To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters
The USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism hosted a panel in the Gould School of Law Wednesday afternoon to discuss legal policies and actions surrounding space travel.The event was organized by Alex Kaplan, a second year student in the USC Gould School of Law and president of USC’s Space Law Society.Rita Lauria, a professor at Annenberg and the founder of the legal firm Metalaw®.US, Julie Jiru, an attorney at SpaceX and Matthew Schaefer, a professor at the University of Nebraska served as panelists at the discussion on the future of space law as a legal field.Space law is becoming increasingly important as more and more private companies invest in the space travel industry. SpaceX’s goal, for example, is to eventually enable people to live on other planets, according to its website.Though all three panelists spoke on the same subject, each had a different perspective and area of expertise.Jiru discussed the Space Act Agreement, a law that enabled the development of the fledging space transportation industry that exists today. Prior to 2004, collaboration between the government and private space firms was possible but, according to Jiru, was limited by the government’s Federal Acquisition Regulation contracts, which placed too much stress on young space companies.“[A] Federal Acquisition Regulation contract is anywhere from 100 pages to 1000 pages, some are 2000 pages, some are 3000 pages, and it goes on,” Jiru said. “If you’ve worked with a FAR-based contract, you go by the mantra that you are not allowed to launch your launch vehicle unless your contractual paperwork is as heavy as that vehicle that you are trying to lift.”Though legislation around space travel has since changed, companies interested in launching a spacecraft still face many liabilities.“When it comes to third party liability, the current U.S. regime is this: The U.S. government requires the space operator to get insurance up to the maximum probable loss,” Schaeffer said. “The [Federal Aviation Administration] has a way that they calculate through a complex formula.”Schaefer argued that government inaction and indecision, particularly in promising insurance coverage, was creating an unhealthy climate within the space industry.“The government promises to take care of the next $2.7 billion, but it would take an active Congress and an actual appropriation to do it,” Schaeffer said. “Here is the bad thing: Congress has started promising that [amount] for lesser and lesser periods of time. That is tough on the industry for planning purposes.”Exploration · Matthew Schaefer, professor at the University of Nebraska, lectured on the liabilities associated with space travel. – Ralf Cheung | Daily TrojanAnother segment of space law, known as metalaw, looks at framing international law in the event of contact with extraterrestrial intelligent life.“Metalaw seeks to establish a regulatory scheme for outer space that considers the possible existence of other intelligent life and that could be used to help regulate interactions between such possible life forms,” Lauria said.Though metalaw focuses only on possibilities and not actuality, Lauria argued that the speed of technological advances and the slow pace of the legal response necessitated the urgency to speed the process to start considering actuality.Even though the event was specifically about space law, some students saw it as an opportunity to learn more about law in general.“From an undergraduate perspective, this was a good opportunity to get exposure to law, not to mention space law,” said Mabel Tsui, a senior majoring in communication. “Based on the information I have heard, it seems this is a fast-growing area of law.” Follow us on Twitter @dailytrojan
It never changes, infinite in its carnival barkers, in its shamelessness, in its legal feuds, in its double-crossings, in its grossly hyperbolic monologues. Oh, the faces change, or at least those now gracing center stage on the fistic landscape have, as Don King and Bob Arum, rulers so long, have moved into the shadows to reluctantly make room for people like Richard Schaefer, Gary Shaw and Dan Goossen, who’s actually an old standby. “This is the biggest fight in the history of boxing,” said Schaefer in what easily could be filed away in the National Archives as the most outlandish statement ever uttered in a sport overflowing with such outlandish statements. Perhaps I’m overly skeptical, but I have a hunch this country was slightly more intrigued when a couple of undefeated heavyweights, Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier, mixed it up in 1971. And I think the passion of sporting patrons was a little more stirred by Ali-George Foreman, Roberto Duran-Sugar Ray Leonard I, Leonard-Thomas Hearns I, Larry Holmes-Gerry Cooney, Joe Louis-Max Schmeling, Jack Dempsey-Gene Tunney, Holmes-Gerry Cooney, Mike Tyson-Michael Spinks, Aaron Pryor-Alexis Arguello and countless other matches. To refer to the May 5 debate between De La Hoya and Mayweather as a historic showdown is sheer nonsense, since De La Hoya has been semi-retired since September of 2003 when he lost a decision to Sugar Shane Mosley and then surrendered meekly a year later in the ninth round against Bernard Hopkins. De La Hoya did knock out Richardo Mayorga last May in his last fight, but an asterisk should be put next to that victory since the undersized, woefully outmanned Mayorga wasn’t sound of body, soul or spirit. Oscar De La Hoya has emerged as one of the most fascinating figures ever in his occupation, not because of the skill of his fists but because of the lure of his persona. Because of a masterful marketing campaign orchestrated early in his career by Bob Arum and his Top Rank organization, De La Hoya instantly became a office phenomenon, which somehow he has