1) enact stricter enforcement and regulation on govt involvement with illegal activity. (Russians are supposedly good at being heavy handed. Cracking down on abusive behavior should be easy enough, as long as you can keep the pendulum swinging too far.)
2) legal system reforms that provide immunity to witnesses and juries concerning testimony and verdicts. Make it safe to state what is true, and not simply what is "expected", or "approved."
3) hardball removal and blacklisting of politicians, judges, and prosecutors who fail to live up to #2.
Here in wheat country it didn't really freeze last winter.
I agree that if the buckwheat alternative was to be planted, it should have been at the beginning of september. It *IS* too late in the season.
However, due to the short season involved, it would make a good spring crop.
Further south, in OK, ad TX, (where the majority of cattle end up) the chances of freezing are pushed back more, so it might not be too late to plant there.
Additionally, the buckwheat plants themselves make good pasturage, so even if you couldn't collect a seed crop, harvesting early for silage (while in full flower, about 1.5 months in field) is also a potentially lucrative venture, given the scarcity of silage at market.
The original story was to run a high energy collider for the purposes of enriching waste, so that it is less stable, and decays more usefully/safely.
This collider *would* be a long term installation.
Perhaps not active the full 1000 years, but also could be run under less.. precise... conditions. Collisions favoring neutron emission and neutrino emissions would favor both uses.
The high level waste could be reprocessed, and low level waste could be passively exposed to 'above normal' neutrino flux for extended periods.
It isn't a magic bullet, and I don't claim it is. It is just one of many small things that can be done to assist decontamination.
We have iron piping that has been exposed to high levels of alpha decay biproducts and heavy neutron exposures; they were the pipes that recirculated primary coolant in an old style reactor. They are hot, but won't decay to safe levels for a very, very very long time. You can't burn iron in a fission plant. Treating it in a breeder reactor would be retarded.
What to do with it?
We have very high energy colliders that produce neutrino beams used for scientific exeriments. The expense of running these colliders is offset by the scientific discoveries they make. When the neutrino emissions aren't being directly used, they can be used to treat these difficult to deal with waste materials.
Radioactive iron, such as these hypothetical pipes, decays VERY slowly. It can take years for a single atom to undergo spontaneous fission, and decay. (Perhaps hundreds of years.) Even if the rate of neutrino exposure was so low, that it impacted rate of decay by.0001%, it could result in several years of storage shaved off the time needed to decay to inertness.
The density of the neutrino flux falls off in the inverse cube of distance, like light, and other forms of radiation. It radiates evenly, because it is not disrupted by magnetic fields nor by interaction with matter in a meaningful fashion.
As such, the closer you plce the radioactive object to be exposed, the more neutrinos it will encounter. Even though the rate of neutrino interactions, as rated by percentage of neutrinos produced interacting with the target, does not change, the number of neutrinos per second does. This is why moving the material very near the source has an effect.
You don't need "black hole quasar jet-like neutrino emissions". You just need passive exposure to a strong source, using close proximity to that source.
We aren't trying to break down plutonium. That is better taken care of in a power plant's reactor. We are trying to reduce the time needed to sequester the low level waste.
Neutrinos are weakly interacting, yes. That is why they are harmless.
I am not proposing doing the prticle collisions that would produce the added neutrino flux JUST for the purposes of waste decontamination, but for scientific purposes. The waste is simply housed nearby to collect on the synergy of the neutrino production. Like any radiant energy source, concentration falls off on an inverse cube with distance, especially for something as electically charge-inert as neutrinos. You don't ramp up flux production, you move the items closer to the flux source.
You don't need to increase the rate of decay by orders or magnitude, just slightly. Continual exposure would have cumulative effects that would be equivelent to years of storage, when the materials being exposed are already very low level waste.
I am not proposing building a device that produces more neutrinos than the sun. I am proposing the placement of low level waste near existing colliders to have very near exposures for cheap.
