The rape allegations are just that, and even the stated facts by claimants pretty much do not equate to rape.
To quote anataka from tbp: -- As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe. Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here. --
So whether or not you consider something rape has very little relevance in this case.
What should concern you though, is that one in five american women claim to have been the victim of rape, or attempted rape (by your definition). Perhaps you need to make your "Land of the free" also apply to the female half of the population? Perhaps you even have something to learn?
(I don't say that he is guilty. That is for the courts to find out. And it is rather unlikely that he will be convicted. I do however think he should subject himself to being interviewed in accordance with the law. But he seems very reluctant to go under oath and give his statement...)
The rape allegations are just that, and even the stated facts by claimants pretty much do not equate to rape.
To quite anataka from the piratebay: -- As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe. Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here. --
So whether US law considers something "rape" or not has very little relevance to us.
Oh, and btw, given that one in five american women have been raped (by your standards), perhaps it is time you shape up your protection of the female half? Land of the free and home of the brave?;-)
Sweden could only hand him over to the US under certain situations: -- Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect.... http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435 --
So the US would have to extradite him for a non-military, non-political offence, that may not in any case lead to a death penalty. If they would present such a case, Sweden could be bound by international law to hand him over. Otherwise Sweden would be bound by international law NOT TO hand him over.
It wouldn't be too hard to argue that the population growth is a direct consequence of scientific progress. Medicine, food production, transportation etc.
But I could agree that without the growth in population, a lot of the GDB growth would have been missing. Good point:-)
The first post in this thread: why care? (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07, @01:29PM (#40576481) you're dead
The first post in the 1 year old thread: Dont worry about it (Score:5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01 2011, @01:03PM (#37909302) You'll be dead.
SecureSafe is a nice place to store passwords. Just make sure your spose gets access to the single user/pass so she can access the rest of your goodies. (Maybe write the password in the will or something like that?)
As a webmail client, yes. But webmail clients in general still lack the features we used to have with advanced native mail clients back in the late 1990s, or are just getting up to parity.
Google's insistence of reimplementing every single speciallized software technology that we already have, as an HTTP service running on a generalized web platform, may be technically interesting and very clever, but hardly innovating.
dZ.
Sounds a bit like Apple. Many of their great successes were just improvements on existing concepts. However they were the first to produce a great product of said concept. There were loads of 32mb mp3 players out there from many vendors when apple came along with a much-more-expensive 5GB iPod that allowed you to carry around more than 8 songs. Same with the tablet, Microsoft and others envisioned it years before the iPad, however it wasnt until the iPad that it became a good product people wanted to buy.
Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.
The flight plan that AF1 files is not always as AF1, sometimes they fly "incognito", under a different callsign and as a different aircraft type. There is a famous incident when a British Airways pilot accidentally does a visual identification of AF1 over the atlantic while Bush was flying to Bagdad, and is being told that the 747 is in fact a little Gulfstream by AF1 pilots.
BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed. AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft. BA: "Oh..."
So when ATC routes AF1 around the most common tracks it can stay "incognito".
It was developed in competition with other stealth ships. This one didn't win.
Nevertheless, it has a lot of cutting-edge technology that the US government has very little interest in giving to someone else. So the sensible option in this case is to keep producing the winning concept ships, and dismantle the losing prototype, making sure noone else can piggyback on all the money spent on it.
While I see no problem with breastfeeding, I can tell you that you're utterly wrong on the facts.
-- veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products. Ethical vegans reject the commodity status of animals and the use of animal products for any purpose, while dietary vegans (or strict vegetarians) eliminate them from their diet only. -- a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; -- a person who refrains from using any animal product whatever for food, clothing, or any other purpose -- A vegetarian who eats plant products only -- A vegan will not eat any animal products
The argument that consent makes it vegan is flawed. Two comic host shows recently cut a bit of a muscle out and ate each other. By your definition that "meat" was vegan...
Man was never made to be vegan and, judging from our closest relatives the Chimps, probably not vegetarian either.
Man wasn't made, man evolved. And we still do. We adapt to our surroundings. Imagine a situation in the future when production of meat for mass consumption isn't viable. In such a case, we will (hopefully) adapt into surviving on a vegetarian diet, perhaps by GM foods or simply paying more attention to eating a broader span of foods.
Slashdot Mirror
They would not storm a foreign embassy, they would storm a house in london. Quite a big difference on the political scale.
EU countries are not allowed to extradite someone to a country where they could potentially face the death penalty.
I don't know, but perhaps ORGANISING A HITMAN TO MURDER HIS WIFE would be punishable by death in South Africa?
The rape allegations are just that, and even the stated facts by claimants pretty much do not equate to rape.
To quote anataka from tbp:
--
As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States
of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe.
Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here.
--
So whether or not you consider something rape has very little relevance in this case.
What should concern you though, is that one in five american women claim to have been the victim of rape, or attempted rape (by your definition). Perhaps you need to make your "Land of the free" also apply to the female half of the population? Perhaps you even have something to learn?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html
(I don't say that he is guilty. That is for the courts to find out. And it is rather unlikely that he will be convicted. I do however think he should subject himself to being interviewed in accordance with the law. But he seems very reluctant to go under oath and give his statement...)
The rape allegations are just that, and even the stated facts by claimants pretty much do not equate to rape.
To quite anataka from the piratebay:
--
As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States
of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe.
Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here.
--
So whether US law considers something "rape" or not has very little relevance to us.
