I stopped using Secunia as a primary source a long time ago due to some other issues I had with their actions (I don't clearly remember what it was, though). I've been using CVE-Details for a while now, in large part because they link to so many outside resources (including working exploit code in some cases) that it's just more useful overall. It doesn't catch everything (not every vuln gets a CVE number), but it gets enough and provides better summary data than most.
I know a couple of pro photographers and they pack up their gear in well-padded Pelican cases that get checked as they often travel with more than they could carry onboard anyway. One includes a starter's pistol in the checked luggage because the FAA classifies it as a firearm and the airlines therefore track it much more closely.
I usually carry my own gear (couple of notebooks, various networking and wireless gear, etc.) in a fairly large backpack, and it usually fits under the seat in front of me. However, as amenities like in-flight power and seat-back entertainment become more common, I'm finding that many of the seats have equipment boxes underneath and getting my backpack to fit is becoming difficult in a few cases.
I have seen two airlines that do size checks: Frontier and Spirit. However, both of them also make more money from checked bags than carry-ons (Spirit charges for carry-ons, too, IIRC), so that may just be a money thing for them. (I haven't flown Spirit, and only rarely fly Frontier, but I frequently pass gates for both.)
They won't back it because it will irritate the frequent fliers that make up the core of every airline's business. I don't think it will ultimately get much international traction, either, as airlines that cater to the upper class continue to do their own thing, putting pressure on any airline that does implement the proposed standard.
Even with the standard sizes defined in most airports, I routinely see people bringing aboard bags that if they were forced to check against the model next to most gates, they would not remotely pass. (These people usually have significant elite status, and that may be why they're not questioned. Those same people should be able to check the bag for free, or afford the $25 for the extra bag if they're already checking their limit. I say this as someone who travels 10-15 times a year and checks his bag when at all possible.)
Airliner manufacturers have seen the situation and expanded the size of carry-on bins. This is in part due to the increased volume of carry-on bags, but they're also increasing the height and depth. The 787 and the 737NG both have or will have these larger bins, and I believe the A380 has and the A350 will have larger bins. Concepts trotted out by Boeing and Airbus sometimes show even larger overhead bins. That they're responding to indirect market pressures--passengers go for airlines with more overhead space, so airlines go for aircraft with more overhead space--is a strong indicator of just how fully a standard can be completely ignored when it's inconvenient to a significant fraction of the end-users affected by the standard.
They do some basic research on the domain to see if there are commercial aspects. I've had two domains that are entirely non-commercial turned down because they were allegedly found to be commercial. (When I protested, they had me go back through the validation process and then let them pass.)
The temporary surrender argument is based on a severe misunderstanding of those provisions. This article from 2012 by someone who is clearly not a fan of either the US or UK governments explains that the temporary surrender option is not an end-run around extradition proceedings as it may be challenged in Swedish, British, and EU courts.
I did read on. You appear to have not read on in my post, because my very next sentence says, "most local laws are not enforceable, and the host country normally has to get permission to enter, even for emergencies."
I also did not claim that embassies are not extraterritorial. I said that they were not sovereign territory, which the AC essentially claimed when writing that the embassy is technically Ecuadorian territory (it's not) and that Assange is technically in Ecuador (he's not).
The UK maintains some control over the embassy in that any or all of the diplomatic staff may be declared persona non grata and ordered to leave the country. The UK would still be responsible for protecting the embassy and could not order Assange out or go in to get him, but they're still afforded that small degree of control. Of course, such an action would cause irreparable harm to the UK not only because relations with Ecuador would sour but so, too, would relations with all of Latin America and probably many other countries as well, and probably trigger legal action in the EU courts.
You're conflating a caress with penetration. They're entirely different legally and emotionally.
The primary issue I see supporting Sweden's case is that she gave conditional consent the night before. If the consent was still valid, as you claim, it seems like the condition should also have been valid. That Assange did not fulfill that condition suggests that he no longer had consent.
Extradition would be the only way for the US to approach it, even if they wanted to follow through on that through Sweden instead of the UK. He's far too high-profile for him to simply disappear.
The embassy resides within a structure housing other entities, including the Colombian embassy. Extending the building to extend the embassy would be up to the property owner/manager and Ecuador.
