He has an outstanding arrest warrant against him from Interpol. This arrest warrant lists the reason for the arrest warrant. This reason is called "charges". Interpol doesn't recognize Sweden's "request to interview for the purpose of filing charges for someone who doesn't have formal charges", so Sweden officially charged him with a crime, at least in the eyes of Interpol and international law, for the purposes of holding and deporting him for the pre-charging interview Sweden uses.
Much like the charge is sexual misconduct, usually mis-translated to rape. What he did is legal probably everywhere but Sweden, so the investigation isn't well translated. And the media's attempt to vilify him also leads to the "worst" possible translation, rape.
So they are no better than us, and it really pisses us off. We do torture, and McCarthyism was quite similar to many of the other complaints. They treat Tibetans better than we treated the natives.
When he was in Sweden and initially charged, he cooperated fully. After he was released, and cleared to leave the country, the US pressured Sweden to press charges. So his dismissal was reversed, and he was re-charged after being cleared. He has notified Sweden of his location and invited Sweden to interrogate him in person or via phone, and Sweden refused, despite having done that with other people.
He's not made any special demands of Sweden, and doesn't act like he's above them. He just has acted in a manner to avoid increased chance of contact with US officials. He has "dictated" nothing extraordinary.
In Sweden, the people who defend his "arrest warrant" when he hasn't been charged indicate that an arrest in Sweden is akin to a preliminary trial in the US. You don't get charged until after a trial, of a sorts. So getting charged required judicial involvement, much like a grand jury indictment in the US. If you are indicted in the US and dismissed, that counts as a full trial "not guilty" verdict. Why aren't you applying the same standard here?
The claim was "As a rule of thumb extradition treaties only cover acts that are crimes in both countries." The example for the claim was the US refusing extradition for something meeting that claim, but that was not the claim itself.
He was done in by the prosecutor who is free to file charges even if the victim fails to press charges (same as in the US, for any crime) http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09... for an example where the "victim" objected to the prosecution of her sisters for plucking out her eyes.
You are wrong about this being the law on university campuses. Nowhere in the US is a woman allowed to give consent before sex, then revoke consent after, and have the sex then be treated as rape. Go on, name one place where that's the case (in law, not just according to the statements of the defendant). If you can't, then you are a MRA lying and whining to slander SJW because you hate women, not because you are actually upset over the laws.
The rumours were that he was going to be extradited from the UK, which is why he didn't stay in UK custody. The proof of conspiracy? The US refuses to deny they'd seek extradition if he were held in the UK. All that would need to happen is the US file extradition with the UK, and Sweden would drop all charges, then he'd be cleared for extradition. If the hearings were going poorly, Sweden would reinstate the charges, and the UK would extradite him to Sweden for a do over.
The US could clear up all these silly rumours by stating whether they would or would not extradite him. But the US refuses to.
The US is extraditing Kim Dotcom for a "crime" that wasn't a "crime" in NZ. So I'm not sure that standard is true. The extradition treaty the US has with most places doesn't require it be a crime in both places, but can refuse an extradition if the expected punishment is excessive for the crime (most places without the death penalty will not extradite to the US unless the death penalty is guaranteed to not be invoked).
He refused the interview by having it, being cleared, leaving, then being re-charged for what he was already charged and dismissed for. Double jeopardy at its finest, though that's OK in most places.
The delay in the charges was sufficient to indicate US interference in the case.
Sweden has remotely interviewed others in similar circumstances, yet refuses to do so here? Why?
There have been other cases of people interviewed remotely. It seems unusual that Sweden would not follow their regular procedure with him.Sweden has previously tried others in absentia. By international law, he has been "charged" with the crime (by the nature of the Interpol Warrant for Arrest Sweden has issued).
By US standards, he was charged, then dismissed of the crime, and is now being tried a second time for the same crime. Almost nowhere else in the world has the strict double jeopardy laws the US has, but if we apply US standards, the charges and process are invalid many times over for many different reasons.
You are right. The US would not "extradite" him. He would be intercepted in-flight (re-directed to a friendly port for arrest by the US), or kidnapped by the US government. Not "extradited" for the crime of publishing documents. But "extradited" is sufficient to express the sentiment.
And what has been shown to be false? That the US keeps an open case against him, with orders to arrest, were he to come into US jurisdiction? Anything short of a presidential pardon would seem to indicate that it has *never* been proven false.
