Haha... you know the long words are just compounds. Just learn some common words used in place names or even just how words piece together and they'll seem a lot more intuitive.
Lol, but we get blizzards too!;) Hmm, what don't we get... tornadoes, I guess. We don't get hurricanes, but we get their remainders, and we get hurricane-force winds sometimes.
Slightly larger in terms of volume of ejected matter (20 km^3 vs. 14 km^3), but nowhere near as devastating. It's the gasses that are the problem, and while Krakatoa emitted 20 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide (considered a huge amount - by comparison, Mount St. Helens was only 1.5), Laki emitted a staggering 120 million tonnes. The really extreme example was hydrogen fluoride, which is normally a minor volcanic gas. At 8 million tonnes, Laki put out almost half as much HF as Krakatoa put out in *sulfur dioxide*. Really extreme, and really devastating.
Who's the "I know, Fuji is more of a threat because Japan has such huge coastal populations and economic activity and stuff, I fully understand that" person?
And if the concern is a tectonic earthquake, then why even mention Fuji? Volcanic quakes are generally small.
I find it funny to hear all of the worry about things like Fuji. I mean, I know, I get it, it's roughly 100 km from Tokyo, which is a huge super mega-city. But living here in Iceland, hearing other places talking about "active" areas just seems kind of funny. I mean, the ground in parts of the capital region here in Reykjavík is just several hundred years old. On the hill right next to where I work, they drilled a 90 meter pipe into the ground, put a choke on the top, drip in water, and it erupts regularly as a geyser. A quarter of the city's hot water comes right from downtown. I mean, half an hour's drive (plus a bit of a walk) from my house you can walk *inside* a magma chamber. Not a lava tube, the actual magma chamber. It's empty now but there's other active magma chambers in the region.
And we're not considered one of the more active regions.
Fuji erupts every few hundred years, the biggest being VEI 5? Yawn. Katla's been threatening to go off any day now for the past couple years, and she's a VEI 6. And she's got an ice cap on top; last time she had a big eruption, she sent down a flood with as high a flow rate as the average outflow of the Amazon, Mississippi, Nile, and Yangtzee combined. That is, as much water flowing by as would fill up a cube over 200 feet on each side (roughly equivalent to a city block of 20-story buildings), every second.
Japan is volcanically active? As much as a third of the lava on Earth in the past 500 years is estimated to have come from Iceland.
Fuji's last big eruption was in the early 1700s? In the late 1700s we had Laki go off, most devastating eruption in recorded human history. A fissure opened up 23 kilometers long, up to 200 meters wide in places, with lava fountains as much as 1.5 kilometer in the air, erupting for 8 months straight. Sulfur dioxide was equivalent to a Mt. Pinatubo every three days. But that wasn't the worst, the worst was the anomalously high amounts of hydrofluoric acid. The eruption killed 80% of Iceland's sheep and even directly caused 23,000 human poisoning fatalities in the UK from the deadly blood-red cloud, as well as bizarre weather including tremendous thunderstorms with hailstones large enough to kill cattle.
So yeah, yeah, I know, Fuji is more of a threat because Japan has such huge coastal populations and economic activity and stuff, I fully understand that, but still... I guess your perception of risk is relative to your environment.
As a side note from just across the strait here in Iceland, it's been abnormally warm this summer. Was kind of shocking, the peak of Snæfellsjökull (visible from Reykjavík on a clear day) showed through the ice cap. It's never happened before in recorded history. I mean, it was one thing when Iceland got a new tallest waterfall because of the retreating glaciers in Skaftafell, but to see a mountain whose name literally translates as "Snow Mountain" lose so much that its peak became visible... they're saying that at the current rate it's losing ice, the entire glacier will be gone in 20-30 years, and all of Iceland's glaciers in 150-200 years. Just crazy when you think about it, given that one of Iceland's glaciers alone is the largest in Europe by volume and takes up nearly 10% of the country.