If the headline approach is used, the subcritical fission would release such neutrinos as well.
Wasn't it recently discovered that neutrino interactions with unstable neuclei causes an increased rate of decay?
Placing the waste near a particle accellerator that generates large quantities of neutrino emissions should reduce the time needed for those waste products to decay.
The neutrino emissions themselves are harmless to living things. You get uncountable numbers of them passing through 1cm of skin every second from sunlight. (Even if you are indoors!)
Freeranged chickens that eat large quantities of insects (like grasshoppers and crickets) as well as weedy greens (like henbit) are what produce the neon-orange eggs.
They should raise buckwheat on some of their pasturage, and encourage the corn growers to do so too.
Buckwheat has a bulk starch content of approximately 70%, bulk protein (including lysine, making it more complete than corn) of about 18%, and a fair amount of vegetable fats.
Its real claim to fame is that it goes from germination to harvest in a little over 2 months, and thrives on poorer soils. It prefers cool weather, and usualy produces about 30bu/acre.
It also improves soil nutrient availability to other crops planted later.
If it doesn't freeze in the corn belt again this year, like it didn't last year, it would be a good crop to attempt, as it could easily offset feed costs, and avoid "graining" their cattle on refuse gummybears.
On a side note... remember that post from last month about the complex system theorist predicting food riots?
Uhm.. GPL is a hack on copyright law. In Berne convention signatory countries, the mere act of writing the software creates a copyrighted work, owned exclusively by its creator.
The spirit of the GPL is to do away with this, and permit rapid collaboration and joint authorship of complex computer programs that could not otherwise be performed realistically in the absence of a license like the GPL.
The employment of the GPL as a license does NOT negate obligations to copyright, in such countries. In fact, the GPL is enforcable *BECAUSE* of such copyright.
Unless the creators of rasbmc explicitly waived rights of ownership and declaired the work to be public domain (if so, why GPL and not BSD?) Then the additional contributors to that code (the person who modified the installer) needs to attribute proper ownership. The license to use that code as delivered by the copyright holder is the GPL. Failure to comply with the GPL results in forfieture of license, which means that xbian is comiting copyright infringement.
Claiming ownership of a copyrighted work so as to sidestep compliance with the license is a very big NoNo with GPLed codebases. If there is copyright, you MUST respect it, or you are defacto in violation of the license. (How can you caim compliance with a license created by someone you contest ownership of the code with?)
While not explicitly part of the GPL, (since it is covered by wider copyright law, and not applicable to the GPL itself, but very relavent to enforcement) observing correct attribution of ownership is paramount to proper compliance with the license.
The copyright holder can relicense arbitrarily. A GPL compliant user cannot, and must comply with the GPL license under law. Attribution is more than just a nicety. It is required for the GPL to function.
However, gpl code still has copyright ascribed to the author, which needs to remain. Eg, the author must be credited as the author under GPL.
The GPL permits reuse, repurposing, and redistribution, as long as the terms of the GPL are observed. One of therms of the GPL is the attribution of original authors.
If the just came out and said "the xbian project is cancelled", and DIDN'T post the link for verification (yup! Its dead!), then there would be people denouncing the statement as FUD, and shouting [CITATION NEEDED].
Rather than take it as "Hey, Check out this TOTALLY AWESOME project that is so totally cancelled on their inactive website! Its a complete waste of time!" I would take it as the req. for the [citation needed] crowd.
Meh, you may be right. "The Troubles" (proper noun) is relating to the Irish, and I admit that this was a misappropriation. However, nearly every text relating to the french revolution refer to the situation as "the troubles of France". (Object of preposition)
Its an easy mistake to make. It doesn't detract from the gruesome state of affairs prsent during that period.
