That's Assange's story..The women tell another. Both women told Assange that they were OK with protected sex but not unprotected sex, had relations with him once, fell asleep & woke up t-o him initiating a second round unprotected. Both women attempted to stop him but he overpowered them. Neither pressed charges initially but did so when meeting days later when they discovered that Assange had pulled the same trick on them both.
Under Swedish law, the acts as described by the women are rape.
You clearly have no idea how much of a reduction in revenue eliminating the export of all would impose on french farmers & by extension France in general, so of course you do not understand. Thanks for illustrating a point I made earlier: The predilection for so many people in France to hold opinions & attempt to form policy on issues that they have little to no knowledge of. It's tha flip side of the reason why manifs are so prevalent as it is the only thing stopping some of the more clueless apprentice sorcerers from implementing their more misguided "reforms"
You're not going to get the education you need here on/. & I don't have the time or inclination. I' suggest driving out ino the country & striking up a conversation with a young farmer. Most are well educated & many would be happy to educate you if you do so during a period of low activity
So your stated goal is the impoverishment of a good part of the French population. Just what europe needs, France turned into an economic basket case to dwarf the Greek problem... Unfortunately your & similar viewpoints are fairly common in France. Choose a subject, decide upon a "theoretically" good objective but do not take into account that moving from the status quo will disrupt society or even all the implications that the move constitutes: The end will justify the means, whatever the means & often no matter what the end..
It still surprises me that so many in France still have not learned the lesson from "Tues-les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens".
You want to modify France's agricultural policy to eliminate exports to avoid wasting EU money?!?! Really? You've actually thought about this and considered what the side effects were? Eliminating one of France's largest export economies totally ruining our export/import balance and bankrupt hundreds of thousands of paysans? I can see where that would lead & it'd work just about as well as Robert Mugabe's brilliant management of Zimbabwe's agricultural sector...
I'm no friend of export subsidies that enable French farmers to undercut 3rd world farmers impoverishing their countries & pushing many to emigrate but there is an ocean of difference between wanting to eliminate unfair differences & wanting to destroy France's agricultural exports. As for Monsanto, the reason many in France are so opposed to it is clearly chauvinism. Given how indifferent most people are to Total's excesses & how willing they are to excuse it's abuses because it's French, a French Monsanto would get a similar free pass.
You'd be wanting to go back to pre-industrial agriculture then, no? That risks dropping France's agricultural output by over 25%...
The thing almost all of the anti-GM people in France don't know is that a number of 1st generation GM plants were authorized before the ban and never outlawed. These GM plants have some of the more worrying attributes that people are worrying about (possibility to transmit to other crops), attempts have been made to replace these GM crops with GM crops where the genome was updated to make transmission less likely but the ban on new GM crops while keeping the older ones prevents solving the problem.
Well over 90% of the Parisians I talk to when asked why they are opposed to GM crops are unable to give a cogent reply. It's all "I hear it might be bad", "It's against nature", & tolkienesque statements that things were better before all the machines while ignoring all the social ills of earlier periods. It's like trying to reason against a hollywood scriptwriter, all emotions & far too little reasoning. GM is bad but modification of the genome through selective breeding is alright? Those who can give a response from facts instead of emotions are few in number & never the most opposed to GM crops.
As I live in Paris now, no hunting or fishing for me, but when I was in the states I fished a lot more than I hunted. My point was that I don't go around telling people that hunting is bad because the hunters were the bad guys in Bambi like many many Parisians do, just like their position on GM crops is generally misinformed for similar reasons.
In the case of GM foods the farmers are generally for them. It is the urban people who only see a cow once a year when theyt go to the Foire de Paris to see a cow that constitute almost all of those who search out & uproot GM crops in France. It's much like hunting where most people in the country hunt & the city people are against it "on principle".
