I can only assume that all you irrational tin-foil-hatted folks will proudly admit how off-your-ass wrong you were, too
Gladly. The day Julian Assange safely emerges from Swedish prison a free man after serving his time, I will admit my suspicion of the international legal system to be completely wrong and foolish.
Please note that my suspicions arise not from any hero worship of Julian Assange, but of deep mistrust of the American legal system. Whether the allegations are true or not has little bearing on whether the US government can use them to get their hands on Assange.
No, my claim is that no one games the system by having excess children to cash in. If you're honestly concerned about people gaming the system, use some examples that actually happened. Otherwise, I'm not going to believe that it's a real problem.
I don't know, why don't you tell us, since you seem to think that they're refusing to extradite him directly, but would happily agree to let him be taken from Sweden after they turn him over?
My understanding is that the conditional release clause in the US-Sweden extradition treaty allows his extradition without due process, under the legal fiction that it's just "temporary".
Sweden has NO upside from passing him on to the US
Sweden has no upside from prosecuting The Pirate Bay guys either. That didn't stop them from acting as an arm of the US in that case.
The UK has to judge its possible approval for his extradition from Sweden by the *same exact* criteria as if Sweden weren't involved,
I don't believe this is true. At a minimum, Assange has the right to be present during his extradition treaty from the UK. He cannot exercise this right while sitting in a Swedish jail cell. I am not a lawyer, so I can't tell you exactly what the differences are, but the procedures are not identical.
In any case, we will find out. If Sweden does not extradite Assange, feel free to gloat.
my position is you should evaluate iran's actions according to your moral principles. and you should evaluate the usa's actions according to your moral principles
I agree entirely for once. What did I say that made you think I felt otherwise?
Why would the UK refuse consent to extradite Assange from Sweden?
If the UK were to try to extradite Assange from the UK, then Assange would get to make his case in a UK court. Extradition requests from the UK can take years.
If the UK extradites Assange to Sweden, they can give consent to his further extradition without allowing Assange a defense in UK court. Once in Sweden, they can use the Temporary Surrender procedure to extradite him to the US without due process.
The simple fact that without the UK's permission, Sweden would be in violation of its treaty obligations as an EU member, and so would open itself up to trade sanctions, fines, and perhaps even ejection from the EU, not to mention being on the shit list of just every EU government in existence - so good luck when you need a favor, Sweden.
Why would the UK withhold permission to extradite Assange to the US? Everything I've seen indicates that the UK would like to extradite Assange to the US, but their own legal system makes it easier to use Sweden as a proxy.
In any case, we'll find out what happens to Assange eventually. My guess is that he won't live to be extradited to the US, but if he does make it that long, he will be.
Back when I lived in Minnesota there was a big todo over welfare moms having more children simply to get an increase in welfare aid.
Which is almost certainly a complete fabrication on the part of conservatives. State aid is never enough to pay for all the costs a child incurs. Did they have any actual data on how often they claim this occurs? Or did they just make something up (in the grand tradition of Ronald Reagan), and harp on it until people thought it was a real problem?
So your position is that I should behave the exact same way towards Iran that I would towards a man who stabbed someone on the street? You don't see anything wrong with that?
What makes you think he'd ever face trial if he ended up in Sweden? Sweden has illegally rendered political refugees to the US to be tortured in the past. What makes you think they wouldn't do the same to Assange?
Just look at the world around you. You'll get further towing the party line than you will asking too many questions.
This has been obvious to thinkers throughout the ages. Voltaire said "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." Heinlein expressed a similar sentiment when he said âoeBeing right too soon is socially unacceptable.â
1. i get it. if a guy stabs a woman in the street in front of you, you're not saying anything, you don't know him
You just can't stop building straw men. Do you really think that the relationship between two individual citizens of the same nation is analogous to the relationship between a sovereign nation and a citizen of a hostile nation?
If so, you are too stupid to bother talking to.
