Well, Snowden broke US law when he accepted Russian aid, so he'd be in a US prison. So if you want them to be in the same prison, it's going to be a US one.
Sweden hasn't charged him with anything they dropped the case.
Swedish law is not UK law. Swedish law requires interviewing the suspect before filing charges. Since Assange has refused this interview, he can't be charged.
The UK High Court ruled that the Swedish case is at the point where Assange would have been charged in the UK system, which is why the UK was willing to extradite.
Also, two of the cases has been dropped. There were originally three. There is now one remaining case.
The UK wants him for jumping bail.
And what's the penalty for that? Oh, the penalty is you're held in jail until the case is resolved. Resolution is to ship him to Sweden.
Well other than being plainly false, common root sure, but massively diverged in many many aspects, what has closeness of the systems got to do with if extradition is possible?
Take a look at the complications of extraditing him to Sweden. The UK's High Court had to decide that the particular step in Swedish laws (interview suspect just prior to arrest) is the same as a post-arrest interview in the UK and thus it was appropriate to extradite.
The "common root" means very similar pre-trial procedures for arrest, interview and incarceration before trial, which makes extradition simpler.
Either Assange gets his weekly pizza and free wifi back, he's booted out and nobody really cares, or he's booted out and becomes a martyr.
All three are superior to sittin' watchin' the paint peel
There is nothing preventing him from simply walking out the door. If he wants to wrap this up somehow and do it now, then he really doesn't need a lawsuit or anyone's permission.
Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.
Except that didn't happen.
The crime he's accused of is lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Which is why his supporters flip out over that being illegal in Sweden and legal in other countries.
However, in the UK there is a warrant for his arrest, for skipping bail when the UK wanted to have him extradite to Sweden
And the remedy for that is the UK arrests him and sends him to Sweden. He wouldn't be doing time in the UK (beyond what it takes to put him on an airplane).
It is bit too much for an alleged improper sexual behaviour.
And Assange made it that way. Sweden has laws. Don't break them while you're in Sweden. If you break them and turn your extradition into a giant circus, it will indeed be "too much".
Why else would they try to extradite someone for something (retroactive rape) that isn't even a crime in the UK?
Because extradition is based on the laws of the country seeking extradition, not the one where the person is currently located. In other words, it does not matter if it is legal in the UK.
Also, it would be better described as "rape by lying to get consent".
Also, Assange hasn't broken any US laws. It is legal to publish classified information that is leaked to you as long as you do not have a security clearance. That's why lots of news organizations in the US are able to publish classified information that is leaked to them.
Shoot the lead vehicle in the 100% human-driven convoy, and the convoy stops - there's a burning truck now blocking the road. Btw, you also shoot the last vehicle so there's a burning truck blocking that end of the road too.
It's not like the human-driven convoy has a battalion of heavily armed soldiers with it.
Also, if there aren't any friendly humans left there - for example, the attackers follow your "make the first vehicle flee" plan - then it's nice and safe for an airstrike or artillery to obliterate the convoy and the attackers attempting to loot it.
So by taking out the lead vehicle, the entire convoy just stops?
What do you think happens if you take out the lead vehicle in a convoy driven by humans? The entire convoy just stops because there's now a fiery hunk of metal in the way. At this point you also shoot the last vehicle, so there's a fiery hunk of metal blocking the other end of the road and you've captured the convoy.
What this thing allows is for the lead vehicle to be heavily armored, since it's the only one with people. So now the bad guys shoot the 2nd vehicle to stop the convoy because they can't stop the first vehicle. The humans survive, drive off, and an airstrike or artillery destroys the convoy and the attackers.
Supplies can be replaced far easier than people. And if it's something critical to deliver right now, it will be delivered by air.
First, the followers are apparently optical. So jamming RF isn't going to do you any good.
Second, jammers are a lot harder than shooting the truck. Shoot the first and last truck. Ta-da! You've captured the convoy.....and we've been doing it that way as long as truck convoys have existed.
You are literally arguing that inflation has not occurred since the 1970s.
Also, there's more things in GDP than computers.
To get back on track - when a Chinese company can make and ship you a product from China for less than an American company can ship the same product within a town, there's definitely a problem.
You're not on track. The US makes twice as much stuff as it did in the 1970s. Goods from China does not change that statistic, because it's only measuring domestically-produced stuff. Bringing in China is like saying you weigh 180 lbs when we're measuring height.
"First World" is a relic from the cold war. It refers to the non-communist developed nations that were allied with the US. "Second World" is the communist developed nations that were allied with the USSR. "Third World" is everyone else.