Yes, it does. The charges kept changing to make them worse, but the version of the charges I read (translated, of course) indicated that it was rape because the woman withdrew her consent after the act. Such a chance of mind wouldn't be rape in the US. He lied to her to get her in bed, that sexual fraud is "rape" in Sweden, but not in most places. Some of the press releases by the police made the charges sound worse, which is why I read the charges themselves in their entirety (translated of course).
I put words in your mouth by accurately quoting you. You dodge the question and dance. That implies an answer. I accept your implied answer. If you don't like others inferring from your obvious implications, then stop implying and plainly state something.
The south was pro-federalist, and the north was anti-federalist.
The proof was the laws passed in the north that freed slaves in that state. The south was against those states rights, and wanted the federal government to declare the laws invalid, and push oppressive federalism on the north. The federal government refused, so the south invaded.
So, tell us, were you stating "Arguments over Federalism was a big one," implying that the south was pro or anti federalism? I think I know which, and rather than say it, you get all upset someone corrected your inaccurate opinion, but rather than think you are taking your ball and going home. Maybe things will go better for you in the 3rd grade.
Yes, the south was for federalism, and the north against it. But, for some reason, despite the pro-federalism words, forever recorded in the secession documents, people still reverse the two.
Why would they do that? Instead they'd just sell their slaves and move on, the rest is someone else's problem.
Yes, I understand how you refuse to think, when the thought could end up not supporting your obviously false opinion. Two people, one buys a $1,000,000 widget that replaces $10,000,000 of slaves (but is cheaper because of ongoing costs). His "competitors" have lots of slaves, and no widgets. If he were rational (And the good kind of sociopath we look for in modern CEOs), he'd buy the widget (or 10), sell his slaves, and work for emancipation. Because if his neighbor has no widgets, and lots of slaves that go from a asset to a liability, he'd buy up the state and use his new widgets on all his former competitor's lands.
But no, the slave owners in the south weren't buying the widgets and selling slaves, as you assert. Nor were they using the widgets to put their competitors out of business, as would be done today. By every measure, the presence or absence of widgets was irrelevant to the issue of slavery in the US.
Once the economics changed then it no longer made sense to keep them.
If that were true, then the most logical result would have been for the first adopters of machinery to push for abolition. Instead, reality held that the slave owners tried to hold on to slavery at all times and for all reasons.
Since the economics was different for different industries there were differences in the order in which political entities abandoned slavery.
So the spark for the US Civil war wasn't that the Missouri Compromise favored the North, with the Louisiana Purchase having more land (thus more possible slave-free states) above the 3630? So the South invaded before the new states were added. Instead, in your theory, the Southern slave owners were ready to let them go because the machinery made more sense to use, for economic reasons. Nope, I've never seen that theory pushed for US abolition, nor anywhere else, and I've studied history.
Yes. The armor changed in style and look in that time, but it wasn't until about 1500 until muskets were anywhere close to "common" in Europe. Bows were the main long range weapon in both years, though in later years, the crossbow and longbow were introduced. Horses were used as labor, transport, and in battle in both years. Swords got better, so the proportion of clubs to swords would have changed from 715 to 1215, but not enough to shock anyone.
I can't find anything amazing in daily life that would have changed.
Yes, the shape and type of plow pulled in the fields changed, but the basic idea behind it was the same.
Now, compare a plow today with one 100 or 200 years ago. Someone from 715 could probably, with 5 minutes observation, manipulate a 1215 plow. A 1915 person might be able to operate a 2015 plow, maybe not. But a 1815 person would have no chance of using a 2015 plow.
They happened concurrently, and the answer is probably different for different places. Many of the places had abolition before mechanization.
Or are you saying that the theory of mechanization was enough to free the slaves?
In either case, it was the freedom of the slaves that drove the building and purchase of the machines, and that's what drove the industrial revolution. Slave owners didn't buy machines and free slaves 5 at a time as the new machine replaced them. The slaves were freed en masse before machines were in place to replace them. So, from a micro standpoint, the slaves were freed first, and the machines came later. Though one could say that the invention of the cotton gin allowed the altruistic North think they could force the South to end slavery without collapsing the world economy.
No, I think I'll continue to disagree. The freedom of the slaves preceded the widespread use of machines in agriculture in most places.
Only in so far as the Gutenberg Bible is involved. The burst of industrial revolution was caused by human rights. As slavery was ended, across most of the world from 1850 to 1900, machines were needed to replace the "free" labor that was lost. And the changes in IP with multiple countries and a more connected global economy lead to a flood of machines "based" on the mechanical press (based on meaning mechanical labor reducers, not copies of it, or anything like that).
