Here's the relevant section, translated to English:
Conversation with SKL
Conversed with forensic analysist Anders Nilsson at SKL to get a clarification o n the DNA samples.
In the previous PM I have written that concerning the condom used by Anna Ardin,
they had not found DNA. This is not correct according to Anders Nilsson. He sai d that they see "something" but that it is impossible to figure out. It has been
chosen to analyze the sample with a more refined method. This method takes abou t two weeks. In the previous PM it was not Anders Nilsson that I spoke with.
Anders Nilsson explained that it is not the amount of DNA that always determines
whether they can see DNA. There are many reasons why they can't get a clear pic ture.
- Something interfering with the analysis such as dirt, etc.
- Small amounts of DNA
- People emit different amounts of DNA
- The study material has been affected by usage, for example, washed, dried off ,
These were some of the things that can affect the analysis of DNA, but there are
more factors which can influence it.
The subsequent test referred to came back positive for mtDNA.
Because you'll drop it and break the fragile screen, rendering it useless before the malware could collect useful data? Because the battery will die too soon? Because you'll be getting rid of it to get the latest trendy model in short order?
Yeah, my phone is probably at an angle where it could get a good picture through its rear camera maybe 1-2% of the day - the rest of the time it's facing a desk, a pocket, a dresser, etc. Now, its front camera could probably get reasonable shots for ~70%, but a lot of phones still don't have those, and of those shots, 95% of the day it'll be pointing at only 2-4 things - ceiling in my bedroom, ceiling in my office, etc. And of the time when there's good data visible to either camera, 80% of the time I'm probably moving too much or in too low light conditions for a non-flash shot to be very useful. And then of the rest, if they're trying to model a specific indoor space instead of wherever I happen to randomly be at a given point in time...
Well, basically, I think they'd have to be doing an awful lot of monitoring of the camera to get those occasional good shots, at least with a dumb algorithm.
Now, *that said*, I think a smart algorithm could do a pretty good job. Don't just take pictures at intervals - use the accelerometers to tell when the camera is pointing in a potentially useful location and/or is being moved. Basically, take pictures when you think you're pointed at something you haven't seen before.
The use of battery life for GPS can be similarly handled. When you're plugged in, you really only need one good GPS reading and you're set. When you get unplugged, you need to monitor at regular intervals. The faster the person is moving, however, the faster you need to get updates, so you just tweak your update speed accordingly. This is, btw, one improvement I'd like to see in Backitude, which I use (I actually enjoy having Big Brother G monitor my life and wish he'd take more of my data - automatic pictures, audio recordings, even things like acceleration and magnetic fields from everywhere I go would suit me well;) ).
Not to mention that they take Assange's paranoid fantasies about reextradition at face value (that would probably be the most complicated way to get Assange to the United states one could possibly devise, involving three first-world judicial sytems and two first-world national governments, all of which must agree to extradite him, all of which are bound by law not to extradite where there's a risk of human rights abuses or the death penalty, two of which also with the restriction of no extraditions for intelligence or military mattersm, and one (the ECHR) of which whose only purpose it is to prevent political prosecutions and human rights abuses, a task it embraces with what's often criticized as too much zeal) - and the "evidence" for the fantasy being leaks about something from two years ago, with no mention that last year another leak suggested that the case fell apart.
Typical garbage reporting about the Assange case. At least it's not as bad as the "no DNA" story, which was actually precisely the opposite of what the report they were claiming to cite said (that they did find something, that the initial test was inconclusive, that there was nothing suspicious about the initial test being inconclusive, that they're sending it in for more sensitive testing - and then after the report, the results were that they found mtDNA), as well as including some outright slander for good measure (that the victim said the sex was consensual).
Three to five, depending on whether you count a full hearing or just a review and then rejection - two in Sweden, three in the UK (the last in the UK being the supreme court). The ones in the UK were mainly about the extradition process, with the evidence only relatively minimally touched on. The ones in Sweden were specifically about the evidence, which stood up to review.