If not, you are too intellectually dishonest to bother talking to.
In this day of reduced spending, teachers being paraded around like well, like someone that's paraded around for public scorn, what choice did we have?
Show some balls and fight. Then people might see that you actually care about education, and will be more willing to invest in education. As long as you continue doing nothing, nobody's going to give you more money.
Maybe, if their personal collections suck. A few weeks on What.cd will build a music collection with breadth and depth unmatched by any streaming service.
Ethically speaking, if you value a song enough that you believe it is worth having a copy of, you should be willing to give something to the artist who produced it (and, by extension, the chain of support personnel who helped produce it).
I agree with this entirely, and this is entirely compatible with copyright abolitionism. The right thing to do is to support the artists whose work enriches your life. However, nothing about this means that's it's OK for the government to force you to support artists you don't value enough to willingly support.
it is up to us individually to examine the consequences of our actions. It is not up to governments or corporations to make us choose to behave ethically. We have to do that ourselves.
It seems to me that this is the core of copyright abolitionism. As long as file sharing is illegal, we are expecting the government to enforce ethical behavior. The right thing to do is to pay for the things you value willingly. If you don't, they can and should go away.
The rest of the article, including blaming file sharing for musician suicides (as if musicians didn't commit suicide before) is pants on head retarded. The author isn't even aware that he's agreed with the basic assumption of copyright abolitionism.
Ok then, when? Name one instance where American foreign policy has been guided more by what is fair than by what would benefit powerful American interests the most.
The problem is, teaching people to think isn't exactly a useful life skill. Being able to think is by and large less useful than being able to regurgitate facts, and much much less useful than being able to shmooze with the right people.
Slashdot Mirror
What about a tesla coil? Those should have big enough parts and will be really impressive to an 11 year old boy.
What does multiple browsers help when you're browsing from the same IP address? I think Google's smart enough to figure that out.
I can only assume that all you irrational tin-foil-hatted folks will proudly admit how off-your-ass wrong you were, too
Gladly. The day Julian Assange safely emerges from Swedish prison a free man after serving his time, I will admit my suspicion of the international legal system to be completely wrong and foolish.
Please note that my suspicions arise not from any hero worship of Julian Assange, but of deep mistrust of the American legal system. Whether the allegations are true or not has little bearing on whether the US government can use them to get their hands on Assange.
Ah, so No True Capitalist fears change.
Yes, I'd be happy to share all of that with you. But I'd be more likely to use plans that had already been shared freely. Share and share alike.
No, my claim is that no one games the system by having excess children to cash in. If you're honestly concerned about people gaming the system, use some examples that actually happened. Otherwise, I'm not going to believe that it's a real problem.
I don't know, why don't you tell us, since you seem to think that they're refusing to extradite him directly, but would happily agree to let him be taken from Sweden after they turn him over?
My understanding is that the conditional release clause in the US-Sweden extradition treaty allows his extradition without due process, under the legal fiction that it's just "temporary".
Sweden has NO upside from passing him on to the US
Sweden has no upside from prosecuting The Pirate Bay guys either. That didn't stop them from acting as an arm of the US in that case.
The UK has to judge its possible approval for his extradition from Sweden by the *same exact* criteria as if Sweden weren't involved,
I don't believe this is true. At a minimum, Assange has the right to be present during his extradition treaty from the UK. He cannot exercise this right while sitting in a Swedish jail cell. I am not a lawyer, so I can't tell you exactly what the differences are, but the procedures are not identical.
In any case, we will find out. If Sweden does not extradite Assange, feel free to gloat.
my position is you should evaluate iran's actions according to your moral principles. and you should evaluate the usa's actions according to your moral principles
I agree entirely for once. What did I say that made you think I felt otherwise?
Why would the UK refuse consent to extradite Assange from Sweden?
If the UK were to try to extradite Assange from the UK, then Assange would get to make his case in a UK court. Extradition requests from the UK can take years.