Meanwhile all of USAID's defenders are insisting that Ecuador should simply just lie back and take the money - pointing out that Ecuador has taken USAID money before.
Riiiight. That's why SW's police interview states, "When she talked with her friends afterwards she understood she was the victim of a crime", right? That's why she got a rape kit, right? That's why she had a claimant counsel, right? Why AA's interview says "Sofia wanted to follow this up with the police"? Why JA said that he heard the accusation straight from AA, during his interrogation? Why SW and AA retained a common lawyer who's pushing the rape charges for them? I could keep going if you'd like.
Naaaah, they don't really want rape charges filed...
Take the time to read the actual details of the case from the lower court and you won't sound so ignorant when talking about the subject. As the judge notes, whether in the UK or Sweden, having sex with a sleeping person to work around their refusal to consent to unprotected sex with you is rape, plain and simple.
And oh god, don't even get me started on "how a rape victim is supposed to react". I've known multiple rape victims who *dated* their rapist, to try to make what happened feel less like rape. Took me about 3 months before I was comfortable even using the word "rape" for what happened to me without couching it in weasel words like "unwanted sexual experience".
So is the notion that Ecuador will refuse to take the USAID money, so USAID will wait until she falls asleep, and then stick the money into Ecuador without its permission?
They backed Ecuador over the inviolability of embassies and encouraging negotiation - standard diplomatic fluff. They did not back Ecuador over granting asylum to Assange or support a plank saying he should be handed over to Ecuador as they had requested.
The most notable thing America has said and done in this whole conflict is... practically nothing.
Oh, wait, "doing nothing" means they're guilty too, right? I remember how conspiracies work now...
Right. Once incident 11 years ago means that the entire nation of Sweden is the Central Repository of Evil.
BTW, you know that Sweden was revealed to have refused to work with the US anymore after the details of that case came out (that the people reported to be convicted terrorists were not), right? You remember who leaked that information that they stopped cooperating?
Wikileaks.
Anyway, overall, Sweden has an excellent judicial fairness rating. Number one in the world in fundamental rights, and it's lowest ranking, #7, was for letting suspects off the hook too easily.
OMFG you think this isn't personal?!! I suppose all the Assange-hating isn't personal either.
Yeah, it's not like two people said he raped them or anything. It's clearly all part of a giant circituous plot to have him go back to Sweden where he'll have to go through the Swedish courts, the British courts, the Swedish government, the British government, and the EHCR, all of which are tasked by European law with not extraditing where there's a risk of the death penalty, human rights abuses, or political persecution, where the EHCR's only job (which it enforces stringently) is to do that, and where the Swedish courts and government are also tasked by law not to extradite on military or intelligence manners. Instead of, you know, just simply having him extradited when he (famous for international jetsetting) landed in a friendly non-European country with no restrictions on extradition. No, the former makes soooo much more sense.
Oh, and remember, famous people never let their fame go to their head and never commit crimes. Any crime accused of a famous person is automatically a set-up.
Exactly who is giving that money to Camobdja I've checked the aid numbers and they say nothing about 400 million Crowns. Sweden do give ~150 million Crowns per year to Cambodja. See: http://www.openaid.se/countries/kambodja
So Sweden apparently already has a regular aid budget to Cambodia.
Sweden's annual foreign aid budget is $5,3B USD, and is generally considered to be well-run. Even if the reported number is accurate, that would only be 1% of the reported annual aid budget, an amount not at all inappropriate for a country like Cambodia.
Oh, and humans suck at detecting coincidence intuitively. The sample size of possible events one could find suspicious is enormous, as is the search space on individuals around whom you might suspect a conspiracy exists. Conspiracies feed themselves because of this.
If you by "kicked out of the country" mean "placed on a U.S. plane and sent to Egypt where they got tortured" then I'm pretty sure that the listed ranking doesn't apply since it was done outside of the Swedish legal system.