For London (as the city or as the seat of the British government) to do so would indicate acceptance of Assange's decision to seek asylum and would place the Crown in a difficult legal position in regards to his bail-jumping.
Embassies are not sovereign territory. Host country jurisdiction applies, but most local laws are not enforceable, and the host country normally has to get permission to enter, even for emergencies.
The Ecuadorian embassy is in a building that has several other functions and was not purpose-built as an embassy. According to Wikipedia, the embassy itself uses only rooms on the ground floor. Colombia has an embassy in the same building.
My main issue is Assange evading justice, even at the cost of those who put up his bail having to pay nearly a hundred thousand pounds total when he refused to leave the embassy. There are enough allegations that a trial is likely the most appropriate way to handle it, but enough questions that maybe Assange will be able to walk free.
That said, rape can absolutely happen in a case of sex without consent. Someone who is unconscious whether from intoxication or just an extremely heavy sleeper is incapable of giving consent. There are cases where consent under limited circumstances such as being asleep might be implied (married couple or someone with a demonstrated, ongoing sexual history), but in a one-night stand, consent should be sought each time. It's not that difficult to nudge someone awake and see how they respond.
As has been pointed out many times before by many people, if the US actually had an indictment sufficient for extradition, Sweden is a far worse place for him to be than the UK. Extraditions from the UK are far easier due to the terms of the extradition treaty between the US and the UK.
From a legal standpoint, I understand what the Swedish prosecutors are doing. They have to get the interview done by a certain time in order to maintain the ability to file charges. Once that happens, they can formally charge him and then put the trial on hold indefinitely as he'd be considered a fugitive from justice. However, I don't expect Assange to leave the embassy for anything other than a complete end to the investigation and no charges filed.
Terms of Service usually cover various forms of objectionable content, and many of them describe them along the lines of "such as but not limited to racism, sexism, etc." They have the right to determine what goes over their servers if they don't have common carrier status.
He's talking about engaging in the pay-for-play that is the reality of much of politics. Pony up a few thousand dollars, and you get someone's attention. If you don't have it, get together a group of people who can collectively do so, and you might get some attention from politicians.
Or you use the volume control within reach of your thumb and not reach for the radio at all, thereby keeping that hand on the steering wheel and improving your overall control.
I drive a lot of small, economy cars through travel, probably in the range of a dozen or so per year. Not one of them had anything near the fun of driving the Volt, except for the one time I landed in a Mini Cooper.
Keep in mind that most of those small, economy cars don't cost anywhere near $35,000. With some upgrades that move them closer to that price point, they become more fun to drive, but I don't think even those launch like the Volt did.
Land prices are lower, delivery costs are lower, and taxes are lower. The first is the reason prices are lower in Barstow than LA and the second why prices are lower in LA than in Baker. It's always been a bad idea to fuel up along I-15 at anyplace other than major endpoints, and maybe Barstow/Victorville.
The Volt and that small, economy, ICE vehicle aren't quite the same markets. Having test-driven a Volt, it was a hell of a lot more fun than those smaller cars, with significantly better acceleration and handling. We would have bought it, had my wife (who would have been the primary driver) not had a problem with driver-side visibility, as a cross-bar in the rear driver-side window was right at her eye level when looking over her shoulder.
I'd like to see flat fuel taxes indexed to inflation. A ten-cent per gallon tax that might have been sufficient in 1990 is falling woefully short of that mark in 2015 (it should be about 18 cents per gallon now) and while it wouldn't necessarily obviate the need for per-mile taxes, they might not be seen as so important to consider, at least not yet.
Coincidentally, I read an article this morning about a lab at a Texas university where they can simulate years of road wear in a few weeks. They have an axle capable of replicating the weight of a tractor-trailer (and up to double it) that can do 100,000 passes a week, including variance of up to 18 inches each way to simulate vehicles traveling in different parts of the lane. They use it to test different road structures, and experiments are due to wrap up this summer with papers to follow. Clever contraption, but what caught my eye was the claim that a mere 5% increase in average duration for a road material translates to about $50 million in annual savings for the roadways maintained by the state of Texas. Given the massive shortfall in roadway funding in the state, it would be nice to see something that gets a 25% or greater increase. There are plenty of highways (let alone streets) that are nightmares to drive on in the winter after the ice.
