What Is Zip Code Of Vietnam

[Cloris Sopha]

Thisassumption comes from the Natural Law Theory developed by the Enlightenment philosophers in Europe during the 17th-18th centuries. [2] This theory states that as soon as human beings are born, they automatically have the right to freedom.

Since freedom is ingrained in every person, it logically follows that they may do whatever they want and even abuse this right to harm others. But if everyone had absolute freedom, the result would be a chaotic society. Hence, the Enlightenment philosophers argued that the state was created to establish social order by enforcing a social contract. [3] The state will then enact laws to limit the freedom of each individual, impose prohibitions, and turn freedom into relative rights.

For instance, despite having the right to freedom of opinion and expression, this should be limited, and a person will be punished if he or she commits acts such as character defamation or the spreading of false rumors to incite violence.

Alternatively, everyone has the right to own property, but their possessions may be requisitioned by the state for security and defense purposes when it has a sensible reason, and the owners are given adequate compensation.

We also have what is known as the Welfare State wherein the government plays a more significant role in the affairs of its citizens. In this model, the state intervenes more in society, restricts more rights, imposes higher taxes, and provides additional social services. In a Welfare State, the law prevents and punishes harmful actions and protects people's freedom. It is also in place to distribute wealth and provide added welfare. [5]

Nevertheless, it hardly matters if a country adheres to the Minimal State or the Welfare State model, the law is still based on the principle previously stated in this article: everyone automatically has the right to freedom by birth. And the law should limit those freedoms while preventing or punishing acts that infringe upon the interests and rights of others or society.

Article 331 merely reiterates the original and fundamental function of a whole legal system. It does not deal with particular social problems or provide specific solutions to any distinct issues but regurgitates the general philosophy behind all laws.

This is also why many people have said that Article 331 is ambiguous and vague. How can it be precise when it does not address any particular problem but is merely a rehashed declaration of legislative philosophy?

The Vietnamese government and the Communist Party needed a tool to protect their power from outside threats, such as criticism, protests, or independent associations. Using the vague wording of Article 331, they classified these actions as national security concerns.

The Party and State also needed a broad enough law to interpret things however they wanted. Hence, they crafted such a law in Article 331. The Vietnamese government can theoretically apply this penal code to any action it considers a threat to its rule.

For instance, if the government wants to punish an individual for allegedly making up a story that defames another person, it will apply Article 331. And with that it, therefore, nullifies the crime of slander even though Vietnam has penal codes that deal with defamation.

Or if the government wanted to punish protesters gathering outside of designated areas, it could use Article 331. When it did, it would not apply the less serious offense of disrupting public order for the protesters and sentencing them to more years in prison.

By bringing all these acts and concepts together under the umbrella of a single offense, the Vietnamese state has effectively created a penal article with no limits. In this way, the application of the law falls under the discretion of the authorities.

Vietnam then can arbitrarily use either Article 331, Article 117 - the crime of conducting propaganda against the state - or Article 156 - the crime of defamation - to prosecute those who criticize the state, Party officials, or those with close ties to the government.

Thus, while Article 331 may seem redundant when viewed critically because there are already other penal codes to penalize the same offenses, its actual function lies in its utility for the Vietnamese State. In a country where the government officials and their cronies can use the law to safeguard their position of power over the masses, this core philosophy serves as the foundation for a dictatorial and authoritarian regime.

4. 4 Permissible limitations of the ICCPR right to freedom of expression Australian Human Rights Commission. (2013). Humanrights.gov.au. -work/4-permissible-limitations-iccpr-right-freedom-expression

I had an opportunity to meet Ted Neward at TechEd this year. Ted, among other things, famously coined the phrase "Object-Relational mapping is the Vietnam of our industry" in late 2004.

It's a scary analogy, but an apt one. I've seen developers struggle for years with the huge mismatch between relational database models and traditional object models. And all the solutions they come up with seem to make the problem worse. I agree with Ted completely; there is no good solution to the object/relational mapping problem. There are solutions, sure, but they all involve serious, painful tradeoffs. And the worst part is that you can't usually see the consequences of these tradeoffs until much later in the development cycle.

Ted posted a much anticipated blog entry analyzing the ORM problem in minute detail. It's a long post. But unless you're a battle-scarred veteran of the ORM wars, I highly recommend at least skimming through it so you're aware of the many pitfalls you can run into trying to implement an ORM solution. There are a lot of magic bullets out there, and no shortage of naive developers.

Ted's post is excellent and authoritative, but it's a little wordy; I felt like I was experiencing a little slice of Vietnam while reading it. Let's skip directly to the summary at the end which provides an great list of current (and future) solutions to the ORM problem:

Abandonment. Developers simply give up on objects entirely, and return to a programming model that doesn't create the object/relational impedance mismatch. While distasteful, in certain scenarios an object-oriented approach creates more overhead than it saves, and the ROI simply isn't there to justify the cost of creating a rich domain model. ([Fowler] talks about this to some depth.) This eliminates the problem quite neatly, because if there are no objects, there is no impedance mismatch.

Wholehearted acceptance. Developers simply give up on relational storage entirely, and use a storage model that fits the way their languages of choice look at the world. Object-storage systems, such as the db4o project, solve the problem neatly by storing objects directly to disk, eliminating many (but not all) of the aforementioned issues; there is no "second schema", for example, because the only schema used is that of the object definitions themselves. While many DBAs will faint dead away at the thought, in an increasingly service-oriented world, which eschews the idea of direct data access but instead requires all access go through the service gateway thus encapsulating the storage mechanism away from prying eyes, it becomes entirely feasible to imagine developers storing data in a form that's much easier for them to use, rather than DBAs.

Manual mapping. Developers simply accept that it's not such a hard problem to solve manually after all, and write straight relational-access code to return relations to the language, access the tuples, and populate objects as necessary. In many cases, this code might even be automatically generated by a tool examining database metadata, eliminating some of the principal criticism of this approach (that being, "It's too much code to write and maintain").

Acceptance of ORM limitations. Developers simply accept that there is no way to efficiently and easily close the loop on the O/R mismatch, and use an ORM to solve 80% (or 50% or 95%, or whatever percentage seems appropriate) of the problem and make use of SQL and relational-based access (such as "raw" JDBC or ADO.NET) to carry them past those areas where an ORM would create problems. Doing so carries its own fair share of risks, however, as developers using an ORM must be aware of any caching the ORM solution does within it, because the "raw" relational access will clearly not be able to take advantage of that caching layer.

Integration of relational concepts into the languages. Developers simply accept that this is a problem that should be solved by the language, not by a library or framework. For the last decade or more, the emphasis on solutions to the O/R problem have focused on trying to bring objects closer to the database, so that developers can focus exclusively on programming in a single paradigm (that paradigm being, of course, objects). Over the last several years, however, interest in "scripting" languages with far stronger set and list support, like Ruby, has sparked the idea that perhaps another solution is appropriate: bring relational concepts (which, at heart, are set-based) into mainstream programming languages, making it easier to bridge the gap between "sets" and "objects". Work in this space has thus far been limited, constrained mostly to research projects and/or "fringe" languages, but several interesting efforts are gaining visibility within the community, such as functional/object hybrid languages like Scala or F#, as well as direct integration into traditional OO languages, such as the LINQ project from Microsoft for C# and Visual Basic. One such effort that failed, unfortunately, was the SQL/J strategy; even there, the approach was limited, not seeking to incorporate sets into Java, but simply allow for embedded SQL calls to be preprocessed and translated into JDBC code by a translator.

3a8082e126