Also, from the sound of the article itself, its whole headline is hyperbole. They don't cite a single point in the FOI where they call Assange an enemy of state. They call an intelligence analysist attending a wikileaks rally and dealing with wikileaks supporters (of which we know Assange specifically was *not* there, since he was in the embassy) "communicating with the enemy, 104-D" because Wikileaks is ""anti-US and/or anti-military group" (which, all rhetoric aside, it most definitely is, and hardly even denies that anymore). However, the case was closed without laying charges, which could well mean that they don't think that claim would stand up in court. There's nothing at all in the article about "Assange being added to a list of enemies of state", despite the hyperbolic headline.
I was surprised that they didn't include a single scandinavian country in the study. Scandinavian countries are famous for beer-drinking. Also famous for high prices on beer but paying out the nose for it nonetheless.
Couldn't you apply that joke about anyone? It automatically gets a 100% success rate. If they don't say anything, they're not included in the sample, and if they do, they confirm the theory.
That's my question as well. And beyond that, if you *can* be energy positive using a subcritical reactor, why use a critical reactor at all? Oh, sure, free neutrons are nice and all, but if the cost of getting them is meltdown risk, an angry public, and a huge, ever-growing burden of protective measures and waste disposal costs...
Toyota got a lot of green PR for the Prius. But that's caused a lot of people to overlook the fact that Toyota has been one of the least supportive of major automakers for pure EVs. Probably only Honda is less supportive, directing its future-car resources toward hydrogen.
You don't have to liquidy helium to isolate it; you have to liquify everything else. That said, helium is often desired in liquid form, since its largest use is cryogenics.
1) "Rocket fuel" when not contained is actually not particularly intense-burning on its own. It only burns "like a rocket" when the pressure is confined. 2) Even rocket fuels would burn only a tiny fraction as fast as the Hindenburg burned. 3) The mix is not at all correct for a rocket fuel or for thermite; the ratios are all wrong. 4) The discharge Bain used to ignite the fabric is many orders of magnitude more intense than the method he theorized to produce it, and could ignite almost anything. 5) Any spark produced by his proposed method would jump in the wrong direction, a direction he says wouldn't work, and would nonetheless be three orders of magnitude too weak to ignite the skin. 6) The chemicals used are rated as self-extingishing, and in fact, countless fabrics of hindenburg skin did self-extingish. 7) Even in Bain's burn, driven by his powerful ignition source, for the skin to have burned fast enough to represent the Hindenburg burn, his sample would have had to be consumed in a mere 2 milliseconds, like flash paper. At the rate his sample burned, the Hindenburg would have taken 40 hours to be consumed. 8) The skin of the Hindenburg, and many other airships, were struck by lightning many times without ignition. Airship disasters tended only to happen when the ships were venting hydrogen (as the Hindenburg was). 9) The claim that helium airships burned the same is false. Bain cited the Macon, but the Macon crashed into the pacific with no fire; late while floating on the water, gasoline from the control car burned part of the wreckage in a small, relatively insignficant fire. The Navy blimp also had a gasoline fire, and the damage was both slow and confied only to where the gasoline fires were hitting.
No, helium exists even at the surface. But only at about 5 parts per million. But hey, we recover neon at 18ppm (it's rare for the same reason as helium - it escapes). Neon costs about $2k USD per kg. So to extrapolate linearly, you'd get about $7k per kg. Helium used to be cheaper, but today it's about $500/kg.
On the other hand, you'd be using much larger volume production, and there may be some tricks to recover it more cheaply than just a linear difference would suggest, so perhaps more like $4k USD per kg would be achieved. One can hope that it won't be too dear.
Probably the ultimate solution for party balloons will be to use lighter membranes so that you can use weaker lifting gas mixes - a small amount H2 or CH4 plus a couple percent H2O and the rest N2. H2 burns at 4% concentration in air and CH4 at 5%, but of course they'll dilute from whatever ratio they're at in the balloons when air gets mixed in, so you could probably have several times that amount without risking a burn. And a small burn is probably acceptable anyways, just not a rapid, powerful conflagration. I bet you could deal with something like 20% CH4 or 14% H2 safely.