Depends on the location. Measure M is a half-cent sales tax which raises hundreds of millions of dollars per year in Orange County, CA. It has been extremely popular and has paid for roads and freeways (the 22 freeway widening a few years ago was either largely or completely paid for from Measure M revenues).
We'll find out later this year if it can clear an accelerating stage with the in-flight abort test.
Watching the stream this morning, I couldn't help but feel sorry for any crew who were in the capsule as it tumbled over after separation. That looks like a really uncomfortable ride, but better than exploding on the pad.
This happens a lot, and it's in the name of fairness and eliminating nepotism. It doesn't really work, though, if it's just a formality, and it wastes a lot of time and money on a pointless process.
I had one a couple of years ago for which I expressed interest as I wanted to move to the area anyway. The guy wanted all kinds of info that was already on my resume, but also wanted my SSN, and when I refused to give him that, he wanted the last four digits. I don't know if it was an attempt at identity theft or he was just stupid, but that ended things right there.
Another one went but better at the outset but insisted that the interview had to be done over a video link. I kind of figured, OK, fine, whatever, but when I asked about Skype, he said I had to go to some particular office that was about 40 miles away and use their setup. I couldn't download software and use my camera, because it absolutely had to be done at one of the offices they contracted with, and I was to wear a suit and tie. That really broke it--there was really no need to do that when so many other options for web conferencing were available.
A friend did recruiting for a while. He's transitioned to a technical role now because he can't compete with the resume mills. I don't know what it will take to get past them and get some decent recruiters back into the fray, but it can't come soon enough.
The additional engines allow for engine-out orbital capability, as has already happened on CRS-1, allowing the primary payload to reach orbit (the secondary payload failed, however). The failures of the N1 (which actually had 30 engines, not 27) weren't so much due to the number of engines as to the general complexity of operating a launch vehicle of that size. Each of the four failures varied in cause, and in only one case was the issue tied to an engine. Other failures were a pogo-induced line break (which might have been survivable had the computer not cut the engines), an uncontrolled roll due to eddies in a fuel tank, and a hydraulic shock wave from a planned shutdown of six of the engines bursting the fuel lines.
Slashdot Mirror
I stopped using Secunia as a primary source a long time ago due to some other issues I had with their actions (I don't clearly remember what it was, though). I've been using CVE-Details for a while now, in large part because they link to so many outside resources (including working exploit code in some cases) that it's just more useful overall. It doesn't catch everything (not every vuln gets a CVE number), but it gets enough and provides better summary data than most.
I know a couple of pro photographers and they pack up their gear in well-padded Pelican cases that get checked as they often travel with more than they could carry onboard anyway. One includes a starter's pistol in the checked luggage because the FAA classifies it as a firearm and the airlines therefore track it much more closely.
I usually carry my own gear (couple of notebooks, various networking and wireless gear, etc.) in a fairly large backpack, and it usually fits under the seat in front of me. However, as amenities like in-flight power and seat-back entertainment become more common, I'm finding that many of the seats have equipment boxes underneath and getting my backpack to fit is becoming difficult in a few cases.
I have seen two airlines that do size checks: Frontier and Spirit. However, both of them also make more money from checked bags than carry-ons (Spirit charges for carry-ons, too, IIRC), so that may just be a money thing for them. (I haven't flown Spirit, and only rarely fly Frontier, but I frequently pass gates for both.)
They won't back it because it will irritate the frequent fliers that make up the core of every airline's business. I don't think it will ultimately get much international traction, either, as airlines that cater to the upper class continue to do their own thing, putting pressure on any airline that does implement the proposed standard.
Even with the standard sizes defined in most airports, I routinely see people bringing aboard bags that if they were forced to check against the model next to most gates, they would not remotely pass. (These people usually have significant elite status, and that may be why they're not questioned. Those same people should be able to check the bag for free, or afford the $25 for the extra bag if they're already checking their limit. I say this as someone who travels 10-15 times a year and checks his bag when at all possible.)
Airliner manufacturers have seen the situation and expanded the size of carry-on bins. This is in part due to the increased volume of carry-on bags, but they're also increasing the height and depth. The 787 and the 737NG both have or will have these larger bins, and I believe the A380 has and the A350 will have larger bins. Concepts trotted out by Boeing and Airbus sometimes show even larger overhead bins. That they're responding to indirect market pressures--passengers go for airlines with more overhead space, so airlines go for aircraft with more overhead space--is a strong indicator of just how fully a standard can be completely ignored when it's inconvenient to a significant fraction of the end-users affected by the standard.