If the UK extradites Assange to Sweden, they can give consent to his further extradition without allowing Assange a defense in UK court. Once in Sweden, they can use the Temporary Surrender procedure to extradite him to the US without due process.
The simple fact that without the UK's permission, Sweden would be in violation of its treaty obligations as an EU member, and so would open itself up to trade sanctions, fines, and perhaps even ejection from the EU, not to mention being on the shit list of just every EU government in existence - so good luck when you need a favor, Sweden.
Why would the UK withhold permission to extradite Assange to the US? Everything I've seen indicates that the UK would like to extradite Assange to the US, but their own legal system makes it easier to use Sweden as a proxy.
In any case, we'll find out what happens to Assange eventually. My guess is that he won't live to be extradited to the US, but if he does make it that long, he will be.
Sweden has an extradition treaty with a "conditional release" clause that allows them to extradite Assange without as much judicial review as the UK.
Back when I lived in Minnesota there was a big todo over welfare moms having more children simply to get an increase in welfare aid.
Which is almost certainly a complete fabrication on the part of conservatives. State aid is never enough to pay for all the costs a child incurs. Did they have any actual data on how often they claim this occurs? Or did they just make something up (in the grand tradition of Ronald Reagan), and harp on it until people thought it was a real problem?
Better to fight the good fight and lose than to be complicit in the intellectual homicide we refer to as public education.
So your position is that I should behave the exact same way towards Iran that I would towards a man who stabbed someone on the street? You don't see anything wrong with that?
What makes you think he'd ever face trial if he ended up in Sweden? Sweden has illegally rendered political refugees to the US to be tortured in the past. What makes you think they wouldn't do the same to Assange?
Honestly, I'm surprised that they haven't just assassinated him.
Just look at the world around you. You'll get further towing the party line than you will asking too many questions.
This has been obvious to thinkers throughout the ages. Voltaire said "It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong." Heinlein expressed a similar sentiment when he said âoeBeing right too soon is socially unacceptable.â
1. i get it. if a guy stabs a woman in the street in front of you, you're not saying anything, you don't know him
You just can't stop building straw men. Do you really think that the relationship between two individual citizens of the same nation is analogous to the relationship between a sovereign nation and a citizen of a hostile nation?
If so, you are too stupid to bother talking to.
If not, you are too intellectually dishonest to bother talking to.
Good day sir.
In this day of reduced spending, teachers being paraded around like well, like someone that's paraded around for public scorn, what choice did we have?
Show some balls and fight. Then people might see that you actually care about education, and will be more willing to invest in education. As long as you continue doing nothing, nobody's going to give you more money.
Maybe, if their personal collections suck. A few weeks on What.cd will build a music collection with breadth and depth unmatched by any streaming service.
Ethically speaking, if you value a song enough that you believe it is worth having a copy of, you should be willing to give something to the artist who produced it (and, by extension, the chain of support personnel who helped produce it).
I agree with this entirely, and this is entirely compatible with copyright abolitionism. The right thing to do is to support the artists whose work enriches your life. However, nothing about this means that's it's OK for the government to force you to support artists you don't value enough to willingly support.
You're free to make a copy of it and live in that one.
It seems to me that this is the core of copyright abolitionism. As long as file sharing is illegal, we are expecting the government to enforce ethical behavior. The right thing to do is to pay for the things you value willingly. If you don't, they can and should go away.
The rest of the article, including blaming file sharing for musician suicides (as if musicians didn't commit suicide before) is pants on head retarded. The author isn't even aware that he's agreed with the basic assumption of copyright abolitionism.
Ok then, when? Name one instance where American foreign policy has been guided more by what is fair than by what would benefit powerful American interests the most.
The problem is, teaching people to think isn't exactly a useful life skill. Being able to think is by and large less useful than being able to regurgitate facts, and much much less useful than being able to shmooze with the right people.