It's not that big. About the size of Kentucky. But - key distinction - about 7-8 % of the population of Kentucky, with a crazy twisty unstable volcanic glaciated landscape, located in the middle of the North Atlantic.
The larger the project is, the easier it is per-capita. And unlike us, you don't have to ship in all your hardware and cabling and fund the laying of trans-atlantic data cables with the resources of a population smaller than the city of Santa Ana, California.
because if 99 percent of the population lives in a city but that city only covers 1 percent of the size of the country
Which would be a relevant point if I hadn't already mentioned that with my "capital region" comment which observed that even our "dense" region is no denser than the US average. Not to mention that just to get to the capital region, cables have to *cross the freaking North Atlantic*, then to get around the country, through rough volcanic terrain, and we have to import all of our electronics hardware and cabling.
You sound like you have never been here,
Hahahahahaa....;) Funny, that remark....
When you get entire towns where the population is under 50 people
Oh, so tiny! I've neeeeever seen a town that small before here in Iceland! Certainly not! All we have here are these gigantic coastal fishing metropolises and inland farming supercities...
then you NEED the government to help subsidize offering services to these sorts of places.
You need to fly to Keflavík, rent a car, and drive to Borgarfjörður Eystri some time (almost as far). It's not size, its' population density. More people = more resources to allocate to something. In fact, generally the benefit is *more* than linear; doing projects on a large scale is generally easier per-capita than on the small scale. And you really want to compare "ease of construction" across flat farmland to construction going past Eyjafjallajökull, Katla, and Vatnajökull, as well as the mountains in the east?
So your argument is that "while it's not the case now, a new tech just hit the market and so we're going to say that in 5 years when it rolls out everything will be different" is equivalent? Judging from history...
Are you forgetting that the smaller a country, the less resources it has to dedicate to a given task?
Issues aren't of overall scale. They're per-capita and population-density-wise. And the comparison just makes America look like a backwater. Of course, most of your systems are like that. Like the fact that people in America still write checks for.. well, anything. Or that you can't manage to control identity theft because of your ludicrous SSN-as-an-identification-password no-single-authoritative-database system. Or on and on.
Lol, how can you suck that bad in America? Here in Iceland we're approaching 80% of the population with 50-100mb *fiber*, despite having 1/10th the population density as the US. Even the capitol region's population density is only about the average population density of America, and that's only about 70% of the population; the largest city outside the capitol region is six hours drive away and has only 17k people. They're currently stringing connections in Vestfirðir, a large, sparsely populated, mountainous region where the largest "city" is just over 3k people. This here is all just counting fiber connections, let alone DSL. And people generally get excellent net service through their cell phones as well (2g map, 3g map for one provider). I've used Facebook on hikes, from the top of mountains before. And it's all cheap, too.
What's up with that, America? Why do you neglect your infrastructure like that? Here we've got multi-kilometer mountain tunnels leading to towns of around 1000 people, and you can't even make it possible for 6% of your population to have 3Mbps *dsl*? Over your existing phone lines?
That's 30 to 150 Sverdrups. A Sverdrup is 1.000.000 m^3/s, aka 1.000.000.000 kg/s, and thus at 0.003ppm U by mass, contains 3 kilograms per second, meaning to recover 70.000 tonnes a year (70.000.000kg) takes ~23.000.000 seconds, aka 270 days, aka a 3/4ths recovery rate is sufficient.
Logic error: that assumes that the alternative is "convict all people just based on a rape accusation", rather than the reality, a investigation to determine guilt followed by a trial.
8/9, however, *definitely* warrants serious investigations and suggests that today's conviction rates are way lower than the rape rate.
and reached the conclusion that it's 10-50%? Looks to me like the median is 11%. If you want to discount older studies and you look at only more recent studies, say 2000 and later:
3%, 5.9%, 11%, 11.8%, 41%
Median is also 11%. In short, approximately only one in nine rape accusations is false. But you better believe that rape victims get smeared almost every time based on the assumption that they're lying, and fear of this is one of the main reasons that keeps people from coming forward most of the time.
