You should read the judgements handed down by the extradition court judges in their rulings - they assert that all the allegations against Assange in the European Arrest Warrant and extradition request does indeed qualify as rape under UK law. That Telegraph story is based on what Assanges lawyers said, not what is actual fact.
In all the challenges made under "dual criminality" (ie, the fact that the offences must be comparable offences under the executing member state as well as the requesting member state), the judges ruled that "dual criminality" was satisfied under UK law and Assanges challenges were dismissed. The rulings in this regard runs from page 15 to page 32 in the rulings PDF.
The vehicle would be registered and taxed based on its weight and displacement, so any damage to the road should be covered under the cost of the road fund license (commonly called vehicle tax or road tax), which is set by the DVLA.
If the vehicle is driven with its road track blocks installed (rubber blocks that go on the tracks) then in theory it should have a lower pavement weight than a similarly heavy lorry, as the vehicles weight has a greater footprint, and thus lowers the stress on the road.
Really? The HMRC in the UK is very quick at giving overpayments and corrections back - on a few occasions I have had cheques simply turn up without any requests or even knowing I was due one.
I think engaging in a modern war when there is a legal basis for said war is something that is acceptable, and if that is acceptable, then whatever can be done to remove our sides people from harms way is also acceptable.
Therefore drones are a natural, acceptable progression from manned aircraft, whether they are conducting reconnaissance or dropping ordnance. A drone doesn't increase the number of people that one person can kill effectively, in-fact the current crop of drones are a reduction in offensive capability when compared with a pilot in a modern fighter jet such as the F-16 or Eurofighter. What the drone does is remove the pilot from potential harm.
Why are drones singled out as the big evil in this regard? How many faces do you think F-16 or B-1B pilots see before and after they drop their bombs on the designated target? Drones haven't changed that, they just move the pilot out of harms way.
I suggest you go and read the treaties and agreements that were signed at that point by Greece - the European Monetary Union had been a long standing goal of EU founder member states since before Greece joined the EU, and provisions were included in member state agreements and treaties requiring all states without a viable opt out clause (only a couple of states had this, including Denmark and the UK) to join the EMU in due course.
The EMU became the Euro currency and the European Central Bank banking system during 1992 with the signing of the Maastrict Treaty, and member states from that point onward were bound by the agreements they had already signed when joining.
Why was the subcompacts insurance responsible in that scenario?
In the UK that would be a clear cut case of the larger vehicle that rear-ended the subcompact being in the wrong (driving without due care and attention, failure to maintain a required stopping distance etc) - in the UK, cases of rear ending are very hard to fight in court from the aspect of the person doing the rear ending, you have to have some very good evidence to prove that you were not doing anything wrong (eg you were driving along as normal, maintaining correct stopping distances etc, when suddenly someone pulls directly in front of you and slams their brakes on causing you to go into the back - if you have a forward facing camera in that circumstance, you could fight it, but otherwise you will be paying up).
The massive plus point is that the images can be stored for later analysis in situations where there is a suspicion that something was missed or glossed over.
The problem is, it ends without answers - which seems to be an issue with many authors these days (Alastair Reynolds, I'm looking at you - several good concepts either dropped or petering out). Why does this seem to be a trend these days?
Except there would be no access without authorisation - Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd owns the computers and thus has the authorisation to access the data, and it says as much in the Azure terms and conditions.
Regardless of which way you cut it, no US court is going to allow the extradition of a US judge who has issued a legitimate and valid court order in his jurisdiction - the fact that his court order requires someone to potentially breach another countries laws is not in his circle of concern, and you cannot work around jurisdictions in such a manner.
The fact of the matter is that the company should not have placed itself in a situation where it comes under conflicting jurisdictions when it may be faced with either having to refuse a legitimate court order or break a countries laws. That is a conundrum the companies legal team should have been considering from the moment the company came under multiple jurisdictions.
Microsoft is an American company, and is the sole owner of Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd, and thus the jurisdiction over both entities exists and is demonstrable for an American Judicial Court and Judge.