Yet often the nations that complain the most about getting Brussel's regulations pushed down onto them were also the nations that had their MEPs in the forefront of getting said regulations enacted. I remember concrete examples of France's politicians all complaining about food safety regulations that were forcing the people selling goods in open air markets needing to invest tens of thousands of € in refrigeration. When in Brussels/Strasboug they voted for it & then campaigned for re-election on anti-EU platform complaining how Brussel's regulations were putting people who didn't have the money out of work.
The EU is a convenient scapegoat for unpopular policies that they enacted.
While eating corn on the cob is rarer in France than it is in the US, one of the things that surprised me when I moved here is how often you see corn nibbles added to salads. All in all & given how lots of people eat mostly salads during the summer, the french eat a lot of corn -- without going into how much we eat is processed corn products or meat raised on corn.
The serial number is just used to be able to determine which key has which seed. Two factor auth may not be "awesome" but it is necessary in some situations.
The serial number is just a sticker on the back of the token. If the RSA admin is that worried he just has to remove the sticker or replace it with the name of the user it is given to so that tokens can be distinguished.
I've stated repeatedly that the courts definition of entrapment is the only one that counts as far as the condemnations of the idiots yet you are too dumb/lazy to look it up & find out where you are wrong. A few friends have been reading through the thread and laughing at you, you feeble minded ignorant twit. If you stop posting your nonsense we will move on to other forms of entertainment...
Descending into outright lies I see... From your first post in this thread you claim entrapment, yet entrapment was attempted & defeated as a trial defense.
Your only definition was from Wikipedia not from the case notes of these or even any other court cases, so no you have not given any definitions of entrapment germane to the facts of the cases.
I have never insulted you, I add descriptions to your acts: When you act like a twit in your inability to understand basic legal concepts I start calling you a twit When you show your ignorance by attempting to define a legal term using wikipedia I start calling you ignorant When you keep weaseling around to try to justify using your definition of entrapment over the narrower one used in the courts I call you a weasel When you lie about your actions in these posts I call you a liar.
So, you ignorant weaseling lying twit, do you actually have a point or shall we continue to add adjectives to the words that describe you?
Listen you ignorant twit, either do the work yourself or STFU. The definition used by the courts is the only one that matters Your "common" definitions have no bearing.
If you want it, do the work yourself or show yourself to be just as lazy as you have already shown yourself to be ignorant.
First off, the assembly process & quality control makes this unlikely except through sabotage. Secondly, there have been no instances of Foxconn sabotaged iPhones spontaneously combusting so its just a daydream of the apple haters.
Meh, only the conspiracy minded think that they would want to.
Having an iphone go up in smoke because an insufficiently trained tech botched the repair is great publicity for having your repairs done by certified repairmen.
You're mistaken/misinformed/ignorant. That's not necessarily a bad thing (we were all that way once) but you shouldn't try to correct those who know more about the subject than you do. We've known for decades that the Martian icecaps are in part water, The Phoenix lander confirmed the presence of highly brinated water ice at it's site in 2008 & the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter discovered signs of flowing water in 2011.
The presence of water on Mars in a geologic sense (as in what is needed to produce gypsum) is indeed millennia old as I said. The near total absence of signs of running water on the surface of mars today (look to the MRO reports) does not contradict what I said.
Still trying to weasel around I see. You cannot clam that the idiots doing time on terrorism charges were entrapped as this defense was attempted and defeated during their trial. So, you being the kind of person who twists words around to fit his opinion instead of forming an opinion based on facts, reality keep claiming that the idiots were entrapped when they demonstrably were not.
You're truly ignorant if you think that the courts use wikipedia as a reference for legal terms but given your stated opinions that's no surprise anymore. Wikipedia's misdefinition has no bearing on the legal definition of the term & as I have said all along, it is the legal definition of the term that counts as far as the condemnations being legal or not, not whatever flavor or whim you may approximately understand.
You'd probably be happier & better adapted flipping burgers. Big words seem to be beyond your ability to comprehend & you react like a child to anyone with a differing opinion.
