Although this is more complicated than that, because it's not extradition from the UK to the USA that this is about. It's extradition from the UK to Sweden, who might then extradite him to the USA. So it's not the US-UK extradition treaty that applies, it's UK-Sweden extradition law that applies (which I guess is going to be European Union law).
P.S: Your attitude and ridiculous absolute position are all that is wrong with politics in the United States.
Well, there's corruption and excessive corporate influence too (just like pretty much anywhere else). But it seems to be one of the things wrong with politics in the USA.
We can't even patch some of our systems or install an antivirus client on some of our equipment because it is considered a "medical device" and would lose FDA certification.
If it really are safety of life equipment there should be no way for a virus to get in, and that should be documented. If folks are connecting to the net or installing pirated games on safety of life equipment, the problem is not that you can't install an antivirus client. And as for patching the systems, if you can show that the patches are developed to FDA standards, you can patch them. If you can't, you shouldn't even be considering it.
So, if we're talking about a network being used to display a lab test in a doctor's office, I'd argue that there is a pretty low risk of anything going wrong and strong control over the network should be unnecessary (beyond general good security practices that would apply in any business setting).
On the other hand, if we're talking about monitoring equipment, I'd say that control of the network is critical, unless there is some kind of backup for communicating alarms.
The important thing is that somebody has looked at the use and decided that those levels are appropriate. And if it's not documented, it didn't happen.
It will be over-applied in areas that are not really at risk, driving up all kinds of costs that consumers end up paying for, and often delaying the introduction of technology that could actually improve care.
2. Because of the huge cost associated with knee-jerk reactions and consultants/etc in #1, administrators will try to skirt the regulation as much as possible, which puts patients at risk in situations where the controls really are appropriate.
In other regulated industries I've actually seen "turn the clock back" responses to regulation - where ancient practices that are grandfathered in get preferred to modern practices that are actually better, but which become more expensive to implement due to the presence of the regulation. In this way regulation can actually harm those it purports to benefit. Unfortunately, it usually is still better than the alternative.
Essentially, you need a system that requires somebody to do a HAZOP or functional hazard analysis to see what hazards any new system (or reversion to an old system!) presents. If the hazards are negligible then job done. If they aren't then you do full risk assessment and management, but the extent of that will vary according to the severity of risks. That's pretty much what is done for air traffic control in most of the world, and I think it works well. The problems come when the hazard analysis and risk management are done by inexperienced people or in a blame culture (building a safety culture is hard), or when the insurers won't accept risks that the regulators will.
I know this may be difficult for non-gun owners to understand, but yes, many of those who choose to get certified and licensed to legally carry concealed weapons actually spend time mentally preparing and training for precisely that type of situation.
Even though I'm doubtful about that claim, suppose it were true. The sheriff has pointed out that she could have had official security but had not requested it. The post I was commenting to referred to "some of her supporters", not to a professional security contingent. Would your claims likely apply to casual bystanders?
The real solution to the problem is to teach them something like fish farming, or other trade
A lot of them are former fishermen who had the fish stocks destroyed by other countries (many of them developed western countries -- ie, us) dumping polluting waste into their waters. Fish farming will only work if we let the waters clean up enough for the fish to survive. Then the pirates -- the ones who would sooner not risk their necks -- could go back to fishing. There's no real need for fish farming (which would probably be too efficient for full employment anyway).
No, another option is to use non-lethal force to stop the pirates capturing you in the first place. I wonder whether anybody has any ideas on how that might be done. Maybe something with lasers?...
In retrospect I should have added "aim" to my list of things they'd have to do, shouldn't I?
From what we hear from the sheriff, the gunman might not have been the only "bad guy", so having the gunman alive might yet prove useful. Kudos to those who tackled and captured him. I doubt I'd have the cojones.
It's interesting that the US right/gun supporters are pointing to the Swiss
Well, that's not me. I like the fact that where I live only criminals, the military and law enforcement [1] have guns. I just think the situation is more complex than either side makes it out to be.
[1] For some reason the US gun lobby tends only to mention the first bit.