Oh, and btw, given that one in five american women have been raped (by your standards), perhaps it is time you shape up your protection of the female half? Land of the free and home of the brave? ;-)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html
Right now they are doing a good job at that, for he sure behaves like a guilty person :-)
Wrong:
Sweden could only hand him over to the US under certain situations:
--
Extradition may not be granted for military or political offences. Nor may extradition be granted if there is reason to fear that the person whose extradition is requested runs a risk - on account of his or her ethnic origins, membership of a particular social group or religious or political beliefs - of being subjected to persecution threatening his or her life or freedom, or is serious in some other respect....
http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/2710/a/15435
--
So the US would have to extradite him for a non-military, non-political offence, that may not in any case lead to a death penalty. If they would present such a case, Sweden could be bound by international law to hand him over. Otherwise Sweden would be bound by international law NOT TO hand him over.
It wouldn't be too hard to argue that the population growth is a direct consequence of scientific progress. Medicine, food production, transportation etc.
But I could agree that without the growth in population, a lot of the GDB growth would have been missing. Good point :-)
When 50% of GDP growth since WW2 has come directly from science, this short-sighted non-funding view will cripple us.
What are the other 50% that does not come directly from science?
I only knew of first, second and third base. There are another 33?!
Not even a year ago, almost the same thing.
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/11/11/01/1414234/ask-slashdot-how-to-securely-share-passwords
The first post in this thread:
why care? (Score:1)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 07, @01:29PM (#40576481)
you're dead
The first post in the 1 year old thread:
Dont worry about it (Score:5, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01 2011, @01:03PM (#37909302)
You'll be dead.
Anyone sees a pattern? :-)
SecureSafe is a nice place to store passwords. Just make sure your spose gets access to the single user/pass so she can access the rest of your goodies. (Maybe write the password in the will or something like that?)
http://www.securesafe.com/en/
A warm pool and a waterproof laptop?
As a webmail client, yes. But webmail clients in general still lack the features we used to have with advanced native mail clients back in the late 1990s, or are just getting up to parity.
Google's insistence of reimplementing every single speciallized software technology that we already have, as an HTTP service running on a generalized web platform, may be technically interesting and very clever, but hardly innovating.
dZ.
Sounds a bit like Apple. Many of their great successes were just improvements on existing concepts. However they were the first to produce a great product of said concept. There were loads of 32mb mp3 players out there from many vendors when apple came along with a much-more-expensive 5GB iPod that allowed you to carry around more than 8 songs. Same with the tablet, Microsoft and others envisioned it years before the iPad, however it wasnt until the iPad that it became a good product people wanted to buy.
Isn't this just grammar?
The company is called Twitter, so if the company would have released the info, the statement would have been "Twitter leaked Obamas visit..."
But, a single message posted on twitter is also referred to as a twitter, or tweet.
So the headline could likewise mean "A Twitter leaked Obamas visit..."
Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.
The flight plan that AF1 files is not always as AF1, sometimes they fly "incognito", under a different callsign and as a different aircraft type. There is a famous incident when a British Airways pilot accidentally does a visual identification of AF1 over the atlantic while Bush was flying to Bagdad, and is being told that the 747 is in fact a little Gulfstream by AF1 pilots.
BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed.
AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft.
BA: "Oh..."
So when ATC routes AF1 around the most common tracks it can stay "incognito".
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/01/bush.pilot.reut/index.html
Just put them in a dome.
Or give them a backpack: http://phys.org/news135003243.html
Even 60 meters got the best of Denmark! :)
Oh, right, we're still pretending that there's something morally wrong with copying a bunch of ones and zeros that have no inherent value
If they have no inherent value, why would you want to copy them?
It was developed in competition with other stealth ships. This one didn't win.
Nevertheless, it has a lot of cutting-edge technology that the US government has very little interest in giving to someone else. So the sensible option in this case is to keep producing the winning concept ships, and dismantle the losing prototype, making sure noone else can piggyback on all the money spent on it.
To sell? How would buy one?
Are you seriously asking if there is anyone on this planet who would want to buy a factory-new fully functional Spitfire?
If you put them out there i'd expect them to be gone quicker than quick.
While I see no problem with breastfeeding, I can tell you that you're utterly wrong on the facts.
-- veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products. Ethical vegans reject the commodity status of animals and the use of animal products for any purpose, while dietary vegans (or strict vegetarians) eliminate them from their diet only.
-- a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products;
-- a person who refrains from using any animal product whatever for food, clothing, or any other purpose
-- A vegetarian who eats plant products only
-- A vegan will not eat any animal products
The argument that consent makes it vegan is flawed. Two comic host shows recently cut a bit of a muscle out and ate each other. By your definition that "meat" was vegan...
And in his defence, he could claim that he has gone religious at old age, worshiping "Copyism".
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-16424659
Given that they go after ISPs for downloading, should they not go after the post office to be consistently persistent?
Would be a lovely case to see go to court! They could sentence him to community service...
Isn't most baby food vegan?
Breast milk isn't very vegan, no :-)
It sure comes from the "animal world".
Man was never made to be vegan and, judging from our closest relatives the Chimps, probably not vegetarian either.
Man wasn't made, man evolved. And we still do. We adapt to our surroundings. Imagine a situation in the future when production of meat for mass consumption isn't viable. In such a case, we will (hopefully) adapt into surviving on a vegetarian diet, perhaps by GM foods or simply paying more attention to eating a broader span of foods.