Terrorism Act (2000) Schedule 7 Paragraph 18 states that if you fail to "comply with a duty imposed under this schedule" you are committing an offence.
Refusing to answer questions until legal counsel arrive may well be taken to be a refusal to comply. But I guess the courts would have to decide that.
Not sure I agree here, some of Davies' scripts seemed ridiculous. The Idiot's Lantern was cringe-making. The finale story arcs where the entire universe is about to be destroyed until the plot introduces a big red reset button at the end were boring. The Dalek stories were simply shit. Cybermen/Dalek face-off ? Corny. I think Davies' best (and most touching) story was Love & Monsters.
Moffatt approaches the stories in a different way, for sure, and some of his writing is sublime. He seems to have a better sense of The Doctor being a rather mysterious, enigmatic figure.
Strictly speaking - if you are referring to Assange, the charges were not "reopened". He is wanted in Sweden for questioning - perhaps because the alleged victim changed her testimony - but he has not been charged.
Some of the initial shortcomings of ARM were actually quite serious.
For example, I seem to recall that the cache used virtual, rather than physical addresses. Under a memory protected OS (Linux) the cache would have to be flushed for every context switch; and in addition multiple virtual addresses referring to the same physical address would clog up the cache with needless duplicate entries. They added initial bodges to deal with this ("page colouring") but it was properly fixed in later iterations of the arch.
If you look at libgit2 you'll see an exception has been added to the top of the license such that components which link libgit2 (either statically or dynamically) do not have to release their source under the GPL.
It's an absolutely excellent idea. Git is a solid, high quality piece of software and it benefits everyone who works in software engineering to see it integrated everywhere including on Windows.
Oracle vs Google related to Google's re-implementation of Java. You correctly observe that the case was to do with copyrighting APIs.
However, this matter matter between RTS and Red Hat (and indeed the wider kernel community) is nothing to do with copyrighting APIs. Red Hat appear to be alleging that RTS have created a derived work of the Linux kernel. The issue of whether or not their code is a "derived work" is what is at stake and ultimately may be for a judge to determine.
If RTS retain the copyright on all of their own code and have added this work to a proprietary OS, then there is no GPL violation. However, if RTS have re-used fixes, patches or other enhancements to the SCSI code supplied by third parties under the GPL, then RTS would be in violation. I believe that is the allegation that is being made here.
They had no way of winning this, damned if they did, and damned if they didn't.
I am a massive fan of the BBC, but I don't think it's right that they broadcast a very serious allegation on nothing other than the unconfirmed word of one person without doing a few cursory checks. They appear to simply have shot from the hip.
The business with Jimmy Savile is a lot more complicated. There are two issues to be addressed; one, were they being too strict in their requirement for evidence before they could broadcast those accusations ? And, two - was there some reason for the Newsnight programme investigating those allegations being pulled that was unconnected with concerns about the evidence available ?
Actually British government ministers have indeed been caught carrying confidential and embarassing documentation into offices, including Number 10 Downing St.
Er.. have you read a few history books ? Beria was a serial rapist and molester who used his position of power to entrap and assault hundreds and hundreds of girls, from ordinary women he spotted walking down the street, to major celebrities such as ballet dancers etc.The Politburo, including Khrushchev, all knew what was going on and how dangerous Beria was. They all made sure their wives and daughters were kept well away from Beria.
On top of that Beria killed a lot of people and from time to time threatened pretty much everyone in the Politburo. It stands to reason that as soon as Stalin was out of the way they'd figure out a way to get him.
I really don't think you intended to compare Assange to Beria.
I'm not a member of the GOP, but I think it speaks volumes when those in charge of the party denounce and even take efforts to derail the campaign of somebody who says something so stupid.
I think it's pushing the envelope to suggest that the GOP are somehow in control of events here.
In fact, it seems they always do this
Not really. They did not especially distance themselves from the remarks made by Rush Limbaugh a few months back about Sandra Fluke. Thinking further back, I can imagine other cases eg Clarence Thomas.
As in the USA, the victim is not the person who chooses whether or not the perpetrator is charged. The prosecuting authority does, based on evidence by the police. The police have a mandated duty to investigate all crime as far as is reasonably possible.
but seriously, international incident over something that is NOT rape, by most of the worlds' standards?
There were three court hearings in the UK. Each one found that under UK law the allegations would be defined as rape. I'd say there's a good chance that they'd be defined as rape in most of the USA as well.
Ecuador FM : We tried to get Sweden to agree to no extradition to US in exchange for Assange going to Sweden - they said NO
Which is quite correct.
The USA have not issued an extradition request to Sweden yet. When they do issue one, whatever is in that request would have to be duly considered by the courts to determine whether or not it is valid.
