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.”
Note the fourth offence Assange is sought for under the EAW.
Now, how does the court handle that?
Again, in the 2nd November 2011 court ruling:
The Court rejected Mr Assange’s contention that under the law of England and Wales consent to sexual intercourse on condition a condom was used was remained consent to sexual intercourse even if a condom was not used or removed. (paras 86-91)
The Court considered the issue of Offence 4 and ruled that the conduct described in the EAW was fairly and accurately reported. The President of the Queen's Bench Division concluded:
"It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom....... it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complaint alleges a state of sleep or half sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would have consented to sex without a condom." (para 124)
The court went on to say:
"It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did." (para 126)
The Court ruled that Mr Assange's objections raised in relation to Offence 4 fail.
The British Court agreed that it was indeed a valid offence of rape under the definitions given.
I suggest you go read the extradition rulings against Assange in the British courts, they address your point precisely (several of the things Assange is wanted for questioning over passes the definition of rape in the UK as well). Infact, the extradition rulings cover most of the often cited "issues" people come up with in these discussions - well worth a read if you are actually interested!
Which international law would that be? Ahh right, it wouldn't be because it doesn't actually exist.
Country A granting someone asylum does not obligate country B to do anything at all, including ignoring domestic law and allowing someone with a valid arrest warrant to leave the country. The ony place in which country A's asylum status means anything is in country A.
Your order of events is wrong:) Boeing announced the 787, customers demanded a response from Airbus and so they launched the A350 as an updated A330, which customers rejected and so they launched the A350XWB.
Airbus wasn't caught off guard, and the A380 was not an ego measure - Boeings new 747 proposals were being rejected by customers at the time as they wanted an all new airframe design which would encompass modern aerodynamic efficiency increases over the 747s 1960s vintage. Go and google the 747-500, -600 and -700 concepts as they all existed on paper. Airbus responded to the market demands by supplying a design for an all new VLA airframe.
Airbus basically have the VLA market now, as Boeings response, the 747-800, has seen lukewarm reception at best. Airbus thought they could hold their own in the 200 - 350 passenger market segments with the A330 and A340 models, and nterestingy enough the A330 has infact held its own, and continues to sell even as the 787 becomes available.
Where Airbus did falter was in the top end of the 200 - 350 market, covered by the A340. This was being beaten resoundedly by the Boeing 777, which was launched a decade earlier than the Boeing 787. Airbus are countering the top end of the market with the A350XWB, which will cover the larger 787 variants (-9 and -10) while also covering most of the 777 range as well.
Airbus is confident enough in the A330 that it doesn't see the need to immediately replace it like for like.
Just to round off your post, there was also issues with the fuselage sections that came from US suppliers as well, and Boeing had to re-acquire an entire US company that it had previously sold, just so it could resolve the technical and manufacturing issues in that company.
Boeing announced the Boeing 787 right after Airbus committed to the A380 - Airbus was going for the VLA market, which Boeing had dominated since they launched the Boeing 747 in the 70s as they had no effective competition in that particular market segment.
Once Airbus committed themselves to the VLA segment, Boeing committed itself to the smaller 250 seat segment, in which it already had an aging product in the Boeing 767 - sales of which were rapidly tailing off, and customers were demanding something more efficient.
Airbus responded by announcing a package of updates to their A330 airliner, but customer demand was poor - a lot of large customers wanted an all new fuselage design (the Airbus A330 and A340, both circa 1990 in vintage, used the same fuselage as the A300, which preceded them by 20 years), and carbon fiber as a primary structural component, so Airbus went back to the drawing board and came up with the A350XWB.
Its an aircraft that "Airbus didnt want to build" in the same vein as Boeing "didnt want to build" the Boeing 787, as that program only came about after customers outright rejected Boeings Sonic Cruiser concept in the years leading up to the 787s program launch - the 787 uses many of the same technologies (the carbon fiber barrels for the fuselage), and is a direct follow on from a prior program that was rejected by customers.