I am sorry if it confused you, but I was in no way supporting "french revolutionary" tactics. The only thing they do is unravel a social order, and kill relentlessly. The point I was trying to make was that enacting such a policy in the USA would result in even *more* bloodhsed than the french revolution had, because more people are complicit in the rule of the 1%. It isn't just the ceo of monsanto. It's your grandma too.
I agree with you though. Anyone supporting THAT kind of revolution, given the historical precident, is either HORRIBLY ignorant and misinformed, or outright stupid.
Exactly. At the end of the process, there will either be 0 people, or the people that own absolutely nothing. (The 100% that owns nothing, and has no power at all.)
My post was not an advocation, but rather a recrimination. The process used by the french does, and DID, kill relentlessly. It only ended when the people refused to continue the process.
The results were not pretty: a france heavily depopulated. Widows and orphans everywhere. Famine, and civil unrest. Crime was rampant.
They called it "the troubles" for a reason.
I don't have a solution to the problems with the 1%ers. I was merely pointing out what the french solution actually was, and was not in any way advocating it.
If you think 600 is a reasonable estimate of the number that would need to be executed, you are sadly mistaken.
Try closer to 100 million.
It isn't just the 1%ers. It is also the people who would replce them outright, *AND* the people that actively and willingly support them. Eg, the people that vote for democrats because of wellfare and medicare, and the people who vote for republicans because jesus says to, and because republicans give them tax breaks.
All that would be left over would be the people that think revolution is dumb, that politics are dumb, and who are dirt ass broke.
That's what happened to france. They didn't call it "the troubles" for nothing.
At least in the US, the defence doesn't go to jail for offering a strong defense. The defense is just impotent in the face of corruption.
Granted, that isn't a conslation to brag about. Being the most litigious and absurd country on the planet (with nukes) is about the only thing the US is "Number One!" At, other than explorting clearly stupid and one sided legislation worldwide under threat of invasion.
Really, I don't claim my country is paradise. It clearly isn't. But at least there is the fiction of a fair trial here. The russians don't even get that, it seems.
No it didn't. They basically killed off everyone that had the connections to establish a cogent civil order, because civil order cannot meet the demands of mob rule, which is what the revolution became.
It indeed did end when the peasant classes refused to listen to the revolutionaries, as they woke up to the festering hell they had created, and the endless witch-hunts the revolutionaries were inciting in trying to hypocritically enforce their own wills over others, and branding any resistance "tyrany". In the end it wasn't at all about equal treatment in the courts, equal opportunities to own land, etc.. it was about vying groups of revolutionaries denouncing each other, and killing each others' supporters until the population basically just ignored them, and went about living.
In many respects, napolean's conquest actually helped bring order to this torn up france, and fostered reconstruction. The vacuums in local politics enabled the grassroots democracy that slowly sprang up however.
I agree though. The revolutionaries had gold on the brain. Not philosophy, nor intents on equality.
While that *is* what the word means, and is applied correctly, remember that pre-revolution france was a fuedal society. The number of non-aristocrats that owned their own lands and homes was minimal.
It's the same thing as with the 1% of today. A tiny fraction of the population owned the vast majority of land, wealth, resources, and power.
The revolution started with the aristocrats, the "clearly" 1%-ers. This was not sufficient, as the bourgioes readily replaced them in tyrrany.
The problem resolved when the aristocrats, *and* the supporting class (privilaged private land owners) were eliminated. After that, the peasant class could be represented in government.
Eg, what I am getting at here, is that caiming "no, they were the middle class, not the 1%!" Is a nonsequitor, when the aristocrats represented.01%, and the bourgeois represented.99%, while the serf class represented 99%. The false comparison to today's "middle class" being a significantly larger portion of the population does not negate the assertion that the historic bourgeois were the 1%ers.
% by weight values like that means that the seeds themselves have negative mass! How else do you explain the drug content of the seeds being in excess of 118%!?
Somebody tell nasa! Its just what they need to build an alcubierre warp drive!
BOTH obama and romney, and all associated tools are neatly tucked into that 1% demographic.
