And yet again you miss the point - I'm beginning to think on purpose.
The public reason Assange doesnt want to go to Sweden is because he fears an onward extradition to the US.
And yet he didn't seem to have the same fear while being within the UK's jurisdiction. He was quite willing to live here, use the legal system, stay at a UK address, and even surrender himself briefly to a UK prison until bail was arranged. He didn't seem to fear extradition to the US then - even though its as easy to extradite to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden.
At any point between Assange arriving in the UK and fleeing to the embassy, the US could have filed for extradition - but they didn't, and Assange was free to use the English legal system for 18 months and live in the UK.
The only time he started to fear extradition to Sweden was when it became a certainty - he doesnt want to go to Sweden to face the accusations against him. The US extradition aspect is nothing but bullshit he enjoys feeding to his supporters to divert them from the fact that he simply doesn't want to go to court in Sweden.
Is that clear enough for you? You have tangentially skirted the issue in each reply now, posting a reply that isn't quite a reply, just more pro-Assange bullshit. If Assange truly feared extradition to the US, he would never have come to the UK in the first place. And yet he came - to a country that very famously has a relationship that is called the "special relationship" with the country he purportedly is terrified about being extradited to. Is he just plain stupid? Was he too engrossed in a good book that day? Or is his excuse simply that, a shockly shite excuse?
And if the prosecutor wants all options? Why would they waste a trip if they can't act on the likely outcome? What new information does Assange have at this point that he can clear his name with in such an interview?
Assange didnt give a fuck about the ability for the UK to (just as easily as Sweden) extradite him to the US in the significant time between him arriving in the UK and him absconding UK bail to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
So how about you take your nose out from between Assanges ass cheeks and get a grip on what is actually being discussed, because you don't seem to be understanding basic concepts in this thread.
To be extradited to the US from the UK, Assange didn't have to have committed a crime in the UK, he simply has to be extradited under the concept of dual criminality - and yes, receiving and publishing classified information does indeed breach several UK statutes which are the equivalent of US laws.
As for the repeated crap about being interviewed within the Embassy, see my other post on that topic - the intention of the prosecutor is to charge him, and under the Swedish criminal legal process, he has to be questioned before he can be charged. So there is no point in interviewing him at his leisure within the embassy, because he cannot be forced to leave by the Swedish prosecutor.
Oh yay, some one who didn't take note of the very example I posted in my original post in this thread - the one where someone who did nothing illegal in the UK was extradited to the US. I even linked to the very story here on Slashdot. This has been done several times.
Assange could easily be extradited to the US under that same treaty, without having done anything illegal in the UK.
investigation into the rape (Sweden's legal interpretation of the term) allegations
This seems to be a common fallacy about the Assange story - that the Swedish allegations wouldnt be valid in any other country.
Not just Swedens legal interpretation - under UK law, unless specifically excluded by treaty, there has to be "dual criminality" involved in the extradition charges for the warrant to be valid in the UK. At every stage of Assanges extradition hearings, each judge found the charges to meet the dual criminality requirement in full - what the Swedes called "rape" is also rape in the UK under UK law.
So its not just Swedens legal interpretation of the term, its the British legal interpretation of the term as well. You can go and read any of the extradition judgements against him, they all affirm this decision.
During that time, there have been repeated requests for the Swedish prosecutor to question him in the embassy as a guest of the Ecuadorians. She refused every single one and never gave a reason why, something that got her censured by her own people for basically fucking around over what, on the face of it, was a simple and straightforward case.
Also what seems to be ignored is the following:
1. Assange has been "arrested in absence" and under Swedish law cannot be charged before being interviewed. The prosecutor has repeatedly stated that the intention is to charge Assange, which is why he hasn't been interviewed in the Ecuadorian Embassy - it wouldn't achieve the goal that the prosecutor has.
2. There was a scheduled meeting between him and the prosecutor that Assange failed to return to Sweden for - it was at this interview that Assange was to be arrested and formally charged by the prosecutor. The failure to attend this meeting triggered the EAW application.
