Ecuador then granted Assanage asylum, which is a slap in Britain's face. Part of being a diplomat in a foreign country is you are a guest and you are supposed to obey their laws. You don't shelter criminals or the like.
I'm not sure on the timeline, but I didn't think that Julian was a criminal at the time Ecuador initially extended the offer for asylum.
21 months ago, Julian Assange's good friend the president of Ecuador said they didn't want to give him residency because of illegal acts on the part of WikiLeaks.
This was regarded as novel when Freddie Laker started it back in the, what, 70s? You paid a bottom-line, no-frills price, and you could pay extra for a meal, or you could bring on your own sandwiches. "We're a transportation company, not a restaurant" was the prevailing opinion. People flocked to it; flying was finally within reach of the common man.
I've been flying since the late 70s, and I used to get nice wines and hot meals (Air New Zealand). I miss those days. But I'm sure my employer likes the much, much, much cheaper fares. If you want the nice wines and hot meals and free bags, you can pay 70s and 80s prices and fly first class. Alternately, you can pay a much, much cheaper fare, accept that flying has now become common-place and accessible (which is a good thing), and accept the trade-offs.
I still love flying. There's another post from someone who talks about gazing out over the scenery from a window seat and what amazements there are. I'm with you. I still get excited just to see the lights stretching off into the distance as we're approaching a city, or the plains and mountains below. I love the sights of the massive highways with cars moving like miniature toys, laid out for me to see like a king in the sky.
Maybe I'm just naive. Or maybe I just have chosen to enjoy everything, to retain a sense of amazement at the magic of a bird's-eye-view. It's so much more fun than being bitter and angry at everything.
P.S. - a lot of people will say flying is very slow, with masses of delays, and dreadful experiences going through security. I fly a lot on business, out of Philadelphia, the sixth largest city in the U.S. It's an extraordinarily busy airport. I usually am through security and at my gate in less than 30 minutes. The last time I had a delay was two years ago, when I was stuck in the Las Vegas airport for a couple of hours. I could've whined and railed. Instead, I found a nice restaurant and had a relaxing & delicious meal. I read my book. I got some work done on my laptop. Yes, I was lucky that I didn't absolutely have to be somewhere. Usually, most people don't HAVE to be somewhere. Very few journeys are a matter of life and death. And when they are, if you're travelling more than a few hours, flying is still the best chance for getting there quickly.
Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.
snip
A flight from Madrid to New York costs 400 euros in coach
How long would it take you to get from Madrid to New York if you didn't fly?
The time going through security, etc., adds up, I agree. If I can drive there in, say, five hours, I usually won't bother flying. But when I'm going from Philadelphia to Texas, or Denver, or California, it's a no-brainer.
I'm afraid to comment on this story, post it to Facebook or to have my political views heard, for fear that it might prevent me from future government jobs, or possibly even from crossing the border.
"Prevent (you) from...crossing the border" - that's a bit extreme, don't you think?
The other comments - well, I can understand your concern, and I'll allow there's some basis. But if you are that vehemently against the government's policies of whichever country you're in (I'm guessing Sweden as you're talking about crossing the border?), would you really want to get a government job? I mean, the government is not about to crack down on all the hundreds of thousands of people expressing an opinion on this matter. Really, they're not. That would be a logistical nightmare, for starters, but more importantly they just don't care that much about every person expressing an opinion on this topic.
That said, if you express a differing opinion in your private life, well, nobody really cares. But if you are so vehemently anti-theGovt that you rant enough to get their attention, then possibly there's a reason why they wouldn't want to hire you? Governments are usually fairly tolerant of differing opinions amongst civil service employees. They have to be, given that the party in charge will change every so often. But as well as that, if a government in a modern western country refuses to hire people who are slightly or moderately against some of their politics, they're going to get a very, very thin pool to hire from.
I work for different private companies. They aren't terribly keen on me embarrassing them in public, either. I may not agree with everything they say officially, but, hell, I don't think there's anyone or any group I agree with 100%. The difference is I'm grown up enough to keep my mouth shut unless it's important, and when it is important I know how to express my views in a mature manner.
The US generally cannot (despite what Hollywood and Slashdotters like to think) just go and grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions*. (They can request extradition, and governments have a deep interest in civilized cooperation. But that doesn't apply in this instance.)
If, on the other hand, Assange shows up on American soil, then the U.S. has jurisdiction. Just like the U.K. has jurisdiction while he's in the U.K., or Germany has jurisdiction while he's in Germany, or Papua New Guinea has jurisdiction while he's in PNG.
But even excluding these circumstances, he may well have a legal obligation to keep such information secret. (I stop short of saying he definitely does, because this is the stuff that international law experts debate.) Here's why.
If he is under the jurisdiction of a country with agreements and pacts between them and the U.S., then he is very likely to be obligated to treat American secret documents in the same manner as he is obligated to treat his own nation's secret documents. Like it or not, if you are a citizen of a country then along with the rights of citizenship associated with that nationality you also have legal obligations to uphold that nation's best interests, which includes supporting that nation's relationships with other countries.
In other words, sorry, but you can't just do stuff simply because you feel like it and not expect to face consequences. (Five year old kids know this; so should 40 year old intelligent adults.) And taking actions which could be detrimental to your nation's best interests, which could include actions you know are damaging to your nation's diplomatic partners, falls under the label of "expect to face consequences".
* I know, there are caveats and exceptions. That's why I put in the conditional generally. It's not the rule.
if the *charge* is about sex and it had nothing to do with a US person or even on US soil, what the HELL is the US's interest in this?
Inevitably, and quite unfortunately, this is about two separate items. Which the entire planet seems unwilling to keep distinct.
Number one - his sexual escapades in Sweden. That is why Sweden wants him.
Number two - his role in posting classified U.S. documents. That is why the U.S. is interested in him.
It's human nature to let one trait or characteristic or concept about a person or thing to influence your views on that person or thing for all other concepts, but it will help an awful lot in keeping things straight if we don't fall victim to that temptation.
The magnetic storm set off huge currents in the ground, which invaded the long telegraph lines. Telegraph operators were nearly electrocuted dead by the long, violent sparks erupting from the handsets. And several telegraph stations burnt down.
If the Carrington Event happened today, nearly 10 per cent of the 1000-or-so working satellites in orbit would stop working. That's an immediate $100 billion cost right there.
Banks rely on the super-accurate time signals from the GPS satellites, so then you couldn't get your money.
Now the electrical grids around the world are mostly old, fragile and overloaded. In the USA alone, minor solar storms already cause breakdowns to the grid that increase the cost of electricity by $500 million every 18 months. But a Carrington Event, when the Sun had a major hissy fit, would kill the entire electrical grid of North America.
And computers and similar sensitive electronic equipment all over the planet would die from electrical spikes inside their delicate low-voltage circuits.
I read this and immediately quit my job, withdrew my life savings, bought a small plot of land in a secret remote location with no civilisation (it's that bit of green on the map right next to Ninety Mile Beach up north in New Zealand), and am moving there on Saturday.
Agree with the parent poster. If something like this happens, and it's really this kind of an epic disaster as painted by the article, you won't have to worry about your source code because the few people who might escape with computers unscathed won't have electricity to run them. If something like this happens, on the scale described in the article, your source code will probably be the last thing on your mind. You'll be concentrating on how to get as much fun as possible before society degrades to an untenable point.
Goodness knows how realistic this picture is; but I'm not going to be worrying about my job if it truly does get to this point.
Firstly, I think you mean naive, not politically inept; they're not the same.
Secondly, if by reading between the lines you mean I can't tell that President Correa, with dragging popularity and an impending election in February, sees that standing up to the U.S. and Britain in a show of bravado which is not going to provoke anything (unless he really pushes his luck) is going to go over extremely well in South America (Colombia is a neighbor, remember), then I will have to disagree.
On the flip side, Britain is highly unlikely to "storm" anyone's embassy. That would put a massive strain on international relations, lead to riots overseas and possibly firebombing of their own embassies, and generally result in a very big black eye. It would result in a significant weakening of any political clout in sensitive areas, because they've now demonstrated a willingness to violate territorial rights and the cause is a bit shaky. Countries' relationships depend on knowing you can expect a quid pro quo. International treaties are not torn up over minor infractions - that's just the excuse - and Assange is quite simply not worth jeopardizing bilateral agreements. Britain knows that full well; they've been doing this a lot longer than you have. They also know that if you remove someone from a position of leadership without a plan, you just create a vacuum of power...
A man, presumed innocent before the law, who wants to exhaust all legal options availble to him cannot objectively be portrayed as having said "screw you".
I think the whole point of this is he has exhausted all legal options. The news stories say exactly that. That's why he ran to seek asylum from Ecuador.
It would take less tax payer money to send a couple of prosecutors over to London for a couple days than it has cost to secure his extradition.
Probably. Unfortunately, they couldn't have known he'd be this reluctant when they started the procedure. This is Assange's doing.
I'm having trouble imagining any legitimate issues. (Discussing logistical and legal and territorial questions arising from Sweden interviewing Assange in the U.K. in an Ecuadorian territory.)
What if they decide to arrest him? Who has jurisdiction? Ecuador, right? Can Swedish authorities arrest an Australian in the middle of the U.K. on Ecuador territory? Who's responsible for his safe passage?