But the Judge isn't requiring you to break the law in *his* jurisdiction but rather to follow it, and that is what matters to that Judge and that Court - no extradition would go ahead on that basis.
US courts are not constrained by laws of a foreign country, just as foreign courts are not constrained by US laws - when a US court rules within the boundaries of US law, whether or not that ruling would cause a company or person to violate a foreign law should not come into consideration. It may put the company or person in a difficult position, but that's not should not be the concern of the court.
That depends on whose profit you are talking about - the aircraft made a profit for its operators, British Airways and Air France, but lost its manufacturers money. Two entirely different set of accounts, and its easy to turn that on its head for other aircraft as well - the Boeing 747 made Boeing a lot of money, but while it bankrupted more than a few airlines whose egos were bigger than their fiscal abilities, you wouldn't say that the Boeing 747 wasn't profitable for Boeing.
The reason it lost its manufacturers money was because of the 1970s oil crisis, it had plenty of orders before that baby hit - indeed, the oil crisis depressed the entire airline industry, and many people believe that if the Concorde production run had outlasted the effects of the oil crisis, orders would have resurfaced, but alas the order book was filled (at least in terms of long lead time parts) before the crisis passed, and thus no more orders were possible.
The Convair 880 and 990 were also profitable for its operators, but lost its manufacturer money. Same goes for the L1011. But operators loved both types and they lasted decades in operational service precisely because they were profitable to fly.
Aerion is classed as a joke in the industry, and have been pushing their supersonic business jet concept for a number of years without actually getting anywhere. Their "collaboration with Airbus" is limited to use of Airbuses technical facilities, Airbus isnt actually involved in the design, manufacture or promotion of the concept.
Pause for a moment and consider why Aerion thinks they can produce a profitable supersonic business jet when companies with decades of experience building successful business jets have already largely dismissed the idea in the same timeframe?
Boeing pushed the Sonic Cruiser concept, which was a half way house in that it flew at just under the speed of sound (mach 0.98) rather than well over the speed of sound (mach 2, which is about where Concorde sat during cruise) - not enough timesaving benefit there to actually justify the additional costs in running such an aircraft, so it was easier to justify cost savings in having a more efficient aircraft to replace current aircraft on a similar basis. And thus the Boeing 787 was born.
Neither major manufacturer (Boeing and Airbus) pitched a new supersonic aircraft in any seriousness.
Actually, the biggest problem was indeed the sonic booms - from the airlines privatisation in the 1980s and right up until 9/11, Concorde was profitable for British Airways on the trans-atlantic routes it typically operated on, and one of the main reasons Concorde became less profitable after that was because a lot of the services clientèle were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The crash didn't help of course, but the aircraft was still profitable after that point.
The main issue was the major restrictions on the service over land - it was forbidden from flying supersonic over pretty much every land mass, meaning it had no benefits on overland routes than a more spacious aircraft (Concorde had a smaller cabin than a Boeing 737, with only a 4 across seating arrangement rather than the 737s 6 across), so the economics of those routes were murdered by the restrictions on causing sonic booms. On routes which allowed Concorde to show its legs, airlines made a profit.
Its not just a case of if stuff was changed - what if users had checked in credentials or other keys into private repositories on GitHub? A git clone doesn't show up in a repositories logs, so you would never know that your credentials or keys had been compromised, potentially allowing attackers further access to your infrastructure.
Yes, we all know that credentials and keys should not be checked into source control, but we all know that it happens on a frequent basis, even if accidentally done.
Slashdot Mirror
You should read the judgements handed down by the extradition court judges in their rulings - they assert that all the allegations against Assange in the European Arrest Warrant and extradition request does indeed qualify as rape under UK law. That Telegraph story is based on what Assanges lawyers said, not what is actual fact.
