and breaks it they can not be sued
>> in Hungary (because they did not break any Hungarian law). They can't also
>> be sued in the US because they don't live there and the US has no
>> jurisdiction over them in Hungary. Excluding Guantanamo and similar cases
>> of course.
>
>

And just exactly how are the copyright laws being enforced in China??? 
Hmm???

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/4/2011 2:40:49 AM
On 9/3/2011 7:10 PM, Wayne Niddery wrote:
>
> Thus an NDA must concern perfectly legal activities about perfectly legal
> products, but then it is a perfectly legal contract.
>

Yes, but to try and get across the more subtle point, each and every 
country/jurisdiction may handle an NDA differently.

Two quick examples -- in jurisdiction A, an NDA might be in force for a 
limit of 2 years, but in jurisdiction B, it might be enforceable for 4 
years.

Or in jurisdiction A, you are still bound if you hear the information 
from a third party, and in jurisdiction B, you're no longer bound.

These DIRECTLY apply to an NDA, the point is that in both jurisdictions 
there is 'contractual enforcement', but only under the conditions of 
that jurisdiction.

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/4/2011 2:44:12 AM
Captain America wrote:

> > {quote:title=Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:}{quote}
> 
> > If you are a beta tester for XE2, you have just violated the NDA
> > you agreed to, by revealing you are on the beta test.
> 
> DXE2 is out so please be so nice and shut up.

Why don't you follow that advice first?

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"Everything is drive-through. In California, they even have a 
 burial service called Jump-In-The-Box." -- Wil Shriner.
0
Rudy
9/4/2011 2:57:14 AM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> On 9/3/2011 5:31 AM, Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:
> > On 2011-09-03 13:04:24 +0100, Captain America said:
> > 
> >> DXE2 is out so please be so nice and shut up.
> > 
> > The release of XE2 doesn't release testers from the NDA, especially
> > when there are further developments in the pipeline.
> > 
> > Joanna
> > 
> 
> Not having been a beta tester for XE2 (and since I'm not, I can say
> that <G>), I don't know what the current NDA says, but in past times,
> the NDA stated that you couldn't discuss things until after product
> release (with the obvious inference that after release, you could).

You mean until a certain period after product release (e.g. 1 year).


-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"One-tenth of the folks run the world. One-tenth watch them run
 it, and the other eighty percent don't know what the hell's
 going on."
 -- Jake Simmons
0
Rudy
9/4/2011 3:07:03 AM
> {quote:title=Captain America wrote:}{quote}
> Those NDA's are a joke anyway. They may be valid in the US but not in Europe. I'm gonna give you one reason why: if I live in Hungary any piece of paper I sign which is not in Hungarian can't be considered a legal document here. I'm sure there are other clauses in those papers which are not compliant with country specific regulations.

Regardless of the legalities, people have a moral obligation as well. If I sign a piece of paper or agreement, even if it's not legally binding, I would feel obligated to stand by that agreement.

---
Dean
0
Dean
9/4/2011 11:06:31 AM
Am 04.09.2011 00:03, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Captain America wrote:
> 
>>
>> What law? American law? In Hungary? You still don't get it. 
> 
> No, I'm thinking that you are the one that doesn't get it.
> 
> If two people freely and without coersion agree to an NDA, then that
> should be a legally binding. There shouldn't be any law that says you
> can sign such a contract and have it not be legally binding.
> 
> If there *is* such a law in Europe, then it cannot be said that
> contracts are honored in Europe.
> 

That's wrong. If you try to get somebody sing something and honorus
something which he doesn't need to honour because it doesn't fullfill
the laws at his place then it's bad luck for you. You could decide to
fullfill the local laws and then you'd be on the safe side. Just
translate the NDA to hungarian as well and you're safe.

If I'm not mistaken there's some law in France requiring every product
manual to be available in French as well. That's a different case, but
I'm sure most companies rather decide to follow this law then to not
sell in France. So what?

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/4/2011 12:36:48 PM
Am 04.09.2011 03:14, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Nick Hodges wrote:
> 
>>
>> Yes.
> 
> But you'll jump on this, so I'll be more precise.
> 
> They can't really say they "enforce contracts" because there are some
> contracts they won't enforce.
> 
> So one can say "They enforce most contracts" or "some contracts".  So I
> guess technically you can say "They enforce contracts" because they
> they do enforce some contracts.
> 
> It seems to me that I've been clear on this particular point, so I'll
> not pursue it further.
> 

Hm? So if I make a contract with you (hypothetically!) that you should
murder the US president or some such and the state refuses to enforce
this contract when you decide "nah, I don't like the idea anymore" you'd
also claim "the state doesn't enforce contracts"?

The state will only enforce contracts which are legal to the rules set
by the laws of this state. So in our case Hungary has decided, that
contract not written in hungarian are not enforceable because the law
says so. Whether this has been done to ensure the hungarians getting
into that contract do really understand all terms or if it has been done
to support hungarian translators is out of scope for this.

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/4/2011 12:43:03 PM
On 03.09.2011 23:35, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Aage Johansen wrote:
>
>> I would think the law enforces contracts that are made according to
>> the law.
>
> How is an NDA not "made according to the law" unless the law has some
> strange notion that two people agreeing not to talk about confidential
> information is somehow illegal.
>

The law says strictly the contract has to be in native language, not 
English.

The same applies to imported food and other goods. If food declaration 
is only in English, the food is illegal to be sold.
0
Alf
9/4/2011 1:52:02 PM
On 03.09.2011 23:47, Captain America wrote:
>> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
>> Aage Johansen wrote:
>>
>>> I would think the law enforces contracts that are made according to
>>> the law.
>>
>> How is an NDA not "made according to the law" unless the law has some
>> strange notion that two people agreeing not to talk about confidential
>> information is somehow illegal.
>
> What law? American law? In Hungary? You still don't get it.
>
> If a Hungarian sings an NDA with EMBT and breaks it they can not be sued in Hungary (because they did not break any Hungarian law). They can't also be sued in the US because they don't live there and the US has no jurisdiction over them in Hungary. Excluding Guantanamo and similar cases of course.

Also, all bilingual/multilingual contracts are written in all the 
approrpriate languages by authorized translators and all are signed by 
the contractors.

Like SALT and SALT II agreement which is written in both Russian and US 
English and signed by  appropriate people.

If US had insisted on only one contract, in English, the agreement would 
never had been signed.
0
Alf
9/4/2011 2:03:20 PM
On 04.09.2011 00:55, David Erbas-White wrote:
> On 9/3/2011 3:04 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
>> David Erbas-White wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> These are just two examples -- there are obviously more (for example,
>>> one person 'agreeing' under threat of coercion, etc.).
>>
>> And of course, all of that is utterly immaterial to the topic at hand.
>>
>
> No, I'm a frayed knot.
>
> The point being made is that (for example), in Hungary, if the contract
> is not in Hungarian, it is not a binding contract.  I could assume (but
> won't) that in Hungary the same US issues regarding conspiracy are in
> place, but if they are NOT in place, then in Hungary you could have a
> contract that would be enforceable where you could not disclose
> knowledge of a murder, but ONLY if the contract was written in Hungarian.
>
> You are picking and choosing.  A contract is only viable and enforceable
> in a jurisdiction, if it has been drawn up in accordance with the rules
> of that jurisdiction.  You're picking and choosing in regards to
> 'enforceable in a jurisdiction', assuming that if it is viable in the
> US, it's viable in Hungary (or elsewhere), and that's not (necessarily)
> the case.
>
> If it weren't, there wouldn't be a need for contract lawyers in
> different jurisdictions (in the US, it's state-by-state, let alone
> looking overall at country-by-country).
>
> David Erbas-White

I wonder what US citizens are doing when signing a Hungarian NDA 
agreement ??

Is it enforceable in US if the signers break the agreement (because they 
have not a grasp at all about Hungarian and thus have no knowledge at 
all about what they signed)

Or has US a monopoly on making NDA agreement?
0
Alf
9/4/2011 2:07:35 PM
Be careful, Joanna is a female first name and she is Anglo Saxon. Because of the first she could start to dislike your comment and because of the second you could end up with an axe between the eyes if you meet her one day. 

You must be little careful. Signing an SA via a pressing a button is a point to discuss about. The implied contract is signed very likely on install. Then you cannot say I did not know.

In general no one can forbid you to talk about what you could know from somewhere else. Honestly I would not provide real business critical information.

>- TAdvGlowButton is converted to TButton of course ( FMX and Pas declaration )
This is subject to nothing.

I am wondering what someone could tell about a beta that is forbidden that would not be covered by other laws. If you reach the state that every leak comes close 'bad for business' then the problem is very likely not leak. Suing or closing the leak does not make the problem go away.

On the other hand, EMB does not invent something groundbreaking. There is nothing groundbreaking innovative in Delphi ... Very adventurous, imho.

I think NDA here and secret there is more about the Sales and Marketing privilege to spread the good news and for sure they want to keep the option alive not to ship something maybe because they expect to many problems in practice. Try not to ship something after people know that things are in test. Same problem you have when implementing reporting systems, give users a cube and reports in order to test and then delete the data although if they are not correct:), have fun.
Or maybe they don't want to hear the competition's laufghter the whole year about the way  EMB thinks Software development works today:). Independent if this is unfair or not.

If someone could remove me from the Private Beta Forums ... Mr. Marty Thompson was very correct and has removed the assignment in the beta portal, already on my request.

Mike
0
Michael
9/4/2011 3:06:54 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> And just exactly how are the copyright laws being enforced in
> China???  Hmm???

Not sure I follow that.......

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/4/2011 5:23:20 PM
Markus Humm wrote:

> Hm? So if I make a contract with you (hypothetically!) that you should
> murder the US president or some such and the state refuses to enforce
> this contract when you decide "nah, I don't like the idea anymore"
> you'd also claim "the state doesn't enforce contracts"?

I think you didn't read my post carefully.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/4/2011 5:24:02 PM
new update :)

http://midafiremonkey.wordpress.com

from blog :

Update MIDA V 0.82 – Chart and grid support

......
 
in detail i have add support for :
 
TChart ,
 TStringGrid,
 THeader,
 
TDBGrid, TDBAdvGrid , TcxGrid,
 Today don’t exist a real dbgrid component for FM.  Standard TdbGrid, TMS TDBAdvGrid and DevExpress TCxGrid are converted in a FM TGrid.
 After conversion the coder will must add manually LiveBindings Links for to have the link with db fields.
 
TRadioGroup is delayed because of some problems…
 
 
http://midafiremonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/vcl_v82.png

http://midafiremonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/firemonkey_v82.png

------------



great work :)
0
delphi001
9/4/2011 5:57:52 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> If two people freely and without coersion agree to an NDA, then that
> should be a legally binding. There shouldn't be any law that says you
> can sign such a contract and have it not be legally binding.

Oh, don't be daft, Nick.  Of course there isn't a law which says 
"contracts aren't binding".  Laws don't work like that.  They define 
what types of contracts ARE binding.

If, in Hungary, the law says that contracts must be written in 
Hungarian to be binding, then that is absolutely clear.  If it's 
written in English, German or whatever, it isn't binding in Hungary.

> Any law that says a perfectly acceptable contract between to people
> doesn't have to be honored, then one cannot say that such a place that
> has this a law honors contracts.

Again, there is no law saying that.  Rather, there is an ABSENCE of law 
saying that contracts written in English are binding.

In England I'm not guilty of murder if I kill a dog.  The murder laws 
only apply to humans.  But there is NO law which says "if you kill a 
dog you are innocent of murder".  My innocence is determined by the 
ABSENCE of any laws that say dogicide is murder.

-- 
SteveT
0
Steve
9/4/2011 11:47:50 PM
Steve Thackery wrote:

> 
> Oh, don't be daft, Nick.  Of course there isn't a law which says 
> "contracts aren't binding".  Laws don't work like that.  They define 
> what types of contracts ARE binding.

....and thus define perfectly legitimate contracts that aren't binding.  

> If, in Hungary, the law says that contracts must be written in 
> Hungarian to be binding, then that is absolutely clear.  If it's 
> written in English, German or whatever, it isn't binding in Hungary.

Right -- and thus perfectly acceptable contracts are not enforced.  

You've just described the exact thing I think is wrong: The government
saying "This list contains all the contracts that we'll enforce.  All
others won't be enforced".  What if two people in Hungary *want* to
create a contract in French?  Why in the world should they not be
allowed to?

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 12:32:57 AM
On 9/4/2011 5:32 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Steve Thackery wrote:
>
>>
>> Oh, don't be daft, Nick.  Of course there isn't a law which says
>> "contracts aren't binding".  Laws don't work like that.  They define
>> what types of contracts ARE binding.
>
> ...and thus define perfectly legitimate contracts that aren't binding.
>
>> If, in Hungary, the law says that contracts must be written in
>> Hungarian to be binding, then that is absolutely clear.  If it's
>> written in English, German or whatever, it isn't binding in Hungary.
>
> Right -- and thus perfectly acceptable contracts are not enforced.
>
> You've just described the exact thing I think is wrong: The government
> saying "This list contains all the contracts that we'll enforce.  All
> others won't be enforced".  What if two people in Hungary *want* to
> create a contract in French?  Why in the world should they not be
> allowed to?
>

Well, since you asked...

Because the contract between two people in Hungary would be enforced in 
Hungary, the courts need to be able to read and understand it...

Now, that wasn't so hard, was it???

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/5/2011 12:42:42 AM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> Now, that wasn't so hard, was it???

Hard, no.  Ridiculous?  Yes. Of course two people should be able to
have a contract in French.  The Hungarian courts are incapable of
translating French?

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 1:29:26 AM
On 9/4/2011 6:29 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> Now, that wasn't so hard, was it???
>
> Hard, no.  Ridiculous?  Yes. Of course two people should be able to
> have a contract in French.  The Hungarian courts are incapable of
> translating French?
>


You persist in not 'getting' it.  The people of Hungary, via their 
government, have determined that legal documents must be in the language 
of their own country.

Would you have a problem if you discovered that requiring contracts to 
be in a specific language, or set of languages, is the law in China?
In Russia?  In Japan?  Or even (dare I say it) America?

Would it 'make sense' for American courts to allow contracts in 
Serbo-Croatian to be valid in the American legal system?  Or would it be 
reasonable to assume that the contracts must be in the language of the 
country?

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/5/2011 2:01:21 AM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> You persist in not 'getting' it.  The people of Hungary, via their 
> government, have determined that legal documents must be in the
> language of their own country.

Yes, and I think that is totally unjust and wrong.  You, apparently,
aren't getting that.


> Would you have a problem if you discovered that requiring contracts
> to be in a specific language, or set of languages, is the law in
> China?  In Russia?  In Japan?  Or even (dare I say it) America?

Yes, of course. 

> Would it 'make sense' for American courts to allow contracts in 
> Serbo-Croatian to be valid in the American legal system?  

Of course it would. If two Serbs wanted to create a contract in
Serbo-Croatian, what reason would I or anyone else have to object?

> Or would it
> be reasonable to assume that the contracts must be in the language of
> the country?

No, that's entirely unreasonable.



-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 3:58:09 AM
On 9/4/2011 8:58 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
>
>> You persist in not 'getting' it.  The people of Hungary, via their
>> government, have determined that legal documents must be in the
>> language of their own country.
>
> Yes, and I think that is totally unjust and wrong.  You, apparently,
> aren't getting that.
>

Ah, that explains it.  Please let me know when you find the magical land 
where the laws are simply as you wish it...

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/5/2011 4:15:05 AM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> Ah, that explains it.  Please let me know when you find the magical
> land where the laws are simply as you wish it...

Alas, there is no such place, sadly.  Until then, I'll continue to
point out the follies of government. ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 4:15:59 AM
> Alas, there is no such place, sadly.  Until then, I'll continue to
> point out the follies of government. ;-)

ROFL. Than look in your own backyard first
0
Konstantine
9/5/2011 4:57:37 AM
>> So all European beta testers are bound by their morals only,
> That's sad that the law doesn't enforce contracts.

IIRC it's the exact same situation with the US law, and contracts you 
may have signed in other languages/countries.

Eric
0
Eric
9/5/2011 5:17:53 AM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> David Erbas-White wrote:
> 
> > Ah, that explains it.  Please let me know when you find the magical
> > land where the laws are simply as you wish it...
> 
> Alas, there is no such place, sadly.  Until then, I'll continue to
> point out the follies of government. ;-)

What about Hoopyland?

Kind regards,
D.
0
Don
9/5/2011 6:13:05 AM
Lars Fosdal wrote:


> 
> This is true.  Same rules for Norway, actually.  Any agreement or
> contract has to be in native tongue to be legally binding.  Still -
> most people still consider themselves bound to english NDAs by their
> "moral obligation".  That, and the fact that if you spill the beans -
> you won't get to play in the next round.


