I challenge you to delve into my comment history, go on do it. You will find significant periods in my comment history where I am *substantially* more active than the examples you give for Cold Fjord.
Am I a paid forum-manipulator? I wish. It's trivially easy to post a lot of comments even when doing a full days work for an employer.
I was installing Win8 (64bit) on a brand new, blank SSD in the machine - the Mac would boot the Windows DVD install media, Win8 would partition and install onto the SSD but then on the first post file copy reboot, the Mac would flat out refuse to boot the Win8 install. Tried both refind and refit as alternative boot managers, same result.
As I said, in the end the only setup that worked for me was to install OSX and use the BootCamp environment:( Just having Win8 on the disk resulted in a non-booting system.
Have you tried installing Win8 on a Mac as the sole installed OS? I tried for a full week and never accomplished it, so I now have a useless 8GB OSX partition that never gets used...:(
I shall point to both your comment and kernel.org when there's another Slashdot story abut a Linux kernel point release or indeed another OpenOffice or LibreOffice point release.
Bullshit - ad blockers were popular well before tracking became the issue, most people wanted to block ads because they didn't want to see them, not because they gave a fuck about being tracked or not. The tracking issue has only become widely followed in the past couple of years.
I think that's slightly different, because it mainly dealt with two groups of people (blacks and women) who weren't trying to join a community, they were already part of it through historical action on the part of others (blacks were mainly forcibly taken from their own communities and could not return, women had been subjugated for thousands of years within their community).
Gearbox wear is constantly monitored anyway by vibration levels and oil consumption - GE, P&W and RR all get the data in near time, and know when an engine change is required before the airline.
Yes the composite skin is laid down in strips, but that's not what that is - that's the ribs and stringers that go together to form the internal fuselage structure, which is bonded to the skin to give it rigidity.
And how do we know that Snowden didn't construct these slides precisely to become "Assange-like" in the hope that he could create enough of a public following to become "untouchable", while actually delivering the real stuff to his handler?
In other words, making a huge public fuss was his back up plan when he got caught.
The US Airforce has been flying older jets via remote control for decades as part of the drone conversion programme to allow for air to air and surface to air missile testing and training - currently they are on the early F-16s after expending the F-4 inventory.
Well, that means the US and the UK were correct - Iraq *did* have weapons of mass destruction, it had millions of such weapons. Infact, pretty much every country has them.
In sane-land, this is ridiculous. If it wasn't, how about the US stop blocking the extradition for all the IRA terrorists and money men the UK have been seeking for the past 40 years?
Does anyone else feel confused by the fact that there was 93 years between that famous paragraph being written down and codified in a document, and the actual laws coming into effect that guaranteed every citizen of the united states an equal vote?
I can think of at least one significant part of the US Constituion which definitely assumed that not everyone was created equal...
In the UK that's all covered by the data protection act, yes including private shop CCTV - for a nominal fee (£20 or so) I can request copies of all records, digital or otherwise, video or otherwise, that they have on me.
Yes, our navy is much diminished these days, but it is of a much higher quality than in 1982. Today, we have multiple submarines that could take part in tactical strikes on both the islands and the Argentinian mainland rather than just the one submarine that had to stand off from the fight and could only be assigned to shadowing the Belgrano. Today we have a fleet with air defences that are order of magnitudes better than those of the fleet in 1982 (at least one of the major sinking was due to the recently installed systems randomly crashing). Today we have a detatchment of modern warplanes on the islands themselves, rather than just a tired detatchment of soldiers defending them.
And all of that ignores the fact that the Argentinians haven't progressed their forces at all in the intervening period!
Its more expensive and they get a kickback for marketing it, thats why car makers are pushing it.
Same reason so many washing machine manufacturers recommend Calgon, or a particular brand of detergent, rather than those brands doing their own marketing.
What I think is definitely odd is that people seemingly don't seem to educate themselves before "wondering" about things. The court ruling touches on your "issue".