Interestingly enough, the Airbus A330, which customers didn't want an updated model of, has sold well over 500 aircraft since that "rejection". You never can tell....
At the same time these systems are vulnerable to 'hackers' they are vulnerable to attack by foreign states.
Aside from the criminal side of the argument about protecting thyself, this point here did make me pause for consideration - my government protects me from attack by foreign states in many other ways, why aren't they protected me from attack across the internet as well?
The British Government spends billions a year maintaining a QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) fleet of aircraft, primed to intercept any foreign aircraft that happens to skirt our shores, it maintains a coastal fleet primed to intercept any foreign ships, it has a nuclear deterrent that costs billions a year, it maintains security at the borders to make it difficult to smuggle arms etc into the country, and it maintains a police force which has anti-terrorism branches specially aimed at preventing foreign attacks within the country.
So where are the protections on the digital borders? And don't say there aren't any digital borders, because there are definitely peering points at which its possible to identify traffic originating from outside the UK.
Where has authority been assumed? The way botnets are taken down is the control nodes are eliminated, not that the infected machines are cleaned - in this case, the control servers may be gone but the end user machines are still infected, they just have nothing controlling them anymore.
The FBI and Microsoft get warrants and court authority which allows them to sieze and control digital assets that disrupts the control nodes, such as domain names, hosting space, IP routes, servers etc - they never touch the infected PCs.
Except in your examples, the second one isn't at all "borrowing". That's you trying to equate it to something it isn't so you can downplay it, in the same manner as those that call it stealing in order to up play it.
The difference is, there is no evidence Amazon was telling the publishers they couldn't sell their books cheaper elsewhere - that's the crux of the issue with the way Apple was doing it here.
And underwent surgery in order to get rid of glasses as they were the worst annoyance in my life - so there's no chance of me using this product.
People don't realise just how much these things are going to negatively affect you - you are going to be cleaning them all the time, they are going to cause irritation and issue with our hair and the side of your head, they are going to range from being unnoticeable to unignorable literally in minutes all throuout the day.
That's my take on it all. The wearable aspect is just a poor substitute for what we have been "promised" in fiction, so until it brings the positives without the negatives that I already went to great lengths to avoid, I'm not buying into it.
The problem with the "spirit" of the law is that now you have two sets of rules - the law, which everyone agrees on, is codified and available in big books, and then you have the "spirit", which some people agree on some of the time, isn't codified, changes from week to week and government to government, and cannot be looked up.
Which is why the "spirit" of the law is nothing but a load of bollocks - if you want someone to not do something, say so in the rules, don't make some extra-legal fluffy bullshit up that you also expect people and companies to adhere to.
I've been following this whole shitfest in the UK quite closely for the past few months, and one amusing thing has consistently struck me - the government are trying to be the goody-goody party in all of this, claiming that the companies involved are being evil and ethically corrupt when it comes to "fair share" taxation, while at the very same time flat out refusing to acknowledge that those companies are not doing anything illegal under the current tax regime.
The government also has ruled out changing the tax law to prevent the current behaviours,because then they lose the trivially easy PR they get from "taking the companies to task" infront of Parliament and the media.
It's time to admit that the current tax law doesn't work once you are above PAYE (that's the government standard taxation for employees - normal people in the UK do not have to do any filings because it's all done by the HMRC for them and tax is taken out of their pay checks each month).
Setting up a company in the UK costs about $40. Doing annual returns for that company costs about $350. By working for that company for no wage, and taking out directors dividends, you save serious amounts of money through not having to pay income tax as the Corporate tax rates are significantly smaller than the income tax rates. This scheme is so heavily and widely used, even MPs in all parties got shamed earlier this year when they were named using it - but it's still completely legal.
No one should be expected to voluntarily pay more tax than they legally are required to, and no one should be shamed for not paying more tax than they are legally required to - if you want someone to pay more tax than they are legally required to, then legally require them to pay more tax! Don't beat around the bush, change the fucking law.