Show a person from 715 the world of 1215, and your 500 years will not have covered much. As long as you don't span the Renaissance, and the last 100 or so years, you won't have as much amazement in 200 years as you think. It's just that a few groups of times have spurts of technology allowing the ideas of the past to come out all at once.
Wonder why every little issue with aviation is newsworthy.
Because aviation is a utility. The same things come through when power is out to lots, or such. And bonus to the "nerd" part is that it involves online bookings.
Even hurricanes that swamp and knock out parts of Manhattan for weeks, and it's barely as much reported on as a little aviation-related issue.
No, it's covered here, in great detail. People talk about the power junctions under the road not being water tight, the pumps for the tunnels not working, the power lines buried vs above ground, Global Warming's role in the storm. I see lots of articles when big storms bother many people.
A dinosaur is an animal. Therefore someone fantasizes about screwing a dinosaur is going to be more open-minded toward animals that actually live today.
A human is an animal. Therefore someone who fantasizes about screwing a human is going to be more open-minded towards animals.
Ban hetero-normal sex. It's the only way to save the animals.
How do you twist "hardware needed" to "Tests fraudulently passed with hardware that was removed for production cars"?
The pass was 100% in software. The hardware isn't to get it to pass the emissions, but to do so with acceptable performance.
You are confusing unrelated issues. The test would be passed by all those getting "hardware" without any hardware. But in that test-passing trim, would have poor performance.
If they cannot fix the car so it meets the specs they sold it with then they have broken the law. Bait and switch, fraud, and other shit that the lawyer gets paid to think up.
And what's the harm to the owner if the emissions were a lie? If the economy was a lie, then you are harmed by the amount of additional fuel used. But for emissions? A bit more NOx killed your cat?
Some of these vehicles are missing needed hardware.
None of them are "missing" hardware needed to pass the test. They are equipped as the vehicles that passed the test. The hardware "missing" was never there, and never intended to be there (unless they were caught). They passed the test without the hardware. The hardware just lets them get more power while passing the tests. So they can pass the tests with all cars, and get sued less for poor performance.
The EPA passed the cars without the hardware. There were no pieces in the passed cars that were removed for production cars.
Slashdot Mirror
He has an outstanding arrest warrant against him from Interpol. This arrest warrant lists the reason for the arrest warrant. This reason is called "charges". Interpol doesn't recognize Sweden's "request to interview for the purpose of filing charges for someone who doesn't have formal charges", so Sweden officially charged him with a crime, at least in the eyes of Interpol and international law, for the purposes of holding and deporting him for the pre-charging interview Sweden uses.
Much like the charge is sexual misconduct, usually mis-translated to rape. What he did is legal probably everywhere but Sweden, so the investigation isn't well translated. And the media's attempt to vilify him also leads to the "worst" possible translation, rape.
So they are no better than us, and it really pisses us off. We do torture, and McCarthyism was quite similar to many of the other complaints. They treat Tibetans better than we treated the natives.
When he was in Sweden and initially charged, he cooperated fully. After he was released, and cleared to leave the country, the US pressured Sweden to press charges. So his dismissal was reversed, and he was re-charged after being cleared. He has notified Sweden of his location and invited Sweden to interrogate him in person or via phone, and Sweden refused, despite having done that with other people.
He's not made any special demands of Sweden, and doesn't act like he's above them. He just has acted in a manner to avoid increased chance of contact with US officials. He has "dictated" nothing extraordinary.
In Sweden, the people who defend his "arrest warrant" when he hasn't been charged indicate that an arrest in Sweden is akin to a preliminary trial in the US. You don't get charged until after a trial, of a sorts. So getting charged required judicial involvement, much like a grand jury indictment in the US. If you are indicted in the US and dismissed, that counts as a full trial "not guilty" verdict. Why aren't you applying the same standard here?
The claim was "As a rule of thumb extradition treaties only cover acts that are crimes in both countries." The example for the claim was the US refusing extradition for something meeting that claim, but that was not the claim itself.
He was done in by the prosecutor who is free to file charges even if the victim fails to press charges (same as in the US, for any crime) http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09... for an example where the "victim" objected to the prosecution of her sisters for plucking out her eyes.
You are wrong about this being the law on university campuses. Nowhere in the US is a woman allowed to give consent before sex, then revoke consent after, and have the sex then be treated as rape. Go on, name one place where that's the case (in law, not just according to the statements of the defendant). If you can't, then you are a MRA lying and whining to slander SJW because you hate women, not because you are actually upset over the laws.
