Assange is, again, suspected of rape, based on new interrogations with him and the girls. In such a situation, most people in charge of an organization would temporally step down from their position.
He's also suspect of weighing less than a duck. No one in charge of any organization should step down when facing a witch hunt.
The reason (according to the rumor)
Rumors, yeah! Court is in session and the Right Honorable Charles Lynch is presiding.
he fooled her and came in her mouth, despite that he had previously promised that he would not (or she wouldn't have given him a oral sex)
But then, also according to rumor, she had promised him that she wouldn't scrape him with her teeth and she did.
If someone say "no" or "stop" during intercourse and the other fuckee don't stop immediately, then he/she is guilty of rape in Sweden
What if I tell her "stop complaining"?
If what you say about Swedish law is true, I think it's sad, very sad, that a whole country has fallen into such absolutely childish behavior.
When I was a kid, I remember times when I started an argument with my sister where she was technically wrong, but my mother wouldn't want to hear of it. She was trying to educate me to behave as an adult.
Grown ups must learn to distinguish between truly serious offenses and petty insults. That's something that, unfortunately, people are forgetting how to do these days. Greedy lawyers and laws such as those Swedish rape laws you mention are bringing humanity down from meaningful debate into childish squabbles.
Obviously this doesn't apply to the prosecution, witnesses, or complainant though because they are all expected to act according to their sincerely held beliefs either way.
Hold on there, it doesn't apply to the prosecution and complainant, but the witnesses should *never* act according to their beliefs, no matter how sincere they are.
Witnesses are demanded to report exclusively the *facts* that they can remember without any doubt, not their beliefs.
Even expert witnesses may report only the conclusions that are a consensus of the field they are experts in. They are not allowed to present their personal opinions if those opinions aren't typical of what other experts of the field may have under the same circumstances.
Iran had a shitty regime in 1953 as well. What people very conveniently forget is that oil production in Iran fell 96% after the oil industry was expropriated and there was a general insurrection against the regime. Iran wasn't quite democratic either, among other things votes weren't secret, it's very easy to get re-elected when your police knows exactly how everyone votes.
Chile also was in serious trouble under Allende, inflation reached as high as 120% in one month in 1972.
Although the CIA certainly was involved in both cases, it's not correct to say the US caused either of these coups. They did not cause the government to fall, it was already falling in both cases, all the CIA did was to make sure it fell in the direction they wanted.
There was a Canadian who was recently in an accident in Cuba and was kept from leaving the country until the investigation was finished up.
<tinfoil hat>Maybe he was talking to the people, the accident was caused by a government agent, the investigation was about how much he had talked to whom.</tinfoil hat>
That's not a principal of democracy. It is up to the people to choose their leadership. And if they are happy with their leadership, they are free to choose it again.
Have you actually been to Cuba, if so, did you go out of the tourist areas and talk to the locals?
I have never been to Cuba, but I know that getting out of the tourist areas and talking to the locals is not as easy as you think.
A tourist agent once tried to sell me a trip to Cuba. Among several matters we discussed was transportation. He told me tourists are not allowed to drive cars in Cuba, the only way to rent a car is getting one with a Cuban driver.
There are a great many have nots in the UK where the divide between what you have and what they don't is a great deal greater than it is in Cuba
Citation needed, please. One big problem every time someone tries to paint that rosy picture of a nation with excellent education and health care system and excellent distribution of income is that all those statistics come from the Cuban government itself.
When a politician in the US starts bragging about how good the public schools in his district are, journalists are free to visit those schools and report their findings. That kind of criticism is impossible in a country where all the newspapers are published by the government.
first of all he is ex-president. What threats of his powers are you talking about?
Formal titles do not mean that much in Communist countries. Leonid Brezhnev, for instance, was "General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", while Nikolai Podgorny was "Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR" until 1977, when a power struggle removed him from office.
What really matters is how much power each one holds. Fidel lost a lot of that power when he fell sick, but since he has been recovering some of his health his power seems to be increasing.
US government might want to paint a worse picture of their enemies than what they actually are! It's not even only Cuba.. It's China, Russia, North Korea, whatever country with different views, culture and society.