No, I never claimed that the British protesters were more civilised. I claim that the response to protest is more civilised. Anyway, "Off with their heads" was the cry of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. One thing I'll say for British students is that they are well read (in children's literature, at least).
The interesting thing is that gun crime doesn't seem to be correlated to gun ownership. The Swiss have one of the highest per-capita rates of gun ownership in the world, and one of the lowest rates of gun crime. It seems that gun crime tells you more about the culture than about gun ownership.
No kidding. If some of her supporters were armed, instead of there being 12 injured people, there'd be just one: the gunman himself.
Yes, sure, because their reactions would be so fast that they'd see the attacker drawing, identify the situation, draw their own weapons and shoot the attacher before the attacker gets a round off. Or maybe this isn't the movies, and the stoormtrooper effect doesn't work in the real world.
I was flying into Des Moines airport shortly after they had to re-number the runways here. The controller cleared me to land on 31 Right, and I asked why it had changed, He explained about the pole shift, and I asked him if the instersecting runway (23) had changed? No it had stayed the same. I asked "Does that mean they will eventuallly be paralell?" (long silence) "We'll have to get back to you on that"
304 degrees changes to 305 degrees, the runway designation changes from 30 to 31. Meanwhile 231 degrees changes to 232 degrees, it remains Runway 23. I expect the controller had other things to do and trusted you to check/. for the answer one day.
Because they offer the best bang for the buck.
Because pilots are trained to use them. Because they work. Because aviation is totally anal about
"if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is A Good Thing.
Somebody mod that insightful or informative, please. Best summary so far.
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he walk into a police station?
Yep. By appointment.
Although this is more complicated than that, because it's not extradition from the UK to the USA that this is about. It's extradition from the UK to Sweden, who might then extradite him to the USA. So it's not the US-UK extradition treaty that applies, it's UK-Sweden extradition law that applies (which I guess is going to be European Union law).
P.S: Your attitude and ridiculous absolute position are all that is wrong with politics in the United States.
Well, there's corruption and excessive corporate influence too (just like pretty much anywhere else). But it seems to be one of the things wrong with politics in the USA.
No. Never wanted to solve one. Now, if they can do an app that solves cryptic crosswords...
More likely they'll just debit your bank account anyway, because most contracts are on direct debits.
That probably is right.
As long as somebody who knows what they're doing has.
We can't even patch some of our systems or install an antivirus client on some of our equipment because it is considered a "medical device" and would lose FDA certification.
If it really are safety of life equipment there should be no way for a virus to get in, and that should be documented. If folks are connecting to the net or installing pirated games on safety of life equipment, the problem is not that you can't install an antivirus client. And as for patching the systems, if you can show that the patches are developed to FDA standards, you can patch them. If you can't, you shouldn't even be considering it.
So, if we're talking about a network being used to display a lab test in a doctor's office, I'd argue that there is a pretty low risk of anything going wrong and strong control over the network should be unnecessary (beyond general good security practices that would apply in any business setting).
On the other hand, if we're talking about monitoring equipment, I'd say that control of the network is critical, unless there is some kind of backup for communicating alarms.
The important thing is that somebody has looked at the use and decided that those levels are appropriate. And if it's not documented, it didn't happen.
It will be over-applied in areas that are not really at risk, driving up all kinds of costs that consumers end up paying for, and often delaying the introduction of technology that could actually improve care.
2. Because of the huge cost associated with knee-jerk reactions and consultants/etc in #1, administrators will try to skirt the regulation as much as possible, which puts patients at risk in situations where the controls really are appropriate.
In other regulated industries I've actually seen "turn the clock back" responses to regulation - where ancient practices that are grandfathered in get preferred to modern practices that are actually better, but which become more expensive to implement due to the presence of the regulation. In this way regulation can actually harm those it purports to benefit. Unfortunately, it usually is still better than the alternative.
Essentially, you need a system that requires somebody to do a HAZOP or functional hazard analysis to see what hazards any new system (or reversion to an old system!) presents. If the hazards are negligible then job done. If they aren't then you do full risk assessment and management, but the extent of that will vary according to the severity of risks. That's pretty much what is done for air traffic control in most of the world, and I think it works well. The problems come when the hazard analysis and risk management are done by inexperienced people or in a blame culture (building a safety culture is hard), or when the insurers won't accept risks that the regulators will.