The rumours were that he was going to be extradited from the UK, which is why he didn't stay in UK custody. The proof of conspiracy? The US refuses to deny they'd seek extradition if he were held in the UK. All that would need to happen is the US file extradition with the UK, and Sweden would drop all charges, then he'd be cleared for extradition. If the hearings were going poorly, Sweden would reinstate the charges, and the UK would extradite him to Sweden for a do over.
The US could clear up all these silly rumours by stating whether they would or would not extradite him. But the US refuses to.
The US is extraditing Kim Dotcom for a "crime" that wasn't a "crime" in NZ. So I'm not sure that standard is true. The extradition treaty the US has with most places doesn't require it be a crime in both places, but can refuse an extradition if the expected punishment is excessive for the crime (most places without the death penalty will not extradite to the US unless the death penalty is guaranteed to not be invoked).
He refused the interview by having it, being cleared, leaving, then being re-charged for what he was already charged and dismissed for. Double jeopardy at its finest, though that's OK in most places.
The delay in the charges was sufficient to indicate US interference in the case.
Sweden has remotely interviewed others in similar circumstances, yet refuses to do so here? Why?
There have been other cases of people interviewed remotely. It seems unusual that Sweden would not follow their regular procedure with him.Sweden has previously tried others in absentia. By international law, he has been "charged" with the crime (by the nature of the Interpol Warrant for Arrest Sweden has issued).
By US standards, he was charged, then dismissed of the crime, and is now being tried a second time for the same crime. Almost nowhere else in the world has the strict double jeopardy laws the US has, but if we apply US standards, the charges and process are invalid many times over for many different reasons.
You are right. The US would not "extradite" him. He would be intercepted in-flight (re-directed to a friendly port for arrest by the US), or kidnapped by the US government. Not "extradited" for the crime of publishing documents. But "extradited" is sufficient to express the sentiment.
And what has been shown to be false? That the US keeps an open case against him, with orders to arrest, were he to come into US jurisdiction? Anything short of a presidential pardon would seem to indicate that it has *never* been proven false.
Yes, it does. The charges kept changing to make them worse, but the version of the charges I read (translated, of course) indicated that it was rape because the woman withdrew her consent after the act. Such a chance of mind wouldn't be rape in the US. He lied to her to get her in bed, that sexual fraud is "rape" in Sweden, but not in most places. Some of the press releases by the police made the charges sound worse, which is why I read the charges themselves in their entirety (translated of course).
I put words in your mouth by accurately quoting you. You dodge the question and dance. That implies an answer. I accept your implied answer. If you don't like others inferring from your obvious implications, then stop implying and plainly state something.
The south was pro-federalist, and the north was anti-federalist.
The proof was the laws passed in the north that freed slaves in that state. The south was against those states rights, and wanted the federal government to declare the laws invalid, and push oppressive federalism on the north. The federal government refused, so the south invaded.
So, tell us, were you stating "Arguments over Federalism was a big one," implying that the south was pro or anti federalism? I think I know which, and rather than say it, you get all upset someone corrected your inaccurate opinion, but rather than think you are taking your ball and going home. Maybe things will go better for you in the 3rd grade.
Arguments over Federalism was a big one
Yes, the south was for federalism, and the north against it. But, for some reason, despite the pro-federalism words, forever recorded in the secession documents, people still reverse the two.
Why would they do that? Instead they'd just sell their slaves and move on, the rest is someone else's problem.
Yes, I understand how you refuse to think, when the thought could end up not supporting your obviously false opinion. Two people, one buys a $1,000,000 widget that replaces $10,000,000 of slaves (but is cheaper because of ongoing costs). His "competitors" have lots of slaves, and no widgets. If he were rational (And the good kind of sociopath we look for in modern CEOs), he'd buy the widget (or 10), sell his slaves, and work for emancipation. Because if his neighbor has no widgets, and lots of slaves that go from a asset to a liability, he'd buy up the state and use his new widgets on all his former competitor's lands.
But no, the slave owners in the south weren't buying the widgets and selling slaves, as you assert. Nor were they using the widgets to put their competitors out of business, as would be done today. By every measure, the presence or absence of widgets was irrelevant to the issue of slavery in the US.
Once the economics changed then it no longer made sense to keep them.
If that were true, then the most logical result would have been for the first adopters of machinery to push for abolition. Instead, reality held that the slave owners tried to hold on to slavery at all times and for all reasons.
Since the economics was different for different industries there were differences in the order in which political entities abandoned slavery.