I have never seen the US government trying to paint a bad picture of any truly democratic country, meaning a country with freedom of expression, multiple party political system, and regularly scheduled elections with different parties alternating in power. However, when a country starts slipping from democracy, like Venezuela which is steadily drifting away from those three principles, then the US government starts having reservations about that country.
Disclaimer: I'm not an American but, as you mention that some of the countries the US government demonizes may not be as bad as they say, in the same way the US may not be as bad as you think.
I'd love to have a system of driver rankings. Anyone skilled enough to pass a harder test on a yearly basis should be allowed to travel in the left lanes at a more rapid pace and everyone else should be restricted to the far right.
I think drivers should be tested at the maximum speed they are allowed to drive at. The test should be done at night on wet pavement and include emergency stops and slalom courses.
Besides, one should be allowed to do the test drunk. You could be tested for alcohol before and after the test, your BAC would be noted on your driver's licence and you would be allowed to have a BAC up to that level when driving.
It would cost more to do tests this way, of course, but it would be repaid in much lower accident rates.
Where I work, someone inadvertently emailed emailed a spreadsheet of the 3000+ employees social security numbers, addresses, salaries, and our date of births.
That's the result of having a tool that allows computer-illiterate people to process data.
When the printing press was invented people started learning to read and write. They learned spelling and grammar.
When the GUI was invented people started forgetting how to read and write. They want to click on icons because they don't want to learn the spelling and grammar of the commands that control the computer.
In the computer world, Johannes Gutenberg invented the comic book.
trusted their assertions that both, CO2 does contribute and that Humans are the major cause of Global Warming.
Your "reasoning" is reminding me of one of the "young earth" religious dogmas, the one in which god created the earth full of fossils that seem to be very old just to show how fallible science is. If you start doubting everything equally without sorting out the reliability of the information, then you are using blind dogma, not reason.
I did an experiment that corroborated the arguments for anthropogenic global warming. I have never seen any denialist present some experiment that could be used to demonstrate that either there is no global warming or that other effects are causing it.
In view of the facts that I have determined to be true by my own experiment, I assume the scientists who say global warming exists and is caused by human activities are more trustworthy than those who deny these claims.
And one last point. Despite claims to the contrary, we do not have wonderfully accurate temperature records over the last 100 years. This is my field and I know how even the most modern temperature sensors in common use are often biased and surprisingly inaccurate.
That's what statistics are for. Every single measurement needs not be wonderfully accurate. In the same way that we define a certain height as "sea level" when the surface of the sea isn't level, we can talk about average temperatures when we lack precise measurements at each point.
Unless you can demonstrate that this bias in thermometers has a trend towards showing higher temperatures as time goes by, you cannot say global warming is an artifact of measurement error.
Let's start with you: Did you personally test Anthropogenic Global Warming? 'Cause I'm willing to bet you trusted someone else's assertion.
As a matter of fact, demonstrating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is very simple and can be done at home. I've seen a video from some BBC educational program demonstrating this, with a couple of clear plastic bottles, some vinegar and baking soda to generate CO2, and two digital thermometers.
I repeated the experiment and, yes, it worked. Therefore, I can assert from my own experience that Anthropogenic Global Warming is, at least, a plausible hypothesis. It's up to the denialists to come with a better experiment proving the contrary if they want me to believe them.
Actually, I don't think Google is that great either - I cannot filter out all "add your own review" from the various sites
The worst thing about Google for me is that too many results aren't what you get when you click the link.
There are many sites selling technical and scientific papers that send the full text to Google but when I go there all I get is an abstract and a "click to buy" button.
It's a very simple, easy to obfuscate (cover up) search results manipulation that could quite easily make a multi-hundred millions dollar difference for the company
Two alternatives: you either let them do it or you force them to publish their ranking algorithms.
If page rank were public, there would be no search engines worth using. The whole internet is bad enough with spam as it is.
Better let Google do their stuff, it's not as if they were keeping others from posting their own search results. I started using Google when they started giving me better results than Altavista, which was the search "monopoly" back then.
Slashdot Mirror
He's also suspect of weighing less than a duck. No one in charge of any organization should step down when facing a witch hunt.
Rumors, yeah! Court is in session and the Right Honorable Charles Lynch is presiding.