Not only did she not do that, of course (not even for protected sex, let alone unprotected sex), but even that isn't legal in most jurisdictions. You can, of course, wake up and consent to sex in the middle of the night. But if sex is begun while a person is asleep or in any way incapacitated - drugs, alcohol, medical conditions, you name it - it's rape. As it should be.
You really have no clue what it's like, so why even bother trying to explain? You have this Hollywood movie image of rape, of someone jumping out of the bushes with a knife.
Believe it or not, the most common form of rape is date rape. Mine was kinda-date-rape, in that it wasn't a date, but were were initially flirting and walking together. Even kissing and touching. I was all giggle-y. Started out just fine, happy. My boundary wasn't "sex without a condom"; it was "not with a guy I just met". I'd messed around with a number of guys, but only slept with one before in my life. But I was still more than willing to (and did) make out with him on the street during our walk. The conversation started diverse, but eventually degenerated into various forms of me saying "I want to find my car and get home" and him saying various forms of "We should go to my place". When I was convinced I had overshot my car, I started stopping, to turn around, but each time he'd use his arm to keep me going, and I just couldn't get myself to try to run from a person who was still being really nice (and friendly and flirty) toward me otherwise. Eventually was really getting concerned that from what he had said we were closing in on his place, and I was positive I'd missed where my car was, and I stopped and was weighing running. And he picked me up and carried me. And how the heck do you react to that? Not in a retrospective manner, but in a "when on Earth does something like that actually happen" manner? All I could do was laugh nervously, continue to say no, and try to make excuses for why he should put me down. He eventually set me down and I stopped trying to turn around because I knew he'd just carry me again. We got a couple blocks from his place, however, and I tried again, and he carried me again. All this time I still had trouble believing that he wouldn't at *some point* listen to my telling him no. He was still being friendly, flirty, etc - just simply not taking no for an answer. There was no "jump out of the bushes" moment, and really, that's what made it so difficult".
Inside his "apartment", if you could call it that (looked more like an empty guest room at a hostel - basically no furnishings... I'm still not sure what building it was), he stood either between me and the door, or over me, at all times, which made the gravity of the situation apparent. I kept making moves to try to leave but he wouldn't accept them and I wasn't about to try to fight a guy who was strong enough to carry me a quarter of the way to his place without much effort. Heck, even if he hadn't been strong, it would have been incredibly difficult. I've never hit anyone in my life. That's so out of the bounds of normal behavior. I just wanted to get out of there, and when that ceased to be an option, I switched into protecting myself. Of all my clothes, I protected keeping my shoes on the most. I know it sounds weird, but it felt like that if I didn't have them on, I'd have no way to run away if the chance arose, and therefore, it'd be ceding the situation to him. The other thing was keeping a hand between my legs, something he wasn't very happy about, and which he spent the rest of the time there trying to work around. When he started fingering me, and especially when he started fingering further back (I had trouble defending myself), I panicked and tried to "negotiate" my way out of the situation, and ended up going down on him in exchange for him not trying to get inside of me. But then he stopped me and went back to what he was doing before. I mostly - not entirely, but mostly - kept him out to where he finished between my legs, and while I've second-guessed my attempt to bargain my way out of the situation a number of times, I don't think it would have ended like it did if I hadn't.
When he had stopped trying to finger me and was just moving mostly just between my legs, it had reached a stage of "better than it could be otherwise", so I stopped fighting and just sort of looked to the side of the bed, starin
That's the most common lie used against rape victims. The rate of false rape accusations varies greatly according to study methodology (by orders of magnitude), but is usually in the low to mid single digits.
Point to me a single nation's law where that's legal. Heck, in an extreme case, in Canada, R. vs. J.A., one party consented to be suffocated during sex, passed out in the middle for several minutes, the sex continued, the party regained consciousness, and consented to continued sex, and it was ruled that the time where the one party was unconscious were rape. That is, of course, an extreme case. But your notion that a person can legally have sex with an unconscious person is simply not true.
I have sex with my girlfriend all the time that starts with one of us sleeping. ALL THE TIME. It most certainly is not rape, or non consensual.
