Even when the laptop is stolen, "hacking" the thiefs facebook account and monitoring the computer usage of other people (without some work contract allowing this) is a crime.
Not necessarily. They still own the computer so there is no unauthorized access to the computer; just don't then use information gleaned to login to the account from another machine. The problem is geeks then think it's cool and OK to use the information to strike back, at which point they cross the line into criminal behavior. Real world rules still apply.
More likely is that the laptop got converted for cash at a pawn shop and later bought in good faith, which means he's humiliated a poor girl who had nothing to do with the theft.
In which case the pawn shop owner would be in trouble. Many locales have laws to make it harder to fence stolen property; if she bought it off of Craig's List cheap it would be hard to make a good faith argument.
In general, the various 'identity theft' type laws which make it illegal to access others accounts don't have exceptions because it's a stolen computer.
I agree, and think the smartest thing to do is gather the info on thief and report it to the police. IANAL, but I would guess there is no presumption of privacy if you are using a stolen laptop and that the owner has a right to access their machine remotely; a similar situation might be you steal my car and i see it, use a key to drive off and then go through your wallet and papers which were left in the car. I can turn that over to the police but not use your credit card to charge something or post pictures of your d/l online. Either way, I doubt a thief would get much sympathy from a prosecutor; although I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take a segment on how they stole the item as part of the decision on what to do.
You completely missed my first point, that he was charged with copying the "concept and feel", which, you seem to agree, it shouldn't be possible to charge him with. Are you seriously suggesting that all he did was "make a duplicate" of a Star Trek story, not make a new story? Really? Doesn't copyright law allow transformative works as well as satire? (Well, apparently it doesn't today. Maybe yesterday or tomorrow, depending on who does it, and how much cash they have.)
Satire certainly. If by transformative you mean derivative and I think the answer to that is no, and that's exactly what the movie was - a derivative work using props and replicas of items from the original, which violates the original's copyright.
Much of copyright law is broken, but the underlying idea is sound.
I'm not convinced about that either. As far as I can see, it's given us a shit operating system and a bunch of shit low-brow entertainment in exchange for draconian enforcement of bunch of restrictions that no-one really seems to understand.
It's also given us OSS, because without copyrights the GPL would not be enforceable. Copyrights let creators decide how their works can be used, and I'd wager much of what is produced wouldn't be absent copyrights. As I've said, the fundamental principle is sound it's all the ways it is implemented that is broken. For example, the extension of copyright to essentially forever which prevents things from entering the public domain.
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
I liked it because they had "marines" as boarding parties.
Look into Renegades, Tim Russ' project, which basically did that very thing.
They needed to do something because Renegades was rather boring. It had a lot of promise but was too disjointed to be any good, and certainly didn't interest me is supporting the sequel(s). They, IMHO, traded too much on "Hey, this is a new type of ST" and didn't put enough time into making it an interesting story.
What I don't understand is why professionals think Paramount will ignore their work even when it uses their copyrighted material? Make a pilot, even crowd fund it, pitch it and hope it sells; or try to license the material so you don't wind up in court later.
Xerox willingly gave Apple tours of their technology, in exchange for an opportunity to buy shares in Apple (from which they profited).
Okay, but by the same token, movie studios let people see their movies in exchange for a cut of ticket prices. If showing for a fee imparts a license to copy, then both Apple and movie goers receive this.
In both cases, it's not license to copy but certainly allows you to take the idea and express it in a new and different fashion. Copyright protects the expression, not the underlying concept or idea. There are plenty of "Zombies / Aliens / Animals attack shows and movies but each is a different expression of the idea, and the expression is protected. For example, I can watch Transformers and decide to create a movie about aliens who are on earth disguised as common household appliances and reveal themselves to fight off an evil invader, because that is an underlying idea. No one would mistake my movie for Transformers. I can't call it Transformers or used a copy of Bumblebee or character names, etc.
Besides, you can't copyright an idea. Apple didn't get any Xerox code; they had to re-implement everything themselves, and made a number of innovations in GUIs as part of the process.