3. Why should any prosecutor interview a suspect on the suspects terms?
And what does that have anything to do with anything? Or are you forgetting that Assange voluntarily came to the UK and spent more than a year living under bail conditions in the UK while he fought the European Arrest Warrant against him? He was even in a British prison for a time.
Where was his fear about being extradited from the UK directly to the US?
In short, Assange didn't give one shit about how easy it was to be extradited from the UK to the US, despite it being demonstrably easier than from Sweden. Until it became something he could use to rally supporters that is...
They are the ones claiming this is a "state action", and lets not forget that Assange and his group has form for outrageous claims - such as that when he was on bail in the UK, someone set up spy cameras outside the bail address, only for those cameras to be proven to predate Assange and also be nothing more than sensors for speed signs...
Or it could simply be a load of bullshit - how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection? Or did they have a new line put in and gave the billing contact as "Julian Assange"?
Lets quote the article on something:
He claims the extradition is actually a bid to move him to a jurisdiction from which he can then be sent to the US, which is known to be actively investigating WikiLeaks.
Oh look, lets see how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK, where he fled to to avoid any easy extradition to the US. Lets pick a random story from Slashdot, a few stories below this one on the front page right now - Accused British 'Flash Crash' Stock Trader To Be Extradited To The US.
Assange is full of bullshit, and this is just another story designed to keep people talking about poor lil 'ol Assange, holed up in some shithole embassy in London - just like the last story was, when they cancelled his royal appearance due to "security concerns".
Wrong, "English law" refers to the legal system of common law in England and Wales (and that is known as English Law) - Scotland has its own legal system (Scots Law), as does Northern Ireland.
Neither the United Kingdom nor Britain has a single legal system.
You probably had grounds to force the payment of the severance anyway, in your case, as its a UK company and under British rules severance is not contingent on anything - the company makes you redundant and pays your severance, they cannot put strings on it. You would probably have had to file in a UK court, but thats not much of an issue.
That is why you don't hear of these horror stories of "I had to train my replacement" in the UK - we simply don't have to do that.
You do realise that the US has used its ownership of ICANN and IANA to seize websites belonging to Iranian, Iraqi, Afghan and other countries nationals right? Simply because it labels the owners of those websites a particular way...
If there is any, and I mean *any*, evidence that Trumps communications to said senior Russian officials came with a "wink and a nod", or indeed anything more specific, then there is every reason for the FBI to get involved....
You realise that Kosovo fought a particularly bloody war of independence against Serbia in the 1990s after the breakup of Yugoslavia and, after a period of protectionism under UN administration, declared independence from Serbia in 2008 - that independence is recognised by 109 UN members, so it is not a pseudo-state, it is a state by recognition, and Serbia would most definitely want Kosovo back if it were to be allowed...
This story is a couple of hours after the allegation story, if that story was updated with the denial and explanation now, there would be near zero discussion on the denial and explanation while the outrage about the allegation would stand in full.
That is why something as big as this is due two separate stories when the allegation and denial are that far apart - now go discuss the new "information" on the topic, does it change any viewpoints from the last story? Lets watch and find out.
A couple of years ago I decided to actually go and get a CS degree after 15 years of on-the-job experience. I chose a well known, internationally recognised distance learning university and picked one of their CS-Maths combined degrees so as to learn something new.
The maths side of things was awesome.
The CS part was dismal - one of the first year courses was around handling mobile devices on web pages. The approaches they taught were either doing a client side xml transform, using JS to switch out the desktop style sheet for a mobile optimised one, or using JS to redirect the client to a mobile specific site.
And it went downhill from there.
I've also run into CS degree with hons holders who couldn't code worth shit.
I don't hold much faith in academia when it comes to CS.