You're simply fortunate that you happen to be accurate on what your partner wanted and hence would never press charges. You never have a right to assume consent for another individual. Ever. You could be together for 20 years. It makes no difference. Now, if they *wake up* and consent to sex, that's a totally different story.
. Just that he did something sneaky during the sex.
You're confusing individuals - that was Alden, not Wilén. Wilén was the one who, according to the charges, he slept with while she was asleep. But if you want to get into the details of Alden's charge, it's that he pinned her down and started prying her legs open trying to force unprotected sex, leaving her at the point where she almost started to cry, wherein Julian agreed to protected sex and she she stopped resisting, only to have him pull out at one point, and while he was *out* there was a loud popping sound, and then he resumed. She could not look at what he was doing, however, because he still had her pinned down.
This is a lesser charge than the accusations in regards to Wilén.
She did want to have sex with him - but only with protection. She dated her previous boyfriend for, what, 2 years or so? And never once slept with him without protection. It was "inconceivable to her", to quote him.
But even if she *had* slept in the same bed with him, even if they had already had unprotected sex, even if she had said "I love unprotected sex with you" - A Sleeping Person Cannot Consent, Period. That's rape.
Two UK courts found the charges credible. Who should I believe, them, who reviewed the evidence, or you?
Now, if they harbor a fugitive, *that* is a crime. Without their diplomatic protection, they'll have the clear choice to hand over Assange or continue to try to harbor him.
Your characteristic of the blog entry is incorrect. It was a repost of something someone else wrote, it had nothing to do with rape, it *was* about revenge, steps 1 and 2 were basically "don't do it", and the rest was about how to cause an ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend to break up with him.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not that big. About the size of Kentucky. But - key distinction - about 7-8 % of the population of Kentucky, with a crazy twisty unstable volcanic glaciated landscape, located in the middle of the North Atlantic.
The larger the project is, the easier it is per-capita. And unlike us, you don't have to ship in all your hardware and cabling and fund the laying of trans-atlantic data cables with the resources of a population smaller than the city of Santa Ana, California.
Which would be a relevant point if I hadn't already mentioned that with my "capital region" comment which observed that even our "dense" region is no denser than the US average. Not to mention that just to get to the capital region, cables have to *cross the freaking North Atlantic*, then to get around the country, through rough volcanic terrain, and we have to import all of our electronics hardware and cabling.
Hahahahahaa.... ;) Funny, that remark....
Oh, so tiny! I've neeeeever seen a town that small before here in Iceland! Certainly not! All we have here are these gigantic coastal fishing metropolises and inland farming supercities...
Biiiingo.
You need to fly to Keflavík, rent a car, and drive to Borgarfjörður Eystri some time (almost as far). It's not size, its' population density. More people = more resources to allocate to something. In fact, generally the benefit is *more* than linear; doing projects on a large scale is generally easier per-capita than on the small scale. And you really want to compare "ease of construction" across flat farmland to construction going past Eyjafjallajökull, Katla, and Vatnajökull, as well as the mountains in the east?
That should have read, Judging from history...
So your argument is that "while it's not the case now, a new tech just hit the market and so we're going to say that in 5 years when it rolls out everything will be different" is equivalent? Judging from history...
Are you forgetting that the smaller a country, the less resources it has to dedicate to a given task?
Issues aren't of overall scale. They're per-capita and population-density-wise. And the comparison just makes America look like a backwater. Of course, most of your systems are like that. Like the fact that people in America still write checks for.. well, anything. Or that you can't manage to control identity theft because of your ludicrous SSN-as-an-identification-password no-single-authoritative-database system. Or on and on.
at 3 Mbps? That's failure.
Lol, how can you suck that bad in America? Here in Iceland we're approaching 80% of the population with 50-100mb *fiber*, despite having 1/10th the population density as the US. Even the capitol region's population density is only about the average population density of America, and that's only about 70% of the population; the largest city outside the capitol region is six hours drive away and has only 17k people. They're currently stringing connections in Vestfirðir, a large, sparsely populated, mountainous region where the largest "city" is just over 3k people. This here is all just counting fiber connections, let alone DSL. And people generally get excellent net service through their cell phones as well (2g map, 3g map for one provider). I've used Facebook on hikes, from the top of mountains before. And it's all cheap, too.