It might also harm your claim that Assange does not fall under the definition of a "refugee" under those very protocols that you mention.
Oh, and also, neither of those conventions or protocols require a country to ignore its own law with regard to actionable arrest warrants unrelated to refugee status - so even if he did fall under the definition, there is still nothing there which requires Britain to grant him passage out of the Ecuadorian embassy...
Would you like to point to the precise, actual line which covers your assertion?
Yes, I am technically literate enough to google it, but *you* are the one who made the assertion without backing it up - so therefor, provide evidence to back your position up please.
Please show where a country is obligated to allow a person who has a valid arrest warrant outstanding to be allowed safe passage out of their jurisdiction. Go on, please do.
swedish prosecutors have been given access to assange in jail, in the embassy, and during his house arrest on bail to which they declined
Oh look, another Assange supporter who hasn't bothered to read the Court rulings...
The Court covers such offers of questioning-while-remaining-outside-judicial-authority, and gives good reasons as to why it was declined.
From the 2nd November 2011 British Court ruling against Assange:
Mr Assange submitted that even if under the EAW he was technically a person accused of offences, it was disproportionate to seek his surrender under the EAW. That was because, as he had to be questioned before a decision was made on prosecution, he had offered to be questioned over a video link. It would therefore have been proportionate to question him in that way and to have reached a decision on whether to charge him before issuing the EAW. (para 155)
The Court dismissed this argument on the facts. The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:
"First, in this case, the challenge to the issue of the warrant for the arrest of Mr Assange failed before the Court of Appeal of Svea. In those circumstances, taking into account the respect this court should accord the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea in relation to proceedings governed by Swedish procedural law, we do not consider the decision to issue the EAW could be said to be disproportionate.
"Second and in any event, this is self evidently not a case relating to a trivial offence, but to serious sexual offences. Assuming proportionality is a requirement, it is difficult to see what real scope there is for the argument in circumstances where a Swedish Court of Appeal has taken the view, as part of Swedish procedure, that an arrest is necessary." (paras 158 - 159)
He added:
"... The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of prosecution. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute." (para 160)
Once again the *court* shoots down a common argument made about Assanges situation in these threads...
Further to my previous comment, see the following British Court ruling, dated 2nd November 2011:
The EAW sets out four offences:
“1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.” (para 3)
Slashdot Mirror
Nice, but it still leaves me with a pointless chunk of 8GB space before the Windows partition that you can't do much with :)
You do realise its possible for other people to have opinions that differ from your own, right?
You are the one carrying out the straw man and ad homenim attacks throughout these comments, not Cold Fjord. What does that make you?
I challenge you to delve into my comment history, go on do it. You will find significant periods in my comment history where I am *substantially* more active than the examples you give for Cold Fjord.
Am I a paid forum-manipulator? I wish. It's trivially easy to post a lot of comments even when doing a full days work for an employer.
I was installing Win8 (64bit) on a brand new, blank SSD in the machine - the Mac would boot the Windows DVD install media, Win8 would partition and install onto the SSD but then on the first post file copy reboot, the Mac would flat out refuse to boot the Win8 install. Tried both refind and refit as alternative boot managers, same result.
As I said, in the end the only setup that worked for me was to install OSX and use the BootCamp environment :( Just having Win8 on the disk resulted in a non-booting system.
Have you tried installing Win8 on a Mac as the sole installed OS? I tried for a full week and never accomplished it, so I now have a useless 8GB OSX partition that never gets used... :(
I shall point to both your comment and kernel.org when there's another Slashdot story abut a Linux kernel point release or indeed another OpenOffice or LibreOffice point release.
Why?
Bullshit - ad blockers were popular well before tracking became the issue, most people wanted to block ads because they didn't want to see them, not because they gave a fuck about being tracked or not. The tracking issue has only become widely followed in the past couple of years.