What if Assange gets attacked by an angry anti-Wikileaks German tourist with a knife while being escorted through the embassy? Now who has jurisdiction? Who's responsible for his medical aid?
What if a British protester takes an American citizen hostage and threatens to detonate a bomb in the Ecuadorian embassy unless the Swedes release Assange to the custody of the Australian embassy? Now who's responsible?
I could go on. Yes, I'm being a bit silly, but hopefully you're getting the point. These are things to consider. Not trivialities of law.
I honestly do not consider I'm making appeals to emotions and nothing else. I believe I gave a number of practical reasons for why Assange should be in Sweden to answer questions. Jurisdiction, saving tax payers' money (which would've been the effect if Assange hadn't decided to string this out as much as humanly possible), making it easier to take depositions from all parties, contacting witnesses or other persons if Assange wished, etc.
Try asking a lawyer or a paralegal if they can see any practical reasons here, and preferably one versed in issues of sovereignty. This isn't trivial.
Ecuador said "they threatened to storm our embassy".
Britain said "please do not forget that we have the option to revoke your protected diplomatic status and then enter the grounds to arrest Mr. Assange. We are committed to working amicably with you, we don't want to get to that point, but we intend to fulfill our obligations under international laws and treaties".
See how the same thing sounds rather different depending on how shrill you want to get?
(From your linked story:
The Foreign Office note to Ecuador stated: "We very much hope not to get this point [revoking diplomatic status], but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us."
It also said that it must meet its legal obligations to arrest Mr Assange and extradite him to Sweden.
The note went on: "We remain committed to working with you amicably to resolve this matter. But we must be absolutely clear this means that should we receive a request for safe passage for Mr Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused, in line with our legal obligations."
Try and look at this from the other point of view, leaving emotions aside for a minute.
You have a man accused of committing sexual crimes in Sweden. Sweden wants that one man to return to the country for questioning, in the country where he's accused.
That man says screw you, instead you have to figure out the logistics and spend a lot of taxpayer money to send over a whole team of interviewers to an entirely different country, so they can then enter a third country's embassy to suit his desires. This will invoke a whole host of legal, territorial, and logistical questions, based on who has sovereignty at what point, as well as cost a lot of money.
If you let go of your emotions for a moment, there are plenty of valid reasons for Sweden to want him to return to Sweden to be interviewed about a crime he's alleged to have committed in Sweden against Swedish women.
Well, firstly, for someone (Assange) who's all about freedom of press, exposing secrets, etcetera, it's pretty darned hypocritical of him to go to Ecuador. He should be exposing them. President Correa:
Isacson and other experts point out that Correa loves disclosures when it suits him, but he has one of the worst reputations in Latin America for cracking down on journalists. Correa has filed defamation complaints against journalists who criticized him, forced independent radio and television stations to air lengthy rebuttals of critical reports, pre-empted programming and temporarily shut some stations down, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Of course, they had a great rapport on Assange's television program. You know, the one that is financed by the Kremlin - not exactly an entity known for stellar journalistic freedom.
I'm sure Ecuador had a great story prepared, but it's also probably just as convenient to recognize that this anti-US rhetoric will play out very well in Ecuador and surrounding countries, which will help Correa in the elections coming up in February, given his popularity has been sliding quite badly.
Is that the one he started to have sex with while she was asleep?
If Assange is extradited to Sweden, charged and convicted for rape or whatever, and if it ends there, then I will publicly come out here and eat my words. But if he is extradited, fined or sentenced to do a little time, and then released to the custody of the US, by secret rendition or simple and legal extradition, then all you'll get is a fat "told you so"
It's a shame you'll never have to face either course of action, because the guy is a coward who just keeps running.
Aside: I'm sure this'll be marked flamebait, but I don't particularly care because Slashdot moderations are worse than useless these days; nothing more than a popularity vote, like American Idol.
Well, yes, I think the obvious answer - that it was due to the launch of CCAC as well as a chance to discuss Syria - is rather more likely. If she hadn't visited Sweden, in fact, it would've been quite tactless as she was doing the rounds of Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Oh, and also Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and then Turkey.
Or do you think Laos is part of the conspiracy too? She made the first visit to Laos by a US Secretary of State in 57 years in July. And she went to Burma/Myanmar back in November - that was the first such visit in 49 years. Gee, she was the first US Secretary of State ever to visit Togo, don't forget. (I'm assuming she probably visited Benin as well, but that's a guess.) Yes, I'm being silly, but do you get my point?
With respect, I think you are the one missing the point. At 30, you might have 80% or 90% of your retirement investments in the stock market. There'll be wild swings, but the higher risk comes with a promise of greater returns in the long run. The point is you have a longer time period to see those downward swings reverse.