What the french did was repeatedly eliminate the 1%-ers. (Remove the top 1%... check to see if the problem resolved.. remove the next top 1%... rinse, repeat until problem solved, or population == 0)
We call them "the 1%", they called them "bourgoise". Same difference. Its the people with all the money, influcence, connections, and power to be assfucks.
Note: the french had to do it... REPEATEDLY.
It isn't JUST the 1%-ers. It's also the people who would seek to replace them straight up, and the people who readily and willingly enable them to be the 1%.
In the US, that would be an *alarming* number of people guillotined before the problem would be resolved.
The problem is far more systemic than you would care to realize.
Seriously. The very language of the charge spells out the kind of justice that is being dished out: we say you are guilty, and the court is a formality. Don't question the ruling party comrade.
If her report showed that the defendant couldn't possibly have been importing poppyseeds for the manufacture of narcotics, due to the almost undetectable levels of the required compounds in the imported samples, then he should have been released, and charges dropped.
Claiming that she is complicit with drug smuggling means they found the defendant in the case she testifed for to be guilty anyway. Otherwise, how could she have been complicit in his "criminal importation operation"?
Seriously-- I thought this kind of shit ended with the cold war, and that Russia was trying its best to become a respectable member of the global community. Seriously... this shit is out of control.
Slashdot Mirror
1) enact stricter enforcement and regulation on govt involvement with illegal activity. (Russians are supposedly good at being heavy handed. Cracking down on abusive behavior should be easy enough, as long as you can keep the pendulum swinging too far.)
2) legal system reforms that provide immunity to witnesses and juries concerning testimony and verdicts. Make it safe to state what is true, and not simply what is "expected", or "approved."
3) hardball removal and blacklisting of politicians, judges, and prosecutors who fail to live up to #2.
4) prison system reforms
That should be a good starting place.
Here in wheat country it didn't really freeze last winter.
I agree that if the buckwheat alternative was to be planted, it should have been at the beginning of september. It *IS* too late in the season.
However, due to the short season involved, it would make a good spring crop.
Further south, in OK, ad TX, (where the majority of cattle end up) the chances of freezing are pushed back more, so it might not be too late to plant there.
Additionally, the buckwheat plants themselves make good pasturage, so even if you couldn't collect a seed crop, harvesting early for silage (while in full flower, about 1.5 months in field) is also a potentially lucrative venture, given the scarcity of silage at market.
The original story was to run a high energy collider for the purposes of enriching waste, so that it is less stable, and decays more usefully/safely.
This collider *would* be a long term installation.
Perhaps not active the full 1000 years, but also could be run under less.. precise... conditions. Collisions favoring neutron emission and neutrino emissions would favor both uses.
The high level waste could be reprocessed, and low level waste could be passively exposed to 'above normal' neutrino flux for extended periods.
It isn't a magic bullet, and I don't claim it is. It is just one of many small things that can be done to assist decontamination.
Ok. Let's do a little thought experiment.
We have iron piping that has been exposed to high levels of alpha decay biproducts and heavy neutron exposures; they were the pipes that recirculated primary coolant in an old style reactor. They are hot, but won't decay to safe levels for a very, very very long time. You can't burn iron in a fission plant. Treating it in a breeder reactor would be retarded.
What to do with it?
We have very high energy colliders that produce neutrino beams used for scientific exeriments. The expense of running these colliders is offset by the scientific discoveries they make. When the neutrino emissions aren't being directly used, they can be used to treat these difficult to deal with waste materials.
Radioactive iron, such as these hypothetical pipes, decays VERY slowly. It can take years for a single atom to undergo spontaneous fission, and decay. (Perhaps hundreds of years.) Even if the rate of neutrino exposure was so low, that it impacted rate of decay by .0001%, it could result in several years of storage shaved off the time needed to decay to inertness.