They do some basic research on the domain to see if there are commercial aspects. I've had two domains that are entirely non-commercial turned down because they were allegedly found to be commercial. (When I protested, they had me go back through the validation process and then let them pass.)
The temporary surrender argument is based on a severe misunderstanding of those provisions. This article from 2012 by someone who is clearly not a fan of either the US or UK governments explains that the temporary surrender option is not an end-run around extradition proceedings as it may be challenged in Swedish, British, and EU courts.
I did read on. You appear to have not read on in my post, because my very next sentence says, "most local laws are not enforceable, and the host country normally has to get permission to enter, even for emergencies."
I also did not claim that embassies are not extraterritorial. I said that they were not sovereign territory, which the AC essentially claimed when writing that the embassy is technically Ecuadorian territory (it's not) and that Assange is technically in Ecuador (he's not).
The UK maintains some control over the embassy in that any or all of the diplomatic staff may be declared persona non grata and ordered to leave the country. The UK would still be responsible for protecting the embassy and could not order Assange out or go in to get him, but they're still afforded that small degree of control. Of course, such an action would cause irreparable harm to the UK not only because relations with Ecuador would sour but so, too, would relations with all of Latin America and probably many other countries as well, and probably trigger legal action in the EU courts.
You're conflating a caress with penetration. They're entirely different legally and emotionally.
The primary issue I see supporting Sweden's case is that she gave conditional consent the night before. If the consent was still valid, as you claim, it seems like the condition should also have been valid. That Assange did not fulfill that condition suggests that he no longer had consent.
Extradition would be the only way for the US to approach it, even if they wanted to follow through on that through Sweden instead of the UK. He's far too high-profile for him to simply disappear.
The embassy resides within a structure housing other entities, including the Colombian embassy. Extending the building to extend the embassy would be up to the property owner/manager and Ecuador.
For London (as the city or as the seat of the British government) to do so would indicate acceptance of Assange's decision to seek asylum and would place the Crown in a difficult legal position in regards to his bail-jumping.
Embassies are not sovereign territory. Host country jurisdiction applies, but most local laws are not enforceable, and the host country normally has to get permission to enter, even for emergencies.
The Ecuadorian embassy is in a building that has several other functions and was not purpose-built as an embassy. According to Wikipedia, the embassy itself uses only rooms on the ground floor. Colombia has an embassy in the same building.
My main issue is Assange evading justice, even at the cost of those who put up his bail having to pay nearly a hundred thousand pounds total when he refused to leave the embassy. There are enough allegations that a trial is likely the most appropriate way to handle it, but enough questions that maybe Assange will be able to walk free.
That said, rape can absolutely happen in a case of sex without consent. Someone who is unconscious whether from intoxication or just an extremely heavy sleeper is incapable of giving consent. There are cases where consent under limited circumstances such as being asleep might be implied (married couple or someone with a demonstrated, ongoing sexual history), but in a one-night stand, consent should be sought each time. It's not that difficult to nudge someone awake and see how they respond.
As has been pointed out many times before by many people, if the US actually had an indictment sufficient for extradition, Sweden is a far worse place for him to be than the UK. Extraditions from the UK are far easier due to the terms of the extradition treaty between the US and the UK.
From a legal standpoint, I understand what the Swedish prosecutors are doing. They have to get the interview done by a certain time in order to maintain the ability to file charges. Once that happens, they can formally charge him and then put the trial on hold indefinitely as he'd be considered a fugitive from justice. However, I don't expect Assange to leave the embassy for anything other than a complete end to the investigation and no charges filed.
Terms of Service usually cover various forms of objectionable content, and many of them describe them along the lines of "such as but not limited to racism, sexism, etc." They have the right to determine what goes over their servers if they don't have common carrier status.
He's talking about engaging in the pay-for-play that is the reality of much of politics. Pony up a few thousand dollars, and you get someone's attention. If you don't have it, get together a group of people who can collectively do so, and you might get some attention from politicians.