Same in Belgium, it has to be either in Dutch/French or German
depending where you actually live in Belgium. My mothertongue is Dutch
I generally sign only stuff in Dutch

But like some people already said "moral obligation". If you sign
something that can help your business or you sign up for a beta well
you stick to the rules. It can only help you in the long run
0
Kristof
9/5/2011 7:14:15 AM
> {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> Nick Hodges wrote:
> > Oh please.
> 
> Sorry. Each time you, particularly, use the word "Europe," I feel the
> need to shut you up. ;)

You did a spectacularly bad job of it.

And I am the most European person imagineable. I grew up in West-Berlin. Can't be more European than that.
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 11:13:47 AM
Andrew Brehm wrote:
> You did a spectacularly bad job of it.

I know. He keeps on yapping. ;)

> And I am the most European person imagineable. I grew up in
> West-Berlin. Can't be more European than that.

This is interesting. Growing up in West-Berlin makes one more European
than growing up, for instance, in Brussels?

I bet you also speak a lot of European languages.

If anyone did a spectacularly bad job at a come-back, it's you, laddie.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 11:17:44 AM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Captain America wrote:
> 
> > 
> > What law? American law? In Hungary? You still don't get it. 
> 
> No, I'm thinking that you are the one that doesn't get it.
> 
> If two people freely and without coersion agree to an NDA, then that
> should be a legally binding. There shouldn't be any law that says you
> can sign such a contract and have it not be legally binding.
> 
> If there *is* such a law in Europe, then it cannot be said that
> contracts are honored in Europe.
> 
> Any law that says a perfectly acceptable contract between to people
> doesn't have to be honored, then one cannot say that such a place that
> has this a law honors contracts.
> 
> And for the record, I'm sure such silly laws exist here in the US as
> well.
> 
> In addition, I don't understand the ethics of "Sure, I'll tell the
> other guy I agree, but I really don't have any intention at all of
> keeping  my word about it".
> 

I think there is a difference between a right to break a contract (where would such a right come from?) and a law that says that foreign contracts won't be enforced.

If I agreed with someone in the US, I must keep the agreement, unless it later turns out the agreement was illegal to begin with or unless local law having changed after the agreement was made makes it impossible for me to keep the agreement (maybe I agreed to send Swedish chocolate to Nick every month and the export of such chocolate from the EU has been made illegal).
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 12:02:55 PM
> {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
> > You did a spectacularly bad job of it.
> 
> I know. He keeps on yapping. ;)

In my experience European arrogance doesn't work with Americans. They are not quite as dumb as we would like them to be. And while we might be much more sophisticated than they, we wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for them rescuing Europe from war twice.

> > And I am the most European person imagineable. I grew up in
> > West-Berlin. Can't be more European than that.
> 
> This is interesting. Growing up in West-Berlin makes one more European
> than growing up, for instance, in Brussels?

Yes, by any criteria that includes into a definition of "Europe" the countries of eastern Europe.

Brussels has more bureaucracy, but in Berlin we have seen Europe unite on the actual human level.

> I bet you also speak a lot of European languages.

I am doing all right.

> If anyone did a spectacularly bad job at a come-back, it's you, laddie.

What are your test criteria?
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 12:07:52 PM
Konstantine Poukhov wrote:

> 
> ROFL. Than look in your own backyard first

Oh, indeed, my friend, indeed.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 12:10:57 PM
Don Delegate wrote:

> 
> What about Hoopyland?

Hoopyland has no such problems.  ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 12:11:14 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> I think there is a difference between a right to break a contract
> (where would such a right come from?) and a law that says that
> foreign contracts won't be enforced.

Part of my point is that just because a law says you can break a
contract doesn't make it rigth to do so. In my view, it is always wrong
to break a contact, unless it is out of one's power to do so (as you
noted).

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 12:12:51 PM
Eric Grange wrote:

> IIRC it's the exact same situation with the US law, and contracts you 
> may have signed in other languages/countries.

OKay.  Still sad.  

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 12:13:22 PM
Not completely correct.

Lets say the ship comes from a country where narcotics (like hash) is legal.
The moment the ship cross another countrys water borders and that country 
have a ban against those narcotics, then the captain of the ship, and the 
person violating the ban is comitting a crime.
Ive sailed my own large ship (for living on) approx 7700 km thru lots of 
different countries and waters, and I had to point out very carefully to 
crewmembers that they must declare all medicine and narcotics means 
immediate reporting to local police, to minimize the risc of the ship being 
impounded by authorities in case legal authorities should find illegal 
substance on board.

Its actually quite problematic to be 100% sure no illegal things exist on 
board.
Its also not legal to transport non canned meat, non canned fruit and 
vegetables and thats kind of difficult to avoid unless one want to look like 
a tin can after the trip due to lack of proper food.

On the trip Ive even tried to be borded by the Dutch Coastguard who came 
rushing in a large vessel, and entered with 8 guys in a "rib", armed with 
sidearms and submashine guns in the "rib".
They were polite and all, and asked to be allowed to go downstairs and check 
around.
I had medicine from Greece on the boat, so I volunteered that, but 
fortunately they found no interest in it.
However when I asked if its not an almost impossible task to search a larger 
ship for any substances, just by looking around, it triggered them to ask us 
to follow them in to a military harbour where "narco" dogs where called in 
from another part of the country (waited for then for several hours). While 
my wife and kid was sitting in the coastgueards canteen and eating an 
icecream, I watched from the deck of their ship how the dog went thru all 
places in our yacht.

Nothing was found, but it shows that the moment you enter another countrys 
waters you need to 100% obey their lawsystem to the dot, or youll risk 
prosecusion.

-- 
best regards

Kim Madsen
TeamC4D
www.components4developers.com

The best components for the best developers
High availability, high performance loosely coupled n-tier products

"Nick Hodges" <nick@nickhodges.com> skrev i meddelelsen 
news:396041@forums.embarcadero.com...
> Sebastian Ledesma [Solidyne] wrote:
>
>> An US carrier entering into other country seas is under that country
>> soveragny and laws.  Off course, they always can claim that the
>> Garmin give them a bad address :)
>
> A warship entering another country's waters is itself subject to the
> laws of that country -- that is, the ship must do what the visited
> country says with regard to passage and berthing.  There are some
> exceptions to this.
>
> But the interior of the warship itself remains the sovereign territory
> of that country.
>
> I don't know what the rule are for merchant vessels.
>
> -- 
> Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
> Gateway Ticketing Systems
> http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Kim
9/5/2011 12:30:19 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:
> In my experience European arrogance doesn't work with Americans.

Your experience here is extremely limited. I have been battling with
Nick since 1973. He was always extremely anti-European, even though he
desperately attempts to put a civilised sauce on top of his arguments.
:) My reactions to his anti-Europe attacks mostly match (and sometimes
exceed) the absurdity of their content.

So your sudden injection made me think "was zum Teufel?!"

> They are not quite as dumb as we would like them to be.

Thank you for your insights. But no need to insult them. Most I have
known here, since Compuserve days, are quite clever. ;)

> And while we might
> be much more sophisticated than they

OMG!

> we wouldn't even be here if it
> wasn't for them rescuing Europe from war twice.

Waaaaaaahahahahaha! I think this crap has been debated to death. That
argument has been abandoned ten years ago, but is still abused by those
of the US extreme right, to justify just about anything. It obeys the
same rule as mentioning Hitler in a discussion.

> > This is interesting. Growing up in West-Berlin makes one more
> > European than growing up, for instance, in Brussels?
> 
> Yes, by any criteria that includes into a definition of "Europe" the
> countries of eastern Europe.

No, it doesn't. West-Berlin is surrounded by...Germany. And Poland (I
almost forgot about that). That's it.

> Brussels has more bureaucracy, but in Berlin we have seen Europe
> unite on the actual human level.

What a short-sighted comparison. "We have yellow cars and you have blue
chimneys, hence we are better break-dancers."

I was on the IGB when the wall fell. I saw the influx of Trabis, and,
trust me, I adore the East-Germans. ;) I don't think your experience of
it is more human than mine. Trust me.

> I am doing all right.

Ballermann in Malle zählt nicht mit. ;)

> > If anyone did a spectacularly bad job at a come-back, it's you,
> > laddie.
> 
> What are your test criteria?

Experience. Aber ich habe den Eindruck du fühlst dich auf den Fuss
getreten, mostly because you were shocked by the repartee with Nick. No
worries on that front. He tends to survive being brutalized like this.
;)
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 12:32:34 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> Sorry. Each time you, particularly, use the word "Europe," I feel the
> need to shut you up. ;)

Yeah, like you could.  ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 12:33:21 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> In my experience European arrogance doesn't work with Americans. 

No, it doesn't.

> They
> are not quite as dumb as we would like them to be. 

No, we aren't.

> And while we might
> be much more sophisticated than they, we wouldn't even be here if it
> wasn't for them rescuing Europe from war twice.

One of my favorite scenes in the history of cinema is from Casablanca:


Major Strasser: You give him credit for too much cleverness. My
impression was that he's just another blundering American.

Captain Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was
with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034583/quotes?qt=qt0429940


;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 12:36:05 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:
> Yeah, like you could.  ;-)

Exactly! ;)
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 12:36:09 PM
> OKay.  Still sad.

Depends if you're dealing with honest people or not, laws are usually 
built around the reality that there are dishonest people, and that 
contracts in another language have been used to abuse time and again.

Eric
0
Eric
9/5/2011 12:39:32 PM
Kim Madsen wrote:

> The moment the ship cross another countrys water borders and that
> country have a ban against those narcotics, then the captain of the
> ship, and the person violating the ban is comitting a crime.

Not a warship.

As I said, I don't know the laws for non-warships.  


-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 12:48:53 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:
> Captain Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was
> with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.

I always found this selective "hereditary" credit taking fascinating.
The Americans of 1918 were not the Americans of 1944 and certainly not
the Americans of 2011. Also, if you seek credit for any positive
historical political behavior, you need to take the responsibility and
blame for all the negative too, such as the very recent slavery, and
current torture practices (you're in the news, again, btw, for
delivering anti-Gadhafi revolutionaries to him to be tortured -- such
hypocrisy is unprecedented).

Also, about 1918: it is not the Americans who sacrificed the most for
the defence of freedom, far from it. Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties and notice how
little these nations abuse these figures to win any arguments.

What Andrew is concerned, what a brave man! Since he bestows the
current generation of Americans with the credit of freeing Europe
(forgetting some other factors), imagine what a humongous amount of
extremely ugly blame he accepts onto his little shoulders. How will we
ever find adequate punishment for him?

Absurd? Same line of reasoning.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 12:54:31 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

>  He was always extremely anti-European, even though he
> desperately attempts to put a civilised sauce on top of his arguments.

Huh?



-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 12:55:25 PM
> {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
> > we wouldn't even be here if it
> > wasn't for them rescuing Europe from war twice.
> 
> Waaaaaaahahahahaha! I think this crap has been debated to death. That
> argument has been abandoned ten years ago, but is still abused by those
> of the US extreme right, to justify just about anything. It obeys the
> same rule as mentioning Hitler in a discussion.

The argument has been abandoned by whom? I can't forget about it. It's in my mind every day of the week, every minute of the day. I owe everything I have to the Americans, perhaps to the "extreme right".

 
> > > This is interesting. Growing up in West-Berlin makes one more
> > > European than growing up, for instance, in Brussels?
> > 
> > Yes, by any criteria that includes into a definition of "Europe" the
> > countries of eastern Europe.
> 
> No, it doesn't. West-Berlin is surrounded by...Germany. And Poland (I
> almost forgot about that). That's it.

That's interesting because when I look at a map Berlin seems to be right in the centre of Europe.

Brussels is the centre of bureaucracy for the European Union. But it's neither an excellent example for European unity nor very connected to the large east of Europe.

Like it or not, European history in the 20th century was very much centered in Berlin, especially during and after World War 2. We saw the American and the Russian armies. We saw the immediate effect of almost all decisions that had an effect on Europe. We are European because we cannot be isolated from the rest of Europe.

Edited by: Andrew Brehm on Sep 5, 2011 1:57 PM
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 12:57:41 PM
> {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> Nick Hodges wrote:
> > Captain Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was
> > with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.
> 
> I always found this selective "hereditary" credit taking fascinating.

I think it is related to the fact that the lives and money spent on something do have an effect on the current generation.


> The Americans of 1918 were not the Americans of 1944 and certainly not
> the Americans of 2011.

But they are their fathers and grandfathers.

> Also, if you seek credit for any positive
> historical political behavior, you need to take the responsibility and
> blame for all the negative too, such as the very recent slavery,

I wouldn't call it "very recent". And they did fight a war to end it.

> and current torture practices

Current torture practices? You see that's what makes your statements weird.

> (you're in the news, again, btw, for
> delivering anti-Gadhafi revolutionaries to him to be tortured -- such
> hypocrisy is unprecedented).

No. They are in the news for being accussed of having tortured someone.

> Also, about 1918: it is not the Americans who sacrificed the most for
> the defence of freedom, far from it. Check out
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I_casualties and notice how
> little these nations abuse these figures to win any arguments.

The European nations fought to win the war, the Americans fought to end it. That's a difference. I do not count fighting against Germany "fighting for freedom" as such, unless one's goal is actually that.

> What Andrew is concerned, what a brave man! Since he bestows the
> current generation of Americans with the credit of freeing Europe
> (forgetting some other factors), imagine what a humongous amount of
> extremely ugly blame he accepts onto his little shoulders. How will we
> ever find adequate punishment for him?

I already said that I owe the Americans all I have. What more can I do?

> Absurd? Same line of reasoning.

It's not absurd. The guilt will never go away. We can only try to be better than our fathers.
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 1:03:17 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
> 
> > And while we might
> > be much more sophisticated than they, we wouldn't even be here if it
> > wasn't for them rescuing Europe from war twice.
> 
> One of my favorite scenes in the history of cinema is from Casablanca:
> 
> Major Strasser: You give him credit for too much cleverness. My
> impression was that he's just another blundering American.
> 
> Captain Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was
> with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.
> 

Brilliant! :-)
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 1:04:36 PM
Warships is also under the same laws.
The only difference is if the law in practice is enforcable.

Many years back Denmark was enforcing a non atom weapons in danish waters 
policy, which made quite a stir with our US friends...
Some large US warships was to enter danish waters, and they had to 
officially declare that no nuclear weapons were aboard before entering 
danish waters.

However I doubt anyone was actually checking for it and it was most likely 
just a play for the newspapers.
In practice local laws are rarely enforcable because of a local authority 
generally would not like to search a friendly warship, and a friendly 
warship generally do not want to be searched.
So to avoid diplomatic problems, its very rare (if ever) that a search is 
made.

Here is a link to some of the story:
http://articles.philly.com/1988-04-20/news/26254162_1_nuclear-ban-nuclear-weapons-presence-of-nuclear-arms

Even embassys have to follow the law of the local country, despite the 
embassy officially is for example US territory.

Here is an example of that (Russian embassy in Irish territory):
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2011/0202/1224288773133.html

A difference is that diplomats are protected from prosecution in the 
country, but they are not protected from being expelled.
And the moment the local authorities finds the foreign countrys 
representation non valid, they may actually enter the premises and expell 
the ambassador.
Latest situation where that happened was in Bulgaria:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44377657/ns/world_news-europe/t/police-storm-libyan-embassy-bulgarian-capital/#.TmTJi2qbEzc

-- 
best regards

Kim Madsen
TeamC4D
www.components4developers.com

The best components for the best developers
High availability, high performance loosely coupled n-tier products

"Nick Hodges" <nick@nickhodges.com> skrev i meddelelsen 
news:396635@forums.embarcadero.com...
> Kim Madsen wrote:
>
>> The moment the ship cross another countrys water borders and that
>> country have a ban against those narcotics, then the captain of the
>> ship, and the person violating the ban is comitting a crime.
>
> Not a warship.
>
> As I said, I don't know the laws for non-warships.
>
>
> -- 
> Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
> Gateway Ticketing Systems
> http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Kim
9/5/2011 1:08:13 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:
> The argument has been abandoned by whom?

Everyone who wants to win one.

> I can't forget about it.
> It's in my mind every day of the week, every minute of the day. I owe
> everything I have to the Americans, perhaps to the "extreme right".

OK, if you insist, I'll return the favour. Since you give hereditary
credit to contemporary Americans, I'll give you hereditary
responsibility for all German endeavours over the last century. Deal?

> That's interesting because when I look at a map Berlin seems to be
> right in the centre of Europe.

And I'm sure Kansas is representative of the US and hence Kansans are
far more American than that rabble living in Seattle or Boston.
Getouttahere!

> Brussels is the centre of bureaucracy for the European Union.

I agree the German beaurocrats living there are vastly overpaid. No
argument from me. But I don't know what your point is? Brussels is also
an hour from London, Paris, Amsterdam, Cologne. That's five European
cultures within one hour. In one hour from your little place, you're
still speaking German and eating the same Obstsalat.

