A cat infected with toxoplasma gondii will excrete the parasite in the feces for some days (weeks) after first infection, and then will stop doing it forever.
What about humans who have it? Do they need continual re-exposure, too?
Not at all. No meaningful data can be stored in an iPad so it seems ideal for the sort of people who handle state secrets and keep leaving laptops in taxis.
Adblock normally only blocks ads that are pulled in externally. If your favorite website wants to show an image from its own server with a link underneath then Adblock probably won't touch it.
I'd say Adblock is only blocking the ads that need blocking - the sort of ads which turn decent sites into whores.
Because it will be trivial for a spammer to check his posts from another account?
Yawn. When hellbanning became widespread the spammers just started creating a new account for every spam session.
Spammers are *bots* (maybe backed by people in third world countries who'll sit all day reading captchas for $0.10). Any idea of a 'battle of wits' between you and a spammer is just an overactive imagination on your part.
Easy solution. Make it so that spammers can see posts by everyone, including other spammers. That way spammers will think they are being successful, especially if you do an IP block on them.
Until the 2nd, 3rd, 4th account is identified and marked as a spam account, it won't be able to see the posts of the 1st account.
I think you overestimate spammers. 99.9999999% of them aren't people, they're bots. I doubt they're even checking from other accounts.
The news sites are miffed because search engines preview their pages in the search results, and the users just skim the results instead of clicking the links.
...and the reason they can't make the preview interesting enough for me to want to click it is...?
Ok, after about half an hour of research, I think I've managed to find where the "temporary surrender" thing comes from
It took you half an hour to find the link on that page I gave you? Hint: It's in the first paragraph of the section called "Temporary surrender".
Article VI states:
If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:
(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or
(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.
Yep, that text is also on the page I sent you - it's the second paragraph of the section called "Temporary surrender".
How long did it take you to find it in your 'research'...?
You can opine all you like about the text but if your basis is there's nothing fishy about the whole thing then there's not much point arguing. Do you really not believe that somebody, somewhere badly wants Assange in Sweden? Why aren't the USA trying to extradite him from the UK? Why has the USA stepped up its diplomatic relations with Sweden recently (eg. Hillary Clinton's visit)? Why are the Swedish courts stonewalling Assange when he tries to communicate with them?
Thirdly, and the main reason to dismiss nearly all of his claims: if this is a problem, why isn't Assange arguing it in court?
Oh, he has. He's tried every known method of communication with the Swedish legal system.
If he has, it must have been dismissed by the Court.
Nope. The court's only words so far have been, "Come to Sweden...come to Sweden..."
The more he does (or doesn't do), and the more I read, the more I'm convinced he's either paranoid or using the cover of US oppression to escape doing some rather mean things in Sweden.
Which one of the offers to help the Swedes via teleconference did you miss? What about the offer to meet the Swedish investigators on UK soil to clear things up? Did you miss that too?
At no point has he avoided the Swedish authorities, he's just avoiding Swedish soil because the USA can get him there.
nb. The Swedes have traveled to other countries to interview people. Why not Julian Assange?
Everybody in my small office uses PDF XChange Viewer.
Or just use Google Chrome. It reads PDF with no plugin. It still lacks a few features but I assume they're working on that in between fixing the holes for Adobe.
OK, let's assume for a moment it *is* rape. How many embassies have ever been stormed in order to extradite rapists? Does anything else about this pass her smell test?
If the rest of it is so rotten then why wouldn't the 'rape' thing be invented too? It fits perfectly.
Slashdot Mirror
A cat infected with toxoplasma gondii will excrete the parasite in the feces for some days (weeks) after first infection, and then will stop doing it forever.
What about humans who have it? Do they need continual re-exposure, too?
Not at all. No meaningful data can be stored in an iPad so it seems ideal for the sort of people who handle state secrets and keep leaving laptops in taxis.
There might be *other* things in those nations which cause brain cancer, eg. a national addiction to eating garlic sausages in vinegar. Or something.
I'm just glad the video had no sound. I don't think my eardrums could have taken it.
Unlike most hovercraft this looks like it has decent control.
Huh? I watched the video twice and didn't see any impressive braking or steering. Or speed.
All I saw was a guy driving like he was constantly worried about falling into the whirling blades six inches under his feet.
Get yourself an ordinary hovercraft, it'll be cheaper, easier, work much better and it's available now.
(Or maybe you enjoy the risk of a device with whirling blades underneath the pilot that will chop him into tiny pieces at the slightest mistake)
Adblock normally only blocks ads that are pulled in externally. If your favorite website wants to show an image from its own server with a link underneath then Adblock probably won't touch it.
I'd say Adblock is only blocking the ads that need blocking - the sort of ads which turn decent sites into whores.