Of course, using much lighter membranes would probably mandate the use of CH4 instead of H2. Balloons already have enough trouble stopping He from escaping even with current, heavier membranes, and H2 escapes much more readily than helium.
Where does this stereotype that efficient cars can't go fast come from? Especially anything with a modern electric motor in it tends to have tons of power (think Tesla Roadster, although that's far from as fast as they get!). Even the consumer-grade stuff using older brushed motors like the older-style hybrids - remember when Wozniak was arrested going over 100mph in his Prius?
Depends on what you call a "big boom". I remember pure hydrogen balloon ignition from high school chemistry and it was no trivial burn. When the mythbusters tried it out on their Hindenburg special, they found that they couldn't use pure hydrogen on their model because it'd just rip the whole model instantly into shreds, contrary to their desire to present it as a steady burn (so they switched to just feeding-in hydrogen).
But yes, of course a ready-mixed fuel-air mixture gives a much more satisfying thud;)
This guy is living in a fantasy world. Helium use as a lifting gas in *all forms* is only 7% of helium use. Of that, party balloons are just a fraction. MRIs, on the other hand, use up 28% of helium consumption. And how could they possibly use so much? Because they do essentially nothing to recover it as it boils off.
Perhaps they should clean up their glass house before they start throwing stones?
Also, it's not like helium will become unavailable as we use up current stocks. It'll just increase in price by 1-2 orders of magnitude as we have to switch to getting it from chilling it out of the atmosphere in tiny quantities, the same way we recover other nobel gasses (but requiring more concentration). Now, of course that sucks, but it means that people who run MRI machines and do other such tasks will be forced to clean up their acts concerning helium recovery instead of simply casting blame on others.
It was not coated in explosives. It was not coated in thermite, either. These are myths. Which should be obvious given the number of pieces of Hindenburg skin that were recovered and sold as souveniers; they self-extinguished as they fell.
When the Mythbusters tested this out, they got "a" skin reaction, but nothing like when they used actual thermite - and on top of that, they had to totally bias the test in terms of a skin reaction, including having orders of magnitude higher of a skin/fuel ratio than the actual Hindenberg and only slowly feeding in the hydrogen to give the skin a chance to burn instead of just being ripped part almost instantaneously.
One thing that this article isn't really consistent on is whether this is 15% of the Carnot efficiency for a given temperature gradient or 15% of the total difference in temperature between the two thermal reservoirs. Also, its performance under different temperature conditions can be very important for some applications, but that's not made clear.
And for anyone saying "it's not an engine, Carnot doesn't come into account".... wrong. It amazes me how many people think this. Carnot's law applies to any generation of work from heat, period. If you can break Carnot's law, no matter with what sort of device, you can create a perpetual motion machine - that is, you could have your work generated from heat run a high-COP heat pump to pump heat back up against the gradient to keep your machine running. Remember that heat pumps can have COP notably greater than 1.0 - that is, they often can move several times more energy against the gradient than goes into running them. To put it another way, a heat engine will never be able to harness more work from a given temperature gradient than the maximal-efficient heat pump for the same temperature differential.
You can do all sorts of crazy things if you start allowing random theoretically-possible particles to exist in your systems. For example, tether a charged ball of negative inertial mass to a same-charged one of positive inertial mass, and they both take off accelerating indefinitely toward c with no energy input;) The negative inertial mass ball experiences an attraction toward the positive ball, while the positive one experiences a repulsion.
The sort of craziness that comes out of most imaginary particles is, to me, highly suggestive of their nonexistence. Most seem like the sort of thing that could end up destroying the universe or at least leaving some pretty darned big signs of their existence. And given that the universe has built some pretty massive particle colliders on its own...
4. On 17th August 2010, in the home of the injured party [name given] in Enkoping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state. It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.