But then, also according to rumor, she had promised him that she wouldn't scrape him with her teeth and she did.
What if I tell her "stop complaining"?
If what you say about Swedish law is true, I think it's sad, very sad, that a whole country has fallen into such absolutely childish behavior.
When I was a kid, I remember times when I started an argument with my sister where she was technically wrong, but my mother wouldn't want to hear of it. She was trying to educate me to behave as an adult.
Grown ups must learn to distinguish between truly serious offenses and petty insults. That's something that, unfortunately, people are forgetting how to do these days. Greedy lawyers and laws such as those Swedish rape laws you mention are bringing humanity down from meaningful debate into childish squabbles.
Hold on there, it doesn't apply to the prosecution and complainant, but the witnesses should *never* act according to their beliefs, no matter how sincere they are.
Witnesses are demanded to report exclusively the *facts* that they can remember without any doubt, not their beliefs.
Even expert witnesses may report only the conclusions that are a consensus of the field they are experts in. They are not allowed to present their personal opinions if those opinions aren't typical of what other experts of the field may have under the same circumstances.
Iran had a shitty regime in 1953 as well. What people very conveniently forget is that oil production in Iran fell 96% after the oil industry was expropriated and there was a general insurrection against the regime. Iran wasn't quite democratic either, among other things votes weren't secret, it's very easy to get re-elected when your police knows exactly how everyone votes.
Chile also was in serious trouble under Allende, inflation reached as high as 120% in one month in 1972.
Although the CIA certainly was involved in both cases, it's not correct to say the US caused either of these coups. They did not cause the government to fall, it was already falling in both cases, all the CIA did was to make sure it fell in the direction they wanted.
<tinfoil hat>Maybe he was talking to the people, the accident was caused by a government agent, the investigation was about how much he had talked to whom.</tinfoil hat>
When someone tried that in the US they changed the Constitution to prohibit it.
An incumbent president has too much power and it's too easy for him to hold to the office indefinitely.
I have never been to Cuba, but I know that getting out of the tourist areas and talking to the locals is not as easy as you think.
A tourist agent once tried to sell me a trip to Cuba. Among several matters we discussed was transportation. He told me tourists are not allowed to drive cars in Cuba, the only way to rent a car is getting one with a Cuban driver.
Citation needed, please. One big problem every time someone tries to paint that rosy picture of a nation with excellent education and health care system and excellent distribution of income is that all those statistics come from the Cuban government itself.
When a politician in the US starts bragging about how good the public schools in his district are, journalists are free to visit those schools and report their findings. That kind of criticism is impossible in a country where all the newspapers are published by the government.
Formal titles do not mean that much in Communist countries. Leonid Brezhnev, for instance, was "General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union", while Nikolai Podgorny was "Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR" until 1977, when a power struggle removed him from office.
What really matters is how much power each one holds. Fidel lost a lot of that power when he fell sick, but since he has been recovering some of his health his power seems to be increasing.
I have never seen the US government trying to paint a bad picture of any truly democratic country, meaning a country with freedom of expression, multiple party political system, and regularly scheduled elections with different parties alternating in power. However, when a country starts slipping from democracy, like Venezuela which is steadily drifting away from those three principles, then the US government starts having reservations about that country.
Disclaimer: I'm not an American but, as you mention that some of the countries the US government demonizes may not be as bad as they say, in the same way the US may not be as bad as you think.
Well, at least they still have the sense of speed. This means the magnitude of the vector is still there.
I think drivers should be tested at the maximum speed they are allowed to drive at. The test should be done at night on wet pavement and include emergency stops and slalom courses.
Besides, one should be allowed to do the test drunk. You could be tested for alcohol before and after the test, your BAC would be noted on your driver's licence and you would be allowed to have a BAC up to that level when driving.
It would cost more to do tests this way, of course, but it would be repaid in much lower accident rates.
There's something more that the article did not mention. It's not as if 19th century technology has been forgotten already.
If there is a market for it, you can be sure someone will build a modern machine to do it better, faster, and cheaper than those old machines do.
Perhaps you could fix the Wikipedia article adding that information. Remember, citations are always needed.