Read the original ruling here: http://www.theguardian.com/media/interactive/2011/nov/02/julian-assange-extradition-full-judgment
In all the challenges made under "dual criminality" (ie, the fact that the offences must be comparable offences under the executing member state as well as the requesting member state), the judges ruled that "dual criminality" was satisfied under UK law and Assanges challenges were dismissed. The rulings in this regard runs from page 15 to page 32 in the rulings PDF.
The vehicle would be registered and taxed based on its weight and displacement, so any damage to the road should be covered under the cost of the road fund license (commonly called vehicle tax or road tax), which is set by the DVLA.
If the vehicle is driven with its road track blocks installed (rubber blocks that go on the tracks) then in theory it should have a lower pavement weight than a similarly heavy lorry, as the vehicles weight has a greater footprint, and thus lowers the stress on the road.
Really? The HMRC in the UK is very quick at giving overpayments and corrections back - on a few occasions I have had cheques simply turn up without any requests or even knowing I was due one.
Anyone can have multiple jobs...
I think engaging in a modern war when there is a legal basis for said war is something that is acceptable, and if that is acceptable, then whatever can be done to remove our sides people from harms way is also acceptable.
Therefore drones are a natural, acceptable progression from manned aircraft, whether they are conducting reconnaissance or dropping ordnance. A drone doesn't increase the number of people that one person can kill effectively, in-fact the current crop of drones are a reduction in offensive capability when compared with a pilot in a modern fighter jet such as the F-16 or Eurofighter. What the drone does is remove the pilot from potential harm.
Why are drones singled out as the big evil in this regard? How many faces do you think F-16 or B-1B pilots see before and after they drop their bombs on the designated target? Drones haven't changed that, they just move the pilot out of harms way.
I suggest you go and read the treaties and agreements that were signed at that point by Greece - the European Monetary Union had been a long standing goal of EU founder member states since before Greece joined the EU, and provisions were included in member state agreements and treaties requiring all states without a viable opt out clause (only a couple of states had this, including Denmark and the UK) to join the EMU in due course.
The EMU became the Euro currency and the European Central Bank banking system during 1992 with the signing of the Maastrict Treaty, and member states from that point onward were bound by the agreements they had already signed when joining.
Why was the subcompacts insurance responsible in that scenario?
In the UK that would be a clear cut case of the larger vehicle that rear-ended the subcompact being in the wrong (driving without due care and attention, failure to maintain a required stopping distance etc) - in the UK, cases of rear ending are very hard to fight in court from the aspect of the person doing the rear ending, you have to have some very good evidence to prove that you were not doing anything wrong (eg you were driving along as normal, maintaining correct stopping distances etc, when suddenly someone pulls directly in front of you and slams their brakes on causing you to go into the back - if you have a forward facing camera in that circumstance, you could fight it, but otherwise you will be paying up).
The massive plus point is that the images can be stored for later analysis in situations where there is a suspicion that something was missed or glossed over.
When they joined the EU, they took on the requirement of joining the Euro, so yes, joining the EU was the problem.
How many people have been released from Guantánamo Bay without charge after multiple years of enforced captivity?
The problem is, it ends without answers - which seems to be an issue with many authors these days (Alastair Reynolds, I'm looking at you - several good concepts either dropped or petering out). Why does this seem to be a trend these days?
Eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, exercise regularly - and still end up in ER because you got hit by a drunk driver....
Except that Google is developing AngularJS 2 in TypeScript, which is also Microsofts "baby".
Except there would be no access without authorisation - Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd owns the computers and thus has the authorisation to access the data, and it says as much in the Azure terms and conditions.
Regardless of which way you cut it, no US court is going to allow the extradition of a US judge who has issued a legitimate and valid court order in his jurisdiction - the fact that his court order requires someone to potentially breach another countries laws is not in his circle of concern, and you cannot work around jurisdictions in such a manner.
The fact of the matter is that the company should not have placed itself in a situation where it comes under conflicting jurisdictions when it may be faced with either having to refuse a legitimate court order or break a countries laws. That is a conundrum the companies legal team should have been considering from the moment the company came under multiple jurisdictions.