> But
> it's neither an excellent example for European unity nor very
> connected to the large east of Europe.

You vastly underestimate our Poles, Slovenians, Hungarians, etc. You
seem to be a little snobbish about your alleged connections. Care to
elaborate how you are uniting (connecting) it all in a superior fashion
over there?

> Like it or not, European history in the 20th century was very much
> centered in Berlin

I wouldn't brag about that too much.

>We are European
> because we cannot be isolated from the rest of Europe.

Absolutely. But no need to claim superior Europeness, buddy. That's
arrogant.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 1:12:55 PM
Kim Madsen wrote:

> Warships is also under the same laws.

No, they aren't.

A warship is a sovereign entity.  If, for instance, Hashish is legal in
Hoopyland, and a Hoopyland warship arrives in New York, the sailors on
that ship can smoke Hashish to their hearts content on board ship in
the New York harbor.

> Some large US warships was to enter danish waters, and they had to 
> officially declare that no nuclear weapons were aboard before
> entering danish waters.

Right -- as I mentioned in the first post, the ship has to obey the
local laws as a ship altogether.  For instance, if the Danish
government says "You can't enter our waters unless you declare that you
have no nuclear weapons" then the ship must obey that.


> A difference is that diplomats are protected from prosecution in the 
> country, but they are not protected from being expelled.

The same principle applies to warships.  They can enter and remain in
territorial waters only with permission.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 1:13:09 PM
> A warship is a sovereign entity.  If, for instance, Hashish is legal in
> Hoopyland, and a Hoopyland warship arrives in New York, the sailors on
> that ship can smoke Hashish to their hearts content on board ship in
> the New York harbor.
>
>> Some large US warships was to enter danish waters, and they had to
>> officially declare that no nuclear weapons were aboard before
>> entering danish waters.
>
> Right -- as I mentioned in the first post, the ship has to obey the
> local laws as a ship altogether.  For instance, if the Danish
> government says "You can't enter our waters unless you declare that you
> have no nuclear weapons" then the ship must obey that.

And how is that different to an authority saying.. 'Hashish is illegal here 
and is not to be brought over our borders'? (which is the case in many 
countries because they have laws stating that)
There is no difference.
The only difference between merchant/pleasure ships and warships in that 
regard, is enforcability. But that its not enforcable in practice doesnt 
make it legal.

>> A difference is that diplomats are protected from prosecution in the
>> country, but they are not protected from being expelled.
>
> The same principle applies to warships.  They can enter and remain in
> territorial waters only with permission.

See above... and then it all again comes down to enforcibility.


-- 
best regards

Kim Madsen
TeamC4D
www.components4developers.com

The best components for the best developers
High availability, high performance loosely coupled n-tier products
0
Kim
9/5/2011 1:19:51 PM
Kim Madsen wrote:

> And how is that different to an authority saying.. 'Hashish is
> illegal here and is not to be brought over our borders'? (which is
> the case in many countries because they have laws stating that)

The difference is that most countries don't say that to warships.  

The point is that if a warship is in port, the local authorities cannot
board the ship to enforce local laws.  They can't even board the ship
to pursue a sailor who murdered someone in broad daylight and returned
to the ship.  The Captain would very likely turn the sailor over, but
the local authorities can't board the ship.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 1:23:23 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Kim Madsen wrote:
> 
> > Warships is also under the same laws.
> 
> No, they aren't.
> 
> A warship is a sovereign entity.  If, for instance, Hashish is legal in
> Hoopyland, and a Hoopyland warship arrives in New York, the sailors on
> that ship can smoke Hashish to their hearts content on board ship in
> the New York harbor.

I would argue that it has to do with treaty arrangements.

There is an international treaty that specifices the terms under which merchant ships can travel into any country's waters.

There is no such international treaty for war ships which by defauly are not allowed to enter a country's waters at all.

However, there are treaties between countries that specificy the terms under which warships can enter their waters. Those treaties usually specify that warships do not fall under the same laws as merchant ships (for example, importing a few dozen military aircraft and over a thousand hand guns would usually be illegal under German law, yet an American aircraft carrier visiting Germany would likely carry those things).

I would be surprised if any country expected the US to submit to a treaty under which American warships would be treated exactly like merchant ships.
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 1:25:23 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> 
> I find it more likely that the losers have "abandones" the argument
> for them.

Very convenient, isn't it.  

And might I add that I appreciate your post and am humbled by it.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 1:26:32 PM
Exactly.... enforcibility is the key word.

Lets say a war ship from Nicaragua would enter US waters without previously 
being granted free passage... it might be bringing in illegal stuff... 
gasses or even nothing at all.
How do you think US would react to that? They would either board the ship 
and take it into custody, or using force (potentially firepower) move the 
ship out into international waters.

Again.. the key word is enforcibility.
It has nothing to do with if whats been brought on the ship is legal or not.
Its illegal if the laws in the country in which the ship is in, states its 
illegal.

That obviously leads to a dilemma.... because it means that law is only law 
when law is enforcible. Anything violating the law can then only be 
registered by others and perhaps in time of history be enforced when powers 
has changed.


-- 
best regards

Kim Madsen
TeamC4D
www.components4developers.com

The best components for the best developers
High availability, high performance loosely coupled n-tier products

"Nick Hodges" <nick@nickhodges.com> skrev i meddelelsen 
news:396672@forums.embarcadero.com...
> Kim Madsen wrote:
>
>> And how is that different to an authority saying.. 'Hashish is
>> illegal here and is not to be brought over our borders'? (which is
>> the case in many countries because they have laws stating that)
>
> The difference is that most countries don't say that to warships.
>
> The point is that if a warship is in port, the local authorities cannot
> board the ship to enforce local laws.  They can't even board the ship
> to pursue a sailor who murdered someone in broad daylight and returned
> to the ship.  The Captain would very likely turn the sailor over, but
> the local authorities can't board the ship.
>
> -- 
> Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
> Gateway Ticketing Systems
> http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Kim
9/5/2011 1:36:57 PM
> {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
> > The argument has been abandoned by whom?
> 
> Everyone who wants to win one.

I find it more likely that the losers have "abandoned" the argument for them.

 
> > I can't forget about it.
> > It's in my mind every day of the week, every minute of the day. I owe
> > everything I have to the Americans, perhaps to the "extreme right".
> 
> OK, if you insist, I'll return the favour. Since you give hereditary
> credit to contemporary Americans, I'll give you hereditary
> responsibility for all German endeavours over the last century. Deal?

If you like. It is part of my personality to be thankful to those who have lost loved ones and property fighting for my freedom. If it is part of yours to blame people for the crimes of their fathers, here is one German you can target with that.

If I could undo Germany's crimes, I would. But I hope the sons and grandsons of those who saved Germany will never feel that they would undo what their fathers and grandfathers did if they could. (I often think that when Americans today read what Europeans think about them, they would prefer, in their darker moments, that Europe hadn't been saved by the Americans so often.)

> > That's interesting because when I look at a map Berlin seems to be
> > right in the centre of Europe.
> 
> And I'm sure Kansas is representative of the US and hence Kansans are
> far more American than that rabble living in Seattle or Boston.
> Getouttahere!

I'm not sure how much the history of America centered on Kansas, but I think it might be correct to say that Kansas has less non-American influences than Boston or Los Angeles.

> > Brussels is the centre of bureaucracy for the European Union.
> 
> I agree the German beaurocrats living there are vastly overpaid. No
> argument from me. But I don't know what your point is? Brussels is also
> an hour from London, Paris, Amsterdam, Cologne. That's five European
> cultures within one hour. In one hour from your little place, you're
> still speaking German and eating the same Obstsalat.

That would surprise the Poles, Sorbs and other Slavic peoples south and east of Berlin.

> > But
> > it's neither an excellent example for European unity nor very
> > connected to the large east of Europe.
> 
> You vastly underestimate our Poles, Slovenians, Hungarians, etc. You
> seem to be a little snobbish about your alleged connections. Care to
> elaborate how you are uniting (connecting) it all in a superior fashion
> over there?

I already told you everything. You didn't understand the point about European history and Berlin. I don't think I can explain it better.

> > Like it or not, European history in the 20th century was very much
> > centered in Berlin
> 
> I wouldn't brag about that too much.

Certainly not as you were trying to explain to me why that is irrelevant.

> >We are European
> > because we cannot be isolated from the rest of Europe.
> 
> Absolutely. But no need to claim superior Europeness, buddy. That's
> arrogant.

And I am not allowed to be arrogant?

Edited by: Andrew Brehm on Sep 5, 2011 2:41 PM
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 1:41:23 PM
Nick,

On Mon, 05 Sep 2011 13:36:05 +0100, Nick Hodges <nick@nickhodges.com>  
wrote:

> One of my favorite scenes in the history of cinema is from Casablanca:
>
> Major Strasser: You give him credit for too much cleverness. My
> impression was that he's just another blundering American.
>
> Captain Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was
> with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.

A funny line - but historically inaccurate.

-- 
Paul Scott
Information Management Systems
Macclesfield, UK
0
Paul
9/5/2011 1:42:23 PM
Kim Madsen wrote:

> 
> Lets say a war ship from Nicaragua would enter US waters without
> previously being granted free passage... it might be bringing in
> illegal stuff...  gasses or even nothing at all.
> How do you think US would react to that? 

*Without* permission? That's an act of war, of course.

> Again.. the key word is enforcibility.
> It has nothing to do with if whats been brought on the ship is legal
> or not.  Its illegal if the laws in the country in which the ship is
> in, states its illegal.

No, I think you are missing a critical point.  

If we *invite* the Nicaraguan ship into our waters, and they berth at
the Port of Miami, then we can't do anything about what is going on
inside the hull of the ship other than tell them to leave.

If we were to witness a murder on the deck of the ship, we can't go
onto the ship and arrest the murderer.  That murder, as far as we were
concerned, was committed in Nicaragua.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 1:44:05 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> There is no such international treaty for war ships which by defauly
> are not allowed to enter a country's waters at all.

Yes, there is, actually -- but with permission, of course.  

A warship may not enter territorial waters *without* permission.  That
is an act of war.




-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 1:45:09 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I find it more likely that the losers have "abandoned" the argument
> > for them.
> 
> Very convenient, isn't it.  
> 
> And might I add that I appreciate your post and am humbled by it.
> 

Just come back for us the next time Europe collapses. :-)
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 1:46:27 PM
The ship may be protected like an embassy, but it doesnt change the fact 
that the ship can be expelled the same way an ambassador or diplomat can be.

If you have welcomed the ship, with premises that it must behave in a 
certain way, like obey the laws, and it happens so that it doesnt obey the 
laws, then you can as a US authority take action and enforce your laws, or 
you can of political reasons choose not to.
Enforcement of your laws typically means expelling either peacefully or by 
blunt force in case the first hint wasnt understood.


-- 
best regards

Kim Madsen
TeamC4D
www.components4developers.com

The best components for the best developers
High availability, high performance loosely coupled n-tier products

"Nick Hodges" <nick@nickhodges.com> skrev i meddelelsen 
news:396683@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> No, I think you are missing a critical point.
>
> If we *invite* the Nicaraguan ship into our waters, and they berth at
> the Port of Miami, then we can't do anything about what is going on
> inside the hull of the ship other than tell them to leave.
>
> If we were to witness a murder on the deck of the ship, we can't go
> onto the ship and arrest the murderer.  That murder, as far as we were
> concerned, was committed in Nicaragua.
>
> -- 
> Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
> Gateway Ticketing Systems
> http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Kim
9/5/2011 1:48:39 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> I was on the IGB when the wall fell.

Irish Greyhound Board?

> trust me, I adore the East-Germans. ;) .

:-)

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"If you understand everything, you must be misinformed."
 -- Japanese Proverb
0
Andy
9/5/2011 1:54:13 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> we wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for them rescuing Europe from
> war twice.

I think you're also forgetting the world's largest aircraft carrier aka
the United Kingdom. Without that a counter attack would have been
impossible.  ;-)

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is
 man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress
 has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion."
 -- Oscar Wilde
0
Andy
9/5/2011 1:58:13 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> In one hour from your little place, you're
> still speaking German and eating the same Obstsalat.

Hey Dom! Stop being polite and tell it how it is.  ;-)

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it 
 harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -- Bjarne Stroustrup
0
Andy
9/5/2011 2:00:22 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> Just come back for us the next time Europe collapses. :-)

I'll see what I can do about that.  ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 2:00:53 PM
Kim Madsen wrote:

> 
> The ship may be protected like an embassy, but it doesnt change the
> fact that the ship can be expelled the same way an ambassador or
> diplomat can be.

Um, I'm not disputing that.  ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 2:01:19 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:
> I think it is related to the fact that the lives and money spent on
> something do have an effect on the current generation.

Could you point me to the instance in your life where you decided to be
born in Germany? Or where anyone decided to be born in the US?
Could you point me to the instance in your life where someone bestowed
you with all the credit or blame for all actions of that country in the
past? Could you point me to the instance in your life where you signed
adherence to a country?

You can't. It doesn't exist. All of your reasoning is based on the
existence of those propositions. You will respect an American more
because he was born there, without further questions. What does that
make you?

> But they are their fathers and grandfathers.

Exactly. You ought to hate all your neighbours this way.

> No. They are in the news for being accussed of having tortured
> someone.

Wow, the Kool-Aid is cheap in West-Berlin. ;)

> The European nations fought to win the war, the Americans fought to
> end it. That's a difference. I do not count fighting against Germany
> "fighting for freedom" as such, unless one's goal is actually that.

Wow.

> I already said that I owe the Americans all I have. What more can I
> do?

Wow.

> It's not absurd. The guilt will never go away. We can only try to be
> better than our fathers.

Shall I give you an account number to make you feel a little bit better?
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 2:02:20 PM
On 05.09.2011 15:58, Andy Syms wrote:
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
>
>> we wouldn't even be here if it wasn't for them rescuing Europe from
>> war twice.
>
> I think you're also forgetting the world's largest aircraft carrier aka
> the United Kingdom. Without that a counter attack would have been
> impossible.  ;-)
>

There was many parts that together made the victory possible. Difficult 
to say that only those and those, but not the others made it possible to 
win WWII.
0
Alf
9/5/2011 2:24:05 PM
Alf Christophersen wrote:

> > I think you're also forgetting the world's largest aircraft carrier
> > aka the United Kingdom. Without that a counter attack would have
> > been impossible.  ;-)
> > 
> 
> There was many parts that together made the victory possible.
> Difficult to say that only those and those, but not the others made
> it possible to win WWII.

Hi Alf! Did you miss my 'winking' smiley? 

Dom's just rattling cages for the fun of it and they're all falling for
it.  :-)

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
 -- Katherine Cebrian
0
Andy
9/5/2011 2:28:24 PM
On 05.09.2011 05:58, Nick Hodges wrote:

> Of course it would. If two Serbs wanted to create a contract in
> Serbo-Croatian, what reason would I or anyone else have to object?

Also if you are one of the parts? And you have to rely on a translator 
that the contract really is what you believe it to be.

A contract btw two Serbo-Croatians are not a contract btw bilingual 
peoples of which we are discussing
0
Alf
9/5/2011 2:29:12 PM
On 05.09.2011 14:02, Andrew Brehm wrote:

>
> If I agreed with someone in the US, I must keep the agreement, unless it later turns out the agreement was illegal to begin with or unless local law having changed after the agreement was made makes it impossible for me to keep the agreement (maybe I agreed to send Swedish chocolate to Nick every month and the export of such chocolate from the EU has been made illegal).

I would think it is already since chocolate contains milk, and then 
illegal to import in US.

Only Kraft are allowed to do that from Sweden/Norway to US (since it is 
American).
0
Alf
9/5/2011 2:32:44 PM
> {quote:title=Kim Madsen wrote:}{quote}
> Exactly.... enforcibility is the key word.
> 
> Lets say a war ship from Nicaragua would enter US waters without previously 
> being granted free passage... it might be bringing in illegal stuff... 
> gasses or even nothing at all.
> How do you think US would react to that? They would either board the ship 
> and take it into custody, or using force (potentially firepower) move the 
> ship out into international waters.
> ...

Few months ago an US C-17 aircraft  camed to Ezeiza Airport at Argentina ( http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-162267-2011-02-13.html ).
A simple inspection from the customs and borders police detected that it carried undeclared illegal drugs, weapons and other equipment.
It created a small incident since the customs  seized the cargo and the US governement tried to explain and recover the material.
The question was solved several days after when the customs/border police changed the qualification of the situation
changed from contraband to an 'administrative error'.
0
Sebastian
9/5/2011 2:36:36 PM
On 05.09.2011 14:48, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Kim Madsen wrote:
>
>> The moment the ship cross another countrys water borders and that
>> country have a ban against those narcotics, then the captain of the
>> ship, and the person violating the ban is comitting a crime.
>
> Not a warship.
>
> As I said, I don't know the laws for non-warships.