Her statement is (skilling past the background details and the whole night of him trying to have unprotected sex with her and her refusing, and him agreeing reluctantly a few times to protected sex and ordering her around; also skipping the aftermath):
They dozed off and she awoke and felt him penetrating her. She immediately asked, “Are you wearing anything?”, to which he replied, “You”. She said to him: “You better not have HIV”, and he replied, “Of course not”. “She felt that it was too late. He was already inside her and she let him continue. She didn’t have the energy to tell him one more time. She had gone on and on about condoms all night long. She has never had unprotected sex before.
Not only does the Assange team not dispute that she had been spending all night refusing unprotected sex with him, but she has a "paper trail" a mile long to prove it, including her ex boyfriend of 2 1/2 years who testified that she was so paranoid of unprotected sex that not only did she not once allow it in their entire relationship, but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex.
Oh, I'm sorry, "crikey.com.au" is so much better of a source than the actual police statements and the actual arrest warrant.
Beyond that, you're jumbling everything else up. That was a totally different woman at the party, AA instead of SW. The party was planned in advance. The charges in regards to AA are not rape. At the party she described to one friend the "violent" sex with Assange. This is all straight from the police interviews, including witnes testimony. And please don't get me started on the "how a victim has to behave afterwards for something to be rape". I've known multiple rape victims who *dated* their rapist afterwards to try to make it feel less like rape. I let mine walk me back to my car and even waited for him while he peed in the street. Why? Hell if I know, I was in shock. I didn't exactly have "get raped" on my TODO list for that evening.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not he hacked a company. Just like whether Wikileaks is awesome has nothing to do with whether or not Assange waited until a girl was asleep to have unprotected sex with her when she had spent the evening refusing to do.
Which, in my experience, is why most people eat organic foods. Why are there so many studies on nutritional content when that's not why most people eat organic?
I don't target organics in my diet personally, but I know a straw man when I see one.
I've seen this before a long time ago. On the article for the TV show "Man vs. Wild", people had long accused the show of being faked. Then one of the show's survival consultants, credited in the show's credits, came forward on the survival forum that he ran and admitted a whole bunch of stuff that they faked. However, this information wasn't allowed to be added to the article because it was a "forum" and a "primary source". Even though the primary source worked on the show and ran the forum. It wasn't until much later that a newspaper mentioned his claims could they be included in the article.
Unfortunately, the rules of Wikipedia are what they are. You deal with them or you don't take part. And while sometimes they lead to less than ideal results, ultimately, I think Wikipedia has built a pretty good product as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
Because I've read the actual report. Unlike the author of that article.
Here's the relevant section, translated to English:
The subsequent test referred to came back positive for mtDNA.
Because you'll drop it and break the fragile screen, rendering it useless before the malware could collect useful data? Because the battery will die too soon? Because you'll be getting rid of it to get the latest trendy model in short order?
Yeah, my phone is probably at an angle where it could get a good picture through its rear camera maybe 1-2% of the day - the rest of the time it's facing a desk, a pocket, a dresser, etc. Now, its front camera could probably get reasonable shots for ~70%, but a lot of phones still don't have those, and of those shots, 95% of the day it'll be pointing at only 2-4 things - ceiling in my bedroom, ceiling in my office, etc. And of the time when there's good data visible to either camera, 80% of the time I'm probably moving too much or in too low light conditions for a non-flash shot to be very useful. And then of the rest, if they're trying to model a specific indoor space instead of wherever I happen to randomly be at a given point in time...
Well, basically, I think they'd have to be doing an awful lot of monitoring of the camera to get those occasional good shots, at least with a dumb algorithm.
Now, *that said*, I think a smart algorithm could do a pretty good job. Don't just take pictures at intervals - use the accelerometers to tell when the camera is pointing in a potentially useful location and/or is being moved. Basically, take pictures when you think you're pointed at something you haven't seen before.
The use of battery life for GPS can be similarly handled. When you're plugged in, you really only need one good GPS reading and you're set. When you get unplugged, you need to monitor at regular intervals. The faster the person is moving, however, the faster you need to get updates, so you just tweak your update speed accordingly. This is, btw, one improvement I'd like to see in Backitude, which I use (I actually enjoy having Big Brother G monitor my life and wish he'd take more of my data - automatic pictures, audio recordings, even things like acceleration and magnetic fields from everywhere I go would suit me well ;) ).