As you get closer to retirement, you start to reallocate your retirement funds. At 70, you should have little to nothing in a risky stock investment. At 70, if you have lost 90% of your stock investment, that should only reflect, say, 5% or 10% of your total retirement portfolio.
Well...look...I am certainly not questioning the value of such a degree, but what does a doctorate in Organic Chemistry actually qualify you to do for a job, besides teach at a university in a self-perpetuating cycle? (I'm randomly guessing maybe something in pharma? I honestly don't know.)
Every PhD in my circle, either Comp. Sci. or E.E., has companies chasing after them. They can pick and choose.
That said, I do agree that you don't do it for strictly fiscal reasons. It's a huge amount of effort and you have to be really excited about the concept.
I know a girl who wants to get her PhD. I introduced her to someone I know who is in the process of getting a Comp. Sci. PhD - first question was "why do you want a PhD?" My friend's answer - "umm, I think I'd like to do research, you know?". Next question - "Well, what do you want to research?" My friend's confident response - "Oh, I want to do computer science!". My friend is someone who should not enter a PhD programme.
How does the 'letter of recommendation' requirement work if you haven't kept in touch with your professors?
I can't speak to this for a Ph.D. programme (which I imagine might require more of the academic references), but a master's programme (in the U.S., at least) will be quite content with recommendations from managers in your company. I am in my second master's programme (considering doing the Ph.D. next) and it would've been next to impossible for me to find anyone who remembered me from my bachelor's courses done 20 years ago on the other side of the planet from where I live now.
Nope...can't agree there. As I posted in a previous story, Assange is a creep and this does nothing to help his cause; running off to South America makes him look like he's got something to hide.
Many people here are railing against the U.S. and what they'd do, but I happen to think that even if you allow that conspiracy/paranoia/evil USA theory then he's still better off going to Sweden.
More to the point, that's what an adult should do. Show some guts, go back, fight the charges, and then disappear in a snit if you must.
From my original post:
Personally I think half the reason he doesn't want to is because he's afraid he won't get yanked out to the United States. That would really damage his whole martyr/conspiracy victim image. Without that he's a seriously underwhelming and unprepossessing figure. He'll get prosecuted, he'll be freed, or he might serve some jail time, and in a few months or a few years he'll come out, not having been assassinated. But by then everyone will have forgotten about him.
It depends on what you value. You're from "Southern Europe". That's semi-specific. What sort of place are you looking for? Good schools? What kind of community do you want? What kind of language skills do you have and/or are willing to acquire? What sort of culture are you looking for?
These are extremely pertinent considerations. What are your values? What's important to you?
Do you want to live in a big city, suburbs, or out in the country? Could you not imagine living far away from the open sea, for instance? (That would knock out many countries and many states of the U.S.)
Do you value proximity to world class museums and art galleries and opera houses?
Do you love to go hiking in the bush/rain forest?
Do you love to go sailing/canoeing/kayaking?
What languages do you speak?
Will you be allowed to move to random country? Very often, the more desirable a country is, the harder it will be to get in there (because lots of other people want to move there too). If you don't have family ties there, OR some other compelling reason (i.e. you can prove you have a million dollars to invest, have an advanced degree, and will guarantee to employ 50 locals), then you may be simply out of luck.
How far are you willing to move? Do you have family where you are now? (It is really, really hard when you get a call that your mother's/father's/sister's/brother's health has unexpectedly deteriorated and you are in a location that is a day's travel away and you get a phone call while between flights that you're too late and your family member has just died.)
What pace of life do you like? In a large country, different areas have very different cultures. East Coast U.S. is way different from West Coast. Some New Yorkers fall in love with the relaxed pace of Australia or New Zealand or Arkansas. Some New Yorkers can't take it - "nothing ever gets done, everything is so SLOW".
There are just too many unknowns. You'll get a lot of comments but nothing really to base a decision on here. Only you know what's important to you.
Slashdot Mirror
World leaders announce an end to global hunger, flying cars to become available for retail sale next Thursday, and everyone gets a pony.
Slashdot readers respond by bitching that it's all too late, it's not enough, and there's got to be a catch somewhere.
Hell's bells, guys, seriously...lighten up...
Gee, and I haven't heard of either one of them :-(
Ecuador then granted Assanage asylum, which is a slap in Britain's face. Part of being a diplomat in a foreign country is you are a guest and you are supposed to obey their laws. You don't shelter criminals or the like.
I'm not sure on the timeline, but I didn't think that Julian was a criminal at the time Ecuador initially extended the offer for asylum.