Are you saying it's theft to copy an expression, but not theft to copy an idea, and "concept and feel" is an expression, whereas "look and feel" is an idea? Presumably Alec Peters didn't use any Star Trek footage (although ZenShadow says he did use some Star Trek costumes). Also, like Apple, he produced something new.
The difference is Apple took the idea of a desktop and created their own version of, they didn't just make a duplicate of Xerox's implementation. Using ST props, copies of vessels, names, etc. would cross the line between the concept and how it is expressed. He wasn't making a satirical look at ST, which may have been ok, but a drama using material from ST. Like it or not, Paramount has to protect its copyrights. Much of copyright law is broken, but the underlying idea is sound.
In addition, while not relevant to this discussion, is the different philosophy exposed early in the development of the PC. It was much more of an academic / hobbyist ethos were ideas were shared more freely and the idea that they should be copyrighted and protected was much less prevalent. Once significant sums of money became involved the attitude changed. Hollywood, OTOH, has always looked to the money.
That is the icon of the democratic party on the banner for this story. While Trump has been known to have held both sides of most matters lately, I have yet to see him call himself a democrat - and he most certainly did not have their endorsement to run for president.
Trump 2004:
"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a 2004 interview. "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats....But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans."
I think he doesn't really have any basic idealogical underlings beyond what makes him money and keeps him in the public eye. I would not be surprised if he pisses off both parties equally. Depending on how that is done it can be good or bad.
Less H1-b fraud/abuse, more regular employment for those that want it, and a climate where anyone can succeed - not just those that identify correctly.
Even if one opposes him, one should be hoping for success.
If he can deliver that, great. I want him to succeed so the country succeeds, even if I didn't want him as president. I am concerned that he has promised a whole lot of stuff he can't deliver one. To start, his claims to bring back manufacturing to the US and punish those who import from abroad. Nice campaign pitch but a very tough reality. When it doesn't happen he'll blame everyone but himself, it'll be interesting to see what happens when many of his supporters decide they have been sold a bill of goods. He's already backed down from his build a wall claim by saying it'll be build now, pay later.
As a European (from Finland, and a Hitchensian socialist and anti-theist), I've felt the policies of secretary of state Clinton on my daily life, and am convinced she's a warmonger. I haven't gotten that vibe from Trump. If anything, he won't meddle in middle eastern conflicts trying to change governments, and seems in good terms with the greatest nuclear power after the USA. So in terms of nuclear war, or regional wars, I think we'll be better off.
Again, I'm saying this as someone who's not a US citizen, nor do I share the American culture or history in any way. I'm looking out for the interests of my family and me, and am glad Hillary isn't president.
I don't think it is so much as that he is not a war monger but that he doesn't care about geo politics except how they impact him. Russia annexing the Crimea and going after the Ukraine? No problem, Putin likes me and says nice things about me; so what if he wants to take back land he thinks is his? If he can do it it just shows how powerful he is.
My real concern is this seeming ability to rationalize any failure on his part as the result of devious actions of someone else and thus not his fault, as well as his need to always be the "best," even hen facts dictate otherwise. An unwillingness to listen to, or tolerate, dissent is vey dangerous in a political leader. We'll see how he takes being shown up or when someone says no to his face.
I've never been a Star Trek fan, it's an ok (collection of) series and I enjoyed most of the movies but it never really grabbed me to the point where I'd make sure to watch every episode. But for some reason I really got into Enterprise. Until the time travel story line, yes.
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
So, decisions/involvement/circumstances for the parents and household when the student is ten years old ultimately impact if that student, eight years later, will have the prerequisites to compete at an elite college. Poor parents, single parents, parents that end up with stressors that prevent them from committing the time and attention to their child's upbringing will, on average, harm that child's educational performance and will lead to reduced opportunities simply because the student does not have the academic basis in order to attend these schools.
Excellant points. Parental involvement and understanding of the college entrance "game" will always be a big factor in who applies and who gets in, and that probably correlates better with income than say a students potential to succeed in college. Applying to college can be daunting, and if you don't have a parent who has been through the process and have a school that is geared to getting kids in college it will be much more difficult. Add in the perception that "college is so expensive that we can't afford it" even though many schools will provide enough financial aid to make it affordable and you have a double whammy, plus if you don't see many kids going to college from your neighborhood you may not even have expectations of going to college.