Not to mention that they take Assange's paranoid fantasies about reextradition at face value (that would probably be the most complicated way to get Assange to the United states one could possibly devise, involving three first-world judicial sytems and two first-world national governments, all of which must agree to extradite him, all of which are bound by law not to extradite where there's a risk of human rights abuses or the death penalty, two of which also with the restriction of no extraditions for intelligence or military mattersm, and one (the ECHR) of which whose only purpose it is to prevent political prosecutions and human rights abuses, a task it embraces with what's often criticized as too much zeal) - and the "evidence" for the fantasy being leaks about something from two years ago, with no mention that last year another leak suggested that the case fell apart.
Typical garbage reporting about the Assange case. At least it's not as bad as the "no DNA" story, which was actually precisely the opposite of what the report they were claiming to cite said (that they did find something, that the initial test was inconclusive, that there was nothing suspicious about the initial test being inconclusive, that they're sending it in for more sensitive testing - and then after the report, the results were that they found mtDNA), as well as including some outright slander for good measure (that the victim said the sex was consensual).
I think he had a few 'trials', no?
Three to five, depending on whether you count a full hearing or just a review and then rejection - two in Sweden, three in the UK (the last in the UK being the supreme court). The ones in the UK were mainly about the extradition process, with the evidence only relatively minimally touched on. The ones in Sweden were specifically about the evidence, which stood up to review.
Also, from the sound of the article itself, its whole headline is hyperbole. They don't cite a single point in the FOI where they call Assange an enemy of state. They call an intelligence analysist attending a wikileaks rally and dealing with wikileaks supporters (of which we know Assange specifically was *not* there, since he was in the embassy) "communicating with the enemy, 104-D" because Wikileaks is ""anti-US and/or anti-military group" (which, all rhetoric aside, it most definitely is, and hardly even denies that anymore). However, the case was closed without laying charges, which could well mean that they don't think that claim would stand up in court. There's nothing at all in the article about "Assange being added to a list of enemies of state", despite the hyperbolic headline.
I was surprised that they didn't include a single scandinavian country in the study. Scandinavian countries are famous for beer-drinking. Also famous for high prices on beer but paying out the nose for it nonetheless.
Couldn't you apply that joke about anyone? It automatically gets a 100% success rate. If they don't say anything, they're not included in the sample, and if they do, they confirm the theory.
That's my question as well. And beyond that, if you *can* be energy positive using a subcritical reactor, why use a critical reactor at all? Oh, sure, free neutrons are nice and all, but if the cost of getting them is meltdown risk, an angry public, and a huge, ever-growing burden of protective measures and waste disposal costs...
Toyota didn't do it, AC Propulsion did it.
Toyota got a lot of green PR for the Prius. But that's caused a lot of people to overlook the fact that Toyota has been one of the least supportive of major automakers for pure EVs. Probably only Honda is less supportive, directing its future-car resources toward hydrogen.
You don't have to liquidy helium to isolate it; you have to liquify everything else. That said, helium is often desired in liquid form, since its largest use is cryogenics.
Okay, if you want to go there, here you go: The Hindenburg Fire: Hydrogen or Incendiary Paint? (Dessler, Overs, & Appleby, 2005). And here's a more detailed writeup on the same thing.
To go into the particular aspects you mentioned:
1) "Rocket fuel" when not contained is actually not particularly intense-burning on its own. It only burns "like a rocket" when the pressure is confined.
2) Even rocket fuels would burn only a tiny fraction as fast as the Hindenburg burned.
3) The mix is not at all correct for a rocket fuel or for thermite; the ratios are all wrong.
4) The discharge Bain used to ignite the fabric is many orders of magnitude more intense than the method he theorized to produce it, and could ignite almost anything.
5) Any spark produced by his proposed method would jump in the wrong direction, a direction he says wouldn't work, and would nonetheless be three orders of magnitude too weak to ignite the skin.