21 months ago, Julian Assange's good friend the president of Ecuador said they didn't want to give him residency because of illegal acts on the part of WikiLeaks.
free meals have all but disappeared...
free drinks are gone too...
baggage fees
This was regarded as novel when Freddie Laker started it back in the, what, 70s? You paid a bottom-line, no-frills price, and you could pay extra for a meal, or you could bring on your own sandwiches. "We're a transportation company, not a restaurant" was the prevailing opinion. People flocked to it; flying was finally within reach of the common man.
I've been flying since the late 70s, and I used to get nice wines and hot meals (Air New Zealand). I miss those days. But I'm sure my employer likes the much, much, much cheaper fares. If you want the nice wines and hot meals and free bags, you can pay 70s and 80s prices and fly first class. Alternately, you can pay a much, much cheaper fare, accept that flying has now become common-place and accessible (which is a good thing), and accept the trade-offs.
I still love flying. There's another post from someone who talks about gazing out over the scenery from a window seat and what amazements there are. I'm with you. I still get excited just to see the lights stretching off into the distance as we're approaching a city, or the plains and mountains below. I love the sights of the massive highways with cars moving like miniature toys, laid out for me to see like a king in the sky.
Maybe I'm just naive. Or maybe I just have chosen to enjoy everything, to retain a sense of amazement at the magic of a bird's-eye-view. It's so much more fun than being bitter and angry at everything.
P.S. - a lot of people will say flying is very slow, with masses of delays, and dreadful experiences going through security. I fly a lot on business, out of Philadelphia, the sixth largest city in the U.S. It's an extraordinarily busy airport. I usually am through security and at my gate in less than 30 minutes. The last time I had a delay was two years ago, when I was stuck in the Las Vegas airport for a couple of hours. I could've whined and railed. Instead, I found a nice restaurant and had a relaxing & delicious meal. I read my book. I got some work done on my laptop. Yes, I was lucky that I didn't absolutely have to be somewhere. Usually, most people don't HAVE to be somewhere. Very few journeys are a matter of life and death. And when they are, if you're travelling more than a few hours, flying is still the best chance for getting there quickly.
Only if your definition of quick only includes time elapsed between take off and landing. Definitely not that fast if you time door to door and include everything.
snip
A flight from Madrid to New York costs 400 euros in coach
How long would it take you to get from Madrid to New York if you didn't fly?
The time going through security, etc., adds up, I agree. If I can drive there in, say, five hours, I usually won't bother flying. But when I'm going from Philadelphia to Texas, or Denver, or California, it's a no-brainer.
Well, according to President Correa of Ecuador (the country that just gave him asylum), they didn't want to give Assange residency because WikiLeaks
has committed an error by breaking the laws of the United States and leaking this type of information
.
That was November 2010.I guess with an election rapidly approaching and his popularity waning he decided a change of heart might look better.
I'm afraid to comment on this story, post it to Facebook or to have my political views heard, for fear that it might prevent me from future government jobs, or possibly even from crossing the border.
"Prevent (you) from...crossing the border" - that's a bit extreme, don't you think?
The other comments - well, I can understand your concern, and I'll allow there's some basis. But if you are that vehemently against the government's policies of whichever country you're in (I'm guessing Sweden as you're talking about crossing the border?), would you really want to get a government job? I mean, the government is not about to crack down on all the hundreds of thousands of people expressing an opinion on this matter. Really, they're not. That would be a logistical nightmare, for starters, but more importantly they just don't care that much about every person expressing an opinion on this topic.
That said, if you express a differing opinion in your private life, well, nobody really cares. But if you are so vehemently anti-theGovt that you rant enough to get their attention, then possibly there's a reason why they wouldn't want to hire you? Governments are usually fairly tolerant of differing opinions amongst civil service employees. They have to be, given that the party in charge will change every so often. But as well as that, if a government in a modern western country refuses to hire people who are slightly or moderately against some of their politics, they're going to get a very, very thin pool to hire from.
I work for different private companies. They aren't terribly keen on me embarrassing them in public, either. I may not agree with everything they say officially, but, hell, I don't think there's anyone or any group I agree with 100%. The difference is I'm grown up enough to keep my mouth shut unless it's important, and when it is important I know how to express my views in a mature manner.
I think you're being willfully unreasonable.
The US generally cannot (despite what Hollywood and Slashdotters like to think) just go and grab folks from other sovereign countries without repercussions*. (They can request extradition, and governments have a deep interest in civilized cooperation. But that doesn't apply in this instance.)
If, on the other hand, Assange shows up on American soil, then the U.S. has jurisdiction. Just like the U.K. has jurisdiction while he's in the U.K., or Germany has jurisdiction while he's in Germany, or Papua New Guinea has jurisdiction while he's in PNG.