I think she honestly thought they could make it work - they already use trace multipliers in other areas of medical testing, such as DNA tests, so a company that could come up with a way to do that for all sorts of other tests (being able to do a battery of tests on a drop of blood rather than the two or three vials they have to use these days for certain things) would make a mint, and the science is already there for other tests, so...
But once they determined the trace multipliers thye had come up with didn't work, they should have come clean right there and then. Not turned it from a failed venture into a fraudulent one.
There is a concept that is alive and well in contract law called "Torturous Interference" - if Netflix did indeed incite these execs to breach their contracts, they have a case to answer.
A modern Tomahawk cruise missile has an inventory cost of around $750,000. Once you use it, you have to replace it at full cost.
An F-35A's flight cost is around $40,000 per flight hour (google exactly what a flight hour is) and is expected to fall to around $30,000/fh in due course.
A 5 hour mission designed to hit 5 targets means 5 Tomahawk missiles expended, at a cost of $3.75million for the mission.
The same mission for the F-35A would cost, currently, $200,000 in flight hours, and $135,000 for 5 Mk.82 bombs with JDAM kits - a total mission cost of $335,000.
The mission cost difference is a saving of about $3.4Million, give or take.
So, with a current purchase cost of $98Million for a LRIP (low rate initial production) F-35A, it would only need to fly 30 or so missions to be worth while, over the cost of continually buying expendable cruise missiles to carry out the same missions.
How does that work out in real life?
During the second Gulf War air campaign, there were 20,753 combat sorties by coalition aircraft, during which they used 18,467 smart bombs and 9,251 dumb bombs.
That war, if fought by using cruise missiles solely, would set you back $20.8Billion just to replace your expended ordnance.
Take the aircraft costs out of the equation for a moment - replacing all those expended munitions with JDAMs would cost $748Million, leaving a balance of more than $20Billion to cover the operating costs of the aircraft...
You could buy a fleet of 100 F-35s and operate them for just under half their entire projected life on the balance alone...
Slashdot Mirror
And yet again you miss the point - I'm beginning to think on purpose.
The public reason Assange doesnt want to go to Sweden is because he fears an onward extradition to the US.
And yet he didn't seem to have the same fear while being within the UK's jurisdiction. He was quite willing to live here, use the legal system, stay at a UK address, and even surrender himself briefly to a UK prison until bail was arranged. He didn't seem to fear extradition to the US then - even though its as easy to extradite to the US from the UK as it is from Sweden.
At any point between Assange arriving in the UK and fleeing to the embassy, the US could have filed for extradition - but they didn't, and Assange was free to use the English legal system for 18 months and live in the UK.
The only time he started to fear extradition to Sweden was when it became a certainty - he doesnt want to go to Sweden to face the accusations against him. The US extradition aspect is nothing but bullshit he enjoys feeding to his supporters to divert them from the fact that he simply doesn't want to go to court in Sweden.
Is that clear enough for you? You have tangentially skirted the issue in each reply now, posting a reply that isn't quite a reply, just more pro-Assange bullshit. If Assange truly feared extradition to the US, he would never have come to the UK in the first place. And yet he came - to a country that very famously has a relationship that is called the "special relationship" with the country he purportedly is terrified about being extradited to. Is he just plain stupid? Was he too engrossed in a good book that day? Or is his excuse simply that, a shockly shite excuse?
And if the prosecutor wants all options? Why would they waste a trip if they can't act on the likely outcome? What new information does Assange have at this point that he can clear his name with in such an interview?
And you *still* miss the point!
Assange didnt give a fuck about the ability for the UK to (just as easily as Sweden) extradite him to the US in the significant time between him arriving in the UK and him absconding UK bail to seek asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
So how about you take your nose out from between Assanges ass cheeks and get a grip on what is actually being discussed, because you don't seem to be understanding basic concepts in this thread.
To be extradited to the US from the UK, Assange didn't have to have committed a crime in the UK, he simply has to be extradited under the concept of dual criminality - and yes, receiving and publishing classified information does indeed breach several UK statutes which are the equivalent of US laws.