6) The chemicals used are rated as self-extingishing, and in fact, countless fabrics of hindenburg skin did self-extingish.
7) Even in Bain's burn, driven by his powerful ignition source, for the skin to have burned fast enough to represent the Hindenburg burn, his sample would have had to be consumed in a mere 2 milliseconds, like flash paper. At the rate his sample burned, the Hindenburg would have taken 40 hours to be consumed.
8) The skin of the Hindenburg, and many other airships, were struck by lightning many times without ignition. Airship disasters tended only to happen when the ships were venting hydrogen (as the Hindenburg was).
9) The claim that helium airships burned the same is false. Bain cited the Macon, but the Macon crashed into the pacific with no fire; late while floating on the water, gasoline from the control car burned part of the wreckage in a small, relatively insignficant fire. The Navy blimp also had a gasoline fire, and the damage was both slow and confied only to where the gasoline fires were hitting.
No, helium exists even at the surface. But only at about 5 parts per million. But hey, we recover neon at 18ppm (it's rare for the same reason as helium - it escapes). Neon costs about $2k USD per kg. So to extrapolate linearly, you'd get about $7k per kg. Helium used to be cheaper, but today it's about $500/kg.
On the other hand, you'd be using much larger volume production, and there may be some tricks to recover it more cheaply than just a linear difference would suggest, so perhaps more like $4k USD per kg would be achieved. One can hope that it won't be too dear.
Probably the ultimate solution for party balloons will be to use lighter membranes so that you can use weaker lifting gas mixes - a small amount H2 or CH4 plus a couple percent H2O and the rest N2. H2 burns at 4% concentration in air and CH4 at 5%, but of course they'll dilute from whatever ratio they're at in the balloons when air gets mixed in, so you could probably have several times that amount without risking a burn. And a small burn is probably acceptable anyways, just not a rapid, powerful conflagration. I bet you could deal with something like 20% CH4 or 14% H2 safely.
Of course, using much lighter membranes would probably mandate the use of CH4 instead of H2. Balloons already have enough trouble stopping He from escaping even with current, heavier membranes, and H2 escapes much more readily than helium.
Where does this stereotype that efficient cars can't go fast come from? Especially anything with a modern electric motor in it tends to have tons of power (think Tesla Roadster, although that's far from as fast as they get!). Even the consumer-grade stuff using older brushed motors like the older-style hybrids - remember when Wozniak was arrested going over 100mph in his Prius?
Depends on what you call a "big boom". I remember pure hydrogen balloon ignition from high school chemistry and it was no trivial burn. When the mythbusters tried it out on their Hindenburg special, they found that they couldn't use pure hydrogen on their model because it'd just rip the whole model instantly into shreds, contrary to their desire to present it as a steady burn (so they switched to just feeding-in hydrogen).
But yes, of course a ready-mixed fuel-air mixture gives a much more satisfying thud ;)
This guy is living in a fantasy world. Helium use as a lifting gas in *all forms* is only 7% of helium use. Of that, party balloons are just a fraction. MRIs, on the other hand, use up 28% of helium consumption. And how could they possibly use so much? Because they do essentially nothing to recover it as it boils off.
Perhaps they should clean up their glass house before they start throwing stones?
Also, it's not like helium will become unavailable as we use up current stocks. It'll just increase in price by 1-2 orders of magnitude as we have to switch to getting it from chilling it out of the atmosphere in tiny quantities, the same way we recover other nobel gasses (but requiring more concentration). Now, of course that sucks, but it means that people who run MRI machines and do other such tasks will be forced to clean up their acts concerning helium recovery instead of simply casting blame on others.
It was not coated in explosives. It was not coated in thermite, either. These are myths. Which should be obvious given the number of pieces of Hindenburg skin that were recovered and sold as souveniers; they self-extinguished as they fell.