You're wrong because you use a different definition from the courts, not because of any preference I have. As for getting & posting the definition of entrapment, I'm not your law clerk, do it yourself, I'm not here to play semantic games.
You want to try and get the definition enlarged to cover your widened semantics? Work to get congress to redefine it. As most people are happy with the way it's defined by the courts currently I doubt you'll get anything accomplished which leaves you with the griping you're doing here .
Touched a nerve there did I? You probably get talked down to all the time by people more intelligent than you...
Actually thinking more than one step ahead at a time seems to be beyond you so let me help. The point you have repeatedly failed to see is that judicial decisions that are outside the norms that society at large maintain produce reactions. Given the absence of any movement to push changes onto the judicial definition of entrapment, it's current definition is that of the majority.
I know that you probably hurt your brain actually trying to think there for a second so go back to your Legos and other kindergarden level occupations you usually spend your time playing with & let both of your neurons have a rest, you burger flippng twit.
Try to follow me here, I'll use small words to make it easier for you.
To those attempting to claim entrapment by changing what the word means, I responded by telling them that they need to use the definition of the term as used by the courts as this is clearly what the majority wants. You do not need a referendum to determine what the majority wants on all subjects. The absence of any movement for change on any given subject suffices to determine their will to keep the status quo.
I do not claim to be speaking for the majority, I do however claim to be a member of the majority (who consider your mistaken claims of entrapment based on your private definition of the term & not that used by the courts to be a waste of time).
No, you are the one who needs to reexamine the word's definition as it is already well defined & you do not get to change it's meaning to fit your whims. I already agree with it's current definition whereby it does not apply to these idiots. The lawyers & judges on the case know what the definition is & agree. You and the rest of the minority of others like you want to expand the definition of the words to cover these cases. We in the majority do not agree.
Slashdot Mirror
That's Assange's story..The women tell another. Both women told Assange that they were OK with protected sex but not unprotected sex, had relations with him once, fell asleep & woke up t-o him initiating a second round unprotected. Both women attempted to stop him but he overpowered them. Neither pressed charges initially but did so when meeting days later when they discovered that Assange had pulled the same trick on them both.
Under Swedish law, the acts as described by the women are rape.
You clearly have no idea how much of a reduction in revenue eliminating the export of all would impose on french farmers & by extension France in general, so of course you do not understand. Thanks for illustrating a point I made earlier: The predilection for so many people in France to hold opinions & attempt to form policy on issues that they have little to no knowledge of. It's tha flip side of the reason why manifs are so prevalent as it is the only thing stopping some of the more clueless apprentice sorcerers from implementing their more misguided "reforms"
You're not going to get the education you need here on /. & I don't have the time or inclination. I' suggest driving out ino the country & striking up a conversation with a young farmer. Most are well educated & many would be happy to educate you if you do so during a period of low activity
So your stated goal is the impoverishment of a good part of the French population. Just what europe needs, France turned into an economic basket case to dwarf the Greek problem... Unfortunately your & similar viewpoints are fairly common in France. Choose a subject, decide upon a "theoretically" good objective but do not take into account that moving from the status quo will disrupt society or even all the implications that the move constitutes: The end will justify the means, whatever the means & often no matter what the end..
It still surprises me that so many in France still have not learned the lesson from "Tues-les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens".
You want to modify France's agricultural policy to eliminate exports to avoid wasting EU money?!?! Really? You've actually thought about this and considered what the side effects were? Eliminating one of France's largest export economies totally ruining our export/import balance and bankrupt hundreds of thousands of paysans? I can see where that would lead & it'd work just about as well as Robert Mugabe's brilliant management of Zimbabwe's agricultural sector...