In fact, some years ago it was realized that an US Navy vessel getting 
inside Norwegian borders had nuclear weapons on board.

It was asked to leave. And did.
0
Alf
9/5/2011 2:37:35 PM
Andy Syms wrote:

> Dom's just rattling cages for the fun of it and they're all falling
> for it.  :-)

I'm not 100% sure he's rattling.  ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 2:38:25 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:
> I find it more likely that the losers have "abandoned" the argument
> for them.

Come again?

> If you like. It is part of my personality to be thankful to those who
> have lost loved ones and property fighting for my freedom.

I don't think any of those are in this newsgroup. Come to think of it,
I'm sure many of the guilty party have move to the US and prospered.
Maybe you are thanking those. Who knows. That'd be painful, however.

> If it is
> part of yours to blame people for the crimes of their fathers, here
> is one German you can target with that.

Ready to put your money where your mouth is? :)

> If I could undo Germany's crimes, I would.

Coulda woulda shoulda. Yeah yeah. ;)

> I'm not sure how much the history of America centered on Kansas, but
> I think it might be correct to say that Kansas has less non-American
> influences than Boston or Los Angeles.

Wow. "Non-American influences." Indeed, it would be quite yucky if
anyone not natively born there were to move to the US. That's just
totally against US doctrine and principle. The US were built upon
native Kansans.

> That would surprise the Poles, Sorbs and other Slavic peoples south
> and east of Berlin.

What would? You don't surprise a Sorb that easily, buddy. Love their
Bautzner Senf, btw.

> I already told you everything. You didn't understand the point about
> European history and Berlin. I don't think I can explain it better.

I understood it all too well. I'm still trying to forget you wrote that.

> And I am not allowed to be arrogant?

Oh, you are, as long as you tolerate being treated as such. ;)
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 2:41:19 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> > Dom's just rattling cages for the fun of it and they're all falling
> > for it.  :-)
> 
> I'm not 100% sure he's rattling.  ;-)

I sure he's not rattling 100% but I'm sure he's having fun 100%.  :-P

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"The three rules of the Librarians of Time and Space are: 
 1) Silence; 
 2) Books must be returned by no later than the date shown; and 
 3) Do not interfere with the nature of causality."
 -- Terry Pratchett (Guards! Guards!)
0
Andy
9/5/2011 2:43:21 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:
> I'm not 100% sure he's rattling.  ;-)

You better behave because I think you should be eternally grateful to
me. Look up Benjamin Franklin. A founding father, and so utterly
Flemish. Same with George Washington. By your logic, you should be very
thankful to me, because you wouldn't even have a country to live in. ;)
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 2:47:47 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> And I am not allowed to be arrogant?

Hey! You're German; it's a given.  ;-)

<watching out for Potsdammer frying pans>

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"The Brush Dance is a Yurok healing ritual where being true to
 yourself means give your best to a person in need. Being true
 to yourself is the one and only Yurok Indian Law."
 -- Brush Dance Journal
0
Andy
9/5/2011 2:47:57 PM
Andy Syms wrote:
> I sure he's not rattling 100% but I'm sure he's having fun 100%.  :-P

Shaddap and don't break my concentration. :)
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 2:48:04 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> Shaddap and don't break my concentration. :)

Go fly your helicopter!

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"A witty saying proves nothing."
 -- Voltaire (1694-1778)
0
Andy
9/5/2011 2:49:06 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> By your logic, you should be very
> thankful to me, because you wouldn't even have a country to live in.

I blame it all on that Italian guy Chris.

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"He had decided to live forever or die in the attempt."
 -- Joseph Heller.
0
Andy
9/5/2011 2:51:00 PM
Andy Syms wrote:

> I sure he's not rattling 100% but I'm sure he's having fun 100%.  :-P

You say that like I'm not.  ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 2:56:14 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> You better behave because I think you should be eternally grateful to
> me. Look up Benjamin Franklin. A founding father, and so utterly
> Flemish. Same with George Washington. By your logic, you should be
> very thankful to me, because you wouldn't even have a country to live
> in. ;)

Don't worry, I'm very grateful.  ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 2:56:57 PM
Andy Syms wrote:
> Go fly your helicopter!

Did I mention I got a bigger one (b'day prez)? Awesome, but now I need
4 channels.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 2:57:16 PM
Alf Christophersen wrote:

> In fact, some years ago it was realized that an US Navy vessel
> getting inside Norwegian borders had nuclear weapons on board.
> 
> It was asked to leave. And did.

Yep.  We follow the rules pretty well.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 2:57:22 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:
> Don't worry, I'm very grateful.  ;-)

That's excellent. <pat><pat><pat>
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 2:57:58 PM
Andy Syms wrote:
> I blame it all on that Italian guy Chris.

Oh yeah, that Genovese. Next time I'm in Liguria I'll tell the locals
how grateful Nick is.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 2:59:21 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> > Go fly your helicopter!
> 
> Did I mention I got a bigger one (b'day prez)? Awesome, but now I need
> 4 channels.

No. I get about 70 channels on my V+ box.  ;-)

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"A man's only as old as the woman he feels."
 -- Groucho Marx
0
Andy
9/5/2011 3:01:26 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> > I sure he's not rattling 100% but I'm sure he's having fun 100%.
> > :-P
> 
> You say that like I'm not.  ;-)

I do?  :-)

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"Christians are supposed not merely to endure change, nor even
 to profit by it, but to cause it."
 -- Harry Emerson Fosdick
0
Andy
9/5/2011 3:01:48 PM
"Andy Syms" <asyms@technosoft.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:396728@forums.embarcadero.com...
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
> 
>> And I am not allowed to be arrogant?
> 
> Hey! You're German; it's a given.  ;-)
> 
> <watching out for Potsdammer frying pans>
> 
> -- 
> Andy Syms
> Technosoft Systems Ltd
> 
> "The Brush Dance is a Yurok healing ritual where being true to
> yourself means give your best to a person in need. Being true
> to yourself is the one and only Yurok Indian Law."
> -- Brush Dance Journal

germans and english ones have this attitude in common - must be because of the same language roots ;)
and as an arrogant german i am looking forward  to the next 4:1 (if Özil, Posolski and Co are generous) next year in Poland - against england :)

Yours
Michael Bickel
0
Michael
9/5/2011 3:09:35 PM
Andy Syms wrote:

> I do?  :-)

LOL  --

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 3:10:26 PM
Michael Bickel wrote:

> and as an arrogant german i am looking forward  to the next 4:1 (if
> Özil, Posolski and Co are generous) next year in Poland - against
> england :)

Pfft! Football is for wusses! Real men drive racing cars!

Oops! Looks like your guy is going to be world champion for a second
year.  ;-)

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"If a man would follow, today, the teachings of the Old
 Testament, he would be a criminal. If he would follow strictly
 the teachings of the New, he would be insane."
 -- Robert G. Ingersoll
0
Andy
9/5/2011 3:16:09 PM
"Dominique Willems" <namewithdot at google> wrote in message 
news:396642@forums.embarcadero.com...
> Also, if you seek credit for any positive
> historical political behavior, you need to take the responsibility and
> blame for all the negative too, such as the very recent slavery,

I've always been astounded at this argument. Prior to 1800 or so, 
practically every country in the world engaged in slavery throughout human 
history. Yet I hear people opposing the U.S. and often Britain too because 
they once also engaged in slavery - completely oblivious to the fact, it 
seems, that Britain and the U.S. were among the first major countries in 
history to legally *abolish* slavery! In the U.S. they fought a bloody civil 
war over slavery that cost 100s of 1000s of lives, yet instead of being 
*credited* as they should for working to end such an evil practice they 
continue to be blamed for it?

Here in Canada we very recently reverted the names of our armed forces back 
to their pre-Trudeau names, so instead of "Air Command" it is once again the 
*Royal* Canadian Air Force, and as usual those opposed to maintaining ties 
to the British monarchy have also brought out such idiot arguments as that 
Britain once allowed slavery so we should reject any such ties or 
traditions.


-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/5/2011 3:17:47 PM
"Andrew Brehm" wrote in message news:396651@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> It's not absurd. The guilt will never go away. We can only try to be 
> better than our fathers.


Trying to be better is admirable and legitimate, and to do that one must 
learn about and remember history. But feeling guilty for sins *you* did not 
commit is wrong - an injsutice; you have nothing you should feel guilty 
about in that regard.

Guilt cannot be inherited, and it is those imposing such inherited guilt on 
others that are to blame for festering feuds between nations that go on for 
generation after generation. Very few Germans remain alive today that 
deserve to accept any guilt for what happened 70+ years ago. Likewise no 
U.S. citizen alive today is guilty of slavery nor need apologize for it.

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/5/2011 3:28:53 PM
Super-duper work. This could prove very useful.

--
Mark Jacobs
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
0
Mark
9/5/2011 3:57:00 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> What if two people in Hungary *want* to
> create a contract in French?  Why in the world should they not be
> allowed to?

Nothing.  That isn't the argument.  It's whether the contract can be 
ENFORCED IN LAW.

-- 
SteveT
0
Steve
9/5/2011 4:05:11 PM
Wayne Niddery wrote:
> I've always been astounded at this argument.

Astonishing.

> Prior to 1800 or so, 
> practically every country in the world engaged in slavery throughout
> human history.

Nah. We didn't. We didn't even exist as a nation yet. We're far younger
and more revolutionary than you. :)

The US had slavery well into the 1860s. We didn't have slavery since
the creation of the nation in 1830.

Slavery aside, the US knew Apartheid till well into the sixties of last
century.

> Britain and the U.S. were among the first
> major countries in history to legally abolish slavery!

The first? What multitude of lesser nations were later...?

> In the U.S.
> they fought a bloody civil war over slavery

Over slavery, eh? I like those history books that spin everything into
favorable nationalistic propaganda. If you look into it, you might
discover that only a minority in the North saw abolition as a motive to
go to war, and most others were annoyed by them. But it was a very
grateful political tool.

> instead of being credited as they should for working to
> end such an evil practice they continue to be blamed for it?

You want people to be credited when they stop hitting someone?

> the Royal Canadian Air Force, and as usual those
> opposed to maintaining ties to the British monarchy have also brought
> out such idiot arguments as that Britain once allowed slavery so we
> should reject any such ties or traditions.

I'd reject it on grounds that the monarchy and any nobility are a
ludicrous concept. The tradition of monarchy is sheer nepotism and
consequent incompetence, causing the deaths of millions in the name of
egos. Back to "Air Command".
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 4:08:17 PM
Andy Syms wrote:
> No. I get about 70 channels...

o/~...and nothing on... o/~
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 4:08:49 PM
Wayne Niddery wrote:
> Guilt cannot be inherited, and it is those imposing such inherited
> guilt on others that are to blame for festering feuds between nations
> that go on for generation after generation. Very few Germans remain
> alive today that deserve to accept any guilt for what happened 70+
> years ago. Likewise no U.S. citizen alive today is guilty of slavery
> nor need apologize for it.

Hear hear!
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 4:09:58 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Kim Madsen wrote:
> 
> > And how is that different to an authority saying.. 'Hashish is
> > illegal here and is not to be brought over our borders'? (which is
> > the case in many countries because they have laws stating that)
> 
> The difference is that most countries don't say that to warships.  
> 
> The point is that if a warship is in port, the local authorities cannot
> board the ship to enforce local laws.  They can't even board the ship
> to pursue a sailor who murdered someone in broad daylight and returned
> to the ship.  The Captain would very likely turn the sailor over, but
> the local authorities can't board the ship.

True. But remember, you are talking about US soldiers here. In Hungary they are treated differently than French soldiers for example. In fact, every country that allows US soldiers to stay on their territory must must sign an agreement stating that they would never even try to accuse a US soldier of any crime committed. The US requires that.

So are they untouchable you'd ask? Well, the police can't do anything but it's happened that people took justice in their own hands and they "returned" the soldiers to their base "touched".
0
Captain
9/5/2011 4:11:22 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> > Guilt cannot be inherited, and it is those imposing such inherited
> > guilt on others that are to blame for festering feuds between
> > nations that go on for generation after generation. Very few
> > Germans remain alive today that deserve to accept any guilt for
> > what happened 70+ years ago. Likewise no U.S. citizen alive today
> > is guilty of slavery nor need apologize for it.
> 
> Hear hear!

And while we're at it can we now, after 65 years, stop having the
annual remembrance celebrations.

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"I have read your book and much like it."
 -- Moses Hadas (1900-1966)
0
Andy
9/5/2011 4:23:39 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> > No. I get about 70 channels...
> 
> o/~...and nothing on... o/~

Well not until after 22:00 when the pr0n channels go live.  ;-) 

-- 
Andy Syms
Technosoft Systems Ltd

"Always go to other people's funerals, otherwise they won't come 
 to yours." -- Yogi Berra.
0
Andy
9/5/2011 4:25:46 PM
Steve Thackery wrote:

>  It's whether the contract can be 
> ENFORCED IN LAW.

Exactly!  Hungary apparently won't enforce a contract between those two
people!

That's my point, for crying out loud!

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 4:27:25 PM
Captain America wrote:

> In fact, every country that allows US soldiers to stay on their
> territory must must sign an agreement stating that they would never
> even try to accuse a US soldier of any crime committed. The US
> requires that.

Oh, for soldiers actually *physically stationed* on foreign soil, the
rules are completely different.

I've been talking exclusively about a warship.

> So are they untouchable you'd ask? 

Oh, no, far from it.  

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 4:28:46 PM
Andy Syms wrote:
> And while we're at it can we now, after 65 years, stop having the
> annual remembrance celebrations.

Did you know that in Ieper (you erroneously call it Ypres) they sound
the Last Post every single day, without interruption, at 8 PM, to
remember the fallen of WWI? It's okay to remember all those fallen, on
both sides, and the stupidity that caused it. As long as there's no
political agenda, and there isn't, in this case.

Annual remembrance celebrations are indeed something different. Many
politicians present.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 4:30:49 PM
Andy Syms wrote:
> Well not until after 22:00 when the pr0n channels go live.  ;-) 

Ohfercryinoutloud. GTYR!

Without TV.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 4:31:25 PM
"Nick Hodges" wrote on Sun, 4 Sep 2011 17:32:57 -0700:

> You've just described the exact thing I think is wrong: The government
> saying "This list contains all the contracts that we'll enforce.  All
> others won't be enforced".  What if two people in Hungary *want* to
> create a contract in French?  Why in the world should they not be
> allowed to?

So, are judges then obligated to learn every language in which someone
might want to write a contract?  Makes sense to me that there should
be "official" languages for such things.  

-- 
Brandon Staggs
StudyLamp Software LLC
http://www.studylamp.com
0
Brandon
9/5/2011 4:58:27 PM
"Nick Hodges" wrote on Sun, 4 Sep 2011 20:58:09 -0700:

> Yes, and I think that is totally unjust and wrong.  You, apparently,
> aren't getting that.

Your position makes no sense.  If you an I want to write a contract in
some dead, unused language, why should taxpayers foot the bill for
resolving disputes about the contract?  We should have used a language
supported by the legal system.

Our own government would save billions by establishing American
English as the official language of the government.

-- 
Brandon Staggs
StudyLamp Software LLC
http://www.studylamp.com
0
Brandon
9/5/2011 5:00:54 PM
On 9/5/2011 9:27 AM, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Steve Thackery wrote:
>
>>   It's whether the contract can be
>> ENFORCED IN LAW.
>
> Exactly!  Hungary apparently won't enforce a contract between those two
> people!
>
> That's my point, for crying out loud!
>


And everyone else's point is that it's NOT a contract -- that's the part 
that you feel to get.

Nick: Hungary won't enforce contracts.

Others: Yes they do, a document is not a contract in Hungary unless it's 
written in Hungarian.  It may rise to the level of informal agreement, 
but lacking the requirements of the jurisdiction having authority, it 
isn't a contract.

Nick: You see!  They don't have contracts in Hungary!

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/5/2011 5:10:39 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Alf Christophersen wrote:
> 
> > In fact, some years ago it was realized that an US Navy vessel
> > getting inside Norwegian borders had nuclear weapons on board.
> > 
> > It was asked to leave. And did.
> 
> Yep.  We follow the rules pretty well.