When the Mythbusters tested this out, they got "a" skin reaction, but nothing like when they used actual thermite - and on top of that, they had to totally bias the test in terms of a skin reaction, including having orders of magnitude higher of a skin/fuel ratio than the actual Hindenberg and only slowly feeding in the hydrogen to give the skin a chance to burn instead of just being ripped part almost instantaneously.
One thing that this article isn't really consistent on is whether this is 15% of the Carnot efficiency for a given temperature gradient or 15% of the total difference in temperature between the two thermal reservoirs. Also, its performance under different temperature conditions can be very important for some applications, but that's not made clear.
And for anyone saying "it's not an engine, Carnot doesn't come into account".... wrong. It amazes me how many people think this. Carnot's law applies to any generation of work from heat, period. If you can break Carnot's law, no matter with what sort of device, you can create a perpetual motion machine - that is, you could have your work generated from heat run a high-COP heat pump to pump heat back up against the gradient to keep your machine running. Remember that heat pumps can have COP notably greater than 1.0 - that is, they often can move several times more energy against the gradient than goes into running them. To put it another way, a heat engine will never be able to harness more work from a given temperature gradient than the maximal-efficient heat pump for the same temperature differential.
You can do all sorts of crazy things if you start allowing random theoretically-possible particles to exist in your systems. For example, tether a charged ball of negative inertial mass to a same-charged one of positive inertial mass, and they both take off accelerating indefinitely toward c with no energy input ;) The negative inertial mass ball experiences an attraction toward the positive ball, while the positive one experiences a repulsion.
The sort of craziness that comes out of most imaginary particles is, to me, highly suggestive of their nonexistence. Most seem like the sort of thing that could end up destroying the universe or at least leaving some pretty darned big signs of their existence. And given that the universe has built some pretty massive particle colliders on its own...
I didn't, I probably should have. And it was only six months ago.
The EAW charge is:
Her statement is (skilling past the background details and the whole night of him trying to have unprotected sex with her and her refusing, and him agreeing reluctantly a few times to protected sex and ordering her around; also skipping the aftermath):
Not only does the Assange team not dispute that she had been spending all night refusing unprotected sex with him, but she has a "paper trail" a mile long to prove it, including her ex boyfriend of 2 1/2 years who testified that she was so paranoid of unprotected sex that not only did she not once allow it in their entire relationship, but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex.
Oh, I'm sorry, "crikey.com.au" is so much better of a source than the actual police statements and the actual arrest warrant.
Beyond that, you're jumbling everything else up. That was a totally different woman at the party, AA instead of SW. The party was planned in advance. The charges in regards to AA are not rape. At the party she described to one friend the "violent" sex with Assange. This is all straight from the police interviews, including witnes testimony. And please don't get me started on the "how a victim has to behave afterwards for something to be rape". I've known multiple rape victims who *dated* their rapist afterwards to try to make it feel less like rape. I let mine walk me back to my car and even waited for him while he peed in the street. Why? Hell if I know, I was in shock. I didn't exactly have "get raped" on my TODO list for that evening.
Which has nothing to do with whether or not he hacked a company. Just like whether Wikileaks is awesome has nothing to do with whether or not Assange waited until a girl was asleep to have unprotected sex with her when she had spent the evening refusing to do.
This guy didn't just earn his nerd card, he earned a nerd obelisk in his front yard.
Which, in my experience, is why most people eat organic foods. Why are there so many studies on nutritional content when that's not why most people eat organic?
I don't target organics in my diet personally, but I know a straw man when I see one.
I've seen this before a long time ago. On the article for the TV show "Man vs. Wild", people had long accused the show of being faked. Then one of the show's survival consultants, credited in the show's credits, came forward on the survival forum that he ran and admitted a whole bunch of stuff that they faked. However, this information wasn't allowed to be added to the article because it was a "forum" and a "primary source". Even though the primary source worked on the show and ran the forum. It wasn't until much later that a newspaper mentioned his claims could they be included in the article.
Unfortunately, the rules of Wikipedia are what they are. You deal with them or you don't take part. And while sometimes they lead to less than ideal results, ultimately, I think Wikipedia has built a pretty good product as a whole.