But even excluding these circumstances, he may well have a legal obligation to keep such information secret. (I stop short of saying he definitely does, because this is the stuff that international law experts debate.) Here's why.
If he is under the jurisdiction of a country with agreements and pacts between them and the U.S., then he is very likely to be obligated to treat American secret documents in the same manner as he is obligated to treat his own nation's secret documents. Like it or not, if you are a citizen of a country then along with the rights of citizenship associated with that nationality you also have legal obligations to uphold that nation's best interests, which includes supporting that nation's relationships with other countries.
In other words, sorry, but you can't just do stuff simply because you feel like it and not expect to face consequences. (Five year old kids know this; so should 40 year old intelligent adults.) And taking actions which could be detrimental to your nation's best interests, which could include actions you know are damaging to your nation's diplomatic partners, falls under the label of "expect to face consequences".
* I know, there are caveats and exceptions. That's why I put in the conditional generally. It's not the rule.
if the *charge* is about sex and it had nothing to do with a US person or even on US soil, what the HELL is the US's interest in this?
Inevitably, and quite unfortunately, this is about two separate items. Which the entire planet seems unwilling to keep distinct.
Number one - his sexual escapades in Sweden. That is why Sweden wants him.
Number two - his role in posting classified U.S. documents. That is why the U.S. is interested in him.
It's human nature to let one trait or characteristic or concept about a person or thing to influence your views on that person or thing for all other concepts, but it will help an awful lot in keeping things straight if we don't fall victim to that temptation.
unless you want your kids to grow up as future Slashdot users
Based on the level of discussion typical here? God forbid!!! I'm taking your advice and locking my daughter in her room.
The magnetic storm set off huge currents in the ground, which invaded the long telegraph lines. Telegraph operators were nearly electrocuted dead by the long, violent sparks erupting from the handsets. And several telegraph stations burnt down.
If the Carrington Event happened today, nearly 10 per cent of the 1000-or-so working satellites in orbit would stop working. That's an immediate $100 billion cost right there.
Banks rely on the super-accurate time signals from the GPS satellites, so then you couldn't get your money.
Now the electrical grids around the world are mostly old, fragile and overloaded. In the USA alone, minor solar storms already cause breakdowns to the grid that increase the cost of electricity by $500 million every 18 months.
But a Carrington Event, when the Sun had a major hissy fit, would kill the entire electrical grid of North America.
And computers and similar sensitive electronic equipment all over the planet would die from electrical spikes inside their delicate low-voltage circuits.
I read this and immediately quit my job, withdrew my life savings, bought a small plot of land in a secret remote location with no civilisation (it's that bit of green on the map right next to Ninety Mile Beach up north in New Zealand), and am moving there on Saturday.
Agree with the parent poster. If something like this happens, and it's really this kind of an epic disaster as painted by the article, you won't have to worry about your source code because the few people who might escape with computers unscathed won't have electricity to run them. If something like this happens, on the scale described in the article, your source code will probably be the last thing on your mind. You'll be concentrating on how to get as much fun as possible before society degrades to an untenable point.
Goodness knows how realistic this picture is; but I'm not going to be worrying about my job if it truly does get to this point.
Firstly, I think you mean naive, not politically inept; they're not the same.
Secondly, if by reading between the lines you mean I can't tell that President Correa, with dragging popularity and an impending election in February, sees that standing up to the U.S. and Britain in a show of bravado which is not going to provoke anything (unless he really pushes his luck) is going to go over extremely well in South America (Colombia is a neighbor, remember), then I will have to disagree.
On the flip side, Britain is highly unlikely to "storm" anyone's embassy. That would put a massive strain on international relations, lead to riots overseas and possibly firebombing of their own embassies, and generally result in a very big black eye. It would result in a significant weakening of any political clout in sensitive areas, because they've now demonstrated a willingness to violate territorial rights and the cause is a bit shaky. Countries' relationships depend on knowing you can expect a quid pro quo. International treaties are not torn up over minor infractions - that's just the excuse - and Assange is quite simply not worth jeopardizing bilateral agreements. Britain knows that full well; they've been doing this a lot longer than you have. They also know that if you remove someone from a position of leadership without a plan, you just create a vacuum of power...
A man, presumed innocent before the law, who wants to exhaust all legal options availble to him cannot objectively be portrayed as having said "screw you".
I think the whole point of this is he has exhausted all legal options. The news stories say exactly that. That's why he ran to seek asylum from Ecuador.
It would take less tax payer money to send a couple of prosecutors over to London for a couple days than it has cost to secure his extradition.
Probably. Unfortunately, they couldn't have known he'd be this reluctant when they started the procedure. This is Assange's doing.