Oh, give me a break - do you think that the highest profile fugitive on the planet is just going to extrajudicially "disappear"? BTW, do you know what organization it was that revealed that Sweden terminated all refusal to work with the US any more on such programs after that incident?
Wikileaks.
Assange himself had routinely hailed the Swedish justice before he had to face accusations of rape. He referred to Sweden as "their shield" because of their strong laws protecting privacy and a strong independent judiciary. But suddenly, once someone accuses him of rape, all of the sudden Sweden is some nation of kangaroo courts. Amazing how that happens.
Right, that's why they have an attorney who's pressing forward with the charges, right? Clearly they just don't know they have an attorney, poor ignorant damsels!
Hold now, Assange is innocent. We've all heard him say so many, many times. He's not trying to use diplomacy to get the charges dropped - quite to the contrary, he wants to go back to Sweden! He just wants guarantees (regardless of whether or not giving them would be illegal) that he won't be extradited to the US, and then he'll happily go back to Sweden to clear his name. *That's* what he's negotiating for, not to get the case dropped. Come on, Julian, tell them!.
During the Telesur television interview, recorded earlier this week inside the embassy, Mr Assange said that he believes the situation "will be solved through diplomacy". He added: "The Swedish government could drop the case. I think this is the most likely scenario. Maybe after a thorough investigation of what happened they could drop the case. I think this will be solved in between six and 12 months. That's what I estimate."
To complicate it further, what's going on with Assange is yet another term altogether, "surrender" - surrendering (under an EAW) being neither deportation nor extradition, but more like what goes on between states in the US with handing a prisoner between jurisdictions.
That Indian Express story is recycling of an old story. Saw that same thing a long time ago when it actually happened. Not sure why it suddenly sprung to life again.
"Commentators have... suggested that the source may have been referring to a draft indictment used by prosecutors to 'game out' possible charges," the embassy reported in February. "There is no way to confirm the veracity of the information through official sources."
The last real movement on this possible indictment was 2010. *Before* the whole rape thing started.
It gets less and less likely with everything that he will ever be indicted. The simplest way for the US would have been to wait for Assange - famous for jetsetting all over the world - to head to a non-European country which would extradite, thus avoiding EU restrictions on extradition about the death penalty or abuse. Next would have been to get him in a European country with a less restrictive extradition treaty than Sweden (like the UK), without any other complicating charges. The next best would have been to get him in Sweden before the complicating charges, which give rise to questions of prosecutorial priority. The next best would have been to get him after the charges had been announced but before Assange fled to the UK, involving a second nation's court system in the process and complicating any potential extradition further. Next best would have been before the UK court system had ruled completely in favor of re-extradition, putting a new order to send him that the US would have to find a way to get priority over. The absolute worst would be to have Assange back in Swedish custody, with an EAW, an Interpol warrant, and a Swedish arrest warrant, with any appeal from Assange having to be approved by the Swedish judiciary, the Swedish government, the UK judiciary, the UK government, the ECHR, and having guarantees of no abuse or death penalty and that the extradition is not for military or intelligence matters.
Sorry, but a bunch of random people saying something on the internet does not a fact make.
Are you referring to the one case eleven years ago where two refugees incorrectly identified as terrorists were kicked out of the country, and using that to say "There you go, see, the whole system is horrible"? The (peer-reviewed) World Justice Project ranks Sweden the best on the planet in terms of fundamental rights. Sweden's lowest ranking is a mere #7, and that's for letting people off the hook too easily.
The filed accusation is not that she slept through the whole thing. It's that she woke up with him inside her, unprotected, after she spent the entire evening telling him "no" to unprotected sex.
The irony of what you wrote being that on every large thread where this issue comes up, there's at least half a dozen people arguing like you that a person can't end up being penetrated in their sleep, and at least half a dozen arguing that they and their spouse and/or significant other wake up to the other having sex with them and they enjoy it. Both parties trying to defend assange but completely contradicting each other in the process.