Sweden is a democracy with laws and due process. They can't simply be overruled.
In any case this smells like a smokescreen. If Assange feared extradition to the USA, why did he come to the UK, which has full extradition agreements in place with the USA and indeed which extradites its own citizens to the US on the drop of a hat ? Why did he even visit Sweden in the first place back when the alleged incident occurred ?
Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states otherwise. In one sentence. No exceptions.
Wrong.
Here is the text of the article.
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.
Assange is not a diplomatic agent, and he cannot be created one without the agreement of the UK.
The UK have a full legal right to arrest Assange if he emerges from the embassy. The Vienna Convention only covers duly accredited diplomatic agents.
No, the UK doesn't have to do anything. They're a sovereign power.
The UK has to prosecute Assange for violating his bail, which is an offence.
The UK is also bound by its extradition agreement with Sweden. Sovereign powers do, of course, have the right to violate such agreements but in that case what is the point in having them in the first place ?
who now has to consider that the UK has shown it will resort to violence to get what it wants out of the embassies.
What utter nonsense. What violence ?
They'll be held as oath-breakers -- they won't be trusted for a long time with keeping their word on anything negotiated diplomatically.
So basically what you're saying here is any old fool can travel to a country, commit a crime there, and then dash into the nearest embassy to avoid being prosecuted ?
Do you really think that is how international law works ? Do you imagine for one second that this kind of conduct would be tolerated in any country ? Do you really think that if I visited Ecuador, stole a car and then showed up in an embassy with a suitcase full of cash requesting asylum that I should be allowed to get away with it ?
Slashdot Mirror
Terrorism Act (2000) Schedule 7 Paragraph 18 states that if you fail to "comply with a duty imposed under this schedule" you are committing an offence.
Refusing to answer questions until legal counsel arrive may well be taken to be a refusal to comply. But I guess the courts would have to decide that.
Not sure I agree here, some of Davies' scripts seemed ridiculous. The Idiot's Lantern was cringe-making. The finale story arcs where the entire universe is about to be destroyed until the plot introduces a big red reset button at the end were boring. The Dalek stories were simply shit. Cybermen/Dalek face-off ? Corny. I think Davies' best (and most touching) story was Love & Monsters.
Moffatt approaches the stories in a different way, for sure, and some of his writing is sublime. He seems to have a better sense of The Doctor being a rather mysterious, enigmatic figure.
Strictly speaking - if you are referring to Assange, the charges were not "reopened". He is wanted in Sweden for questioning - perhaps because the alleged victim changed her testimony - but he has not been charged.
Being given a big pile of code and being asked to maintain it with no test suite.
Each time you change it you could theoretically be breaking a ton of features. But there's no way to be sure.
Consult Google and educate yourself on the joys of register renaming.
Some of the initial shortcomings of ARM were actually quite serious.
For example, I seem to recall that the cache used virtual, rather than physical addresses. Under a memory protected OS (Linux) the cache would have to be flushed for every context switch; and in addition multiple virtual addresses referring to the same physical address would clog up the cache with needless duplicate entries. They added initial bodges to deal with this ("page colouring") but it was properly fixed in later iterations of the arch.
Gentlemen,
If you look at libgit2 you'll see an exception has been added to the top of the license such that components which link libgit2 (either statically or dynamically) do not have to release their source under the GPL.
It's an absolutely excellent idea. Git is a solid, high quality piece of software and it benefits everyone who works in software engineering to see it integrated everywhere including on Windows.
Oracle vs Google related to Google's re-implementation of Java. You correctly observe that the case was to do with copyrighting APIs.
However, this matter matter between RTS and Red Hat (and indeed the wider kernel community) is nothing to do with copyrighting APIs. Red Hat appear to be alleging that RTS have created a derived work of the Linux kernel. The issue of whether or not their code is a "derived work" is what is at stake and ultimately may be for a judge to determine.
If RTS retain the copyright on all of their own code and have added this work to a proprietary OS, then there is no GPL violation. However, if RTS have re-used fixes, patches or other enhancements to the SCSI code supplied by third parties under the GPL, then RTS would be in violation. I believe that is the allegation that is being made here.
They had no way of winning this, damned if they did, and damned if they didn't.
I am a massive fan of the BBC, but I don't think it's right that they broadcast a very serious allegation on nothing other than the unconfirmed word of one person without doing a few cursory checks. They appear to simply have shot from the hip.
The business with Jimmy Savile is a lot more complicated. There are two issues to be addressed; one, were they being too strict in their requirement for evidence before they could broadcast those accusations ? And, two - was there some reason for the Newsnight programme investigating those allegations being pulled that was unconnected with concerns about the evidence available ?