remained even at age 34 despite having lost twice to Mosley and despite his ignobly raising the white flag against Hopkins. There is a certain charisma about De La Hoya due I’m sure to his handsome features and to the appealing words that flow smoothly out of him, a trick of presence that was on display at the Chinese Theater session, as his delirious fans reacted to his every banality with loud cheers, as opposed to loudly jeering Mayweather’s posturing antics earlier. There is no doubt despite his modest achievements in recent years in the ring–he was handed a gift decision over a German middleweight named Felix Sturm in June of 2004 to set up the Hopkins meeting three months later – that he is easily the biggest draw in boxing. In his first fight after the Hopkins debacle against Mayorga, there were more than 900,000 pay per view purchases on HBO. “It was astonishing,” admitted Ross Greenburg, president of HBO sports. “We figured it would be around 400,000 and it was more than twice as much.” Greenburg has no idea how many will pay to watch the De La Hoya-Mayweather match, but it won’t be surprising if it nears the Mike Tyson-Lennox Lewis record of 2 million, if the ticket scramble for the fight is a yardstick. The 15,000 put on sale by the MGM Grand Garden were sold out in one day, and choice ringsides are now being peddled for prices approximating Super Bowl tickets. I marvel at Oscar De La Hoya’s astonishing staying power. Other fighters lose stature after humiliating losses. Not De La Hoya. “The man absolutely quit against Hopkins,” charges Mayweather. “Look at the film. He’s pounding the canvas right after the ref stops it. How could a guy be pounding the canvas if he’s too hurt to get up. He didn’t get up because he didn’t want to get hit with anymore punches from Hopkins. And then a few weeks later, I saw the two men at a fight with their arms around each other, and they suddenly had a business arrangement going. Go figure.” Oscar De La Hoya is a 2 to 1 underdog against Mayweather, and the feeling here is that it should be 4 to 1. If De La Hoya had problems coping with Sugar Shane Mosley’s quickness, then what chance does he have of landing lethal punches against Mayweather, the world’s consensus best pound-for-pound fighter who’s not only a better defensively than Mosley but also faster? But what difference does it make? Oscar De La Hoya is guaranteed of making $20 million for this fight–and probably will wind up earning closer to $30 million. And a grateful Floyd Mayweather Jr. is guaranteed of making $12 million for this fight–and probably will wind up earning closer to $15 million. “How often do fans get to see two of the greatest fighters of all time mix it up?” said Richard Schaefer, as he rambled on and on the other day with his scandalously inflated rhetoric. It could have been Don King talking. Or Bob Arum. Nothing changes in boxing. Especially not the public’s fawning attitude toward Oscar De La Hoya, who has earned more for doing less than many in the history of his mean profession. Doug Krikorian can be reached at [email protected] 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! But the deportment is the same. I can swear as I listened to Schaefer, a one-time Swiss banker who somehow came out of nowhere to become a friend of De La Hoya and become CEO of his Golden Boy Productions, drone irritatingly on at the De La Hoya-Floyd Mayweather Jr. press conference the other day in front of Grauman’s Chinese Theater that he sounded hauntingly like King or Arum hyping one of their events.
AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREStriving toward a more perfect me: Doug McIntyre “It’s the bare minimum we can ask for these animals that are going to be slaughtered,” said Jonathan Lovvorn, animal protection attorney with The Humane Society of the United States. About 10 billion turkeys, chickens, and other birds are slaughtered for human consumption each year in the United States – about 45 million turkeys for the Thanksgiving holiday alone. The Humane Society sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture two years ago asking for poultry to be covered by the nearly 50-year-old Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, which says livestock must be stunned or rendered unable to feel pain before they’re killed. An industry spokesman said there already are methods to ensure the animals don’t suffer needlessly. “We already operate with humane methods of slaughter,” Richard Lobb, a spokesman for the National Chicken Council, said before the hearing. “This is just the kind of campaign (by animal activist organizations) meant to make life difficult for people who turn animals into food.” By Juliana Barbassa The Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO – As the nation prepared for its annual turkey feast, animal rights advocates asked a federal judge on Monday to give the holiday fowl the same legal protections as cows, pigs and other animals when they are slaughtered. The Humane Society of the United States argued in U.S. District Court that the process for slaughtering chickens and turkeys is cruel, and requested the government include poultry under a federal rule that requires livestock to be killed humanely. Typically, birds at slaughterhouses are shackled upside down on a conveyer line, then stunned by being dipped into electrically charged water or immersed in a mist that carries a low-voltage charge. Their necks are then cut by a machine and they are dipped into a vat of boiling water to loosen their feathers, the lawsuit said. The process is cruel, the Humane Society said, because some birds aren’t fully incapacitated by the electrical charge, and go through the slaughter process fully conscious. A call to Agriculture Department officials wasn’t returned before the hearing. 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!