No really, because having EME available and *you* as a developer not using them is exactly the same as EME not being standardised and *you* not using them.
The addition of EME to the spec in no way changes your position, whereas the lack of addition to the spec does affect another developers position. Not including EME negatively affects other developers who want to use it, while including EME doesn't affect other developers who don't want to use it.
If you cannot see the difference between those positions, then you need to ask yourself why.
I'd say that if these were the real things, they are training rounds - versions of the weapon designed to be of the right weight, size and bulk of the original, but have nothing at all to do with actually being able to be used as a real weapon.
Every military has them for every weapon they have in their stock - there are training rounds for nuclear warheads, cruise missiles and even Trident ICBMs.
The crews have to be taught how to handle the weapons, and you do not do that on a live round.
Both of you are somewhat wrong - the UK has a lot of CCTV cameras, certainy, but absolutely no where near the amount that "study" showed. We also have the Data Protection Act, which allows individuals to ask any and all CCTV operators to supply them with a copy of every capture they have made of you, for a minimal fee.
Also, out of the CCTV cameras installed, I'd say much less than half of them are local authority owned, most of them are privately owned and operated - and those that are owned and operated by the LA are still answerable to the DPA.
Great, Android has a greater market share of the smartphone market than iPhone - but one thing you ignore is that, rightly or wrongly, Apple kit seems to have a hipster following and is probably (can't be arsed to find stats to back this up, so its opinion) more likely to be bought by the age range this sort of prank is aimed at.
Android on the other hand also comes available as the cheap I-dont-care-what-phone-it-is-so-long-as-it-makes-calls-and-its-included-free end of the market, which tends to not have so much hipster appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, it is rape. Under Swedish law and UK law.
From the ruling on the 2nd November 2011:
Note the fourth offence Assange is sought for under the EAW.
Now, how does the court handle that?
Again, in the 2nd November 2011 court ruling:
I suggest you go read the extradition rulings against Assange in the British courts, they address your point precisely (several of the things Assange is wanted for questioning over passes the definition of rape in the UK as well). Infact, the extradition rulings cover most of the often cited "issues" people come up with in these discussions - well worth a read if you are actually interested!
Which international law would that be? Ahh right, it wouldn't be because it doesn't actually exist.
Country A granting someone asylum does not obligate country B to do anything at all, including ignoring domestic law and allowing someone with a valid arrest warrant to leave the country. The ony place in which country A's asylum status means anything is in country A.
Your order of events is wrong :) Boeing announced the 787, customers demanded a response from Airbus and so they launched the A350 as an updated A330, which customers rejected and so they launched the A350XWB.
Airbus wasn't caught off guard, and the A380 was not an ego measure - Boeings new 747 proposals were being rejected by customers at the time as they wanted an all new airframe design which would encompass modern aerodynamic efficiency increases over the 747s 1960s vintage. Go and google the 747-500, -600 and -700 concepts as they all existed on paper. Airbus responded to the market demands by supplying a design for an all new VLA airframe.
Airbus basically have the VLA market now, as Boeings response, the 747-800, has seen lukewarm reception at best. Airbus thought they could hold their own in the 200 - 350 passenger market segments with the A330 and A340 models, and nterestingy enough the A330 has infact held its own, and continues to sell even as the 787 becomes available.
Where Airbus did falter was in the top end of the 200 - 350 market, covered by the A340. This was being beaten resoundedly by the Boeing 777, which was launched a decade earlier than the Boeing 787. Airbus are countering the top end of the market with the A350XWB, which will cover the larger 787 variants (-9 and -10) while also covering most of the 777 range as well.
Airbus is confident enough in the A330 that it doesn't see the need to immediately replace it like for like.
Just to round off your post, there was also issues with the fuselage sections that came from US suppliers as well, and Boeing had to re-acquire an entire US company that it had previously sold, just so it could resolve the technical and manufacturing issues in that company.