I'm having trouble imagining any legitimate issues. (Discussing logistical and legal and territorial questions arising from Sweden interviewing Assange in the U.K. in an Ecuadorian territory.)
What if they decide to arrest him? Who has jurisdiction? Ecuador, right? Can Swedish authorities arrest an Australian in the middle of the U.K. on Ecuador territory? Who's responsible for his safe passage?
What if Assange gets attacked by an angry anti-Wikileaks German tourist with a knife while being escorted through the embassy? Now who has jurisdiction? Who's responsible for his medical aid?
What if a British protester takes an American citizen hostage and threatens to detonate a bomb in the Ecuadorian embassy unless the Swedes release Assange to the custody of the Australian embassy? Now who's responsible?
I could go on. Yes, I'm being a bit silly, but hopefully you're getting the point. These are things to consider. Not trivialities of law.
I honestly do not consider I'm making appeals to emotions and nothing else. I believe I gave a number of practical reasons for why Assange should be in Sweden to answer questions. Jurisdiction, saving tax payers' money (which would've been the effect if Assange hadn't decided to string this out as much as humanly possible), making it easier to take depositions from all parties, contacting witnesses or other persons if Assange wished, etc.
Try asking a lawyer or a paralegal if they can see any practical reasons here, and preferably one versed in issues of sovereignty. This isn't trivial.
Ecuador said "they threatened to storm our embassy".
Britain said "please do not forget that we have the option to revoke your protected diplomatic status and then enter the grounds to arrest Mr. Assange. We are committed to working amicably with you, we don't want to get to that point, but we intend to fulfill our obligations under international laws and treaties".
See how the same thing sounds rather different depending on how shrill you want to get?
(From your linked story:
The Foreign Office note to Ecuador stated: "We very much hope not to get this point [revoking diplomatic status], but if you cannot resolve the issue of Mr Assange's presence on your premises, this route is open to us."
It also said that it must meet its legal obligations to arrest Mr Assange and extradite him to Sweden.
The note went on: "We remain committed to working with you amicably to resolve this matter. But we must be absolutely clear this means that should we receive a request for safe passage for Mr Assange, after granting asylum, this would be refused, in line with our legal obligations."
Try and look at this from the other point of view, leaving emotions aside for a minute.
You have a man accused of committing sexual crimes in Sweden. Sweden wants that one man to return to the country for questioning, in the country where he's accused.
That man says screw you, instead you have to figure out the logistics and spend a lot of taxpayer money to send over a whole team of interviewers to an entirely different country, so they can then enter a third country's embassy to suit his desires. This will invoke a whole host of legal, territorial, and logistical questions, based on who has sovereignty at what point, as well as cost a lot of money.
If you let go of your emotions for a moment, there are plenty of valid reasons for Sweden to want him to return to Sweden to be interviewed about a crime he's alleged to have committed in Sweden against Swedish women.
Well, firstly, for someone (Assange) who's all about freedom of press, exposing secrets, etcetera, it's pretty darned hypocritical of him to go to Ecuador. He should be exposing them. President Correa:
Isacson and other experts point out that Correa loves disclosures when it suits him, but he has one of the worst reputations in Latin America for cracking down on journalists. Correa has filed defamation complaints against journalists who criticized him, forced independent radio and television stations to air lengthy rebuttals of critical reports, pre-empted programming and temporarily shut some stations down, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Of course, they had a great rapport on Assange's television program. You know, the one that is financed by the Kremlin - not exactly an entity known for stellar journalistic freedom.
I'm sure Ecuador had a great story prepared, but it's also probably just as convenient to recognize that this anti-US rhetoric will play out very well in Ecuador and surrounding countries, which will help Correa in the elections coming up in February, given his popularity has been sliding quite badly.
it is all about "a woman scorned"
Is that the one he started to have sex with while she was asleep?
If Assange is extradited to Sweden, charged and convicted for rape or whatever, and if it ends there, then I will publicly come out here and eat my words. But if he is extradited, fined or sentenced to do a little time, and then released to the custody of the US, by secret rendition or simple and legal extradition, then all you'll get is a fat "told you so"
It's a shame you'll never have to face either course of action, because the guy is a coward who just keeps running.
Aside: I'm sure this'll be marked flamebait, but I don't particularly care because Slashdot moderations are worse than useless these days; nothing more than a popularity vote, like American Idol.
Well, yes, I think the obvious answer - that it was due to the launch of CCAC as well as a chance to discuss Syria - is rather more likely. If she hadn't visited Sweden, in fact, it would've been quite tactless as she was doing the rounds of Denmark, Norway, and Finland. Oh, and also Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, and then Turkey.