If it was that massive battleship USS Iowa that visited the Oslo Harbour back in the 80s - I don't think it actually left right away.  I clearly remember a news cartoon with the Norwegian defense minister at the time - visiting the bridge of the war ship, where he stated while wearing a blindfold: "I don't see any problems with this visit", while the drawing shows the ship bristling with warheads  :)  I think I have a clipping of that somewhere... :)

--
http://delphi.fosdal.com - Delphi Programming
http://plus.lars.fosdal.com - Google+
0
Lars
9/5/2011 6:07:48 PM
+7
0
Konstantine
9/5/2011 6:42:03 PM
Am 05.09.2011 02:32, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Steve Thackery wrote:
> 
>>
>> Oh, don't be daft, Nick.  Of course there isn't a law which says 
>> "contracts aren't binding".  Laws don't work like that.  They define 
>> what types of contracts ARE binding.
> 
> ...and thus define perfectly legitimate contracts that aren't binding.  
> 
>> If, in Hungary, the law says that contracts must be written in 
>> Hungarian to be binding, then that is absolutely clear.  If it's 
>> written in English, German or whatever, it isn't binding in Hungary.
> 
> Right -- and thus perfectly acceptable contracts are not enforced.  
> 
> You've just described the exact thing I think is wrong: The government
> saying "This list contains all the contracts that we'll enforce.  All
> others won't be enforced".  What if two people in Hungary *want* to
> create a contract in French?  Why in the world should they not be
> allowed to?
> 

You get it a bit wrong: not a list of contracts but of contract types.
But that's not different to US! There is also some list of contract
types which will not be enforced. e.g. anything which would result in
some unlawfull doing for instance.

And the american laws get even funnier: at least a few years ago it was
allowed to shoot indians in one american state, but only from within a
plan waggon. Another state allowed the killing of whales but hadn't had
any see access. Would that mean I cen go to the next zoo and kill a
whale there if the zoo owns one and plead for "not guilty"?

It's they right to insist on such a thing, because that's still
resonable. EMBT then may decide to offer the NDA for Hungarians or not
or to translate it and offer this. It's their decision to make.

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/5/2011 7:05:55 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Captain America wrote:
> 
> > In fact, every country that allows US soldiers to stay on their
> > territory must must sign an agreement stating that they would never
> > even try to accuse a US soldier of any crime committed. The US
> > requires that.
> 
> Oh, for soldiers actually *physically stationed* on foreign soil, the
> rules are completely different.

Specifics may be different. I just highlighted the general concept: no US soldier can ever be sentenced in Europe.
0
Captain
9/5/2011 7:06:08 PM
Am 05.09.2011 14:12, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
> 
>> I think there is a difference between a right to break a contract
>> (where would such a right come from?) and a law that says that
>> foreign contracts won't be enforced.
> 
> Part of my point is that just because a law says you can break a
> contract doesn't make it rigth to do so. In my view, it is always wrong
> to break a contact, unless it is out of one's power to do so (as you
> noted).
> 

You still don't get that the Hungarian DEFINITION of contract requires
it to be written/made in hungarian language. That's your problem. If
there is not a single wordwide binding definition of contract wen can
stop here.

For instance there is a worldwide accounting system available, but if
I'm not mistaken US stock exchanges still require to use US GAAP if you
want to be enlisted there. I'd call that ridiculous as well. So what now?

The only authority for such a definition could imho and afaik be the UN
but then the nations need so sign/ratify this. If some country doesn't
it could still use his own definition. Many contracts for instance
explicitely rule out the UN rights about selling and shipping. I only
got the advice during study to do this as well, but I don't know what's
stated in those UN rules.

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/5/2011 7:12:41 PM
Brandon Staggs wrote:

>  If you an I want to write a contract in
> some dead, unused language, why should taxpayers foot the bill for
> resolving disputes about the contract?

They shouldn't, of course, and I've never argued that they should.
Civil court costs should be paid by the disputants.

> Our own government would save billions by establishing American
> English as the official language of the government.

I completely agree.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 7:14:46 PM
David Erbas-White wrote:

> And everyone else's point is that it's NOT a contract -- that's the
> part that you feel to get.

Well, everyone else is wrong, then if they think that. 

A contract is an agreement between two people (excluding the normal
caveats, blah, blah, blah).

The definition is not "An agreement between two people that the
government feels like enforcing".

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 7:16:27 PM
Brandon Staggs wrote:

> So, are judges then obligated to learn every language in which someone
> might want to write a contract?  Makes sense to me that there should
> be "official" languages for such things.  

No.  If there is a dispute over languages, it's incumbent on the
disputants to provide translations, of course.  Why should you and I
pay for something like that?

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 7:17:15 PM
Markus Humm wrote:

> There is also some list of contract
> types which will not be enforced. e.g. anything which would result in
> some unlawfull doing for instance.

Conceded already -- and made immaterial to the discussion.



-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 7:17:59 PM
Markus Humm wrote:

> You still don't get that the Hungarian DEFINITION of contract requires
> it to be written/made in hungarian language.

I do in fact totally, utterly, and completely get that.  And that's the
point:  Why on earth should there be such a limitation?  If two
Japanese people in Hungary want to form a contract in Japanese, the
Hungarian government should provide for the enforcement of that
contract.

> For instance there is a worldwide accounting system available, but if
> I'm not mistaken US stock exchanges still require to use US GAAP if
> you want to be enlisted there. I'd call that ridiculous as well. So
> what now?

Now you think it is ridiculous -- so what?  

> 
> The only authority for such a definition

Here's the point:  There is no need for an "authority".  Contracts are
contracts, and the law should provide for them. There need not be any
unnecessary limitations on them.

Point made, discussion ended.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 7:22:42 PM
Captain America wrote:

> Specifics may be different. I just highlighted the general concept:
> no US soldier can ever be sentenced in Europe.

Not entirely true, but generally true, yes.  


-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 7:23:10 PM
"Captain America" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:396863@forums.embarcadero.com...
>> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
>> Captain America wrote:
>> 
>> > In fact, every country that allows US soldiers to stay on their
>> > territory must must sign an agreement stating that they would never
>> > even try to accuse a US soldier of any crime committed. The US
>> > requires that.
>> 
>> Oh, for soldiers actually *physically stationed* on foreign soil, the
>> rules are completely different.
> 
> Specifics may be different. I just highlighted the general concept: no US soldier can ever be sentenced in Europe.

it's not usual: but as far as i remember us soldiers doing crimes in germany can be brought to a german court
but normally german authorities leave it up to US military authorities except :

- if someone has to expect the death penalty
- there is a special interest for german authorities

but impossible it's not, depending on the crime, they could be also deported to Den Haag, but i never heard about it.

yours
Michael Bickel
0
Michael
9/5/2011 7:34:01 PM
"Nick Hodges"  wrote in message news:396645@forums.embarcadero.com... 

Dominique Willems wrote:

>  He was always extremely anti-European, even though he
> desperately attempts to put a civilised sauce on top of his arguments.

Huh?

################################################################

True even Hollywood spout the term EuroTrash in most movies these days.
I also find you anti European.

Rita
0
Rita
9/5/2011 7:38:11 PM
On 05.09.2011 18:23, Andy Syms wrote:

> And while we're at it can we now, after 65 years, stop having the
> annual remembrance celebrations.

Having just seen on 22. july the effect of such wishes, stopping having 
remembrance celebrations, I hope not that would happen.

History otherwise would repeat. youngsters having not a grandma or 
granddad having that lived during WWII simply don't believe a shit about 
what happened.

As an effect of 22. july, newspapers today present a new book about 
those who was given a capital sentence after WWII and why, what crimes 
to Norwegians and East-Europeans as Frontwarriors they had done.

Even then I'm afraid many youngs still believe it ever happened. So 
people need an annual reminder of the cruelties that happened around Das 
dritte Reich and not only toward jewes. (The book is about tortur of 
common people and relatives that they suspected was direct or indirect 
in contact with England)
0
Alf
9/5/2011 7:48:46 PM
Rita Tipton wrote:

> I also find you anti European.

I'm very sorry to hear that.  I certainly don't think of myself that
way, and have no intention of portraying myself that way.



-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 7:58:02 PM
Alf Christophersen wrote:
> So 
> people need an annual reminder of the cruelties that happened around
> Das dritte Reich and not only toward jewes.

Absolutely, but it won't happen during remembrance days. It happens in
classrooms.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 7:59:59 PM
> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
> Dominique Willems wrote:
> 
> > You better behave because I think you should be eternally grateful to
> > me. Look up Benjamin Franklin. A founding father, and so utterly
> > Flemish. Same with George Washington. By your logic, you should be
> > very thankful to me, because you wouldn't even have a country to live
> > in. ;)
> 
> Don't worry, I'm very grateful.  ;-)
> 

I don't think Dominique lost anything he would be entitled to because Benjamin Franklin decided to help build the US.

However, the fact that the US saved Europe in WW2 does hurt Americans even today. Many lost parents or grand parents, lots of money was spent on arms and aid. All those are things that Americans would have had and have still if they hadn't given it to save Europe.

That's the difference.

And arguing about how the Germans and Americans today have nothing to do with WW2 is pretty pointless because this is not about what the Germans and Americans today have done, this is about how the one side still pays for the fathers' and grandfathers' decision to save Europe and the others (hopefully) still remembering the crime of their fathers and grandfathers.

It took less than one generation between WW1 and WW2 for many Europeans to forget. I'd rather keep the guilt for hundreds of generations than forget again.
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 8:15:13 PM
> {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
> > I think it is related to the fact that the lives and money spent on
> > something do have an effect on the current generation.
> 
> Could you point me to the instance in your life where you decided to be
> born in Germany? 

Non sequitur.


> Or where anyone decided to be born in the US?

Non sequitur.


> Could you point me to the instance in your life where someone bestowed
> you with all the credit or blame for all actions of that country in the
> past?

Oddly enough they did bestow me with a life in a free city. And somebody else my age grew up in America without a grand father because of this.


> Could you point me to the instance in your life where you signed
> adherence to a country?

Contact immigration.


> You can't. It doesn't exist. All of your reasoning is based on the
> existence of those propositions. You will respect an American more
> because he was born there, without further questions. What does that
> make you?

You are confusing two things. There is respect and there is gratitude.

Any American who grows up in a family who lost relatives in WW2 has my gratitude because he is missing something so that I could be free. In fact all Americans were impacted by what their country did in WW2. So the entire nation deserves my gratitude.


> > But they are their fathers and grandfathers.
> 
> Exactly. You ought to hate all your neighbours this way.

That's not a healthy philosophy. I try not to hate anyone. But I have no problem with gratitude travelling down the generations.

 
> > No. They are in the news for being accussed of having tortured
> > someone.
> 
> Wow, the Kool-Aid is cheap in West-Berlin. ;)

I just differentiate between accusations and facts.

For someone who lectures so much about who should be grateful to whom and who is to blame for what you are fairly quick with the condemnations.

> > The European nations fought to win the war, the Americans fought to
> > end it. That's a difference. I do not count fighting against Germany
> > "fighting for freedom" as such, unless one's goal is actually that.
> 
> Wow.

I do not think, for example, that Tsarist Russia fought Germany for anybody's freedom, least of all the Germans' freedom.

But the Americans did exactly that.

> > I already said that I owe the Americans all I have. What more can I
> > do?
> 
> Wow.

Where would you be today without the Americans?

> > It's not absurd. The guilt will never go away. We can only try to be
> > better than our fathers.
> 
> Shall I give you an account number to make you feel a little bit better?

I don't see why you would be a worthy recipient but I do admit that I don't give enough to charity.
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 8:28:09 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> However, the fact that the US saved Europe in WW2 does hurt Americans
> even today. Many lost parents or grand parents, lots of money was
> spent on arms and aid. All those are things that Americans would have
> had and have still if they hadn't given it to save Europe.

Yep -- the cost was huge, but in my mind, well worth it.  The costs of
not doing it were simply enormous.



-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 8:34:42 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:
> I don't think Dominique lost anything he would be entitled to because
> Benjamin Franklin decided to help build the US.

But Nick lost something because the US entered the war (because Germany
declared it to them) and the other non-German Europeans did not? My
grandfather's efforts fighting the Germans are worth less than Nick's
grandfather's (don't even know if he was in the war, but let's assume
he was)? Is this what you are saying?

You do remember that it was Germany who declared war on the US and that
the US did not declare war on Germany out of the goodness of their
hearts, right? I'm starting to think you don't.

> However, the fact that the US saved Europe in WW2 does hurt Americans
> even today.

The fact that you (and now I mean you, personally, since you insist on
personal hereditary responsibility) attacked the rest of Europe did not
hurt those European nations, even today? The fact that the US had the
huge advantage of distance and time to prepare a counter-attack makes
their current "losses" far more valuable than the FAR GREATER losses
the other European nations endured because of your personal atrocities?

> Many lost parents or grand parents, lots of money was
> spent on arms and aid. All those are things that Americans would have
> had and have still if they hadn't given it to save Europe.

I'm going to get insulting any moment now. Never read such inanities in
my life. Ever thought about those people you ran over, murdered, and
never even had a chance to get all organized and "heroic" to rescue
anyone?

> That's the difference.

I'm going to show you some difference soon, buddy.

The degree of adoration towards your "saviors" should be matched by the
degree of respect and humility towards your victims, if you stand by
your ridiculous hereditary responsibility.

> And arguing about how the Germans and Americans today have nothing to
> do with WW2 is pretty pointless because this is not about what the
> Germans and Americans today have done, this is about how the one side
> still pays for the fathers' and grandfathers' decision to save Europe
> and the others (hopefully) still remembering the crime of their
> fathers and grandfathers.

And the other European nations have lost nobody. Lost nothing?

Another thing: do you know how many people emigrated to the US from all
over the world since WWII? Do they get automatic savior status? Or do
you check genealogy up to the people who made the actual decision to
"save?" How do you cope with German/US couples? Or Russian/US couples?
What about their babies?

> It took less than one generation between WW1 and WW2 for many
> Europeans to forget. I'd rather keep the guilt for hundreds of
> generations than forget again.

You have long forgotten, it seems to me. I don't see an OUNCE of
respect for your victims.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 8:43:06 PM
> {quote:title=Andrew Brehm wrote:}{quote}

> However, the fact that the US saved Europe in WW2 does hurt Americans even today. Many lost parents or grand parents, lots of money was spent on arms and aid. All those are things that Americans would have had and have still if they hadn't given it to save Europe.

It was a political decision, remember. And I doubt that a Joe Schmoe would have supported it.

The US don't do anything that that would not benefit them in the long run (politically, financially, etc).
0
Captain
9/5/2011 8:45:37 PM
Disgusting.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 8:45:52 PM
So, what's the record for the longest thread?

Mike
0
Mike
9/5/2011 8:48:59 PM
On 9/5/2011 1:48 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
> So, what's the record for the longest thread?
>
> Mike

What's the record for the longest thread not related to the group before 
one of the moderators jumps in and declares it should be in off-topic??? <G>

David Erbas-White
0
David
9/5/2011 8:56:47 PM
Captain America wrote:

> The US don't do anything that that would not benefit them in the long
> run (politically, financially, etc).

Neither does any other country in the world.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 8:58:58 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:
> Neither does any other country in the world.

Yeah, but other countries don't try so much to make it look as if they
do. ;)
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 9:01:16 PM
> {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> Andrew Brehm wrote:
> > I don't think Dominique lost anything he would be entitled to because
> > Benjamin Franklin decided to help build the US.
> 
> But Nick lost something because the US entered the war (because Germany
> declared it to them) and the other non-German Europeans did not? My
> grandfather's efforts fighting the Germans are worth less than Nick's
> grandfather's (don't even know if he was in the war, but let's assume
> he was)? Is this what you are saying?

We could both save time and effort if we agreed that I am saying only what I am saying and not whatever you want to invent. I also don't want to discuss whether your inventions of what I could have said have much merit.

> You do remember that it was Germany who declared war on the US and that
> the US did not declare war on Germany out of the goodness of their
> hearts, right? I'm starting to think you don't.

The US were already helping the UK before the war and could have ignored the German declaration of war. Yet they decided to fight even though they had no horse in the race. They didn't stand to lose anything by staying out of the war or making an arrangement with the Nazis.

> > However, the fact that the US saved Europe in WW2 does hurt Americans
> > even today.
> 
> The fact that you (and now I mean you, personally, since you insist on
> personal hereditary responsibility) attacked the rest of Europe did not
> hurt those European nations, even today?

I already told you about what I think about personalities and how they might blame or thank other people. I have a personality that makes me be grateful to those who lost their grandfathers so I can be free. You have the other personality where you like blaming people for their grandfathers crimes. (Not that my grandfather and father did much in WW2. But I wished my grandfather had done something to stop the Nazis. Luckily for me he didn't and survived.)

> The fact that the US had the
> huge advantage of distance and time to prepare a counter-attack makes
> their current "losses" far more valuable than the FAR GREATER losses
> the other European nations endured because of your personal atrocities?

I accept that you simply don't read what I write. I also accept that you want me to have said thing I didn't say. But do you really expect an answer?

I am grateful for what the USA invested to save Europe. How could I be grateful for what other Europeans lost? It's two different subjects.

Just a few messages ago you told me that I cannot feel guilty for what Germany did to Europe. And now you insist that it is my personal responsibility because I am grateful to America for ending it? I don't understand your logic.