Third World nations were poor due to not being developed. They aren't all poor now. And they don't move into "second world" unless they become communist.
As you can imagine, sending something from China on an enormous container ship to a port in Los Angeles is relatively cheap, especially when most of the manufacturing and shipping is done near sea ports. Shipping that thing from Los Angeles to Miami is pretty expensive. The cost of the last part is covered by the US post office.
:facepalm:
A shipping container is not a piece of mail that weighs less than 1.1 lbs. So no, that last part is not covered by the US post office.
The US used to utterly dominate the soy market. Nobody could grow it as cheap as we did, so we exported a huge amount to China. Nobody tried to compete with us because of the natural monopoly - they couldn't sell it as cheaply initially and could not afford to mature their industry enough to get the price down to compete with the US.
Enter Trump. China now has a hefty tariff on US soy. So now other countries can compete.
Brazil now sells soy at less than the post-US tariff price. And thanks to the time it will take to negotiate a trade deal, Brazil can afford to mature its soy industry. Brazil has been able to compete with the US directly on cost in other crops, and there's little reason to think Brazil won't be able to do so with soy now that they have some breathing room.
So no, there will not be a long-term win. We gave away a monopoly via tariffs. US farmers are going to make less money forever thanks to these tariffs.
That that effect isn't limited to soy. We will be making less money forever because these tariffs have created alternatives to US products.
There's a reason mercantilism was disproven in the 1600s. Trump reverting to mercantilism now doesn't change the results.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, Snowden broke US law when he accepted Russian aid, so he'd be in a US prison. So if you want them to be in the same prison, it's going to be a US one.
No, two sets of charges were dropped. There is still one case against him.
Sweden hasn't charged him with anything they dropped the case.
Swedish law is not UK law. Swedish law requires interviewing the suspect before filing charges. Since Assange has refused this interview, he can't be charged.
The UK High Court ruled that the Swedish case is at the point where Assange would have been charged in the UK system, which is why the UK was willing to extradite.
Also, two of the cases has been dropped. There were originally three. There is now one remaining case.
The UK wants him for jumping bail.
And what's the penalty for that? Oh, the penalty is you're held in jail until the case is resolved. Resolution is to ship him to Sweden.
Well other than being plainly false, common root sure, but massively diverged in many many aspects, what has closeness of the systems got to do with if extradition is possible?
Take a look at the complications of extraditing him to Sweden. The UK's High Court had to decide that the particular step in Swedish laws (interview suspect just prior to arrest) is the same as a post-arrest interview in the UK and thus it was appropriate to extradite.
The "common root" means very similar pre-trial procedures for arrest, interview and incarceration before trial, which makes extradition simpler.
Why? Assange hasn't broken any US laws.
Either Assange gets his weekly pizza and free wifi back, he's booted out and nobody really cares, or he's booted out and becomes a martyr.
All three are superior to sittin' watchin' the paint peel
There is nothing preventing him from simply walking out the door. If he wants to wrap this up somehow and do it now, then he really doesn't need a lawsuit or anyone's permission.
Yes, except characterizing penetration of an unconscious person after she had repeatedly told him no while awake as "bad sex" is more than a bit misleading.
Except that didn't happen.
The crime he's accused of is lying about using a condom in order to get consent. Which is why his supporters flip out over that being illegal in Sweden and legal in other countries.
However, in the UK there is a warrant for his arrest, for skipping bail when the UK wanted to have him extradite to Sweden
And the remedy for that is the UK arrests him and sends him to Sweden. He wouldn't be doing time in the UK (beyond what it takes to put him on an airplane).
It is bit too much for an alleged improper sexual behaviour.
And Assange made it that way. Sweden has laws. Don't break them while you're in Sweden. If you break them and turn your extradition into a giant circus, it will indeed be "too much".
Why else would they try to extradite someone for something (retroactive rape) that isn't even a crime in the UK?
Because extradition is based on the laws of the country seeking extradition, not the one where the person is currently located. In other words, it does not matter if it is legal in the UK.
Also, it would be better described as "rape by lying to get consent".
Also, Assange hasn't broken any US laws. It is legal to publish classified information that is leaked to you as long as you do not have a security clearance. That's why lots of news organizations in the US are able to publish classified information that is leaked to them.
No, he would have been extradited to the US.
For what? He hasn't broken any US laws. If you do not have a security clearance, it is legal to publish classified information that is leaked to you.
Also, the UK and US are extremely close allies with nearly-identical legal systems. It would be far, far, easier to extradite Assange from the UK.
How is your fear any different than today?