Or do you think Laos is part of the conspiracy too? She made the first visit to Laos by a US Secretary of State in 57 years in July. And she went to Burma/Myanmar back in November - that was the first such visit in 49 years. Gee, she was the first US Secretary of State ever to visit Togo, don't forget. (I'm assuming she probably visited Benin as well, but that's a guess.) Yes, I'm being silly, but do you get my point?
+5 insightful for a libellous accusation with no references or proof? This is what passes for a valuable comment on Slashdot...
With respect, I think you are the one missing the point. At 30, you might have 80% or 90% of your retirement investments in the stock market. There'll be wild swings, but the higher risk comes with a promise of greater returns in the long run. The point is you have a longer time period to see those downward swings reverse.
As you get closer to retirement, you start to reallocate your retirement funds. At 70, you should have little to nothing in a risky stock investment. At 70, if you have lost 90% of your stock investment, that should only reflect, say, 5% or 10% of your total retirement portfolio.
Well...look...I am certainly not questioning the value of such a degree, but what does a doctorate in Organic Chemistry actually qualify you to do for a job, besides teach at a university in a self-perpetuating cycle? (I'm randomly guessing maybe something in pharma? I honestly don't know.)
Every PhD in my circle, either Comp. Sci. or E.E., has companies chasing after them. They can pick and choose.
That said, I do agree that you don't do it for strictly fiscal reasons. It's a huge amount of effort and you have to be really excited about the concept.
I know a girl who wants to get her PhD. I introduced her to someone I know who is in the process of getting a Comp. Sci. PhD - first question was "why do you want a PhD?" My friend's answer - "umm, I think I'd like to do research, you know?". Next question - "Well, what do you want to research?" My friend's confident response - "Oh, I want to do computer science!". My friend is someone who should not enter a PhD programme.
How does the 'letter of recommendation' requirement work if you haven't kept in touch with your professors?
I can't speak to this for a Ph.D. programme (which I imagine might require more of the academic references), but a master's programme (in the U.S., at least) will be quite content with recommendations from managers in your company. I am in my second master's programme (considering doing the Ph.D. next) and it would've been next to impossible for me to find anyone who remembered me from my bachelor's courses done 20 years ago on the other side of the planet from where I live now.
Apparently this is considered very amusing and quite clever by the sort of people who run Google+ and the sort of people who hang out on Google+.
I see that as yet another extremely good reason for me to vehemently avoid Google+.
Nope...can't agree there. As I posted in a previous story, Assange is a creep and this does nothing to help his cause; running off to South America makes him look like he's got something to hide.
Many people here are railing against the U.S. and what they'd do, but I happen to think that even if you allow that conspiracy/paranoia/evil USA theory then he's still better off going to Sweden.
More to the point, that's what an adult should do. Show some guts, go back, fight the charges, and then disappear in a snit if you must.
From my original post:
Personally I think half the reason he doesn't want to is because he's afraid he won't get yanked out to the United States. That would really damage his whole martyr/conspiracy victim image. Without that he's a seriously underwhelming and unprepossessing figure. He'll get prosecuted, he'll be freed, or he might serve some jail time, and in a few months or a few years he'll come out, not having been assassinated. But by then everyone will have forgotten about him.
It depends on what you value. You're from "Southern Europe". That's semi-specific. What sort of place are you looking for? Good schools? What kind of community do you want? What kind of language skills do you have and/or are willing to acquire? What sort of culture are you looking for?
These are extremely pertinent considerations. What are your values? What's important to you?
Do you want to live in a big city, suburbs, or out in the country? Could you not imagine living far away from the open sea, for instance? (That would knock out many countries and many states of the U.S.)
Do you value proximity to world class museums and art galleries and opera houses?
Do you love to go hiking in the bush/rain forest?
Do you love to go sailing/canoeing/kayaking?
What languages do you speak?
Will you be allowed to move to random country? Very often, the more desirable a country is, the harder it will be to get in there (because lots of other people want to move there too). If you don't have family ties there, OR some other compelling reason (i.e. you can prove you have a million dollars to invest, have an advanced degree, and will guarantee to employ 50 locals), then you may be simply out of luck.
How far are you willing to move? Do you have family where you are now? (It is really, really hard when you get a call that your mother's/father's/sister's/brother's health has unexpectedly deteriorated and you are in a location that is a day's travel away and you get a phone call while between flights that you're too late and your family member has just died.)
What pace of life do you like? In a large country, different areas have very different cultures. East Coast U.S. is way different from West Coast. Some New Yorkers fall in love with the relaxed pace of Australia or New Zealand or Arkansas. Some New Yorkers can't take it - "nothing ever gets done, everything is so SLOW".
There are just too many unknowns. You'll get a lot of comments but nothing really to base a decision on here. Only you know what's important to you.