> > Many lost parents or grand parents, lots of money was
> > spent on arms and aid. All those are things that Americans would have
> > had and have still if they hadn't given it to save Europe.
> 
> I'm going to get insulting any moment now. Never read such inanities in
> my life. Ever thought about those people you ran over, murdered, and
> never even had a chance to get all organized and "heroic" to rescue
> anyone?

You think I shouldn't be allowed to thank the US for rescuing Europe without personally apologising for the crimes of other people?

Maybe you really don't understand this. I'll try to explain it again.

While neither today's Germans nor today's Americans are responsible for what the Germans and Americans of WW2 did, today's Americans are people who actually lost something because their grandfathers rescued Europe while I did, and I hope you get this, NOT profit from Germany's crimes.

If I profited from the crimes, I should be held responsible. Just like those who lack resources now because their grandfathers so generously gave those resources to Europe deserve gratitude.

You don't understand that difference. That's fine. But do refrain from insulting me because I disagree with you about this. You are thinking in absolutes and don't take into account what connections there really exist between the generations.

If my grandfather had been a Nazi and I had a French painting in my house that he stole, I would be personally responsible today. But this is simply not the case, so the link ended there.

But any American alive today during this recession must wonder if it was worth investing so many lives and so much money into Europe. And since Americans today still pay the price for their grandfathers' decision to rescue Europe Americans today still deserve our gratitude.

Get it?


> > That's the difference.
> 
> I'm going to show you some difference soon, buddy.
> 
> The degree of adoration towards your "saviors" should be matched by the
> degree of respect and humility towards your victims, if you stand by
> your ridiculous hereditary responsibility.

Is that your great argument? You couldn't tell me why it was wrong to feel gratitude for America and hence you have decided that I should talk about Germany's victims equally often? And now you are criticising that instead?

Sorry, dude. I feel more gratitude because what the Americans did affects me personally and still affects today's Americans. But I didn't commit any of the crimes you think I should show humility for and nor did I profit from them because what Germany stole was taken away from Germany again. Certainly none of it was distributed to me.

> > And arguing about how the Germans and Americans today have nothing to
> > do with WW2 is pretty pointless because this is not about what the
> > Germans and Americans today have done, this is about how the one side
> > still pays for the fathers' and grandfathers' decision to save Europe
> > and the others (hopefully) still remembering the crime of their
> > fathers and grandfathers.
> 
> And the other European nations have lost nobody. Lost nothing?

Non sequitur. I didn't say anything about them.

> Another thing: do you know how many people emigrated to the US from all
> over the world since WWII? Do they get automatic savior status? Or do
> you check genealogy up to the people who made the actual decision to
> "save?" How do you cope with German/US couples? Or Russian/US couples?
> What about their babies?

And what about the molecules travelling from American skin to German skin and vice versa? Everything can be reduced to the absurd.

> > It took less than one generation between WW1 and WW2 for many
> > Europeans to forget. I'd rather keep the guilt for hundreds of
> > generations than forget again.
> 
> You have long forgotten, it seems to me. I don't see an OUNCE of
> respect for your victims.

And you didn't say a word about what the Belgians did in the Congo 100 years ago. I guess sometimes people just don't talk about the subject you want them to talk about and that gives one an excellent opportunity for belittling them for not showing enough respect.
0
Andrew
9/5/2011 9:07:10 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> Yeah, but other countries don't try so much to make it look as if they
> do. ;)

Well, that's their problem, eh?  ;-)

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 9:22:08 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> 
> Get it?

I do, and I think you've done a great job articulating your views. 

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 9:24:32 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:
> Yet they decided to fight even
> though they had no horse in the race.

Wow. Try a book one of these days.

Btw, I forgot: you were saved from what again? Yourself...the
Russians...?

> You have the other personality where you like blaming people
> for their grandfathers crimes.

You have the personality of someone who doesn't read posts (or maybe
doesn't understand them, or deliberately misunderstands them). I
clearly stated that if you are going to give hereditary credit to
people for the good actions of their ancestors, you have to be
consequent and take hereditary blame for the bad actions by your
ancestors. Otherwise you're a big fat hypocrite. That's what I clearly
stated.

> (Not that my grandfather and father
> did much in WW2. But I wished my grandfather had done something to
> stop the Nazis.

So...the Americans saved you from your own family...who were taking
your freedom away from you?

> How could I
> be grateful for what other Europeans lost? It's two different
> subjects.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of respect or humility. You hit
someone over the head, and when another person grabs you before you
deliver your second blow, you thank him and respect him, while pissing
on your victim.

> Just a few messages ago you told me that I cannot feel guilty for
> what Germany did to Europe.

Yes, and you dismissed the concept that hereditary credit doesn't
exist, hence I completed your logic by bestowing you with hereditary
blame. Be glad, you won.

> And now you insist that it is my personal
> responsibility because I am grateful to America for ending it? I
> don't understand your logic.

You shouldn't be the one preaching logic, lad. You seek out babies in
hospitals, check their lineage, and according to your findings either
thank them or be rude to them.

> You think I shouldn't be allowed to thank the US for rescuing Europe
> without personally apologising for the crimes of other people?

I'll repeat once more. I'm completing your logic. You cannot, I repeat,
you cannot apply that logic only partially, as it suits you. You can
thank people for their grandfathers' (alleged) deeds if you also take
the blame for your grandfather's (alleged) crimes. That's how your
logic works. I didn't invent it.

> Just
> like those who lack resources now because their grandfathers so
> generously gave those resources to Europe deserve gratitude.

What resources? Do you think the US did badly after your total
destruction of European industry? Really?

> If my grandfather had been a Nazi and I had a French painting in my
> house that he stole, I would be personally responsible today. But
> this is simply not the case, so the link ended there.

Not so fast, buddy. According to your hereditary responsibility rule,
you are responsible for all the lost resources (and trust me, there are
more European lost resources than US ones) suffered by all Europeans,
and I am sure MANY still have a big impact on today's generations.

For you the link ends right there, eh, but for them there Americans, it
goes on forever and ever, right? Right.

And you then decided that in any argument, you'd drag in "Americans
rescued me, so they are right," correct? Never "I screwed everybody, so
I am always wrong," right? :)

> Americans today still pay the price for their grandfathers'
> decision

No, they have reaped the benefits. Massively. They did business with
the Nazis by selling them war material before and during the war and
they did business with the Germans after the war. Lucrative business.
Before and during you had Chase, Ford, Random House, Kodak, Coca-Cola,
etc. etc.

All those grandfathers did murderous business with your grandfathers,
to take away your freedom. Maybe now you need to select which
grandfathers you are going to thank. Better update that genealogy
database.

> You couldn't tell me why it was wrong to
> feel gratitude for America and hence you have decided that I should
> talk about Germany's victims equally often?

I never wrote it was wrong. You conveniently spun that around. You
started all this by claiming that Americans are right in arguments
because they saved you during WWII. You offer gratitude to the current
generation. I just completed your logic, as stated above. You cannot
use this gratitude as a weapon against me, as you did, without having
it handed right back to you.

> Sorry, dude. I feel more gratitude because what the Americans did
> affects me personally and still affects today's Americans.

In a very lucrative way. From what planet are you again?

> But I
> didn't commit any of the crimes you think I should show humility for

Oh, but you are convinced Nick endured all that post-war hardship,
right?

> And what about the molecules travelling from American skin to German
> skin and vice versa? Everything can be reduced to the absurd.

> And you didn't say a word about what the Belgians did in the Congo
> 100 years ago.

Why would I? Not my responsibility. It's not my theory, but yours. You
decided to suffer from hereditary credit and blame, not I.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 9:55:16 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:
> Well, that's their problem, eh?  ;-)

Marketing is absolutely everything.
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 9:56:37 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> Marketing is absolutely everything.

Whatever it takes.

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/5/2011 10:00:30 PM
On 05.09.2011 21:59, Dominique Willems wrote:
> Alf Christophersen wrote:
>> So
>> people need an annual reminder of the cruelties that happened around
>> Das dritte Reich and not only toward jewes.
>
> Absolutely, but it won't happen during remembrance days. It happens in
> classrooms.

And during remembrance days, for those out of school who want to forget 
everything in order to repeat
0
Alf
9/5/2011 10:04:25 PM
On 05.09.2011 16:28, Andy Syms wrote:
> Alf Christophersen wrote:
>
>>> I think you're also forgetting the world's largest aircraft carrier
>>> aka the United Kingdom. Without that a counter attack would have
>>> been impossible.  ;-)
>>>
>>
>> There was many parts that together made the victory possible.
>> Difficult to say that only those and those, but not the others made
>> it possible to win WWII.
>
> Hi Alf! Did you miss my 'winking' smiley?
>
> Dom's just rattling cages for the fun of it and they're all falling for
> it.  :-)
>

Being visually impaired, I saw just an ordinary smiley :-)

The icons are too small
0
Alf
9/5/2011 10:06:43 PM
"Nick Hodges" wrote on Mon, 5 Sep 2011 12:17:15 -0700:

> Brandon Staggs wrote:
> 
>> So, are judges then obligated to learn every language in which someone
>> might want to write a contract?  Makes sense to me that there should
>> be "official" languages for such things.  
> 
> No.  If there is a dispute over languages, it's incumbent on the
> disputants to provide translations, of course.  Why should you and I
> pay for something like that?

What happens when the disputants provide conflicting translations --
each one providing translations that serve the interests of the one
providing it?  When you go to court over a contract, you don't say to
the judge "this is what our contract says in different words" -- you
give him a copy of the contract.

Makes much more sense to say "this is America, write any contracts you
want to be legally binding in a language our judges can read."  And I
don't see a problem with Hungarians saying the same thing.

-- 
Brandon Staggs
StudyLamp Software LLC
http://www.studylamp.com
0
Brandon
9/5/2011 10:13:43 PM
On 05.09.2011 23:07, Andrew Brehm wrote:
>> {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
>> Andrew Brehm wrote:
>>> I don't think Dominique lost anything he would be entitled to because
>>> Benjamin Franklin decided to help build the US.
>>
>> But Nick lost something because the US entered the war (because Germany
>> declared it to them) and the other non-German Europeans did not? My
>> grandfather's efforts fighting the Germans are worth less than Nick's
>> grandfather's (don't even know if he was in the war, but let's assume
>> he was)? Is this what you are saying?
>
> We could both save time and effort if we agreed that I am saying only what I am saying and not whatever you want to invent. I also don't want to discuss whether your inventions of what I could have said have much merit.
>
>> You do remember that it was Germany who declared war on the US and that
>> the US did not declare war on Germany out of the goodness of their
>> hearts, right? I'm starting to think you don't.
>
> The US were already helping the UK before the war and could have ignored the German declaration of war. Yet they decided to fight even though they had no horse in the race. They didn't stand to lose anything by staying out of the war or making an arrangement with the Nazis.

Well, Japan did attacked Pearl Harbour, and forced US into wartime. So 
maybe you think that if they hadn't, Germany would have won and all 
Europe had today been a Nazi country.

Bad luck.
0
Alf
9/5/2011 10:15:35 PM
On 05.09.2011 18:27, Nick Hodges wrote:
> Steve Thackery wrote:
>
>>   It's whether the contract can be
>> ENFORCED IN LAW.
>
> Exactly!  Hungary apparently won't enforce a contract between those two
> people!
>
> That's my point, for crying out loud!
>

If the contract is btw. two Hungarians and the contract is written in 
Hungarian, the contract is legal and can be enforced.

But, if the contract is btw and Hungarian and an American and the 
contract is only written in English, it can only be enforced in America 
since it is written in English.

If, on the opposite side, the contract is bilingual and written in both 
Hungarian and English and are signed by both parts, it is perfectly 
legal and enforceable. Period.
0
Alf
9/5/2011 10:21:15 PM
Alf Christophersen wrote:
> So maybe you think that if they hadn't, Germany would have won and
> all Europe had today been a Nazi country.

Yes, his grandfather would have been victorious and Andrew very very
pissed off for not having been rescued. It makes sense to me. Anyone
else?
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 10:30:54 PM
On 9/5/2011 4:56 PM, David Erbas-White wrote:
> On 9/5/2011 1:48 PM, Mike Reublin wrote:
>> So, what's the record for the longest thread?
>>
>> Mike
>
> What's the record for the longest thread not related to the group before
> one of the moderators jumps in and declares it should be in off-topic???<G>
>
> David Erbas-White

Well, yeah, add that too. And some of these guys could have been answering *MY* 
questions.... <VBG>
0
Mike
9/5/2011 10:40:26 PM
"Dominique Willems" <namewithdot at google> wrote in message 
news:396778@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> Nah. We didn't. We didn't even exist as a nation yet. We're far younger
> and more revolutionary than you. :)

Chances are, whatever heritage the people of your country have prior to that 
were either slaves or slave-owners, likely both at various times in history.

> Over slavery, eh? I like those history books that spin everything into
> favorable nationalistic propaganda. If you look into it, you might
> discover that only a minority in the North saw abolition as a motive to
> go to war, and most others were annoyed by them. But it was a very
> grateful political tool.

*That* is the revisionism. For people of the north, slavery wasn't as big an 
issue precisely because they mostly did not engage in it. To the southern 
confederate states it most definitely was and that can be seen simply by 
reading the secession papers of each of those states which specifically 
stated the abolition of slavery, not only for themselves, but in the new 
western territories, as the main reason for seceeding. Certainly abolition 
meant a huge economic change for the agricultural south that depended 
*heavily* on that slavery. There was no other issue important enough, if 
discounting slavery, to justify secession for *any* of them.

The papers of Georgia, second sentence: "For the last ten years we have had 
numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding 
confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."

Mississipi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of 
slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies 
the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions 
of commerce of the earth."

North Carolina, 1st paragraph: "The people of the State of South Carolina, 
in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that 
the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the 
Federal Government [...] fully justified this State in then withdrawing from 
the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other 
**slaveholding** States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. 
Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further 
forbearance ceases to be a virtue. "

Texas: "She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and 
protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the 
African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed 
from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her 
people intended should exist in all future time."

Those claiming slavery was not *THE* main reason by far for the Civil War 
are full of it.

> You want people to be credited when they stop hitting someone?

When that hitting is generally acceptable everywhere else in the world at 
that time, yes. It represents a huge step forward in morality - and was a 
result of the growing understanding and recognition of individual rights and 
the inability to keep insisting that slaves, black or otherwise, were 
somehow not human individuals to which those rights equally belonged.

> I'd reject it on grounds that the monarchy and any nobility are a
> ludicrous concept. The tradition of monarchy is sheer nepotism and
> consequent incompetence, causing the deaths of millions in the name of
> egos. Back to "Air Command".

I'm not a monarchist and so would not grieve over dropping the "Royal" part, 
however I *am* big on history and, in this case, do not see the return as 
tying ourselves to or supporting a monarchy, but only recognizing and 
honouring our roots as a nation and the best of what those roots provided as 
influence. However this is the most minor part of the change, the major part 
is simply allowing the different branches to once again have their own 
identity - the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, rather than being lumped 
together, and this restores *Canadian* traditions for these services, not 
British (and as such moves away from the prior topic, so this sub-sub-thread 
can be closed here).

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/5/2011 10:56:49 PM
"Andy Syms" <asyms@technosoft.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:396794@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> And while we're at it can we now, after 65 years, stop having the
> annual remembrance celebrations.


Actually, after 93 years and counting. At least here it started with the end 
of WWI. Why stop? The very worst thing we can do is *forget* those that 
died - and *why* they died in that and other wars. Rememberance does not 
glorify war, it honours those that fought to *end* it and reminds us that 
freedom is not automatic, it is earned and has to be protected.


-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/5/2011 11:09:04 PM
"Brandon Staggs" <nospam@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message 
news:396969@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> What happens when the disputants provide conflicting translations --
> each one providing translations that serve the interests of the one
> providing it?

That's easy: the court is only required to accept *one* translation and will 
not put the contract itself "on trial". It is up to the litigants to provide 
that *one* translation and any disputes over that remain with them. Until 
they agree on a single translation, they cannot bring it in front of a 
court. But the language of the original contract should not matter.

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/5/2011 11:15:50 PM
"Brandon Staggs" <nospam@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message 
news:396815@forums.embarcadero.com...
>
> Your position makes no sense.  If you an I want to write a contract in
> some dead, unused language, why should taxpayers foot the bill for
> resolving disputes about the contract?  We should have used a language
> supported by the legal system.


A contract only needs to be presented in court if and when there is actually 
a legal dispute over it, thus it is only then that it needs to be translated 
to the language accepted by the court having jurisdiction. The cost of that 
translation should fall on the litigants, not on the court/taxpayers.