What's up with that, America? Why do you neglect your infrastructure like that? Here we've got multi-kilometer mountain tunnels leading to towns of around 1000 people, and you can't even make it possible for 6% of your population to have 3Mbps *dsl*? Over your existing phone lines?
That's 30 to 150 Sverdrups. A Sverdrup is 1.000.000 m^3/s, aka 1.000.000.000 kg/s, and thus at 0.003ppm U by mass, contains 3 kilograms per second, meaning to recover 70.000 tonnes a year (70.000.000kg) takes ~23.000.000 seconds, aka 270 days, aka a 3/4ths recovery rate is sufficient.
Of course, the Gulf Stream is just one of the Earth's many oceanic currents.
Fail the mayor. Not ever.
Logic error: that assumes that the alternative is "convict all people just based on a rape accusation", rather than the reality, a investigation to determine guilt followed by a trial.
8/9, however, *definitely* warrants serious investigations and suggests that today's conviction rates are way lower than the rape rate.
Note that that number doesn't mean "malicious charges". It just means "not rape". There's a difference between the two.
It's like Seth MacFarlane said on an appearance on the BBC quiz show "QI". To paraphrase:
QI: How many sheep were taken on the ark?
Seth: You mean, Noah's ark, in the bible?
QI: Yes.
Seth: None. It never happened.
Sooooo.... you took the following data:
1.5-10%, 2-8%, 2%, 2%, 3%, 3-31%, 3.8%, 5.9%, 8%, 10.3%, 10.9%, 11%, 11.8%, 18.2%, 20%, 22.4%, 24%, 41%, 41%, 45%, 47%, 90%
and reached the conclusion that it's 10-50%? Looks to me like the median is 11%. If you want to discount older studies and you look at only more recent studies, say 2000 and later:
3%, 5.9%, 11%, 11.8%, 41%
Median is also 11%. In short, approximately only one in nine rape accusations is false. But you better believe that rape victims get smeared almost every time based on the assumption that they're lying, and fear of this is one of the main reasons that keeps people from coming forward most of the time.
will system meltdowns on Glacier be referred to as Jökulhlaup?
Not only did she not do that, of course (not even for protected sex, let alone unprotected sex), but even that isn't legal in most jurisdictions. You can, of course, wake up and consent to sex in the middle of the night. But if sex is begun while a person is asleep or in any way incapacitated - drugs, alcohol, medical conditions, you name it - it's rape. As it should be.
You really have no clue what it's like, so why even bother trying to explain? You have this Hollywood movie image of rape, of someone jumping out of the bushes with a knife.
Believe it or not, the most common form of rape is date rape. Mine was kinda-date-rape, in that it wasn't a date, but were were initially flirting and walking together. Even kissing and touching. I was all giggle-y. Started out just fine, happy. My boundary wasn't "sex without a condom"; it was "not with a guy I just met". I'd messed around with a number of guys, but only slept with one before in my life. But I was still more than willing to (and did) make out with him on the street during our walk. The conversation started diverse, but eventually degenerated into various forms of me saying "I want to find my car and get home" and him saying various forms of "We should go to my place". When I was convinced I had overshot my car, I started stopping, to turn around, but each time he'd use his arm to keep me going, and I just couldn't get myself to try to run from a person who was still being really nice (and friendly and flirty) toward me otherwise. Eventually was really getting concerned that from what he had said we were closing in on his place, and I was positive I'd missed where my car was, and I stopped and was weighing running. And he picked me up and carried me. And how the heck do you react to that? Not in a retrospective manner, but in a "when on Earth does something like that actually happen" manner? All I could do was laugh nervously, continue to say no, and try to make excuses for why he should put me down. He eventually set me down and I stopped trying to turn around because I knew he'd just carry me again. We got a couple blocks from his place, however, and I tried again, and he carried me again. All this time I still had trouble believing that he wouldn't at *some point* listen to my telling him no. He was still being friendly, flirty, etc - just simply not taking no for an answer. There was no "jump out of the bushes" moment, and really, that's what made it so difficult".