Boeing announced the Boeing 787 right after Airbus committed to the A380 - Airbus was going for the VLA market, which Boeing had dominated since they launched the Boeing 747 in the 70s as they had no effective competition in that particular market segment.
Once Airbus committed themselves to the VLA segment, Boeing committed itself to the smaller 250 seat segment, in which it already had an aging product in the Boeing 767 - sales of which were rapidly tailing off, and customers were demanding something more efficient.
Airbus responded by announcing a package of updates to their A330 airliner, but customer demand was poor - a lot of large customers wanted an all new fuselage design (the Airbus A330 and A340, both circa 1990 in vintage, used the same fuselage as the A300, which preceded them by 20 years), and carbon fiber as a primary structural component, so Airbus went back to the drawing board and came up with the A350XWB.
Its an aircraft that "Airbus didnt want to build" in the same vein as Boeing "didnt want to build" the Boeing 787, as that program only came about after customers outright rejected Boeings Sonic Cruiser concept in the years leading up to the 787s program launch - the 787 uses many of the same technologies (the carbon fiber barrels for the fuselage), and is a direct follow on from a prior program that was rejected by customers.
Interestingly enough, the Airbus A330, which customers didn't want an updated model of, has sold well over 500 aircraft since that "rejection". You never can tell....
At the same time these systems are vulnerable to 'hackers' they are vulnerable to attack by foreign states.
Aside from the criminal side of the argument about protecting thyself, this point here did make me pause for consideration - my government protects me from attack by foreign states in many other ways, why aren't they protected me from attack across the internet as well?
The British Government spends billions a year maintaining a QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) fleet of aircraft, primed to intercept any foreign aircraft that happens to skirt our shores, it maintains a coastal fleet primed to intercept any foreign ships, it has a nuclear deterrent that costs billions a year, it maintains security at the borders to make it difficult to smuggle arms etc into the country, and it maintains a police force which has anti-terrorism branches specially aimed at preventing foreign attacks within the country.
So where are the protections on the digital borders? And don't say there aren't any digital borders, because there are definitely peering points at which its possible to identify traffic originating from outside the UK.
Who gives a fuck whether they are end user machines or not, they are control nodes and that is enough to target them.
And I never said Microsoft on their own petitioned for a warrant, thats why they involved the FBI and thats why I said "the FBI and Microsoft..." .
And it just so happens that the court gives them the authority to disrupt them. Obviously.
Where has authority been assumed? The way botnets are taken down is the control nodes are eliminated, not that the infected machines are cleaned - in this case, the control servers may be gone but the end user machines are still infected, they just have nothing controlling them anymore.
The FBI and Microsoft get warrants and court authority which allows them to sieze and control digital assets that disrupts the control nodes, such as domain names, hosting space, IP routes, servers etc - they never touch the infected PCs.
Except in your examples, the second one isn't at all "borrowing". That's you trying to equate it to something it isn't so you can downplay it, in the same manner as those that call it stealing in order to up play it.
The difference is, there is no evidence Amazon was telling the publishers they couldn't sell their books cheaper elsewhere - that's the crux of the issue with the way Apple was doing it here.
And underwent surgery in order to get rid of glasses as they were the worst annoyance in my life - so there's no chance of me using this product.
People don't realise just how much these things are going to negatively affect you - you are going to be cleaning them all the time, they are going to cause irritation and issue with our hair and the side of your head, they are going to range from being unnoticeable to unignorable literally in minutes all throuout the day.
That's my take on it all. The wearable aspect is just a poor substitute for what we have been "promised" in fiction, so until it brings the positives without the negatives that I already went to great lengths to avoid, I'm not buying into it.
Doesn't have to be a war, submarines were involved in the Libyan no-fly zone enforcement (which Spain provide aircraft for).
And yet Apple still paid $6billion in Corporate Income Tax in 2012. That's a lot of tax to pay for an entity which tax supposedly isn't for...
