The first question is: which is the appropriate state?
Lets work through this.
The appropriate state is the state that has the ability to legislate to prohibit or permit the activity.
Since no one state has the ability to legislate over space or the moon or indeed anything extraterritorial, the legislation would have to prevent or permit the actual launch. (while it is on the ground, that is, within their jurisdiction)
This then means in Denmark it is the Danish government.

The second question is: is it illegal to launch because of the treaty?
Is the launch illegal just because Denmark has ratified the treaty (if they have indeed ratified it?), well perhaps.
Our local law here (Australia) is that the legislature must enact local laws that give effect to the treaty before the treaty itself has any effect.
The legal effect is not due to treaty ratification as that has no legal meaning, it is because local laws are enacted to give effect to the treaty that the activity might be prohibited or permitted. (Treaty ratification may give the legislature constitutional powers (under some circumstances) to enact local laws (as it does here). It's complicated.)

So the answers (I think) are that the Danish government is the only legislature that could prohibit the launch and that (if the legal precedent regarding treaties is similar then) unless there is a local law enacted to give effect to the treaty, the treaty is merely aspirational and not effective.

When I'm trying to study at home I find that listening to white noise works well.
(A white noise generator on a laptop/pc)
It masks the noises the family make pretty well.

Best done with a pair of headphones that actually surround the ear rather than earbuds.

Noise cancelling headphones might help filter out some of the distractions too.

Its far from perfect, but it works for me.

(I have a pair of Phillips noise cancelling earbuds... and I'd have to say that they are a waste of time and money. There is no perceivable difference when noise cancellation is activated. Other brands might fare better,I dont know. My experience with these has been poor.)

Absolutely.
Please mod this parent comment up.

Aside from technically literate consumers who might actually care whether their phone is powered by IOS, Symbian, Windows, or Android, would most consumers be able to meaningfully discriminate between these phone operating systems?

Wouldn't most consumers merely want a phone that works and some working apps for Facebook, Twitter, YouTube etc?

"finding out if I got the PreCheck lane would be nice in advance"

I am sure the terrorists would love to know this as well.

Obvious Terrorist Scenario: Fly around the US enough and get PreCheck status.
Use the barcode and the decoded information to determine which flight to strap on the suicide vest.
If you don't get PreCheck, then don't wear the vest.

I sincerely hope that the the TSA is not stupid enough to leave the decoding of the PreCheck status as something as trivial as an unecoded/plain text 'bit flip' from a barcode.

Surely the barcode decodes to a string that requires a strong private key to actually decipher?

Anything less would be negligent.

Couldn't agree more.
I've only just started the Baroque Cycle with Quicksilver but its true to form (I've enjoyed everything of Stephenson's)
Anathem is wonderful read.

How can that be a Patent?

The USPTO are a joke!
(Didn't someone manage to patent the swing? It was later rejected after all the fuss made over it.. but how do you allow this sort of thing through your filters?)
How does something like this get past even the most basic technical assessment.

This patent was Filed in Feb 2002.
MythTV archives go back to May 2002. So the idea of 'device playback' of TV and video cant have been new at all.
Bit-torrent, Kazza, e-Mule, FTP, HTTP (and many more) were all available as file transfer mechanisms.
Disk storage and playback of video was old hat by then.

How does combing a few existing things in an obvious and non creative way, amount to a patent award?

In its "drawings" it describes the platters of a disk drive... what does that have to do with the idea of pulling down video content from a number of sources, and playback. Its just filler... deliberate technical obsfucation.

At best this is an obvious aggregation of existing ideas. At worst its a blatant attempt to cash in on the R&D efforts large corporations who might be working on implementing the obvious.

That foreman has a vested interest in successful patent litigation. The more ridiculous the standard this case sets, the better for him.

That is spot on.
The parliament is free to set policy and law within its constitutional powers
Parliamentary law (statute law) aways overides court made 'common law'

Its only when laws conflict that the Judiciary get involved to try and sort the mess out, and then, sometimes the government might not win.
Of course the government is then free to remake the laws as it sees fit, within its constitutional framework, to ensure the desired outcome.
AND if we (the people) dont like the way thats working out, we can change it via our elected representatives.

So unless there is a constitutional law, that cannot be upset by legislation, that specifies some sort of right to have creative rights protected by the legislature; the 'music industry' is pissing its money away.

I wish them good luck with that. The only winners out of this one, will be the lawyers and their bank balances.

If the problem is who gets the prize..
And that's the stumbling block, preventing widespread collaboration..
Set up your collective to donate to a charity, or the EFF, or Cowboy Neal... or something worthwhile.

Go on.. it'll be more fun than a LUG meeting.

How hard can it be to mobilise tens of thousands of Nerds..

(Unless its really windy.. these suckers arent getting to Australia.. so I cant help..)

They should release 99 luftballoons! Sorry. Unecessary 80's flash back there..