Inside his "apartment", if you could call it that (looked more like an empty guest room at a hostel - basically no furnishings... I'm still not sure what building it was), he stood either between me and the door, or over me, at all times, which made the gravity of the situation apparent. I kept making moves to try to leave but he wouldn't accept them and I wasn't about to try to fight a guy who was strong enough to carry me a quarter of the way to his place without much effort. Heck, even if he hadn't been strong, it would have been incredibly difficult. I've never hit anyone in my life. That's so out of the bounds of normal behavior. I just wanted to get out of there, and when that ceased to be an option, I switched into protecting myself. Of all my clothes, I protected keeping my shoes on the most. I know it sounds weird, but it felt like that if I didn't have them on, I'd have no way to run away if the chance arose, and therefore, it'd be ceding the situation to him. The other thing was keeping a hand between my legs, something he wasn't very happy about, and which he spent the rest of the time there trying to work around. When he started fingering me, and especially when he started fingering further back (I had trouble defending myself), I panicked and tried to "negotiate" my way out of the situation, and ended up going down on him in exchange for him not trying to get inside of me. But then he stopped me and went back to what he was doing before. I mostly - not entirely, but mostly - kept him out to where he finished between my legs, and while I've second-guessed my attempt to bargain my way out of the situation a number of times, I don't think it would have ended like it did if I hadn't.
When he had stopped trying to finger me and was just moving mostly just between my legs, it had reached a stage of "better than it could be otherwise", so I stopped fighting and just sort of looked to the side of the bed, starin
That's the most common lie used against rape victims. The rate of false rape accusations varies greatly according to study methodology (by orders of magnitude), but is usually in the low to mid single digits.
Point to me a single nation's law where that's legal. Heck, in an extreme case, in Canada, R. vs. J.A., one party consented to be suffocated during sex, passed out in the middle for several minutes, the sex continued, the party regained consciousness, and consented to continued sex, and it was ruled that the time where the one party was unconscious were rape. That is, of course, an extreme case. But your notion that a person can legally have sex with an unconscious person is simply not true.
You're simply fortunate that you happen to be accurate on what your partner wanted and hence would never press charges. You never have a right to assume consent for another individual. Ever. You could be together for 20 years. It makes no difference. Now, if they *wake up* and consent to sex, that's a totally different story.
You're confusing individuals - that was Alden, not Wilén. Wilén was the one who, according to the charges, he slept with while she was asleep. But if you want to get into the details of Alden's charge, it's that he pinned her down and started prying her legs open trying to force unprotected sex, leaving her at the point where she almost started to cry, wherein Julian agreed to protected sex and she she stopped resisting, only to have him pull out at one point, and while he was *out* there was a loud popping sound, and then he resumed. She could not look at what he was doing, however, because he still had her pinned down.
This is a lesser charge than the accusations in regards to Wilén.
She did want to have sex with him - but only with protection. She dated her previous boyfriend for, what, 2 years or so? And never once slept with him without protection. It was "inconceivable to her", to quote him.
But even if she *had* slept in the same bed with him, even if they had already had unprotected sex, even if she had said "I love unprotected sex with you" - A Sleeping Person Cannot Consent, Period. That's rape.
Two UK courts found the charges credible. Who should I believe, them, who reviewed the evidence, or you?
Agreed. The way Manning has been treated is disgusting, and such a stark contrast.
Nothing will happen to the diplomats in the Ecuadorian embassy, either.
Assuming that they don't try to harbor a fugitive.
Who says they'll get arrested?
Now, if they harbor a fugitive, *that* is a crime. Without their diplomatic protection, they'll have the clear choice to hand over Assange or continue to try to harbor him.
Your characteristic of the blog entry is incorrect. It was a repost of something someone else wrote, it had nothing to do with rape, it *was* about revenge, steps 1 and 2 were basically "don't do it", and the rest was about how to cause an ex-boyfriend's new girlfriend to break up with him.