I'm no friend of export subsidies that enable French farmers to undercut 3rd world farmers impoverishing their countries & pushing many to emigrate but there is an ocean of difference between wanting to eliminate unfair differences & wanting to destroy France's agricultural exports. As for Monsanto, the reason many in France are so opposed to it is clearly chauvinism. Given how indifferent most people are to Total's excesses & how willing they are to excuse it's abuses because it's French, a French Monsanto would get a similar free pass.
You'd be wanting to go back to pre-industrial agriculture then, no? That risks dropping France's agricultural output by over 25%...
The thing almost all of the anti-GM people in France don't know is that a number of 1st generation GM plants were authorized before the ban and never outlawed. These GM plants have some of the more worrying attributes that people are worrying about (possibility to transmit to other crops), attempts have been made to replace these GM crops with GM crops where the genome was updated to make transmission less likely but the ban on new GM crops while keeping the older ones prevents solving the problem.
Well over 90% of the Parisians I talk to when asked why they are opposed to GM crops are unable to give a cogent reply. It's all "I hear it might be bad", "It's against nature", & tolkienesque statements that things were better before all the machines while ignoring all the social ills of earlier periods. It's like trying to reason against a hollywood scriptwriter, all emotions & far too little reasoning. GM is bad but modification of the genome through selective breeding is alright? Those who can give a response from facts instead of emotions are few in number & never the most opposed to GM crops.
As I live in Paris now, no hunting or fishing for me, but when I was in the states I fished a lot more than I hunted. My point was that I don't go around telling people that hunting is bad because the hunters were the bad guys in Bambi like many many Parisians do, just like their position on GM crops is generally misinformed for similar reasons.
In the case of GM foods the farmers are generally for them. It is the urban people who only see a cow once a year when theyt go to the Foire de Paris to see a cow that constitute almost all of those who search out & uproot GM crops in France. It's much like hunting where most people in the country hunt & the city people are against it "on principle".
Yet often the nations that complain the most about getting Brussel's regulations pushed down onto them were also the nations that had their MEPs in the forefront of getting said regulations enacted. I remember concrete examples of France's politicians all complaining about food safety regulations that were forcing the people selling goods in open air markets needing to invest tens of thousands of € in refrigeration. When in Brussels/Strasboug they voted for it & then campaigned for re-election on anti-EU platform complaining how Brussel's regulations were putting people who didn't have the money out of work.
The EU is a convenient scapegoat for unpopular policies that they enacted.
While eating corn on the cob is rarer in France than it is in the US, one of the things that surprised me when I moved here is how often you see corn nibbles added to salads. All in all & given how lots of people eat mostly salads during the summer, the french eat a lot of corn -- without going into how much we eat is processed corn products or meat raised on corn.
The serial number is just used to be able to determine which key has which seed. Two factor auth may not be "awesome" but it is necessary in some situations.
The serial number is just a sticker on the back of the token. If the RSA admin is that worried he just has to remove the sticker or replace it with the name of the user it is given to so that tokens can be distinguished.
I've stated repeatedly that the courts definition of entrapment is the only one that counts as far as the condemnations of the idiots yet you are too dumb/lazy to look it up & find out where you are wrong. A few friends have been reading through the thread and laughing at you, you feeble minded ignorant twit. If you stop posting your nonsense we will move on to other forms of entertainment...
Descending into outright lies I see...
From your first post in this thread you claim entrapment, yet entrapment was attempted & defeated as a trial defense.
Your only definition was from Wikipedia not from the case notes of these or even any other court cases, so no you have not given any definitions of entrapment germane to the facts of the cases.
I have never insulted you, I add descriptions to your acts:
When you act like a twit in your inability to understand basic legal concepts I start calling you a twit
When you show your ignorance by attempting to define a legal term using wikipedia I start calling you ignorant
When you keep weaseling around to try to justify using your definition of entrapment over the narrower one used in the courts I call you a weasel
When you lie about your actions in these posts I call you a liar.
So, you ignorant weaseling lying twit, do you actually have a point or shall we continue to add adjectives to the words that describe you?