As for the repeated crap about being interviewed within the Embassy, see my other post on that topic - the intention of the prosecutor is to charge him, and under the Swedish criminal legal process, he has to be questioned before he can be charged. So there is no point in interviewing him at his leisure within the embassy, because he cannot be forced to leave by the Swedish prosecutor.
Oh yay, some one who didn't take note of the very example I posted in my original post in this thread - the one where someone who did nothing illegal in the UK was extradited to the US. I even linked to the very story here on Slashdot. This has been done several times.
Assange could easily be extradited to the US under that same treaty, without having done anything illegal in the UK.
A few points about your post...
This seems to be a common fallacy about the Assange story - that the Swedish allegations wouldnt be valid in any other country.
Not just Swedens legal interpretation - under UK law, unless specifically excluded by treaty, there has to be "dual criminality" involved in the extradition charges for the warrant to be valid in the UK. At every stage of Assanges extradition hearings, each judge found the charges to meet the dual criminality requirement in full - what the Swedes called "rape" is also rape in the UK under UK law.
So its not just Swedens legal interpretation of the term, its the British legal interpretation of the term as well. You can go and read any of the extradition judgements against him, they all affirm this decision.
Also what seems to be ignored is the following:
1. Assange has been "arrested in absence" and under Swedish law cannot be charged before being interviewed. The prosecutor has repeatedly stated that the intention is to charge Assange, which is why he hasn't been interviewed in the Ecuadorian Embassy - it wouldn't achieve the goal that the prosecutor has.
2. There was a scheduled meeting between him and the prosecutor that Assange failed to return to Sweden for - it was at this interview that Assange was to be arrested and formally charged by the prosecutor. The failure to attend this meeting triggered the EAW application.
3. Why should any prosecutor interview a suspect on the suspects terms?
And what does that have anything to do with anything? Or are you forgetting that Assange voluntarily came to the UK and spent more than a year living under bail conditions in the UK while he fought the European Arrest Warrant against him? He was even in a British prison for a time.
Where was his fear about being extradited from the UK directly to the US?
In short, Assange didn't give one shit about how easy it was to be extradited from the UK to the US, despite it being demonstrably easier than from Sweden. Until it became something he could use to rally supporters that is...
Histrionics?
They are the ones claiming this is a "state action", and lets not forget that Assange and his group has form for outrageous claims - such as that when he was on bail in the UK, someone set up spy cameras outside the bail address, only for those cameras to be proven to predate Assange and also be nothing more than sensors for speed signs...
Or it could simply be a load of bullshit - how do you cut off *his* internet connection without cutting off the entire Ecuadorian Embassy's internet connection? Or did they have a new line put in and gave the billing contact as "Julian Assange"?
Lets quote the article on something:
Oh look, lets see how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK, where he fled to to avoid any easy extradition to the US. Lets pick a random story from Slashdot, a few stories below this one on the front page right now - Accused British 'Flash Crash' Stock Trader To Be Extradited To The US.
Assange is full of bullshit, and this is just another story designed to keep people talking about poor lil 'ol Assange, holed up in some shithole embassy in London - just like the last story was, when they cancelled his royal appearance due to "security concerns".
Wrong, "English law" refers to the legal system of common law in England and Wales (and that is known as English Law) - Scotland has its own legal system (Scots Law), as does Northern Ireland.
Neither the United Kingdom nor Britain has a single legal system.
The quote is perfectly accurate.
Hell, the GTA mission where you piloted an RC helicopter to plant explosives on a building site...
You probably had grounds to force the payment of the severance anyway, in your case, as its a UK company and under British rules severance is not contingent on anything - the company makes you redundant and pays your severance, they cannot put strings on it. You would probably have had to file in a UK court, but thats not much of an issue.
That is why you don't hear of these horror stories of "I had to train my replacement" in the UK - we simply don't have to do that.