(BTW, the latter group, despite what they may think, *is* legally committing rape in most jurisdictions in the first world, even without the extenuating factor of violating an explicit refusal of a particular form of sex)
Slashdot Mirror
Haha... you know the long words are just compounds. Just learn some common words used in place names or even just how words piece together and they'll seem a lot more intuitive.
Glad you liked Iceland!
Lol, but we get blizzards too! ;) Hmm, what don't we get... tornadoes, I guess. We don't get hurricanes, but we get their remainders, and we get hurricane-force winds sometimes.
Hahaha, I love Scandinavia And The World! :)
182cm / 6'0", but thanks for playing.
Slightly larger in terms of volume of ejected matter (20 km^3 vs. 14 km^3), but nowhere near as devastating. It's the gasses that are the problem, and while Krakatoa emitted 20 million tonnes of sulfur dioxide (considered a huge amount - by comparison, Mount St. Helens was only 1.5), Laki emitted a staggering 120 million tonnes. The really extreme example was hydrogen fluoride, which is normally a minor volcanic gas. At 8 million tonnes, Laki put out almost half as much HF as Krakatoa put out in *sulfur dioxide*. Really extreme, and really devastating.
Who's the "I know, Fuji is more of a threat because Japan has such huge coastal populations and economic activity and stuff, I fully understand that" person?
And if the concern is a tectonic earthquake, then why even mention Fuji? Volcanic quakes are generally small.
I find it funny to hear all of the worry about things like Fuji. I mean, I know, I get it, it's roughly 100 km from Tokyo, which is a huge super mega-city. But living here in Iceland, hearing other places talking about "active" areas just seems kind of funny. I mean, the ground in parts of the capital region here in Reykjavík is just several hundred years old. On the hill right next to where I work, they drilled a 90 meter pipe into the ground, put a choke on the top, drip in water, and it erupts regularly as a geyser. A quarter of the city's hot water comes right from downtown. I mean, half an hour's drive (plus a bit of a walk) from my house you can walk *inside* a magma chamber. Not a lava tube, the actual magma chamber. It's empty now but there's other active magma chambers in the region.
And we're not considered one of the more active regions.
Fuji erupts every few hundred years, the biggest being VEI 5? Yawn. Katla's been threatening to go off any day now for the past couple years, and she's a VEI 6. And she's got an ice cap on top; last time she had a big eruption, she sent down a flood with as high a flow rate as the average outflow of the Amazon, Mississippi, Nile, and Yangtzee combined. That is, as much water flowing by as would fill up a cube over 200 feet on each side (roughly equivalent to a city block of 20-story buildings), every second.
Japan is volcanically active? As much as a third of the lava on Earth in the past 500 years is estimated to have come from Iceland.
Fuji's last big eruption was in the early 1700s? In the late 1700s we had Laki go off, most devastating eruption in recorded human history. A fissure opened up 23 kilometers long, up to 200 meters wide in places, with lava fountains as much as 1.5 kilometer in the air, erupting for 8 months straight. Sulfur dioxide was equivalent to a Mt. Pinatubo every three days. But that wasn't the worst, the worst was the anomalously high amounts of hydrofluoric acid. The eruption killed 80% of Iceland's sheep and even directly caused 23,000 human poisoning fatalities in the UK from the deadly blood-red cloud, as well as bizarre weather including tremendous thunderstorms with hailstones large enough to kill cattle.
So yeah, yeah, I know, Fuji is more of a threat because Japan has such huge coastal populations and economic activity and stuff, I fully understand that, but still... I guess your perception of risk is relative to your environment.
As a side note from just across the strait here in Iceland, it's been abnormally warm this summer. Was kind of shocking, the peak of Snæfellsjökull (visible from Reykjavík on a clear day) showed through the ice cap. It's never happened before in recorded history. I mean, it was one thing when Iceland got a new tallest waterfall because of the retreating glaciers in Skaftafell, but to see a mountain whose name literally translates as "Snow Mountain" lose so much that its peak became visible... they're saying that at the current rate it's losing ice, the entire glacier will be gone in 20-30 years, and all of Iceland's glaciers in 150-200 years. Just crazy when you think about it, given that one of Iceland's glaciers alone is the largest in Europe by volume and takes up nearly 10% of the country.