The density of the neutrino flux falls off in the inverse cube of distance, like light, and other forms of radiation. It radiates evenly, because it is not disrupted by magnetic fields nor by interaction with matter in a meaningful fashion.
As such, the closer you plce the radioactive object to be exposed, the more neutrinos it will encounter. Even though the rate of neutrino interactions, as rated by percentage of neutrinos produced interacting with the target, does not change, the number of neutrinos per second does. This is why moving the material very near the source has an effect.
You don't need "black hole quasar jet-like neutrino emissions". You just need passive exposure to a strong source, using close proximity to that source.
We aren't trying to break down plutonium. That is better taken care of in a power plant's reactor. We are trying to reduce the time needed to sequester the low level waste.
Neutrinos are weakly interacting, yes. That is why they are harmless.
I am not proposing doing the prticle collisions that would produce the added neutrino flux JUST for the purposes of waste decontamination, but for scientific purposes. The waste is simply housed nearby to collect on the synergy of the neutrino production. Like any radiant energy source, concentration falls off on an inverse cube with distance, especially for something as electically charge-inert as neutrinos. You don't ramp up flux production, you move the items closer to the flux source.
You don't need to increase the rate of decay by orders or magnitude, just slightly. Continual exposure would have cumulative effects that would be equivelent to years of storage, when the materials being exposed are already very low level waste.
I am not proposing building a device that produces more neutrinos than the sun. I am proposing the placement of low level waste near existing colliders to have very near exposures for cheap.
If the headline approach is used, the subcritical fission would release such neutrinos as well.
Wasn't it recently discovered that neutrino interactions with unstable neuclei causes an increased rate of decay?
Placing the waste near a particle accellerator that generates large quantities of neutrino emissions should reduce the time needed for those waste products to decay.
The neutrino emissions themselves are harmless to living things. You get uncountable numbers of them passing through 1cm of skin every second from sunlight. (Even if you are indoors!)
Were your chickens free ranged?
Freeranged chickens that eat large quantities of insects (like grasshoppers and crickets) as well as weedy greens (like henbit) are what produce the neon-orange eggs.
(Personal experience. Anecdote != data, et al.)
Great, that's all we need... corn and gummybear market bubbles.
They should raise buckwheat on some of their pasturage, and encourage the corn growers to do so too.
Buckwheat has a bulk starch content of approximately 70%, bulk protein (including lysine, making it more complete than corn) of about 18%, and a fair amount of vegetable fats.
Its real claim to fame is that it goes from germination to harvest in a little over 2 months, and thrives on poorer soils. It prefers cool weather, and usualy produces about 30bu/acre.
It also improves soil nutrient availability to other crops planted later.
If it doesn't freeze in the corn belt again this year, like it didn't last year, it would be a good crop to attempt, as it could easily offset feed costs, and avoid "graining" their cattle on refuse gummybears.
On a side note... remember that post from last month about the complex system theorist predicting food riots?
Uhm.. GPL is a hack on copyright law. In Berne convention signatory countries, the mere act of writing the software creates a copyrighted work, owned exclusively by its creator.
The spirit of the GPL is to do away with this, and permit rapid collaboration and joint authorship of complex computer programs that could not otherwise be performed realistically in the absence of a license like the GPL.
The employment of the GPL as a license does NOT negate obligations to copyright, in such countries. In fact, the GPL is enforcable *BECAUSE* of such copyright.
Unless the creators of rasbmc explicitly waived rights of ownership and declaired the work to be public domain (if so, why GPL and not BSD?) Then the additional contributors to that code (the person who modified the installer) needs to attribute proper ownership. The license to use that code as delivered by the copyright holder is the GPL. Failure to comply with the GPL results in forfieture of license, which means that xbian is comiting copyright infringement.
Claiming ownership of a copyrighted work so as to sidestep compliance with the license is a very big NoNo with GPLed codebases. If there is copyright, you MUST respect it, or you are defacto in violation of the license. (How can you caim compliance with a license created by someone you contest ownership of the code with?)