You hit the nail on the head when you said the challenge is reaching these kids early in the educational process; but that takes money we as a nation seem unwilling to invest.
As far as I can tell, there are no formal US charges pending against Assange. There aren't likely to be any charges either, because he's done no more than the NY Times did with the Pentagon Papers. Unless, of course, the Justice Department wants to start indicting newspapers for publishing this sort of thing.
IANAL, but if Assange encouraged or guided Manning prior to her taking the documents then a conspiracy to commit espionage charge might be attempted. If a prosecutor wants to go after Assange I have no doubt they could find something to charge him; never underestimate the ability of a prosecutor to be inventive when interpreting the law and desires to go after someone. The morality of such an approach and whether or not those charges would stick or he would be convicted is another issue.
I am not sure; but no doubt if the US wanted to they would find something. For example, if he encouraged or directed Manning they might try eepionage and conspiracy charges, with the US nexus the email servers. I think that is a dangerous stretch and the charges might not stick. It that doesn't mean they couldn't try. Some of the lawyers I know view the law much like a board game; there is a set of rules and it is up to them to see how they can use them to their advantge. Never underestimate the ingenuity of a US attorney if the government wants to grab someone.
"Earlier this month, WikiLeaks said it would agree to a US extradition request for the site's founder, Julian Assange, if Obama granted clemency to Manning. It was not immediately clear if WikiLeaks would make good on its promise."
The funny part is that there has been no US extradition request for Julian Assange. So basically, he didn't offer anything. It was just a way to keep his name in the news.
I wondered about that as well; on the surface it appears to be a PR ploy since he has not been charged with any crime and would probably argue he is protected as a journalist. OTOH, the US could charge him anyway, request extradition and let him argue he should not be charged. Sweden could off course ask the US to extradite him to face charges there if he went t the US; or the UK cold arrest and hold him pending extradition, if he leaves the embassy, and let a UK court decide which country gets first shot at him.
It also said "in exchange", as in Obama would have to agree to trade one for the other. Since he has now granted clemency anyway there can be no exchange.
I'm not taking sides, just pointing out that the offer was clearly for an exchange.
Alternatively, it cold be interpreted as "if yo do X I will do Y;" not as a literal exchange. Anyway, the linked tweet doesn't even mention an exchange:
"If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case"
rather that Assange would agree to US extradition, of course agreeing to something and actually doing it are two different things. The ball is in his court so it will be interesting to see his response.
Snowden cannot be pardoned, because he has not been convicted of any crime. There is no conviction to pardon or commute. He has to surrender and be charged in order for that to happen. Obama already commented on that, he said that regardless of how he feels about Snowden, you can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted of anything.
Not true, the President's pardon power is pretty broad; specifically, the President has the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." There is no mention of conviction or even a trial, merely that an offense be committed "against the United States." The only limit would be in case of impeachment which is not germane to Snowden. As long as someone committed an act against the US a pardon may be issued by the President. Of note is that doesn't prevent state charges, stemming from the same act, from being brought as the President's power only extends to "Offences against the United States." In Snowden's case I have no idea if a state could decide to charge him or even what the charge could be, but someone could very well commit a Federal and state crime in the same act and thus a Presidential pardon would have no impact in the state's case.
I take Obama's comment as meaning his standard for considering a pardon includes having been tried for the act before he will consider issuing one; a standard Snowden has not met.
Manning wasn't pardoned, his sentence merely got reduced. Assange's offer was for a pardon.
Actually, the tweet said clemency, not pardon; which commutation certainly is based on the definition of clemency: Leniency or mercy. A power given to a public official, such as a governor or the president, to in some way lower or moderate the harshness of punishment imposed upon a prisoner. Will be interesting to see what Assange does now that Obama has granted clemency.