Because it will be trivial for a spammer to check his posts from another account?
Yawn. When hellbanning became widespread the spammers just started creating a new account for every spam session.
Spammers are *bots* (maybe backed by people in third world countries who'll sit all day reading captchas for $0.10). Any idea of a 'battle of wits' between you and a spammer is just an overactive imagination on your part.
Most spammers are bots who are programmed to constantly create new accounts anyway.
Easy solution. Make it so that spammers can see posts by everyone, including other spammers. That way spammers will think they are being successful, especially if you do an IP block on them.
Until the 2nd, 3rd, 4th account is identified and marked as a spam account, it won't be able to see the posts of the 1st account.
I think you overestimate spammers. 99.9999999% of them aren't people, they're bots. I doubt they're even checking from other accounts.
I hope this new law sets a fixed, mandatory price for Google to pay per link.
That way they can't back down or renegotiate with Google when they see how stupid they've been.
The news sites are miffed because search engines preview their pages in the search results, and the users just skim the results instead of clicking the links.
...and the reason they can't make the preview interesting enough for me to want to click it is...?
Ok, after about half an hour of research, I think I've managed to find where the "temporary surrender" thing comes from
It took you half an hour to find the link on that page I gave you? Hint: It's in the first paragraph of the section called "Temporary surrender".
Article VI states:
If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:
(a) defer the surrender of the person sought until the conclusion of the proceedings against that person, or the full execution of any punishment that may be or may have been imposed; or
(b) temporarily surrender the person sought to the requesting State for the purpose of prosecution. The person so surrendered shall be kept in custody while in the requesting State and shall be returned to the requested State after the conclusion of the proceedings against that person in accordance with conditions to be determined by mutual agreement of the Contracting States.
Yep, that text is also on the page I sent you - it's the second paragraph of the section called "Temporary surrender".
How long did it take you to find it in your 'research'...?
You can opine all you like about the text but if your basis is there's nothing fishy about the whole thing then there's not much point arguing. Do you really not believe that somebody, somewhere badly wants Assange in Sweden? Why aren't the USA trying to extradite him from the UK? Why has the USA stepped up its diplomatic relations with Sweden recently (eg. Hillary Clinton's visit)? Why are the Swedish courts stonewalling Assange when he tries to communicate with them?
Thirdly, and the main reason to dismiss nearly all of his claims: if this is a problem, why isn't Assange arguing it in court?
Oh, he has. He's tried every known method of communication with the Swedish legal system.
If he has, it must have been dismissed by the Court.
Nope. The court's only words so far have been, "Come to Sweden...come to Sweden..."
OK, short versions:
a) Nothing about this 'investigation' passes any known smell test. No matter how you sniff it, it smells of rat.
b) Yes, it's much, much easier for the USA to grab him from Sweden than the UK. Once he's there they can 'borrow' him with hardly any legal process.
All of those questions have been answered many times over the last six months. Try reading some older threads.
>
The more he does (or doesn't do), and the more I read, the more I'm convinced he's either paranoid or using the cover of US oppression to escape doing some rather mean things in Sweden.
Which one of the offers to help the Swedes via teleconference did you miss? What about the offer to meet the Swedish investigators on UK soil to clear things up? Did you miss that too?
At no point has he avoided the Swedish authorities, he's just avoiding Swedish soil because the USA can get him there.
nb. The Swedes have traveled to other countries to interview people. Why not Julian Assange?
I think you need some sort of genuine mental illness to produce that stuff...
The men in the black SUVs have visited the network offices this morning to make sure everything goes smoothly.
Is Sweden our extradition bitch or something? They say yes to every request we make???
Basically, yes. The USA can't extradite him from the UK for anything because he's not committed a crime.
OTOH the USA has an agreement with Sweden where they can borrow people for 'questioning' with hardly any legal process.
Once they get their hands on him it's anybody's guess what will happen, but getting their hands on him is much easier in Sweden than in the UK.
Not to mention the whole Abu Ghraib thing...
Don't use Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Everybody in my small office uses PDF XChange Viewer.
Or just use Google Chrome. It reads PDF with no plugin. It still lacks a few features but I assume they're working on that in between fixing the holes for Adobe.
Which part of "Starting in September" didn't you understand?
Like what? What are you trying to protect against?
Facebook whores hogging the computers all day long so nobody can do any work...?
Gee, I wonder if such an image could be available on NASA's web site. Nah, that's unthinkable.
Oh, wait, here it is: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images/?ImageID=4431
OK, let's assume for a moment it *is* rape. How many embassies have ever been stormed in order to extradite rapists? Does anything else about this pass her smell test?
If the rest of it is so rotten then why wouldn't the 'rape' thing be invented too? It fits perfectly.