While not explicitly part of the GPL, (since it is covered by wider copyright law, and not applicable to the GPL itself, but very relavent to enforcement) observing correct attribution of ownership is paramount to proper compliance with the license.
The copyright holder can relicense arbitrarily. A GPL compliant user cannot, and must comply with the GPL license under law. Attribution is more than just a nicety. It is required for the GPL to function.
However, gpl code still has copyright ascribed to the author, which needs to remain. Eg, the author must be credited as the author under GPL.
The GPL permits reuse, repurposing, and redistribution, as long as the terms of the GPL are observed. One of therms of the GPL is the attribution of original authors.
Well, to play devil's advocate here...
If the just came out and said "the xbian project is cancelled", and DIDN'T post the link for verification (yup! Its dead!), then there would be people denouncing the statement as FUD, and shouting [CITATION NEEDED].
Rather than take it as "Hey, Check out this TOTALLY AWESOME project that is so totally cancelled on their inactive website! Its a complete waste of time!" I would take it as the req. for the [citation needed] crowd.
*shrug*
Kerfuffle, kvetch, futz, meshugenah, etc are all yiddish.
Clearly you don't spend much time in New York, or around jewish people.
Either that or you have lots of hutzpah.
Meh, you may be right. "The Troubles" (proper noun) is relating to the Irish, and I admit that this was a misappropriation. However, nearly every text relating to the french revolution refer to the situation as "the troubles of France". (Object of preposition)
Its an easy mistake to make. It doesn't detract from the gruesome state of affairs prsent during that period.
I am sorry if it confused you, but I was in no way supporting "french revolutionary" tactics. The only thing they do is unravel a social order, and kill relentlessly. The point I was trying to make was that enacting such a policy in the USA would result in even *more* bloodhsed than the french revolution had, because more people are complicit in the rule of the 1%. It isn't just the ceo of monsanto. It's your grandma too.
I agree with you though. Anyone supporting THAT kind of revolution, given the historical precident, is either HORRIBLY ignorant and misinformed, or outright stupid.
Exactly. At the end of the process, there will either be 0 people, or the people that own absolutely nothing. (The 100% that owns nothing, and has no power at all.)
My post was not an advocation, but rather a recrimination. The process used by the french does, and DID, kill relentlessly. It only ended when the people refused to continue the process.
The results were not pretty: a france heavily depopulated. Widows and orphans everywhere. Famine, and civil unrest. Crime was rampant.
They called it "the troubles" for a reason.
I don't have a solution to the problems with the 1%ers. I was merely pointing out what the french solution actually was, and was not in any way advocating it.
If you think 600 is a reasonable estimate of the number that would need to be executed, you are sadly mistaken.
Try closer to 100 million.
It isn't just the 1%ers. It is also the people who would replce them outright, *AND* the people that actively and willingly support them. Eg, the people that vote for democrats because of wellfare and medicare, and the people who vote for republicans because jesus says to, and because republicans give them tax breaks.
All that would be left over would be the people that think revolution is dumb, that politics are dumb, and who are dirt ass broke.
That's what happened to france. They didn't call it "the troubles" for nothing.
At least in the US, the defence doesn't go to jail for offering a strong defense. The defense is just impotent in the face of corruption.
Granted, that isn't a conslation to brag about. Being the most litigious and absurd country on the planet (with nukes) is about the only thing the US is "Number One!" At, other than explorting clearly stupid and one sided legislation worldwide under threat of invasion.
Really, I don't claim my country is paradise. It clearly isn't. But at least there is the fiction of a fair trial here. The russians don't even get that, it seems.
No it didn't. They basically killed off everyone that had the connections to establish a cogent civil order, because civil order cannot meet the demands of mob rule, which is what the revolution became.