With the Pound now trading at around $1.23, and the UK app store incorporating VAT at 20% while the US store doesn't include sales tax in the list priced, this sounds about right. Certainly the "UK premium" is nothing like the 50-100% that wasn't uncommon a decade or so ago.
Apple look simply to be pricing in the devaluation in Sterling that has occurred since the beginning of Brexit. I'm not sure anyone can find much to fault with that. The real question is how quickly Apple will move to reduce prices if/when the Pound recovers?
Prices tend to be sticky in terms of reduction, if simply if only customers get used to the higher prices so absent a steep decline companies tend to keep prices at the higher levels once they raise prices.
If Snowden is a criminal for leaking classified information to the media, why isn't there a full scale government investigation to identify the people who are leaking this classified "Russian hacking" stuff to the media? Do we have any laws left which are enforced in a fair & uniform manner? A government which makes it a practice of enforcing laws arbitrarily is an illegitimate government.
Pretty simple - some leaks you want, some you don't.
At this point, what's the upside for President Obama? It will no doubt set off a flurry of criticism which won't stop once he leaves office. He seems to want to live gracefully and pardoning Snowden would prevent that and potentially complicate any post-presidency political plans he may have and impact his legacy. The popular story won't be "Obama pardons brave whistleblower" but "Obama pardons traitor who helped Russia." The truth and moral arguments will get lost in the noise, especially since it is easier to vilify than explain the nuances, so the political calculus is to simply leave the mess for the next guy to deal with and move on.
The batteries burn, not violently explode. The pilots would have seen and smelt smoke, and done something about it, like move the phone out of the cockpit.
This is more likely a pilot suicide.
It's quite possible;e by the time the fire was discovered it was too late. A very hot fire could quickly get out of control, such as one that brought down SwissAir 111.
Slashdot Mirror
Even when the laptop is stolen, "hacking" the thiefs facebook account and monitoring the computer usage of other people (without some work contract allowing this) is a crime.
Not necessarily. They still own the computer so there is no unauthorized access to the computer; just don't then use information gleaned to login to the account from another machine. The problem is geeks then think it's cool and OK to use the information to strike back, at which point they cross the line into criminal behavior. Real world rules still apply.
More likely is that the laptop got converted for cash at a pawn shop and later bought in good faith, which means he's humiliated a poor girl who had nothing to do with the theft.
In which case the pawn shop owner would be in trouble. Many locales have laws to make it harder to fence stolen property; if she bought it off of Craig's List cheap it would be hard to make a good faith argument.
In general, the various 'identity theft' type laws which make it illegal to access others accounts don't have exceptions because it's a stolen computer.
I agree, and think the smartest thing to do is gather the info on thief and report it to the police. IANAL, but I would guess there is no presumption of privacy if you are using a stolen laptop and that the owner has a right to access their machine remotely; a similar situation might be you steal my car and i see it, use a key to drive off and then go through your wallet and papers which were left in the car. I can turn that over to the police but not use your credit card to charge something or post pictures of your d/l online. Either way, I doubt a thief would get much sympathy from a prosecutor; although I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take a segment on how they stole the item as part of the decision on what to do.
You completely missed my first point, that he was charged with copying the "concept and feel", which, you seem to agree, it shouldn't be possible to charge him with. Are you seriously suggesting that all he did was "make a duplicate" of a Star Trek story, not make a new story? Really? Doesn't copyright law allow transformative works as well as satire? (Well, apparently it doesn't today. Maybe yesterday or tomorrow, depending on who does it, and how much cash they have.)
Satire certainly. If by transformative you mean derivative and I think the answer to that is no, and that's exactly what the movie was - a derivative work using props and replicas of items from the original, which violates the original's copyright.
I'm not convinced about that either. As far as I can see, it's given us a shit operating system and a bunch of shit low-brow entertainment in exchange for draconian enforcement of bunch of restrictions that no-one really seems to understand.
It's also given us OSS, because without copyrights the GPL would not be enforceable. Copyrights let creators decide how their works can be used, and I'd wager much of what is produced wouldn't be absent copyrights. As I've said, the fundamental principle is sound it's all the ways it is implemented that is broken. For example, the extension of copyright to essentially forever which prevents things from entering the public domain.