- These weapons are unloaded. People receive sealed ammunition but using those bullets without a direct army order is a crime.
But since the issue is gun crime, it's hardly significant that using the guns for crime would be a crime.
I know this may be difficult for non-gun owners to understand, but yes, many of those who choose to get certified and licensed to legally carry concealed weapons actually spend time mentally preparing and training for precisely that type of situation.
Even though I'm doubtful about that claim, suppose it were true. The sheriff has pointed out that she could have had official security but had not requested it. The post I was commenting to referred to "some of her supporters", not to a professional security contingent. Would your claims likely apply to casual bystanders?
The real solution to the problem is to teach them something like fish farming, or other trade
A lot of them are former fishermen who had the fish stocks destroyed by other countries (many of them developed western countries -- ie, us) dumping polluting waste into their waters. Fish farming will only work if we let the waters clean up enough for the fish to survive. Then the pirates -- the ones who would sooner not risk their necks -- could go back to fishing. There's no real need for fish farming (which would probably be too efficient for full employment anyway).
Even if they do, it might not stop them.
No, another option is to use non-lethal force to stop the pirates capturing you in the first place. I wonder whether anybody has any ideas on how that might be done. Maybe something with lasers? ...
In retrospect I should have added "aim" to my list of things they'd have to do, shouldn't I?
From what we hear from the sheriff, the gunman might not have been the only "bad guy", so having the gunman alive might yet prove useful. Kudos to those who tackled and captured him. I doubt I'd have the cojones.
It's interesting that the US right/gun supporters are pointing to the Swiss
Well, that's not me. I like the fact that where I live only criminals, the military and law enforcement [1] have guns. I just think the situation is more complex than either side makes it out to be.
[1] For some reason the US gun lobby tends only to mention the first bit.
No, I never claimed that the British protesters were more civilised. I claim that the response to protest is more civilised. Anyway, "Off with their heads" was the cry of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland. One thing I'll say for British students is that they are well read (in children's literature, at least).
"Off with their heads! Off with their heads!" sound like a reasonable UK response to you?
Despite the impression you might get from the US media, we don't live in a fantasy world.
In the UK you have the wonderful example of students rioting in the streets, destroying public and private property over increases in tuition
And we managed it without anybody getting shot. Compare and contrast.
The interesting thing is that gun crime doesn't seem to be correlated to gun ownership. The Swiss have one of the highest per-capita rates of gun ownership in the world, and one of the lowest rates of gun crime. It seems that gun crime tells you more about the culture than about gun ownership.
No kidding. If some of her supporters were armed, instead of there being 12 injured people, there'd be just one: the gunman himself.
Yes, sure, because their reactions would be so fast that they'd see the attacker drawing, identify the situation, draw their own weapons and shoot the attacher before the attacker gets a round off. Or maybe this isn't the movies, and the stoormtrooper effect doesn't work in the real world.
And also in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, too. The B in BBC is "British", not "English", dear.
Northern Ireland is not in Great Britain (although the BBC does serve the folks there). If you're going to be pedantic, do it right.
Yep. And there are good reasons why you shouldn't use non-certified tools.
I was flying into Des Moines airport shortly after they had to re-number the runways here. The controller cleared me to land on 31 Right, and I asked why it had changed, He explained about the pole shift, and I asked him if the instersecting runway (23) had changed? No it had stayed the same. I asked "Does that mean they will eventuallly be paralell?" (long silence) "We'll have to get back to you on that"
304 degrees changes to 305 degrees, the runway designation changes from 30 to 31. Meanwhile 231 degrees changes to 232 degrees, it remains Runway 23. I expect the controller had other things to do and trusted you to check /. for the answer one day.
Because they offer the best bang for the buck. Because pilots are trained to use them. Because they work. Because aviation is totally anal about "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This is A Good Thing.
Somebody mod that insightful or informative, please. Best summary so far.