You do realise that the US has used its ownership of ICANN and IANA to seize websites belonging to Iranian, Iraqi, Afghan and other countries nationals right? Simply because it labels the owners of those websites a particular way...
If there is any, and I mean *any*, evidence that Trumps communications to said senior Russian officials came with a "wink and a nod", or indeed anything more specific, then there is every reason for the FBI to get involved....
You realise that Kosovo fought a particularly bloody war of independence against Serbia in the 1990s after the breakup of Yugoslavia and, after a period of protectionism under UN administration, declared independence from Serbia in 2008 - that independence is recognised by 109 UN members, so it is not a pseudo-state, it is a state by recognition, and Serbia would most definitely want Kosovo back if it were to be allowed...
This story is a couple of hours after the allegation story, if that story was updated with the denial and explanation now, there would be near zero discussion on the denial and explanation while the outrage about the allegation would stand in full.
That is why something as big as this is due two separate stories when the allegation and denial are that far apart - now go discuss the new "information" on the topic, does it change any viewpoints from the last story? Lets watch and find out.
McLaren have denied it in a comment to The Verge:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/9...
Its even worse than that - the second quote can be read that Apple are seeking an investment or buyout *by* McLaren...
A couple of years ago I decided to actually go and get a CS degree after 15 years of on-the-job experience. I chose a well known, internationally recognised distance learning university and picked one of their CS-Maths combined degrees so as to learn something new.
The maths side of things was awesome.
The CS part was dismal - one of the first year courses was around handling mobile devices on web pages. The approaches they taught were either doing a client side xml transform, using JS to switch out the desktop style sheet for a mobile optimised one, or using JS to redirect the client to a mobile specific site.
And it went downhill from there.
I've also run into CS degree with hons holders who couldn't code worth shit.
I don't hold much faith in academia when it comes to CS.
I think she honestly thought they could make it work - they already use trace multipliers in other areas of medical testing, such as DNA tests, so a company that could come up with a way to do that for all sorts of other tests (being able to do a battery of tests on a drop of blood rather than the two or three vials they have to use these days for certain things) would make a mint, and the science is already there for other tests, so...
But once they determined the trace multipliers thye had come up with didn't work, they should have come clean right there and then. Not turned it from a failed venture into a fraudulent one.
Once again, this has nothing to do with non-competes.
This has nothing to do with non-competes.
There is a concept that is alive and well in contract law called "Torturous Interference" - if Netflix did indeed incite these execs to breach their contracts, they have a case to answer.
A modern Tomahawk cruise missile has an inventory cost of around $750,000. Once you use it, you have to replace it at full cost.
An F-35A's flight cost is around $40,000 per flight hour (google exactly what a flight hour is) and is expected to fall to around $30,000/fh in due course.
A 5 hour mission designed to hit 5 targets means 5 Tomahawk missiles expended, at a cost of $3.75million for the mission.
The same mission for the F-35A would cost, currently, $200,000 in flight hours, and $135,000 for 5 Mk.82 bombs with JDAM kits - a total mission cost of $335,000.
The mission cost difference is a saving of about $3.4Million, give or take.
So, with a current purchase cost of $98Million for a LRIP (low rate initial production) F-35A, it would only need to fly 30 or so missions to be worth while, over the cost of continually buying expendable cruise missiles to carry out the same missions.
How does that work out in real life?
During the second Gulf War air campaign, there were 20,753 combat sorties by coalition aircraft, during which they used 18,467 smart bombs and 9,251 dumb bombs.
That war, if fought by using cruise missiles solely, would set you back $20.8Billion just to replace your expended ordnance.
Take the aircraft costs out of the equation for a moment - replacing all those expended munitions with JDAMs would cost $748Million, leaving a balance of more than $20Billion to cover the operating costs of the aircraft...
You could buy a fleet of 100 F-35s and operate them for just under half their entire projected life on the balance alone...
The BBC isnt involved in these new seasons, the series is now owned by the channel Dave.