Actually British government ministers have indeed been caught carrying confidential and embarassing documentation into offices, including Number 10 Downing St.
I think the expectation that Sweden should tear up their extradition agreement with the USA is a bit much to ask, don't you ?
Er .. have you read a few history books ? Beria was a serial rapist and molester who used his position of power to entrap and assault hundreds and hundreds of girls, from ordinary women he spotted walking down the street, to major celebrities such as ballet dancers etc.The Politburo, including Khrushchev, all knew what was going on and how dangerous Beria was. They all made sure their wives and daughters were kept well away from Beria.
On top of that Beria killed a lot of people and from time to time threatened pretty much everyone in the Politburo. It stands to reason that as soon as Stalin was out of the way they'd figure out a way to get him.
I really don't think you intended to compare Assange to Beria.
I'm not a member of the GOP, but I think it speaks volumes when those in charge of the party denounce and even take efforts to derail the campaign of somebody who says something so stupid.
I think it's pushing the envelope to suggest that the GOP are somehow in control of events here.
In fact, it seems they always do this
Not really. They did not especially distance themselves from the remarks made by Rush Limbaugh a few months back about Sandra Fluke. Thinking further back, I can imagine other cases eg Clarence Thomas.
The only reason why governments are involved (two of them) is because Assange won't return to Sweden to answer questions about the rape allegations.
The United States and China both support the Vienna convention which holds that the US embassy in China is under US law.
please do your homework.
They may need to charge him if the answers to the questions merit it.
Yes, made up by you. No rape charges are outstanding against Assange.
If that's true, then it's for the courts to decide.
As in the USA, the victim is not the person who chooses whether or not the perpetrator is charged. The prosecuting authority does, based on evidence by the police. The police have a mandated duty to investigate all crime as far as is reasonably possible.
a "crime" which does not even exist outside Sweden (sex without condom!).
Three high court hearings in the UK found that the allegations amounted to an offence within the UK.
The allegation against Assange is that the sex took place without consent.
but seriously, international incident over something that is NOT rape, by most of the worlds' standards?
There were three court hearings in the UK. Each one found that under UK law the allegations would be defined as rape. I'd say there's a good chance that they'd be defined as rape in most of the USA as well.
Would you be saying that if the Swedish person making the allegations against Assange was your sister ?
I recommend you do a bit of research, particularly on the allegations that Assange's defence lawyer has admitted to.
That doesn't explain them threatening to break into another embassy
They didn't.
, violating their sovereignty
This cannot happen and at no time has the UK proposed anything of the kind.
and the Vienna convention in the process.
The Vienna convention only applies to accredited diplomats, and Assange is not one.
Ecuador FM : We tried to get Sweden to agree to no extradition to US in exchange for Assange going to Sweden - they said NO
Which is quite correct.
The USA have not issued an extradition request to Sweden yet. When they do issue one, whatever is in that request would have to be duly considered by the courts to determine whether or not it is valid.
Sweden is a democracy with laws and due process. They can't simply be overruled.
In any case this smells like a smokescreen. If Assange feared extradition to the USA, why did he come to the UK, which has full extradition agreements in place with the USA and indeed which extradites its own citizens to the US on the drop of a hat ? Why did he even visit Sweden in the first place back when the alleged incident occurred ?
Article 29 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations states otherwise. In one sentence. No exceptions.
Wrong.
Here is the text of the article.
The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention. The receiving State shall treat him with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on his person, freedom or dignity.
Assange is not a diplomatic agent, and he cannot be created one without the agreement of the UK.
The UK have a full legal right to arrest Assange if he emerges from the embassy. The Vienna Convention only covers duly accredited diplomatic agents.
No, the UK doesn't have to do anything. They're a sovereign power.
The UK has to prosecute Assange for violating his bail, which is an offence.
The UK is also bound by its extradition agreement with Sweden. Sovereign powers do, of course, have the right to violate such agreements but in that case what is the point in having them in the first place ?
who now has to consider that the UK has shown it will resort to violence to get what it wants out of the embassies.
What utter nonsense. What violence ?
They'll be held as oath-breakers -- they won't be trusted for a long time with keeping their word on anything negotiated diplomatically.
So basically what you're saying here is any old fool can travel to a country, commit a crime there, and then dash into the nearest embassy to avoid being prosecuted ?
Do you really think that is how international law works ? Do you imagine for one second that this kind of conduct would be tolerated in any country ? Do you really think that if I visited Ecuador, stole a car and then showed up in an embassy with a suitcase full of cash requesting asylum that I should be allowed to get away with it ?