Microsoft is an American company, and is the sole owner of Microsoft Ireland Operations Ltd, and thus the jurisdiction over both entities exists and is demonstrable for an American Judicial Court and Judge.
But the Judge isn't requiring you to break the law in *his* jurisdiction but rather to follow it, and that is what matters to that Judge and that Court - no extradition would go ahead on that basis.
Your point is what, exactly? Those two groups of people cover entirely different demographics.
US courts are not constrained by laws of a foreign country, just as foreign courts are not constrained by US laws - when a US court rules within the boundaries of US law, whether or not that ruling would cause a company or person to violate a foreign law should not come into consideration. It may put the company or person in a difficult position, but that's not should not be the concern of the court.
More to the point, can a US court force Facebook to provide a service they do not want to provide and have no contract to provide?
That depends on whose profit you are talking about - the aircraft made a profit for its operators, British Airways and Air France, but lost its manufacturers money. Two entirely different set of accounts, and its easy to turn that on its head for other aircraft as well - the Boeing 747 made Boeing a lot of money, but while it bankrupted more than a few airlines whose egos were bigger than their fiscal abilities, you wouldn't say that the Boeing 747 wasn't profitable for Boeing.
The reason it lost its manufacturers money was because of the 1970s oil crisis, it had plenty of orders before that baby hit - indeed, the oil crisis depressed the entire airline industry, and many people believe that if the Concorde production run had outlasted the effects of the oil crisis, orders would have resurfaced, but alas the order book was filled (at least in terms of long lead time parts) before the crisis passed, and thus no more orders were possible.
The Convair 880 and 990 were also profitable for its operators, but lost its manufacturer money. Same goes for the L1011. But operators loved both types and they lasted decades in operational service precisely because they were profitable to fly.
Aerion is classed as a joke in the industry, and have been pushing their supersonic business jet concept for a number of years without actually getting anywhere. Their "collaboration with Airbus" is limited to use of Airbuses technical facilities, Airbus isnt actually involved in the design, manufacture or promotion of the concept.
Pause for a moment and consider why Aerion thinks they can produce a profitable supersonic business jet when companies with decades of experience building successful business jets have already largely dismissed the idea in the same timeframe?
Boeing pushed the Sonic Cruiser concept, which was a half way house in that it flew at just under the speed of sound (mach 0.98) rather than well over the speed of sound (mach 2, which is about where Concorde sat during cruise) - not enough timesaving benefit there to actually justify the additional costs in running such an aircraft, so it was easier to justify cost savings in having a more efficient aircraft to replace current aircraft on a similar basis. And thus the Boeing 787 was born.
Neither major manufacturer (Boeing and Airbus) pitched a new supersonic aircraft in any seriousness.
Actually, the biggest problem was indeed the sonic booms - from the airlines privatisation in the 1980s and right up until 9/11, Concorde was profitable for British Airways on the trans-atlantic routes it typically operated on, and one of the main reasons Concorde became less profitable after that was because a lot of the services clientèle were killed in the 9/11 attacks. The crash didn't help of course, but the aircraft was still profitable after that point.
The main issue was the major restrictions on the service over land - it was forbidden from flying supersonic over pretty much every land mass, meaning it had no benefits on overland routes than a more spacious aircraft (Concorde had a smaller cabin than a Boeing 737, with only a 4 across seating arrangement rather than the 737s 6 across), so the economics of those routes were murdered by the restrictions on causing sonic booms. On routes which allowed Concorde to show its legs, airlines made a profit.
Its not just a case of if stuff was changed - what if users had checked in credentials or other keys into private repositories on GitHub? A git clone doesn't show up in a repositories logs, so you would never know that your credentials or keys had been compromised, potentially allowing attackers further access to your infrastructure.
Yes, we all know that credentials and keys should not be checked into source control, but we all know that it happens on a frequent basis, even if accidentally done.