Meanwhile all of USAID's defenders are insisting that Ecuador should simply just lie back and take the money - pointing out that Ecuador has taken USAID money before.
Riiiight. That's why SW's police interview states, "When she talked with her friends afterwards she understood she was the victim of a crime", right? That's why she got a rape kit, right? That's why she had a claimant counsel, right? Why AA's interview says "Sofia wanted to follow this up with the police"? Why JA said that he heard the accusation straight from AA, during his interrogation? Why SW and AA retained a common lawyer who's pushing the rape charges for them? I could keep going if you'd like.
Naaaah, they don't really want rape charges filed...
Take the time to read the actual details of the case from the lower court and you won't sound so ignorant when talking about the subject. As the judge notes, whether in the UK or Sweden, having sex with a sleeping person to work around their refusal to consent to unprotected sex with you is rape, plain and simple.
And oh god, don't even get me started on "how a rape victim is supposed to react". I've known multiple rape victims who *dated* their rapist, to try to make what happened feel less like rape. Took me about 3 months before I was comfortable even using the word "rape" for what happened to me without couching it in weasel words like "unwanted sexual experience".
FYI, I live in Iceland and love any good excuse to protest the USA.
What is the deal with this, if you don't like rape, then you love the USA? When did this happen?
So is the notion that Ecuador will refuse to take the USAID money, so USAID will wait until she falls asleep, and then stick the money into Ecuador without its permission?
They backed Ecuador over the inviolability of embassies and encouraging negotiation - standard diplomatic fluff. They did not back Ecuador over granting asylum to Assange or support a plank saying he should be handed over to Ecuador as they had requested.
The most notable thing America has said and done in this whole conflict is... practically nothing.
Oh, wait, "doing nothing" means they're guilty too, right? I remember how conspiracies work now...
Right. Once incident 11 years ago means that the entire nation of Sweden is the Central Repository of Evil.
BTW, you know that Sweden was revealed to have refused to work with the US anymore after the details of that case came out (that the people reported to be convicted terrorists were not), right? You remember who leaked that information that they stopped cooperating?
Wikileaks.
Anyway, overall, Sweden has an excellent judicial fairness rating. Number one in the world in fundamental rights, and it's lowest ranking, #7, was for letting suspects off the hook too easily.
So it's an increase of 25%. Which can only mean one thing, according to the rules of Slashdot:
CONSPIRACY!!!!
Hehe ;)
OMFG you think this isn't personal?!! I suppose all the Assange-hating isn't personal either.
Yeah, it's not like two people said he raped them or anything. It's clearly all part of a giant circituous plot to have him go back to Sweden where he'll have to go through the Swedish courts, the British courts, the Swedish government, the British government, and the EHCR, all of which are tasked by European law with not extraditing where there's a risk of the death penalty, human rights abuses, or political persecution, where the EHCR's only job (which it enforces stringently) is to do that, and where the Swedish courts and government are also tasked by law not to extradite on military or intelligence manners. Instead of, you know, just simply having him extradited when he (famous for international jetsetting) landed in a friendly non-European country with no restrictions on extradition. No, the former makes soooo much more sense.
Oh, and remember, famous people never let their fame go to their head and never commit crimes. Any crime accused of a famous person is automatically a set-up.
From the first comment in the article:
So Sweden apparently already has a regular aid budget to Cambodia.
Sweden's annual foreign aid budget is $5,3B USD, and is generally considered to be well-run. Even if the reported number is accurate, that would only be 1% of the reported annual aid budget, an amount not at all inappropriate for a country like Cambodia.