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
I liked it because they had "marines" as boarding parties.
Yes, that added a bit of nautical authenticity.
Look into Renegades, Tim Russ' project, which basically did that very thing.
They needed to do something because Renegades was rather boring. It had a lot of promise but was too disjointed to be any good, and certainly didn't interest me is supporting the sequel(s). They, IMHO, traded too much on "Hey, this is a new type of ST" and didn't put enough time into making it an interesting story.
What I don't understand is why professionals think Paramount will ignore their work even when it uses their copyrighted material? Make a pilot, even crowd fund it, pitch it and hope it sells; or try to license the material so you don't wind up in court later.
Okay, but by the same token, movie studios let people see their movies in exchange for a cut of ticket prices. If showing for a fee imparts a license to copy, then both Apple and movie goers receive this.
In both cases, it's not license to copy but certainly allows you to take the idea and express it in a new and different fashion. Copyright protects the expression, not the underlying concept or idea. There are plenty of "Zombies / Aliens / Animals attack shows and movies but each is a different expression of the idea, and the expression is protected. For example, I can watch Transformers and decide to create a movie about aliens who are on earth disguised as common household appliances and reveal themselves to fight off an evil invader, because that is an underlying idea. No one would mistake my movie for Transformers. I can't call it Transformers or used a copy of Bumblebee or character names, etc.
Are you saying it's theft to copy an expression, but not theft to copy an idea, and "concept and feel" is an expression, whereas "look and feel" is an idea? Presumably Alec Peters didn't use any Star Trek footage (although ZenShadow says he did use some Star Trek costumes). Also, like Apple, he produced something new.
The difference is Apple took the idea of a desktop and created their own version of, they didn't just make a duplicate of Xerox's implementation. Using ST props, copies of vessels, names, etc. would cross the line between the concept and how it is expressed. He wasn't making a satirical look at ST, which may have been ok, but a drama using material from ST. Like it or not, Paramount has to protect its copyrights. Much of copyright law is broken, but the underlying idea is sound.
In addition, while not relevant to this discussion, is the different philosophy exposed early in the development of the PC. It was much more of an academic / hobbyist ethos were ideas were shared more freely and the idea that they should be copyrighted and protected was much less prevalent. Once significant sums of money became involved the attitude changed. Hollywood, OTOH, has always looked to the money.
Trump is the first third party candidate to win an election.
I hadn't thought of it that way but it's truer than most would admit
That is the icon of the democratic party on the banner for this story. While Trump has been known to have held both sides of most matters lately, I have yet to see him call himself a democrat - and he most certainly did not have their endorsement to run for president.
Trump 2004:
"In many cases, I probably identify more as Democrat," Trump told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in a 2004 interview. "It just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans. Now, it shouldn't be that way. But if you go back, I mean it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats. ...But certainly we had some very good economies under Democrats, as well as Republicans. But we've had some pretty bad disaster under the Republicans."
I think he doesn't really have any basic idealogical underlings beyond what makes him money and keeps him in the public eye. I would not be surprised if he pisses off both parties equally. Depending on how that is done it can be good or bad.
Less H1-b fraud/abuse, more regular employment for those that want it, and a climate where anyone can succeed - not just those that identify correctly.
Even if one opposes him, one should be hoping for success.
If he can deliver that, great. I want him to succeed so the country succeeds, even if I didn't want him as president. I am concerned that he has promised a whole lot of stuff he can't deliver one. To start, his claims to bring back manufacturing to the US and punish those who import from abroad. Nice campaign pitch but a very tough reality. When it doesn't happen he'll blame everyone but himself, it'll be interesting to see what happens when many of his supporters decide they have been sold a bill of goods. He's already backed down from his build a wall claim by saying it'll be build now, pay later.
As a European (from Finland, and a Hitchensian socialist and anti-theist), I've felt the policies of secretary of state Clinton on my daily life, and am convinced she's a warmonger. I haven't gotten that vibe from Trump. If anything, he won't meddle in middle eastern conflicts trying to change governments, and seems in good terms with the greatest nuclear power after the USA. So in terms of nuclear war, or regional wars, I think we'll be better off.