Or you use the volume control within reach of your thumb and not reach for the radio at all, thereby keeping that hand on the steering wheel and improving your overall control.
I drive a lot of small, economy cars through travel, probably in the range of a dozen or so per year. Not one of them had anything near the fun of driving the Volt, except for the one time I landed in a Mini Cooper.
Keep in mind that most of those small, economy cars don't cost anywhere near $35,000. With some upgrades that move them closer to that price point, they become more fun to drive, but I don't think even those launch like the Volt did.
Land prices are lower, delivery costs are lower, and taxes are lower. The first is the reason prices are lower in Barstow than LA and the second why prices are lower in LA than in Baker. It's always been a bad idea to fuel up along I-15 at anyplace other than major endpoints, and maybe Barstow/Victorville.
The Volt and that small, economy, ICE vehicle aren't quite the same markets. Having test-driven a Volt, it was a hell of a lot more fun than those smaller cars, with significantly better acceleration and handling. We would have bought it, had my wife (who would have been the primary driver) not had a problem with driver-side visibility, as a cross-bar in the rear driver-side window was right at her eye level when looking over her shoulder.
I'd like to see flat fuel taxes indexed to inflation. A ten-cent per gallon tax that might have been sufficient in 1990 is falling woefully short of that mark in 2015 (it should be about 18 cents per gallon now) and while it wouldn't necessarily obviate the need for per-mile taxes, they might not be seen as so important to consider, at least not yet.
Coincidentally, I read an article this morning about a lab at a Texas university where they can simulate years of road wear in a few weeks. They have an axle capable of replicating the weight of a tractor-trailer (and up to double it) that can do 100,000 passes a week, including variance of up to 18 inches each way to simulate vehicles traveling in different parts of the lane. They use it to test different road structures, and experiments are due to wrap up this summer with papers to follow. Clever contraption, but what caught my eye was the claim that a mere 5% increase in average duration for a road material translates to about $50 million in annual savings for the roadways maintained by the state of Texas. Given the massive shortfall in roadway funding in the state, it would be nice to see something that gets a 25% or greater increase. There are plenty of highways (let alone streets) that are nightmares to drive on in the winter after the ice.
Depends on the location. Measure M is a half-cent sales tax which raises hundreds of millions of dollars per year in Orange County, CA. It has been extremely popular and has paid for roads and freeways (the 22 freeway widening a few years ago was either largely or completely paid for from Measure M revenues).
We'll find out later this year if it can clear an accelerating stage with the in-flight abort test.
Watching the stream this morning, I couldn't help but feel sorry for any crew who were in the capsule as it tumbled over after separation. That looks like a really uncomfortable ride, but better than exploding on the pad.
This happens a lot, and it's in the name of fairness and eliminating nepotism. It doesn't really work, though, if it's just a formality, and it wastes a lot of time and money on a pointless process.
I had one a couple of years ago for which I expressed interest as I wanted to move to the area anyway. The guy wanted all kinds of info that was already on my resume, but also wanted my SSN, and when I refused to give him that, he wanted the last four digits. I don't know if it was an attempt at identity theft or he was just stupid, but that ended things right there.
Another one went but better at the outset but insisted that the interview had to be done over a video link. I kind of figured, OK, fine, whatever, but when I asked about Skype, he said I had to go to some particular office that was about 40 miles away and use their setup. I couldn't download software and use my camera, because it absolutely had to be done at one of the offices they contracted with, and I was to wear a suit and tie. That really broke it--there was really no need to do that when so many other options for web conferencing were available.
A friend did recruiting for a while. He's transitioned to a technical role now because he can't compete with the resume mills. I don't know what it will take to get past them and get some decent recruiters back into the fray, but it can't come soon enough.
The additional engines allow for engine-out orbital capability, as has already happened on CRS-1, allowing the primary payload to reach orbit (the secondary payload failed, however). The failures of the N1 (which actually had 30 engines, not 27) weren't so much due to the number of engines as to the general complexity of operating a launch vehicle of that size. Each of the four failures varied in cause, and in only one case was the issue tied to an engine. Other failures were a pogo-induced line break (which might have been survivable had the computer not cut the engines), an uncontrolled roll due to eddies in a fuel tank, and a hydraulic shock wave from a planned shutdown of six of the engines bursting the fuel lines.