Oh, and humans suck at detecting coincidence intuitively. The sample size of possible events one could find suspicious is enormous, as is the search space on individuals around whom you might suspect a conspiracy exists. Conspiracies feed themselves because of this.
Oh, give me a break - do you think that the highest profile fugitive on the planet is just going to extrajudicially "disappear"? BTW, do you know what organization it was that revealed that Sweden terminated all refusal to work with the US any more on such programs after that incident?
Wikileaks.
Assange himself had routinely hailed the Swedish justice before he had to face accusations of rape. He referred to Sweden as "their shield" because of their strong laws protecting privacy and a strong independent judiciary. But suddenly, once someone accuses him of rape, all of the sudden Sweden is some nation of kangaroo courts. Amazing how that happens.
Ref to your other claims?
Right, that's why they have an attorney who's pressing forward with the charges, right? Clearly they just don't know they have an attorney, poor ignorant damsels!
Hold now, Assange is innocent. We've all heard him say so many, many times. He's not trying to use diplomacy to get the charges dropped - quite to the contrary, he wants to go back to Sweden! He just wants guarantees (regardless of whether or not giving them would be illegal) that he won't be extradited to the US, and then he'll happily go back to Sweden to clear his name. *That's* what he's negotiating for, not to get the case dropped. Come on, Julian, tell them!.
Oh...
To complicate it further, what's going on with Assange is yet another term altogether, "surrender" - surrendering (under an EAW) being neither deportation nor extradition, but more like what goes on between states in the US with handing a prisoner between jurisdictions.
That Indian Express story is recycling of an old story. Saw that same thing a long time ago when it actually happened. Not sure why it suddenly sprung to life again.
Even the leaked conversation of the Aussies, who Assange's followers generally cite as evidence that there was a grand jury, don't believe the indictment claim is what you're making it out to be.
The last real movement on this possible indictment was 2010. *Before* the whole rape thing started.
It gets less and less likely with everything that he will ever be indicted. The simplest way for the US would have been to wait for Assange - famous for jetsetting all over the world - to head to a non-European country which would extradite, thus avoiding EU restrictions on extradition about the death penalty or abuse. Next would have been to get him in a European country with a less restrictive extradition treaty than Sweden (like the UK), without any other complicating charges. The next best would have been to get him in Sweden before the complicating charges, which give rise to questions of prosecutorial priority. The next best would have been to get him after the charges had been announced but before Assange fled to the UK, involving a second nation's court system in the process and complicating any potential extradition further. Next best would have been before the UK court system had ruled completely in favor of re-extradition, putting a new order to send him that the US would have to find a way to get priority over. The absolute worst would be to have Assange back in Swedish custody, with an EAW, an Interpol warrant, and a Swedish arrest warrant, with any appeal from Assange having to be approved by the Swedish judiciary, the Swedish government, the UK judiciary, the UK government, the ECHR, and having guarantees of no abuse or death penalty and that the extradition is not for military or intelligence matters.
Sorry, but a bunch of random people saying something on the internet does not a fact make.
Are you referring to the one case eleven years ago where two refugees incorrectly identified as terrorists were kicked out of the country, and using that to say "There you go, see, the whole system is horrible"? The (peer-reviewed) World Justice Project ranks Sweden the best on the planet in terms of fundamental rights. Sweden's lowest ranking is a mere #7, and that's for letting people off the hook too easily.
The filed accusation is not that she slept through the whole thing. It's that she woke up with him inside her, unprotected, after she spent the entire evening telling him "no" to unprotected sex.
The irony of what you wrote being that on every large thread where this issue comes up, there's at least half a dozen people arguing like you that a person can't end up being penetrated in their sleep, and at least half a dozen arguing that they and their spouse and/or significant other wake up to the other having sex with them and they enjoy it. Both parties trying to defend assange but completely contradicting each other in the process.
(BTW, the latter group, despite what they may think, *is* legally committing rape in most jurisdictions in the first world, even without the extenuating factor of violating an explicit refusal of a particular form of sex)