The problem with the "spirit" of the law is that now you have two sets of rules - the law, which everyone agrees on, is codified and available in big books, and then you have the "spirit", which some people agree on some of the time, isn't codified, changes from week to week and government to government, and cannot be looked up.
Which is why the "spirit" of the law is nothing but a load of bollocks - if you want someone to not do something, say so in the rules, don't make some extra-legal fluffy bullshit up that you also expect people and companies to adhere to.
I've been following this whole shitfest in the UK quite closely for the past few months, and one amusing thing has consistently struck me - the government are trying to be the goody-goody party in all of this, claiming that the companies involved are being evil and ethically corrupt when it comes to "fair share" taxation, while at the very same time flat out refusing to acknowledge that those companies are not doing anything illegal under the current tax regime.
The government also has ruled out changing the tax law to prevent the current behaviours,because then they lose the trivially easy PR they get from "taking the companies to task" infront of Parliament and the media.
It's time to admit that the current tax law doesn't work once you are above PAYE (that's the government standard taxation for employees - normal people in the UK do not have to do any filings because it's all done by the HMRC for them and tax is taken out of their pay checks each month).
Setting up a company in the UK costs about $40. Doing annual returns for that company costs about $350. By working for that company for no wage, and taking out directors dividends, you save serious amounts of money through not having to pay income tax as the Corporate tax rates are significantly smaller than the income tax rates. This scheme is so heavily and widely used, even MPs in all parties got shamed earlier this year when they were named using it - but it's still completely legal.
No one should be expected to voluntarily pay more tax than they legally are required to, and no one should be shamed for not paying more tax than they are legally required to - if you want someone to pay more tax than they are legally required to, then legally require them to pay more tax! Don't beat around the bush, change the fucking law.
Google must be fucked then, as they provide antispam and antimalware functionality in Gmail, and have done for almost a decade.
No really, because having EME available and *you* as a developer not using them is exactly the same as EME not being standardised and *you* not using them.
The addition of EME to the spec in no way changes your position, whereas the lack of addition to the spec does affect another developers position. Not including EME negatively affects other developers who want to use it, while including EME doesn't affect other developers who don't want to use it.
If you cannot see the difference between those positions, then you need to ask yourself why.
Translation - the standards bodies should do what I want and listen to to one else. What I want is more more important than what anyone else wants.
Hmmm, CalDAV - you mean that thing Google is sun setting on the 16th of September 2013 in favour of their own, proprietary API?
http://googleblog.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/a-second-spring-of-cleaning.html
Doesn't look as tho Google is being the nice guy here, however you like to cast the other parties...
I'd say that if these were the real things, they are training rounds - versions of the weapon designed to be of the right weight, size and bulk of the original, but have nothing at all to do with actually being able to be used as a real weapon.
Every military has them for every weapon they have in their stock - there are training rounds for nuclear warheads, cruise missiles and even Trident ICBMs.
The crews have to be taught how to handle the weapons, and you do not do that on a live round.
Every library around these parts has computers with Internet access, available for free. You don't need to own a comuter to use one.
Both of you are somewhat wrong - the UK has a lot of CCTV cameras, certainy, but absolutely no where near the amount that "study" showed. We also have the Data Protection Act, which allows individuals to ask any and all CCTV operators to supply them with a copy of every capture they have made of you, for a minimal fee.
Also, out of the CCTV cameras installed, I'd say much less than half of them are local authority owned, most of them are privately owned and operated - and those that are owned and operated by the LA are still answerable to the DPA.
Great, Android has a greater market share of the smartphone market than iPhone - but one thing you ignore is that, rightly or wrongly, Apple kit seems to have a hipster following and is probably (can't be arsed to find stats to back this up, so its opinion) more likely to be bought by the age range this sort of prank is aimed at.
Android on the other hand also comes available as the cheap I-dont-care-what-phone-it-is-so-long-as-it-makes-calls-and-its-included-free end of the market, which tends to not have so much hipster appeal.