Listen you ignorant twit, either do the work yourself or STFU. The definition used by the courts is the only one that matters Your "common" definitions have no bearing.
If you want it, do the work yourself or show yourself to be just as lazy as you have already shown yourself to be ignorant.
First off, the assembly process & quality control makes this unlikely except through sabotage. Secondly, there have been no instances of Foxconn sabotaged iPhones spontaneously combusting so its just a daydream of the apple haters.
Meh, only the conspiracy minded think that they would want to.
Having an iphone go up in smoke because an insufficiently trained tech botched the repair is great publicity for having your repairs done by certified repairmen.
You're mistaken/misinformed/ignorant. That's not necessarily a bad thing (we were all that way once) but you shouldn't try to correct those who know more about the subject than you do. We've known for decades that the Martian icecaps are in part water, The Phoenix lander confirmed the presence of highly brinated water ice at it's site in 2008 & the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter discovered signs of flowing water in 2011.
The presence of water on Mars in a geologic sense (as in what is needed to produce gypsum) is indeed millennia old as I said. The near total absence of signs of running water on the surface of mars today (look to the MRO reports) does not contradict what I said.
Nothing has changed, they just delivered a more detailed report of what we already know. :s/the environment is not/the environment was not/
The presence of water is millenna old.
Still trying to weasel around I see. You cannot clam that the idiots doing time on terrorism charges were entrapped as this defense was attempted and defeated during their trial. So, you being the kind of person who twists words around to fit his opinion instead of forming an opinion based on facts, reality keep claiming that the idiots were entrapped when they demonstrably were not.
You're truly ignorant if you think that the courts use wikipedia as a reference for legal terms but given your stated opinions that's no surprise anymore. Wikipedia's misdefinition has no bearing on the legal definition of the term & as I have said all along, it is the legal definition of the term that counts as far as the condemnations being legal or not, not whatever flavor or whim you may approximately understand.
You'd probably be happier & better adapted flipping burgers. Big words seem to be beyond your ability to comprehend & you react like a child to anyone with a differing opinion.
You're wrong because you use a different definition from the courts, not because of any preference I have. As for getting & posting the definition of entrapment, I'm not your law clerk, do it yourself, I'm not here to play semantic games.
You want to try and get the definition enlarged to cover your widened semantics? Work to get congress to redefine it. As most people are happy with the way it's defined by the courts currently I doubt you'll get anything accomplished which leaves you with the griping you're doing here
.
Touched a nerve there did I? You probably get talked down to all the time by people more intelligent than you...
Actually thinking more than one step ahead at a time seems to be beyond you so let me help. The point you have repeatedly failed to see is that judicial decisions that are outside the norms that society at large maintain produce reactions. Given the absence of any movement to push changes onto the judicial definition of entrapment, it's current definition is that of the majority.
I know that you probably hurt your brain actually trying to think there for a second so go back to your Legos and other kindergarden level occupations you usually spend your time playing with & let both of your neurons have a rest, you burger flippng twit.
Try to follow me here, I'll use small words to make it easier for you.
To those attempting to claim entrapment by changing what the word means, I responded by telling them that they need to use the definition of the term as used by the courts as this is clearly what the majority wants. You do not need a referendum to determine what the majority wants on all subjects. The absence of any movement for change on any given subject suffices to determine their will to keep the status quo.
I do not claim to be speaking for the majority, I do however claim to be a member of the majority (who consider your mistaken claims of entrapment based on your private definition of the term & not that used by the courts to be a waste of time).
No, you are the one who needs to reexamine the word's definition as it is already well defined & you do not get to change it's meaning to fit your whims. I already agree with it's current definition whereby it does not apply to these idiots. The lawyers & judges on the case know what the definition is & agree. You and the rest of the minority of others like you want to expand the definition of the words to cover these cases. We in the majority do not agree.