-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/5/2011 11:18:07 PM
"Andrew Brehm" wrote in message news:396901@forums.embarcadero.com...
> However, the fact that the US saved Europe in WW2 does hurt Americans even 
> today. Many lost parents or grand parents, lots of money was spent on arms 
> and aid. All those are things that Americans would have had and have still 
> if they hadn't given it to save Europe.
>
> That's the difference.
>
> And arguing about how the Germans and Americans today have nothing to do 
> with WW2 is pretty pointless because this is not about what the Germans 
> and Americans today have done, this is about how the one side still pays 
> for the fathers' and grandfathers' decision to save Europe and the others 
> (hopefully) still remembering the crime of their fathers and grandfathers.
>
> It took less than one generation between WW1 and WW2 for many Europeans to 
> forget. I'd rather keep the guilt for hundreds of generations than forget 
> again.


But note that the allies did not help save Europe out of some notion of 
charity or pure altruism, we did so for our *own* interests as much as 
yours. Allowing the tyrants to continue getting stronger by conquering all 
of Europe means they would have been a very real threat to the rest of us as 
well. We fought for *our own* continued freedom as well as yours.

A level of gratitude, respect, and rememberance for *everyone* that gave 
their lives to end that evil, yours and ours together, is proper and to be 
encouraged. But again, not guilt.

-- 
Wayne Niddery (TeamB)
“The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at 
the expense of everyone else.” - Frederic Bastiat
0
Wayne
9/5/2011 11:32:11 PM
Wayne Niddery wrote:
> Chances are, whatever heritage the people of your country have prior
> to that were either slaves or slave-owners, likely both at various
> times in history.

No... No, don't think so. Even the Romans were pretty annoyed with us.
;)

> Those claiming slavery was not THE main reason by far for the Civil
> War are full of it.

I agree it was the main reason for the start of the civil war. But you
stated that the US fought a bloody war over slavery. Yes, to sustain
it. The North mainly opposed secession by the South, not slavery per
se. But you can have that, if you want.

> When that hitting is generally acceptable everywhere else in the
> world at that time, yes.

No. No, it wasn't. As I wrote, we didn't have it. Certainly not at the
time they were killing each other over it.

> It represents a huge step forward in
> morality

Yes, for them.

> and was a result of the growing understanding and
> recognition of individual rights and the inability to keep insisting
> that slaves, black or otherwise, were somehow not human individuals
> to which those rights equally belonged.

Sure, but it took the US another hundred years to accomplish that.

> I am big on history and, in this case, do not
> see the return as tying ourselves to or supporting a monarchy

Well, you could have fooled me, putting "Royal" in front of everything.

> the best of
> what those roots provided as influence.

I admit not being too much of a fan of royalty. Maybe you could
elaborate on their beneficial effects.

> the major part is simply allowing the
> different branches to once again have their own identity - the Army,
> the Air Force, and the Navy, rather than being lumped together, and
> this restores Canadian traditions for these services, not British

Well, I'd be just as impressed by "Canadian Air Force," but okay. :)
0
Dominique
9/5/2011 11:42:21 PM
Mike Reublin wrote:

> So, what's the record for the longest thread?
 
XanaNews Statistic for embarcadero.public.delphi.non-technical.
06-09-2011 00:40:01

From article 3 (09-08-2008 08:50:51) to article 95022 (06-09-2011
00:44:14)

Number of threads  ................... 3852
Number of articles  .................. 90188
Average articles per thread  ......... 23.41
Number of unanswered posts  .......... 452
Number of posts from XanaNews users .. 29179


Top Threads

Ranking  Articles  Subject
-------  --------  ----------------------------------
      1      1277  Why does Delphi XE cost 25% more in Europe...?
      2       882  Apple Dictates Dev Language?
      3       824  Delphi 64-bit Compiler Sneak Preview available now
      4       667  Delphi Unicode implementation could be better
      5       600  When Delphi 64 ?
      6       596  The Delphi 64 bit dilemma
      7       568  Delphi for the Mac
      8       559  Lost another Delphi evangelist
      9       555  Challenge to David I/Embarcadero
     10       552  Delphi.NET roadmap ... some guessing


IOW:
https://forums.embarcadero.com/thread.jspa?messageID=284319&tstart=0#284319



-- 
Pieter

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter 
 how improbable, must be the truth."
 -- Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1859-1930)
0
Pieter
9/5/2011 11:52:43 PM
On 9/5/2011 7:52 PM, Pieter Zijlstra wrote:
> Mike Reublin wrote:
>
>> So, what's the record for the longest thread?
>
> XanaNews Statistic for embarcadero.public.delphi.non-technical.
> 06-09-2011 00:40:01
>
>  From article 3 (09-08-2008 08:50:51) to article 95022 (06-09-2011
> 00:44:14)
>
> Number of threads  ................... 3852
> Number of articles  .................. 90188
> Average articles per thread  ......... 23.41
> Number of unanswered posts  .......... 452
> Number of posts from XanaNews users .. 29179
>
>
> Top Threads
>
> Ranking  Articles  Subject
> -------  --------  ----------------------------------
>        1      1277  Why does Delphi XE cost 25% more in Europe...?
>        2       882  Apple Dictates Dev Language?
>        3       824  Delphi 64-bit Compiler Sneak Preview available now
>        4       667  Delphi Unicode implementation could be better
>        5       600  When Delphi 64 ?
>        6       596  The Delphi 64 bit dilemma
>        7       568  Delphi for the Mac
>        8       559  Lost another Delphi evangelist
>        9       555  Challenge to David I/Embarcadero
>       10       552  Delphi.NET roadmap ... some guessing
>
>
> IOW:
> https://forums.embarcadero.com/thread.jspa?messageID=284319&tstart=0#284319

Neat! Wonder how this one will stack up?
0
Mike
9/6/2011 2:07:30 AM
Hi,

"Nick Hodges"  wrote in message news:396628@forums.embarcadero.com...

> Captain Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering". I was
> with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.

I like the movie too, but do not forget it was made during WWII, and this is 
just propaganda.
Berlin was not occupied by the Americans in 1918. Not by anybody.

from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_I

Throughout the period from the armistice on 11 November 1918 until the 
signing of the peace treaty with Germany on 28 June 1919, the Allies 
maintained the naval blockade of Germany that had begun during the war. As 
Germany was dependent on imports, it is estimated that 523,000[1] civilians 
had lost their lives during the war, and a quarter-million more[2] died from 
disease or starvation in this eight month period.

Regards, Matt
0
Matt
9/6/2011 9:03:36 AM
On 05.09.2011 20:07, Lars Fosdal wrote:
>> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
>> Alf Christophersen wrote:
>>
>>> In fact, some years ago it was realized that an US Navy vessel
>>> getting inside Norwegian borders had nuclear weapons on board.
>>>
>>> It was asked to leave. And did.
>>
>> Yep.  We follow the rules pretty well.
>
> If it was that massive battleship USS Iowa that visited the Oslo Harbour back in the 80s - I don't think it actually left right away.  I clearly remember a news cartoon with the Norwegian defense minister at the time - visiting the bridge of the war ship, where he stated while wearing a blindfold: "I don't see any problems with this visit", while the drawing shows the ship bristling with warheads  :)  I think I have a clipping of that somewhere... :)

Maybe you are right about that. In case, Nick, they aren't nice at all :-)
0
Alf
9/6/2011 2:05:42 PM
Am 05.09.2011 21:16, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> David Erbas-White wrote:
> 
>> And everyone else's point is that it's NOT a contract -- that's the
>> part that you feel to get.
> 
> Well, everyone else is wrong, then if they think that. 
> 
> A contract is an agreement between two people (excluding the normal
> caveats, blah, blah, blah).
> 
> The definition is not "An agreement between two people that the
> government feels like enforcing".
> 

The german BGB (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) clearly defines what a contract
is, it's a combination of a will and the declaration of this will. But
this still leaves much room for ambigueties and civil cases...

In such a court case thet state either enforces the validity of the
contract or not. And in Hungary it will not enforce it if it's not
written in hungarian language. Of course this only happens if a case
goes before court by one party accusing the other party before court.

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/6/2011 8:22:21 PM
Am 06.09.2011 01:15, schrieb Wayne Niddery:
> "Brandon Staggs" <nospam@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:396969@forums.embarcadero.com...
>>
>> What happens when the disputants provide conflicting translations --
>> each one providing translations that serve the interests of the one
>> providing it?
> 
> That's easy: the court is only required to accept *one* translation and will 
> not put the contract itself "on trial". It is up to the litigants to provide 
> that *one* translation and any disputes over that remain with them. Until 
> they agree on a single translation, they cannot bring it in front of a 
> court. But the language of the original contract should not matter.
> 

That's one reason why such a requirement about contract language makes
it easier: the seller normally provides the contract and the buyer can
read it and either sign it displaying his agreement or he can go away
and say: I don't properly understand the contract or the wording doesn't
fit what I want and then there's no contract.

Might help to avoid ambigueties which sometimes would lead to court cases...

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/6/2011 8:25:18 PM
Am 05.09.2011 21:17, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Markus Humm wrote:
> 
>> There is also some list of contract
>> types which will not be enforced. e.g. anything which would result in
>> some unlawfull doing for instance.
> 
> Conceded already -- and made immaterial to the discussion.
> 

What do you think about those other funny US laws?

Btw. if I remember correctly in some US place it was forbidden to kill
flies in the lights of street laterns... ;-)

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/6/2011 8:26:27 PM
Am 05.09.2011 21:22, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Markus Humm wrote:
> 
>> You still don't get that the Hungarian DEFINITION of contract requires
>> it to be written/made in hungarian language.
> 
> I do in fact totally, utterly, and completely get that.  And that's the
> point:  Why on earth should there be such a limitation?  If two
> Japanese people in Hungary want to form a contract in Japanese, the
> Hungarian government should provide for the enforcement of that
> contract.
> 

Those japanese guys should simply hold to the rules of the juristication
they're currently in to be on the safe side.

You cannot get away with breaking the speed limit on a Dutch motorway by
saying: oh, but in Germany there's no general speed limit on motorways...

Each juristication may have and has his own rules (otherwise we'd have
one world government). Period. Get over this.

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/6/2011 8:28:52 PM
Am 05.09.2011 21:22, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Markus Humm wrote:
> 
>> You still don't get that the Hungarian DEFINITION of contract requires
>> it to be written/made in hungarian language.
> 
> I do in fact totally, utterly, and completely get that.  And that's the
> point:  Why on earth should there be such a limitation?  

That's exactly the point I'm making with the accounting below: that
decission is also a unnecessary limitation to only one system when
there's a otherwise globally accepted system available!

> 
>> For instance there is a worldwide accounting system available, but if
>> I'm not mistaken US stock exchanges still require to use US GAAP if
>> you want to be enlisted there. I'd call that ridiculous as well. So
>> what now?
> 
> Now you think it is ridiculous -- so what?  

You don't like unnecessary rules on contracts, I don't like narrow
minded rules on accounting. So what?

> 
>>
>> The only authority for such a definition
> 
> Here's the point:  There is no need for an "authority".  Contracts are
> contracts, and the law should provide for them. There need not be any
> unnecessary limitations on them.
> 

You're ambiguous  (now I really need to look up the spelling of this,
sigh!) because you don't define unnecessary. The german BGB (civil law)
defines what a contract is, but that still leaves much room for dispute
because of ambiguties.

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/6/2011 8:33:42 PM
Am 05.09.2011 21:34, schrieb Michael Bickel:
> "Captain America" schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:396863@forums.embarcadero.com...
>>> {quote:title=Nick Hodges wrote:}{quote}
>>> Captain America wrote:
>>>
>>>> In fact, every country that allows US soldiers to stay on their
>>>> territory must must sign an agreement stating that they would never
>>>> even try to accuse a US soldier of any crime committed. The US
>>>> requires that.
>>>
>>> Oh, for soldiers actually *physically stationed* on foreign soil, the
>>> rules are completely different.
>>
>> Specifics may be different. I just highlighted the general concept: no US soldier can ever be sentenced in Europe.
> 
> it's not usual: but as far as i remember us soldiers doing crimes in germany can be brought to a german court
> but normally german authorities leave it up to US military authorities except :
> 
> - if someone has to expect the death penalty
> - there is a special interest for german authorities
> 
> but impossible it's not, depending on the crime, they could be also deported to Den Haag, but i never heard about it.
> 

To Den Haag? But if I'm not mistaken the US don't take part with this?

For the death penalty: in the german state Hessen there's still death
penality in the laws (at least a few years ago), but it's overruled by
state law. Phew! (ok, I'm not living in that Bundesland anyway)

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/6/2011 8:35:54 PM
Markus Humm wrote:

> What do you think about those other funny US laws?

I think about 95% of the law in the US are utterly unnecessary.  

-- 
Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager
Gateway Ticketing Systems
http://www.gatewayticketing.com
0
Nick
9/6/2011 8:51:45 PM
Am 06.09.2011 22:51, schrieb Nick Hodges:
> Markus Humm wrote:
> 
>> What do you think about those other funny US laws?
> 
> I think about 95% of the law in the US are utterly unnecessary.  
> 

Reminds me of the 19th centure US senator which wanted to create a law
to fix pi to 3 to make maths easier... duh! ;-)

Greetings

Markus
0
Markus
9/7/2011 7:39:42 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> > {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> > Nick Hodges wrote:
> > > Oh please.
> > 
> > Sorry. Each time you, particularly, use the word "Europe," I feel
> > the need to shut you up. ;)
> 
> You did a spectacularly bad job of it.
> 
> And I am the most European person imagineable. I grew up in
> West-Berlin. Can't be more European than that.

Yes, it can. West-Berlin was a little bit offside from the rest of
Europe for quite a while. Real Europeans live in the Benelux. <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"No Sane man will dance." -- Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
0
Rudy
9/9/2011 11:39:38 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> > {quote:title=Dominique Willems wrote:}{quote}
> > Andrew Brehm wrote:
> > > You did a spectacularly bad job of it.
> > 
> > I know. He keeps on yapping. ;)
> 
> In my experience European arrogance doesn't work with Americans.

That's mutual. <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"Java, the best argument for Smalltalk since C++." -- unknown
0
Rudy
9/9/2011 11:40:16 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> No, it doesn't. West-Berlin is surrounded by...Germany. And Poland (I
> almost forgot about that). 

They always forget Poland. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

Franklin's Rule: Blessed is the end user who expects nothing, for 
he/she will not be disappointed.
0
Rudy
9/9/2011 11:42:09 PM
Andrew Brehm wrote:

> > > we wouldn't even be here if it
> > > wasn't for them rescuing Europe from war twice.
> > 
> > Waaaaaaahahahahaha! I think this crap has been debated to death.
> > That argument has been abandoned ten years ago, but is still abused
> > by those of the US extreme right, to justify just about anything.
> > It obeys the same rule as mentioning Hitler in a discussion.
> 
> The argument has been abandoned by whom?

The world outside the US. <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

Hubbard's Law: Don't take life too seriously; you won't get out 
of it alive.
0
Rudy
9/9/2011 11:43:18 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> In one hour from your little
> place, you're still speaking German and eating the same Obstsalat.

I like mine fresh. <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"The graveyards are full of indispensable men."
 -- Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970)
0
Rudy
9/9/2011 11:46:13 PM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

> Real Europeans live in the Benelux. <g>

Indeed ;-)

-- 
Pieter

"Let us change our traditional attitude to the construction of
 programs. Instead of imagining that our main task is to
 instruct a computer what to do, let us concentrate rather on
 explaining to human beings what we want a computer to do." 
 -- Donald Knuth
0
Pieter
9/10/2011 2:11:44 AM
Hi Rudy,

> Yes, it can. West-Berlin was a little bit offside from the rest of
> Europe for quite a while. Real Europeans live in the Benelux.<g>

Hear, hear... ;-)

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner - Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller BeNeLux
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/10/2011 7:05:45 AM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
> I like mine fresh. <g>

I prefer mine all ripe and fermented. Nice buzz!
0
Dominique
9/10/2011 12:05:25 PM
Bob Swart wrote:
> Hear, hear... ;-)

Yes, we kick arse!!

Uhm...can I get a discount now........?
0
Dominique
9/10/2011 12:07:41 PM
Dominique Willems wrote:

> Wayne Niddery wrote:
> > Chances are, whatever heritage the people of your country have prior
> > to that were either slaves or slave-owners, likely both at various
> > times in history.
> 
> No... No, don't think so. Even the Romans were pretty annoyed with us.
> ;)

So you read De Bello Gallico too? <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"Kill a man, and you are an assassin. Kill millions of men, and
 you are a conqueror. Kill everyone, and you are a god."
 -- Jean Rostand
0
Rudy
9/10/2011 9:33:54 PM
Andy Syms wrote:

> Dominique Willems wrote:
> 
> > > Go fly your helicopter!
> > 
> > Did I mention I got a bigger one (b'day prez)? Awesome, but now I
> > need 4 channels.
> 
> No. I get about 70 channels on my V+ box.  ;-)

Does it fly?

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious
 convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do
 not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but
 have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be
 called religious, then it is the unbounded admiration for the
 structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
 -- Albert Einstein
0
Rudy
9/10/2011 9:36:10 PM
Hi Dominique,

> Bob Swart wrote:
>> Hear, hear... ;-)
>
> Yes, we kick arse!!
>
> Uhm...can I get a discount now........?