Shoot the lead vehicle in the 100% human-driven convoy, and the convoy stops - there's a burning truck now blocking the road. Btw, you also shoot the last vehicle so there's a burning truck blocking that end of the road too.
It's not like the human-driven convoy has a battalion of heavily armed soldiers with it.
Also, if there aren't any friendly humans left there - for example, the attackers follow your "make the first vehicle flee" plan - then it's nice and safe for an airstrike or artillery to obliterate the convoy and the attackers attempting to loot it.
So by taking out the lead vehicle, the entire convoy just stops?
What do you think happens if you take out the lead vehicle in a convoy driven by humans? The entire convoy just stops because there's now a fiery hunk of metal in the way. At this point you also shoot the last vehicle, so there's a fiery hunk of metal blocking the other end of the road and you've captured the convoy.
What this thing allows is for the lead vehicle to be heavily armored, since it's the only one with people. So now the bad guys shoot the 2nd vehicle to stop the convoy because they can't stop the first vehicle. The humans survive, drive off, and an airstrike or artillery destroys the convoy and the attackers.
Supplies can be replaced far easier than people. And if it's something critical to deliver right now, it will be delivered by air.
...so take out the second vehicle?
Today: Shoot the first truck to stop the convoy, shoot the last truck to prevent the convoy from escaping.
After this: Shoot the second truck to stop the convoy.
Not really all that different from a stopping-the-convoy perspective. Just a lot safer for the humans.
And how is this different than today?
You shoot the first and last truck. Ta-da! You've captured the convoy.
It's not like there's a battalion of soldiers in each convoy.
Several problems with your rant.
First, the followers are apparently optical. So jamming RF isn't going to do you any good.
Second, jammers are a lot harder than shooting the truck. Shoot the first and last truck. Ta-da! You've captured the convoy.....and we've been doing it that way as long as truck convoys have existed.
You put the driver in an armored vehicle. Then you have squishy trucks follow it.
Alternatively, this system allows you to optimize the first vehicle for protecting the people since that's the only vehicle with people now.
So have the lead vehicle be a tank or similar heavily armored vehicle.
The technically competent parts of management, if they exist, are not the ones signing building leases or the plans for the space.
It also minimized square footage per employee, thus minimizing rent and paying maximum bonuses to management.
Stuff's also cheaper than it was in the 70s.
You are literally arguing that inflation has not occurred since the 1970s.
Also, there's more things in GDP than computers.
To get back on track - when a Chinese company can make and ship you a product from China for less than an American company can ship the same product within a town, there's definitely a problem.
You're not on track. The US makes twice as much stuff as it did in the 1970s. Goods from China does not change that statistic, because it's only measuring domestically-produced stuff. Bringing in China is like saying you weigh 180 lbs when we're measuring height.
Do you not understand the concept of "an example"?
So we should run the government policies to help soy farmers at the possible expense of everyone else?
Do you need me to link you the definition of "Example"?
1st/2nd world gets nothing out of it.
Those aren't economic tiers.
"First World" is a relic from the cold war. It refers to the non-communist developed nations that were allied with the US. "Second World" is the communist developed nations that were allied with the USSR. "Third World" is everyone else.
Third World nations were poor due to not being developed. They aren't all poor now. And they don't move into "second world" unless they become communist.
As you can imagine, sending something from China on an enormous container ship to a port in Los Angeles is relatively cheap, especially when most of the manufacturing and shipping is done near sea ports. Shipping that thing from Los Angeles to Miami is pretty expensive. The cost of the last part is covered by the US post office.
:facepalm:
A shipping container is not a piece of mail that weighs less than 1.1 lbs. So no, that last part is not covered by the US post office.
Nope. Let's talk about Soy.
The US used to utterly dominate the soy market. Nobody could grow it as cheap as we did, so we exported a huge amount to China. Nobody tried to compete with us because of the natural monopoly - they couldn't sell it as cheaply initially and could not afford to mature their industry enough to get the price down to compete with the US.
Enter Trump. China now has a hefty tariff on US soy. So now other countries can compete.
Brazil now sells soy at less than the post-US tariff price. And thanks to the time it will take to negotiate a trade deal, Brazil can afford to mature its soy industry. Brazil has been able to compete with the US directly on cost in other crops, and there's little reason to think Brazil won't be able to do so with soy now that they have some breathing room.
So no, there will not be a long-term win. We gave away a monopoly via tariffs. US farmers are going to make less money forever thanks to these tariffs.
That that effect isn't limited to soy. We will be making less money forever because these tariffs have created alternatives to US products.
There's a reason mercantilism was disproven in the 1600s. Trump reverting to mercantilism now doesn't change the results.