Again, I'm saying this as someone who's not a US citizen, nor do I share the American culture or history in any way. I'm looking out for the interests of my family and me, and am glad Hillary isn't president.
I don't think it is so much as that he is not a war monger but that he doesn't care about geo politics except how they impact him. Russia annexing the Crimea and going after the Ukraine? No problem, Putin likes me and says nice things about me; so what if he wants to take back land he thinks is his? If he can do it it just shows how powerful he is.
My real concern is this seeming ability to rationalize any failure on his part as the result of devious actions of someone else and thus not his fault, as well as his need to always be the "best," even hen facts dictate otherwise. An unwillingness to listen to, or tolerate, dissent is vey dangerous in a political leader. We'll see how he takes being shown up or when someone says no to his face.
I've never been a Star Trek fan, it's an ok (collection of) series and I enjoyed most of the movies but it never really grabbed me to the point where I'd make sure to watch every episode. But for some reason I really got into Enterprise. Until the time travel story line, yes.
I also like Enterprise, especially for its "stuff isn't quite ready for space travel" and the Vulcan's "we have to help the poor earthlings and not let them hurt themselves as they venture out" approach. The time travel story line jumped the shark; and the alternate universe one, "In a Mirror, Darkly," involving the Tholian Web and some real promise. A ST:Empire with the Klingons as good guys had a lot of potential.
So, decisions/involvement/circumstances for the parents and household when the student is ten years old ultimately impact if that student, eight years later, will have the prerequisites to compete at an elite college. Poor parents, single parents, parents that end up with stressors that prevent them from committing the time and attention to their child's upbringing will, on average, harm that child's educational performance and will lead to reduced opportunities simply because the student does not have the academic basis in order to attend these schools.
Excellant points. Parental involvement and understanding of the college entrance "game" will always be a big factor in who applies and who gets in, and that probably correlates better with income than say a students potential to succeed in college. Applying to college can be daunting, and if you don't have a parent who has been through the process and have a school that is geared to getting kids in college it will be much more difficult. Add in the perception that "college is so expensive that we can't afford it" even though many schools will provide enough financial aid to make it affordable and you have a double whammy, plus if you don't see many kids going to college from your neighborhood you may not even have expectations of going to college.
You hit the nail on the head when you said the challenge is reaching these kids early in the educational process; but that takes money we as a nation seem unwilling to invest.
As far as I can tell, there are no formal US charges pending against Assange. There aren't likely to be any charges either, because he's done no more than the NY Times did with the Pentagon Papers. Unless, of course, the Justice Department wants to start indicting newspapers for publishing this sort of thing.
IANAL, but if Assange encouraged or guided Manning prior to her taking the documents then a conspiracy to commit espionage charge might be attempted. If a prosecutor wants to go after Assange I have no doubt they could find something to charge him; never underestimate the ability of a prosecutor to be inventive when interpreting the law and desires to go after someone. The morality of such an approach and whether or not those charges would stick or he would be convicted is another issue.
Precisely what would the charges be?/p?
I am not sure; but no doubt if the US wanted to they would find something. For example, if he encouraged or directed Manning they might try eepionage and conspiracy charges, with the US nexus the email servers. I think that is a dangerous stretch and the charges might not stick. It that doesn't mean they couldn't try. Some of the lawyers I know view the law much like a board game; there is a set of rules and it is up to them to see how they can use them to their advantge. Never underestimate the ingenuity of a US attorney if the government wants to grab someone.
Wait, it looks like there are two tweets, slightly different:
The original from last year: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
A new, similar one without the "exchange" from this year: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/...
Yup I noticed that after I posted as well.
The funny part is that there has been no US extradition request for Julian Assange. So basically, he didn't offer anything. It was just a way to keep his name in the news.
I wondered about that as well; on the surface it appears to be a PR ploy since he has not been charged with any crime and would probably argue he is protected as a journalist. OTOH, the US could charge him anyway, request extradition and let him argue he should not be charged. Sweden could off course ask the US to extradite him to face charges there if he went t the US; or the UK cold arrest and hold him pending extradition, if he leaves the embassy, and let a UK court decide which country gets first shot at him.