I don't think so... at least not from me ;-)

Groetjes,
           Bob Swart

-- 
Bob Swart Training & Consultancy (eBob42.com) Forever Loyal to Delphi
Chairman Delphi Development Network (DDN) powered by SDN - www.sdn.nl
Embarcadero Technology Partner - Delphi & RAD Studio Reseller BeNeLux
http://twitter.com/eBob42 LinkedIn: http://nl.linkedin.com/in/drbob42
Delphi Win32 & .NET books on Lulu.com: http://stores.lulu.com/drbob42
Personal courseware + e-mail support http://www.ebob42.com/courseware
Blog: http://www.drbob42.com/blog - RSS: http://eBob42.com/weblog.xml
0
Bob
9/10/2011 9:45:44 PM
Bob Swart wrote:
> > Uhm...can I get a discount now........?
> 
> I don't think so... at least not from me ;-)

I just knew those guys gave nothing but lousy advice. ;)
0
Dominique
9/10/2011 10:28:26 PM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

> Andy Syms wrote:
> > No. I get about 70 channels on my V+ box.  ;-)
> 
> Does it fly?

Once.  :^)  People used to ask me if the airplane I flew could land on
water.  "Sure, once."

-- 
Cheers,
Van

"Half of what I say is meaningless..." - John Lennon
"Your job is to figure out which half." - Van Swofford
0
Van
9/11/2011 5:00:18 AM
Van Swofford wrote:

> Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
> 
> > Andy Syms wrote:
> > > No. I get about 70 channels on my V+ box.  ;-)
> > 
> > Does it fly?
> 
> Once.  :^) 

LOL!

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"Guns make us powerful; butter will only make us fat."
 -- Nazi Hermann Goering
0
Rudy
9/12/2011 10:09:14 PM
Mike Reublin wrote:

> So, what's the record for the longest thread?

This one does not even come near. 

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

Goebel's Law Of Software Compatibility: A statement of absolute 
functional equivalence made in bold print followed by several 
pages of qualifications is fine.
0
Rudy
9/12/2011 10:19:55 PM
Mike Reublin wrote:

> >
https://forums.embarcadero.com/thread.jspa?messageID=284319&tstart=0#284319
> 
> Neat! Wonder how this one will stack up?

This one has 233 messages and ranks #54. If you'd also take
borland.public.delphi.non-technical into consideration, it would rank
much (much!) lower.

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"The nice thing about egotists is that they don't talk about 
 other people." -- Lucille S. Harper
0
Rudy
9/12/2011 10:24:57 PM
Rudy,

| |  So, what's the record for the longest thread?
| 
| This one does not even come near.

That reply doesn't answer the question. <g> 


-- 

   Q

09/12/2011 18:25:36

XanaNews Version 1.19.1.278  [Q'sBrokenToolBar]
0
Quentin
9/13/2011 1:25:55 AM
Quentin Correll wrote:

> Rudy,
> 
> >  |  So, what's the record for the longest thread?
> >  
> >  This one does not even come near.
> 
> That reply doesn't answer the question. <g> 

No, but every reply brings it a little bit closer, until eventually,
the answer will be "this one".  :^)

-- 
Cheers,
Van

"Half of what I say is meaningless..." - John Lennon
"Your job is to figure out which half." - Van Swofford
0
Van
9/13/2011 2:38:40 AM
On 9/12/2011 6:24 PM, Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
> Mike Reublin wrote:
>
>>>
> https://forums.embarcadero.com/thread.jspa?messageID=284319&tstart=0#284319
>>
>> Neat! Wonder how this one will stack up?
>
> This one has 233 messages and ranks #54. If you'd also take
> borland.public.delphi.non-technical into consideration, it would rank
> much (much!) lower.
>

Well the fat lady hasn't sung yet.... <vbg>
0
Mike
9/13/2011 11:35:42 AM
> {quote:title=Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:}{quote}
> Mike Reublin wrote:
> 
> > So, what's the record for the longest thread?
> 
> This one does not even come near. 

I'm pretty sure Rudy is in it ;-)
0
Martijn
9/13/2011 12:40:55 PM
Van,

| No, but every reply brings it a little bit closer, until eventually,
| the answer will be "this one".  :^)

LOL!


-- 

   Q

09/13/2011 10:32:06

XanaNews Version 1.19.1.278  [Q'sBrokenToolBar]
0
Quentin
9/13/2011 5:36:03 PM
Martijn,

You wouldn't by any chance be related to Wilhelm Kooij (He dropped the
"Van der" when he moved to Canada, many years ago.) would you?  Bill
later moved to Tokyo, Japan.


-- 

   Q

09/13/2011 10:32:50

XanaNews Version 1.19.1.278  [Q'sBrokenToolBar]
0
Quentin
9/13/2011 5:36:03 PM
news from MIDA site :


*Update MIDA V 0.83 – TMS Ribbon partial support*

Hi

i’m working from any days on *TMS Ribbon structure*. it’s very complicate convert to FireMonkey.

for a good result… wait V. 0.84 

TAdvToolBarPager are converted on TTabControl , TAdvPage on TTabItem, TAdvToolBar on TPanel…. work well and they look good.

i’m working 5 / 10 new small components…
....




http://midafiremonkey.wordpress.com
0
delphi001
9/15/2011 12:08:30 AM
> {quote:title=delphi001 delphi001 wrote:}{quote}
> i’m working 5 / 10 new small components…

Sorry to be a nag, but what about TCppWebBrowser? And TRichEdit?
--
Mark Jacobs
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
0
Mark
9/15/2011 3:44:02 PM
> Nick Hodges wrote:
> > People in Europe aren't expected to keep their word?  Wow.
> 
> Until now the breaking of words and treaties has been a US specialty.
> Including torture. Major "wow."

You do realize that Nick was, in fact, questioning the implication that somehow Europeans were not trustworthy, don't you? In effect he was rising to the defense of European honor and integrity.

Like most languages, English is full of nuances and subtleties. Unless you're a native speaker or you've lived here and spoken English with and among native speakers, I don't expect you would catch some of those nuances, no more than I might if I were to try to converse in a language that I didn't speak natively. In fact, even though we speak the same language, British, Americans, Canadian and Australians often have difficulties understanding each other.

However, to insult an entire country due to ignorance is inexcusable. I suggest that the next time you ask for clarification when what is posted here offends you. It may be that you simply did not understand the nuances of the language.
0
Mark
9/17/2011 5:36:45 AM
> Sorry to be a nag, but what about TCppWebBrowser? And TRichEdit?

these components are not available in FM / MAC.

TRichEdit is converted in TMemo for now.

TRichEdit for FM is in work in progress, but it takes some time ...




from TRichView Forum :

Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:23 am    Post subject:    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
64bit - yes. 
FireMonkey - not yet. It's not that simple, because FireMonkey is not a VCL but a different framework*. We plan to start porting to FireMonkey later in this year*, but I do not know how much time it will take. And the most probably, it will be a separate product.
0
delphi001
9/18/2011 10:45:51 PM
Martijn Van der Kooij wrote:

> > {quote:title=Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:}{quote}
> > Mike Reublin wrote:
> > 
> > > So, what's the record for the longest thread?
> > 
> > This one does not even come near. 
> 
> I'm pretty sure Rudy is in it ;-)

Are there many threads I am not in, huh? <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis

"Coming back to where you started is not the same as never 
 leaving."
 -- Terry Pratchett (A Hat Full of Sky)
0
Rudy
9/19/2011 9:00:03 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Mida 2.0 - Source code converter for FireMonkey - New Site
Great news, finally the new Mida 2.0 is available. *Mida 1.x has been incredible for the excellent conversion of visual components from VCL to FireMonkey*, the work was important, but thanks to your many suggestions and comments we have reached an excellent result. *In Mida 2.0 the target is to update the Delphi source code is not compatible with FireMonkey.* We have already converted thousands of lines of source and we noticed that the incompatibilities with the new framework are many. For example none of these lines of code runs on FireMonkey : +01.Label1.Caption :...

Mida 2.0 - Source code converter for FireMonkey - New Site
Great news, finally the new Mida 2.0 is available. *Mida 1.x has been incredible for the excellent conversion of visual components from VCL to FireMonkey*, the work was important, but thanks to your many suggestions and comments we have reached an excellent result. *In Mida 2.0 the target is to update the Delphi source code is not compatible with FireMonkey.* We have already converted thousands of lines of source and we noticed that the incompatibilities with the new framework are many. For example none of these lines of code runs on FireMonkey : +01.Label1.Caption :...

ANN: Mida 2.0 - Source code converter for FireMonkey - New Site
Great news, finally the new Mida 2.0 is available. *Mida 1.x has been incredible for the excellent conversion of visual components from VCL to FireMonkey*, the work was important, but thanks to your many suggestions and comments we have reached an excellent result. *In Mida 2.0 the target is to update the Delphi source code is not compatible with FireMonkey.* We have already converted thousands of lines of source and we noticed that the incompatibilities with the new framework are many. For example none of these lines of code runs on FireMonkey : +01.Label1.Caption :...

ANN: Mida 2.0 - Source code converter for FireMonkey - New Site
Great news, finally the new Mida 2.0 is available. *Mida 1.x has been incredible for the excellent conversion of visual components from VCL to FireMonkey*, the work was important, but thanks to your many suggestions and comments we have reached an excellent result. *In Mida 2.0 the target is to update the Delphi source code is not compatible with FireMonkey.* We have already converted thousands of lines of source and we noticed that the incompatibilities with the new framework are many. For example none of these lines of code runs on FireMonkey : +01.Label1.Caption :...

MIDA a new Vcl to Firemonkey converter
Hi I have found a new program (MIDA) for convert automatically DFM and Pas in FMX and pas. it's GREAT !!! don't convert all, of course, but it is very useful. I converted a project VCL , 20 forms, and I have spent using a morning instead of a week:) i was any TMS Pack component in my project and it work fine in FM ( converted in FM component ) from Mida blog : *Update MIDA V 0.82 – Chart and grid support* ...... in detail i have add support for : TChart , TStringGrid, THeader, TDBGrid, TDBAdvGrid , TcxGrid, Today don’t exist a real dbgrid component fo...

MIDA - Vcl To FireMonkey converter
This message is no longer available. > {quote:title=Mida FireMonkey wrote:}{quote} > I am here to present the immediate availability of the best converter from VCL to Firemonkey. > > > More than 200 components converted to the nearest component firemonkey. > > I remember that the two technologies are very different, can not ‘exist a true total conversion. but you can get a new project with a few change can be compiled in Firemonkey. > > With the next versions will update the database conversion ( online ), for example when it is available for a real TRi...

MIDA - Vcl To FireMonkey converter
I am here to present the immediate availability of the best converter from VCL to Firemonkey. More than 200 components converted to the nearest component firemonkey. I remember that the two technologies are very different, can not ‘exist a true total conversion. but you can get a new project with a few change can be compiled in Firemonkey. With the next versions will update the database conversion ( online ), for example when it is available for a real TRichEdit under FM, MIDA will convert automatically the old TRichEdit. The time to create MIDA was rather long and complex. ...

ANN: MIDA - Vcl To FireMonkey converter
I am here to present the immediate availability of the best converter from VCL to Firemonkey. More than 200 components converted to the nearest component firemonkey. I remember that the two technologies are very different, can not ‘exist a true total conversion. but you can get a new project with a few change can be compiled in Firemonkey. With the next versions will update the database conversion ( online ), for example when it is available for a real TRichEdit under FM, MIDA will convert automatically the old TRichEdit. The time to create MIDA was rather long and complex. ...

Mida 1.2 Vcl To FireMonkey converter
Further improved the quality of conversion. Improved support for DataModule. Created a video on YouTube to show the simplicity and the power. I activated an account with ShareIt, it will soon be online. I’m ‘adding support for C++ Builder XE2 … will be activated with the next update. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22MbO_HzU-E looks after the video : screenshot on Mac http://midafiremonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/mida12_mac.png Site http://www.midaconverter.com Blog http://blog.midaconverter.com ------------------------------------- Mauro Botta ...

Mida 1.2 Vcl To FireMonkey converter
Further improved the quality of conversion. Improved support for DataModule. Created a video on YouTube to show the simplicity and the power. I activated an account with ShareIt, it will soon be online. I’m ‘adding support for C++ Builder XE2 … will be activated with the next update. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22MbO_HzU-E looks after the video : screenshot on Mac http://midafiremonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/mida12_mac.png Site http://www.midaconverter.com Blog http://blog.midaconverter.com ------------------------------------- Mauro Botta On 2011-1...

ANN : Mida 1.2 Vcl To FireMonkey converter
Further improved the quality of conversion. Improved support for DataModule. Created a video on YouTube to show the simplicity and the power. I activated an account with ShareIt, it will soon be online. I’m ‘adding support for C++ Builder XE2 … will be activated with the next update. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22MbO_HzU-E looks after the video : screenshot on Mac http://midafiremonkey.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/mida12_mac.png blog : http://midafiremonkey.wordpress.com ------------------------------------- Mauro Botta ...

New video of camera surveillance app made with Delphi XE5 and FireMonkey [Edit]
Hello guys I know that most of you have already seen the video from our mobile camera surveillance system, but today I uploaded a new video showing the final version, which has a much better interface than the previous version, along with some nice features that you all will like to see. I would recommend the PTZ and Virtual Matrix sections which shows some nice GUI controls made with Firemonkey http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lQGA8-sO9w The app is also available for download for Android, instructions are available on the video description > {quote:title=Eric Fleming Bonilha w...

Delphi XE5(U2) Firemonkey application crashes at startup on OSX on new mac [Edit]
Hello, I'm trying to deploy my first application on a mac platform. I have successfully built the application on my dev mac and run it through PAServer and now I would like to deploy it on a different MacOS. I tried to drag and drop the application .app file into the application folder of the new Mac. The app shows up but as soon as I start it, I got a message telling me that it stopped unexpectedly. I'm really lost here: With windows, I'd have no problem finding out what is wrong but, with a Mac, I haven't got a clue what I did wrong. The application doesn't do an...

Convert Delphi 7 to Delphi 2009 [Edit]
Hi! Please, I have a code done in Delphi 7... Now I want to convert Delphi 7 to Delphi 2009 but I'm having problems when compile the code. Error message: +[DCC Fatal Error] Far.dpr(9): F2063 Could not compile used unit 'System.pas'+ Please can somebody help me? Source Download (349KB): http://rapidshare.com/files/256191328/FileManager.rar.html Mirror Source Download: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=12GYLPT0 Password: delphi Thank u so much! (sorry for my bad english, it is not my native language) Edited by: loquax loquax on Jul 15, 2009 12:24 PM Sorry, bu...

Web resources about - New converter VCL to FireMonkey !!!! [Edit] - embarcadero.delphi.non-tech

Firemonkeys - GamesIndustry International
The world's leading games industry website. Get insight from todays industry leaders with news, interviews and analysis of global gaming trends. ...

Firemonkey’s Real Racing 3 To Launch At The End Of February
In September, Apple demoed Firemonkey’s Real Racing 3 at the iPhone 5 event . Three months later and the game has yet to show up in the App Store. ...

EA Games and Firemonkey Bringing Real Racing 3 to Android, Fasten your Seat Belts
Start up your engines race fans, EA Games is teaming up with Firemonkey to bring Real Racing 3 to mobile devices. If you’re a fan of more realistic ...

EA's Firemint and IronMonkey Studios Merge to Become FireMonkeys
... game development studios into one mega-studio in Australia. Firemint and IronMonkeys will be merged into a single studio now known as Firemonkeys ...

News: Firemonkeys announces Real Racing 3
Firemonkeys, a new gaming subsidiary of Electronic Arts born from the merger of FireMint and IronMonkey, has announced the coming release of ...

firemonkeys - iMore
EA has pushed out another impressive update to its equally impressive iOS racer, Real Racing 3, that for the first time brings cars from Ferrari ...

Firemonkeys on Real Racing 3 going free-to-play
... got a hands-on preview of Real Racing 3. We also spoke with Ptolemy Oberin, one of the game’s programmers and project lead at developer Firemonkeys, ...

Real Racing 3 coming in 2012 from Firemonkeys
The first game from recently merged developer Firemonkeys is Real Racing 3 , the developer revealed moments ago during EA's Summer Showcase event ...

Firemonkeys Previews Real Racing 3 for iPhone and iPad
Firemonkeys, the new combined studio from EA combining the IronMonkey and Firemint gaming studios, has announced the development of Real Racing ...

EA Mobile Moves: IronMonkey & Firemint Merge Into “Firemonkeys,” Now Have 50M Players Between
... that it is merging two top mobile game studios, IronMonkey and Firemint , which will fittingly combine to create a new company, called Firemonkeys. ...

Resources last updated: 12/12/2015 5:06:12 PM