So the spark for the US Civil war wasn't that the Missouri Compromise favored the North, with the Louisiana Purchase having more land (thus more possible slave-free states) above the 3630? So the South invaded before the new states were added. Instead, in your theory, the Southern slave owners were ready to let them go because the machinery made more sense to use, for economic reasons. Nope, I've never seen that theory pushed for US abolition, nor anywhere else, and I've studied history.
Yes. The armor changed in style and look in that time, but it wasn't until about 1500 until muskets were anywhere close to "common" in Europe. Bows were the main long range weapon in both years, though in later years, the crossbow and longbow were introduced. Horses were used as labor, transport, and in battle in both years. Swords got better, so the proportion of clubs to swords would have changed from 715 to 1215, but not enough to shock anyone.
I can't find anything amazing in daily life that would have changed.
Yes, the shape and type of plow pulled in the fields changed, but the basic idea behind it was the same.
Now, compare a plow today with one 100 or 200 years ago. Someone from 715 could probably, with 5 minutes observation, manipulate a 1215 plow. A 1915 person might be able to operate a 2015 plow, maybe not. But a 1815 person would have no chance of using a 2015 plow.
They happened concurrently, and the answer is probably different for different places. Many of the places had abolition before mechanization.
Or are you saying that the theory of mechanization was enough to free the slaves?
In either case, it was the freedom of the slaves that drove the building and purchase of the machines, and that's what drove the industrial revolution. Slave owners didn't buy machines and free slaves 5 at a time as the new machine replaced them. The slaves were freed en masse before machines were in place to replace them. So, from a micro standpoint, the slaves were freed first, and the machines came later. Though one could say that the invention of the cotton gin allowed the altruistic North think they could force the South to end slavery without collapsing the world economy.
No, I think I'll continue to disagree. The freedom of the slaves preceded the widespread use of machines in agriculture in most places.
Only in so far as the Gutenberg Bible is involved. The burst of industrial revolution was caused by human rights. As slavery was ended, across most of the world from 1850 to 1900, machines were needed to replace the "free" labor that was lost. And the changes in IP with multiple countries and a more connected global economy lead to a flood of machines "based" on the mechanical press (based on meaning mechanical labor reducers, not copies of it, or anything like that).
Show a person from 715 the world of 1215, and your 500 years will not have covered much. As long as you don't span the Renaissance, and the last 100 or so years, you won't have as much amazement in 200 years as you think. It's just that a few groups of times have spurts of technology allowing the ideas of the past to come out all at once.
Wonder why every little issue with aviation is newsworthy.
Because aviation is a utility. The same things come through when power is out to lots, or such. And bonus to the "nerd" part is that it involves online bookings.
Even hurricanes that swamp and knock out parts of Manhattan for weeks, and it's barely as much reported on as a little aviation-related issue.
No, it's covered here, in great detail. People talk about the power junctions under the road not being water tight, the pumps for the tunnels not working, the power lines buried vs above ground, Global Warming's role in the storm. I see lots of articles when big storms bother many people.
A dinosaur is an animal. Therefore someone fantasizes about screwing a dinosaur is going to be more open-minded toward animals that actually live today.
A human is an animal. Therefore someone who fantasizes about screwing a human is going to be more open-minded towards animals.
Ban hetero-normal sex. It's the only way to save the animals.
It is a precedent, even if it isn't a case law precedent. It's happened before, and sets the background for the future (current) incidents.
The pass was 100% in software. The hardware isn't to get it to pass the emissions, but to do so with acceptable performance.
You are confusing unrelated issues. The test would be passed by all those getting "hardware" without any hardware. But in that test-passing trim, would have poor performance.
If they cannot fix the car so it meets the specs they sold it with then they have broken the law. Bait and switch, fraud, and other shit that the lawyer gets paid to think up.
And what's the harm to the owner if the emissions were a lie? If the economy was a lie, then you are harmed by the amount of additional fuel used. But for emissions? A bit more NOx killed your cat?
Some of these vehicles are missing needed hardware.
None of them are "missing" hardware needed to pass the test. They are equipped as the vehicles that passed the test. The hardware "missing" was never there, and never intended to be there (unless they were caught). They passed the test without the hardware. The hardware just lets them get more power while passing the tests. So they can pass the tests with all cars, and get sued less for poor performance.
The EPA passed the cars without the hardware. There were no pieces in the passed cars that were removed for production cars.
Then engineers who optimize on the theoretical to help define the practical wouldn't be the same teams implementing the actual.