That's the result of having a tool that allows computer-illiterate people to process data.
When the printing press was invented people started learning to read and write. They learned spelling and grammar.
When the GUI was invented people started forgetting how to read and write. They want to click on icons because they don't want to learn the spelling and grammar of the commands that control the computer.
In the computer world, Johannes Gutenberg invented the comic book.
Your "reasoning" is reminding me of one of the "young earth" religious dogmas, the one in which god created the earth full of fossils that seem to be very old just to show how fallible science is. If you start doubting everything equally without sorting out the reliability of the information, then you are using blind dogma, not reason.
I did an experiment that corroborated the arguments for anthropogenic global warming. I have never seen any denialist present some experiment that could be used to demonstrate that either there is no global warming or that other effects are causing it.
In view of the facts that I have determined to be true by my own experiment, I assume the scientists who say global warming exists and is caused by human activities are more trustworthy than those who deny these claims.
That's what statistics are for. Every single measurement needs not be wonderfully accurate. In the same way that we define a certain height as "sea level" when the surface of the sea isn't level, we can talk about average temperatures when we lack precise measurements at each point.
Unless you can demonstrate that this bias in thermometers has a trend towards showing higher temperatures as time goes by, you cannot say global warming is an artifact of measurement error.
As a matter of fact, demonstrating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is very simple and can be done at home. I've seen a video from some BBC educational program demonstrating this, with a couple of clear plastic bottles, some vinegar and baking soda to generate CO2, and two digital thermometers.
I repeated the experiment and, yes, it worked. Therefore, I can assert from my own experience that Anthropogenic Global Warming is, at least, a plausible hypothesis. It's up to the denialists to come with a better experiment proving the contrary if they want me to believe them.
Capitalism has the answers to that. Let food prices rise, farming subsidies are Evil.
My head hurts from those mixed metaphors and double entendres, "It hurts the bottom", "I say screw 'em"
Speak for yourself, I have 2 TB of porn and I'm PROUD of it!
True. The problem with digital commerce is that advertising cost is *extremely* low, even more so if they use spambots.
When your cost is zero, any sale turns a profit.
If only they could get it out by October 10... But no such luck, I guess it will only come out at Halloween, as usual.
Is that one of those sites that try to profit from the misspellings?
How is that different from feeding some disgusting old lard-arse who could never get a real meal because you need the money?
The worst thing about Google for me is that too many results aren't what you get when you click the link.
There are many sites selling technical and scientific papers that send the full text to Google but when I go there all I get is an abstract and a "click to buy" button.
The following words are mentioned in the USA national anthem, written in 1815, Please do not use them anywhere else:
a, air, and, as, at, band, banner, battle, be, beam, between, blest, blood, blows, bombs, brave, breeze, bright, broad, bursting, by, can, catches, cause, conceals, confusion, conquer, could, country, dawn, deep, desolation, dimly, discloses, does, doth, draped, dread, early, ever, fight, first, fitfully, flag, flight, foe, footsteps, foul, free, freemen, from, full, gallantly, gave, glare, gleam, gleaming, gloom, glory, god, grave, hailed, half, has, hath, haughty, havoc, heaven, hireling, home, host, in, is, it, just, land, last, leave, light, long, loved, made, may, mists, more, morning, motto, must, nation, night, no, now, o, of, oh, on, or, our, out, over, peace, pentagon, perilous, pollution, power, praise, preserved, proof, proudly, ramparts, red, reflected, refuge, reposes, rescued, rockets, roof, save, say, see, seen, shall, shines, shore, should, silence, slave, so, spangled, stand, star, stars, steep, still, stream, streaming, stripes, swore, terror, that, the, their, then, there, this, through, thru, thus, tis, towering, triumph, trust, twilight, us, vauntingly, victory, war, was, washed, watched, wave, we, were, what, when, where, which, who, whose, with, yet, you
Two alternatives: you either let them do it or you force them to publish their ranking algorithms.
If page rank were public, there would be no search engines worth using. The whole internet is bad enough with spam as it is.
Better let Google do their stuff, it's not as if they were keeping others from posting their own search results. I started using Google when they started giving me better results than Altavista, which was the search "monopoly" back then.