It also said "in exchange", as in Obama would have to agree to trade one for the other. Since he has now granted clemency anyway there can be no exchange.
I'm not taking sides, just pointing out that the offer was clearly for an exchange.
Alternatively, it cold be interpreted as "if yo do X I will do Y;" not as a literal exchange. Anyway, the linked tweet doesn't even mention an exchange:
"If Obama grants Manning clemency Assange will agree to US extradition despite clear unconstitutionality of DoJ case"
rather that Assange would agree to US extradition, of course agreeing to something and actually doing it are two different things. The ball is in his court so it will be interesting to see his response.
Snowden cannot be pardoned, because he has not been convicted of any crime. There is no conviction to pardon or commute. He has to surrender and be charged in order for that to happen. Obama already commented on that, he said that regardless of how he feels about Snowden, you can't pardon someone who hasn't been convicted of anything.
Not true, the President's pardon power is pretty broad; specifically, the President has the "Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." There is no mention of conviction or even a trial, merely that an offense be committed "against the United States." The only limit would be in case of impeachment which is not germane to Snowden. As long as someone committed an act against the US a pardon may be issued by the President. Of note is that doesn't prevent state charges, stemming from the same act, from being brought as the President's power only extends to "Offences against the United States." In Snowden's case I have no idea if a state could decide to charge him or even what the charge could be, but someone could very well commit a Federal and state crime in the same act and thus a Presidential pardon would have no impact in the state's case.
I take Obama's comment as meaning his standard for considering a pardon includes having been tried for the act before he will consider issuing one; a standard Snowden has not met.
Manning wasn't pardoned, his sentence merely got reduced. Assange's offer was for a pardon.
Actually, the tweet said clemency, not pardon; which commutation certainly is based on the definition of clemency: Leniency or mercy. A power given to a public official, such as a governor or the president, to in some way lower or moderate the harshness of punishment imposed upon a prisoner. Will be interesting to see what Assange does now that Obama has granted clemency.
With the Pound now trading at around $1.23, and the UK app store incorporating VAT at 20% while the US store doesn't include sales tax in the list priced, this sounds about right. Certainly the "UK premium" is nothing like the 50-100% that wasn't uncommon a decade or so ago.
Apple look simply to be pricing in the devaluation in Sterling that has occurred since the beginning of Brexit. I'm not sure anyone can find much to fault with that. The real question is how quickly Apple will move to reduce prices if/when the Pound recovers?
Prices tend to be sticky in terms of reduction, if simply if only customers get used to the higher prices so absent a steep decline companies tend to keep prices at the higher levels once they raise prices.
If Snowden is a criminal for leaking classified information to the media, why isn't there a full scale government investigation to identify the people who are leaking this classified "Russian hacking" stuff to the media? Do we have any laws left which are enforced in a fair & uniform manner? A government which makes it a practice of enforcing laws arbitrarily is an illegitimate government.
Pretty simple - some leaks you want, some you don't.
I tend to agree. But with a million signatures, he can't exactly ignore it, either.
Never underestimates the ability of a political to ignore an issue they don't want to address and redirect the topic.
At this point, what's the upside for President Obama? It will no doubt set off a flurry of criticism which won't stop once he leaves office. He seems to want to live gracefully and pardoning Snowden would prevent that and potentially complicate any post-presidency political plans he may have and impact his legacy. The popular story won't be "Obama pardons brave whistleblower" but "Obama pardons traitor who helped Russia." The truth and moral arguments will get lost in the noise, especially since it is easier to vilify than explain the nuances, so the political calculus is to simply leave the mess for the next guy to deal with and move on.
The batteries burn, not violently explode. The pilots would have seen and smelt smoke, and done something about it, like move the phone out of the cockpit.
This is more likely a pilot suicide.
It's quite possible;e by the time the fire was discovered it was too late. A very hot fire could quickly get out of control, such as one that brought down SwissAir 111.