It indeed did end when the peasant classes refused to listen to the revolutionaries, as they woke up to the festering hell they had created, and the endless witch-hunts the revolutionaries were inciting in trying to hypocritically enforce their own wills over others, and branding any resistance "tyrany". In the end it wasn't at all about equal treatment in the courts, equal opportunities to own land, etc.. it was about vying groups of revolutionaries denouncing each other, and killing each others' supporters until the population basically just ignored them, and went about living.
In many respects, napolean's conquest actually helped bring order to this torn up france, and fostered reconstruction. The vacuums in local politics enabled the grassroots democracy that slowly sprang up however.
I agree though. The revolutionaries had gold on the brain. Not philosophy, nor intents on equality.
Actually, no..
While that *is* what the word means, and is applied correctly, remember that pre-revolution france was a fuedal society. The number of non-aristocrats that owned their own lands and homes was minimal.
It's the same thing as with the 1% of today. A tiny fraction of the population owned the vast majority of land, wealth, resources, and power.
The revolution started with the aristocrats, the "clearly" 1%-ers. This was not sufficient, as the bourgioes readily replaced them in tyrrany.
The problem resolved when the aristocrats, *and* the supporting class (privilaged private land owners) were eliminated. After that, the peasant class could be represented in government.
Eg, what I am getting at here, is that caiming "no, they were the middle class, not the 1%!" Is a nonsequitor, when the aristocrats represented .01%, and the bourgeois represented .99%, while the serf class represented 99%. The false comparison to today's "middle class" being a significantly larger portion of the population does not negate the assertion that the historic bourgeois were the 1%ers.
Wow.. magic poppyseeds to have values like that!
% by weight values like that means that the seeds themselves have negative mass! How else do you explain the drug content of the seeds being in excess of 118%!?
Somebody tell nasa! Its just what they need to build an alcubierre warp drive!
Nicht comrade. Even we american imprialist dogs can get correct inflection!
It is clear to all that lady scientist was using contraband narcotics while at work, and not wholesome Russian wodka, as is proper.
How else could she have made such blaring error as to contradict russian prosecutor?
IIRC, the bourgoise were the 1% of their age.
BOTH obama and romney, and all associated tools are neatly tucked into that 1% demographic.
What the french did was repeatedly eliminate the 1%-ers. (Remove the top 1%... check to see if the problem resolved.. remove the next top 1%... rinse, repeat until problem solved, or population == 0)
We call them "the 1%", they called them "bourgoise". Same difference. Its the people with all the money, influcence, connections, and power to be assfucks.
Note: the french had to do it... REPEATEDLY.
It isn't JUST the 1%-ers. It's also the people who would seek to replace them straight up, and the people who readily and willingly enable them to be the 1%.
In the US, that would be an *alarming* number of people guillotined before the problem would be resolved.
The problem is far more systemic than you would care to realize.
Seriously. The very language of the charge spells out the kind of justice that is being dished out: we say you are guilty, and the court is a formality. Don't question the ruling party comrade.
If her report showed that the defendant couldn't possibly have been importing poppyseeds for the manufacture of narcotics, due to the almost undetectable levels of the required compounds in the imported samples, then he should have been released, and charges dropped.
Claiming that she is complicit with drug smuggling means they found the defendant in the case she testifed for to be guilty anyway. Otherwise, how could she have been complicit in his "criminal importation operation"?
Seriously-- I thought this kind of shit ended with the cold war, and that Russia was trying its best to become a respectable member of the global community. Seriously... this shit is out of control.
Runas administrator CMD.exe
Diskpart
Select disk 0
Select partition 1
Shrink desired=%AmountToShrink
Quit
Exit
Tada. Now you have %AmountToShrink disk space at the end of the drive you can invest an ext filesystem with.
(Note, you should select the partition you want to shrink. You can list the partitions for selection with LIST PARTITION.)
You may need to start from the recovery partition or install disk to futz with the system volume, as it probably has files open, and is mounted.