I think that's slightly different, because it mainly dealt with two groups of people (blacks and women) who weren't trying to join a community, they were already part of it through historical action on the part of others (blacks were mainly forcibly taken from their own communities and could not return, women had been subjugated for thousands of years within their community).
Gearbox wear is constantly monitored anyway by vibration levels and oil consumption - GE, P&W and RR all get the data in near time, and know when an engine change is required before the airline.
Yes the composite skin is laid down in strips, but that's not what that is - that's the ribs and stringers that go together to form the internal fuselage structure, which is bonded to the skin to give it rigidity.
Would you have the same opinion if the oil companies together decided that you should pay $30 a gallon for gas?
Are they owed those things?
And how do we know that Snowden didn't construct these slides precisely to become "Assange-like" in the hope that he could create enough of a public following to become "untouchable", while actually delivering the real stuff to his handler?
In other words, making a huge public fuss was his back up plan when he got caught.
The US Airforce has been flying older jets via remote control for decades as part of the drone conversion programme to allow for air to air and surface to air missile testing and training - currently they are on the early F-16s after expending the F-4 inventory.
Well, that means the US and the UK were correct - Iraq *did* have weapons of mass destruction, it had millions of such weapons. Infact, pretty much every country has them.
In sane-land, this is ridiculous. If it wasn't, how about the US stop blocking the extradition for all the IRA terrorists and money men the UK have been seeking for the past 40 years?
Does anyone else feel confused by the fact that there was 93 years between that famous paragraph being written down and codified in a document, and the actual laws coming into effect that guaranteed every citizen of the united states an equal vote?
I can think of at least one significant part of the US Constituion which definitely assumed that not everyone was created equal...
In the UK that's all covered by the data protection act, yes including private shop CCTV - for a nominal fee (£20 or so) I can request copies of all records, digital or otherwise, video or otherwise, that they have on me.
Yes, our navy is much diminished these days, but it is of a much higher quality than in 1982. Today, we have multiple submarines that could take part in tactical strikes on both the islands and the Argentinian mainland rather than just the one submarine that had to stand off from the fight and could only be assigned to shadowing the Belgrano. Today we have a fleet with air defences that are order of magnitudes better than those of the fleet in 1982 (at least one of the major sinking was due to the recently installed systems randomly crashing). Today we have a detatchment of modern warplanes on the islands themselves, rather than just a tired detatchment of soldiers defending them.
And all of that ignores the fact that the Argentinians haven't progressed their forces at all in the intervening period!
Its more expensive and they get a kickback for marketing it, thats why car makers are pushing it.
Same reason so many washing machine manufacturers recommend Calgon, or a particular brand of detergent, rather than those brands doing their own marketing.
What I think is definitely odd is that people seemingly don't seem to educate themselves before "wondering" about things. The court ruling touches on your "issue".
It might also harm your claim that Assange does not fall under the definition of a "refugee" under those very protocols that you mention.
Oh, and also, neither of those conventions or protocols require a country to ignore its own law with regard to actionable arrest warrants unrelated to refugee status - so even if he did fall under the definition, there is still nothing there which requires Britain to grant him passage out of the Ecuadorian embassy...
Would you like to point to the precise, actual line which covers your assertion?
Yes, I am technically literate enough to google it, but *you* are the one who made the assertion without backing it up - so therefor, provide evidence to back your position up please.
Please show where a country is obligated to allow a person who has a valid arrest warrant outstanding to be allowed safe passage out of their jurisdiction. Go on, please do.
swedish prosecutors have been given access to assange in jail, in the embassy, and during his house arrest on bail to which they declined
Oh look, another Assange supporter who hasn't bothered to read the Court rulings...
The Court covers such offers of questioning-while-remaining-outside-judicial-authority, and gives good reasons as to why it was declined.
From the 2nd November 2011 British Court ruling against Assange:
Once again the *court* shoots down a common argument made about Assanges situation in these threads...
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf
Further to my previous comment, see the following British Court ruling, dated 2nd November 2011:
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf