Wouldn't they improve even more by practicing with real laparoscopes?
Maybe they are so expensive, that they cannot afford enough to let all the surgical residents practice one hour a day, five days a week. That and the fact, that they are probably also a lot more fragile.
Actually, the European headquarters of Scientology is in Copenhagen (according to this US report), while the Brussels office is merely a lobbying firm for Scientology to the EU.
Unions may seem useless in the USA, but in Europe they actually matter, which is probably why my country has a union for developers. In Europe, unions represent employees when negotiating working rules.
For instance, this means that very few European countries actually have minimum wage laws, because the minimum wag 'laws' are agreements between unions and employers. The idea is to keep government out of working rules (I am beginning to feel this is not the actual term in English), but rather let it remain between the employees (unions) and employers (corporations). However, unions have some rights (e.g. strikes) to protect their negotiation position. Employers too have rights.
Yes it is. Please read the link I provided, or you can use Google to find hundreds of other references.
It was a ban on burkas. Yes, it's ridiculous, but it is not illegal to wear masks in Belgium. It was a ban on religious clothing that obscures a face, particularly forced upon women. But the amount of burkas used in Belgium is probably at a minimum.
Italy or Spain.
Italy and Spain have local bans. For instance, obscuring your face in public is illegal in Barcelona.
Actually, it's only illegal in public buildings, such as markets and libraries, which your link itself lists quite clearly. You can still walk outside while having your face obscured.
So basically, your "many EU countries" is "France". Belgium's law will likely have little consequence, and it seems that the Barcelona law is a protection of public buildings. Not that Turkey is the pedestal of civil rights, but they also had a similar ban as Barcelona (until at least very recently).
Denmark also have a ban on masks, but only during demonstrations and other large crowds. The usual freedom was previously abused heavily by activists to destroy property rather than actual demonstrate. The rationale is that if you are really interested in your message, you will have no issue showing your face at a public demonstration.
But most of these laws seems to be a form of Islamophobia than an actual crackdown on civil liberties, which seems to be collateral damage. There was even talk about banning burkas in Denmark, until politicians realised only 5 people in the whole country wore them, and they were ethnic Danes who had converted to Islam. The cases might even be similar in most other EU countries. Like the Swiss ban on Minarets. Ridiculous.
Simple! They build the elevator on Earth, then strap it to a rocket that they fly directly into the moon. Fortunately, they have turned the elevator upside down, so when the rocket crashes into the moon, the elevator stands upward.
This is kinda like how they build skyscrapers: Build it lying down, then straight it up when it's done. Much cheaper and safer.
As with any licence, I suppose, it is whatever you label with that licence that it becomes. A single thing (e.g. website, software program, etc.) can include parts that consists of multiple licences, which means the whole 'thing' cannot become one licence, unless altering one of its 'sub' licences does not violate that licence.
On Wikipedia, for instance, the software, i.e. MediaWiki (both server side and the default skins) is GPL, but the content (e.g. text, custom CSS, images, etc.) is CC-SA as you correctly noted. Unless, of course, wherever stated (a lot of images have a variety of licences).
Essentially, no licence wins, because if they cannot be converted to one another, your website has to be released under several licences. However, in general terms, a website appears under one licence, unless noted otherwise. As such, you may wish to include with your Wikipedia excerpt that it is CC-SA content.
I have no idea how much sense this post made, but essentially, it is not uncommon for a multitude of content to have a multitude of licences, even if within the same 'scope'/website/etc.
I am not confident that he will get a fair trial with regards to the rape charges. But whether Sweden will extradite seems less likely. To me.
The Pirate Bay trial proved American companies' influence of foreign court rooms. That was a sad sight to see. But also under a much more pro-American Swedish government.
But I wonder, if the US is willing to risk the outcry that will occur both domestically and abroad if they apprehend Assange. And for what? Wikileaks will still operate without Assange. Surely, he doesn't matter.
I will admit this; in the past, and certainly in times to come, governments have surprised me in their illogical decision making.
And considering the scandal you mention, I presume the Swedish government is not likely to try it again. Especially not with such a high-profile characters as Assange.
Would you risk your life on it ? Especially given all the other irregularities surrounding this case ?
The problem with that question - to me at least - is that it assumes I am stupid enough to end up in this situation in the first place. I probably wouldn't have slept with those two women in Stockholm to begin with, is what I am saying. So given that, I don't know. But I probably would. And that I bet that is pretty much what is going to happen right now. Assange cannot escape British custody.
In Sweden, it's both actually. The feminism has arisen incredibly because of the failed immigration policy, and as such there is a much larger effort in Sweden to track down rapists and suspected rapists. Primarily because Sweden does not wish to admit that its immigration policy has failed.
What's interesting about that case is that seems to violate the Swedish system of 'ministerstyre', where ministers cannot directly interfere in the actions of an agency. According to Swedish extradition laws, if a person to be extradited refuses, the courts will decide, but if the person complies, it is the foreign ministry that takes care of it.
Furthermore, that was under the previous government, Sweden now has a liberal government, whom are more anti-American than the previous one. Not that that is 100% guarantee that they won't extradite him, but it is certainly a factor. And considering the scandal you mention, I presume the Swedish government is not likely to try it again. Especially not with such a high-profile characters as Assange.
I cannot say what kind of rape it is, obviously, but the statistics are real. But there have been cases of false accusations of rape in Sweden, just any other country nowadays.
That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.
No. The Sydney Morning Herald states that: 'American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".' So we know mainly Australia's side of the conversation, but that doesn't mean that they consist purely of speculation. And why does Fred Burton of Stratfor then claims that the U.S. has a sealed indictment against Julian Assange?
I don't know, but Assange is not in Australia. However, I will give you that Australia has certainly not been showing any signs of being interested in helping Assange.
In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.
This is mainly calling people names.
Be that as it may, many Swedes I often talk to echo this sentiment, although would not use this strong turn of phrase. Sweden is notorious for routing around opinions it does not deem to be 'decent'. And it is not law enforcement, but rather society at large that will shut out extremist opinions. Communists and fascists have a hard time getting anything said in Sweden.
Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.
It's not about other nations pulling their business. It's about protecting UK embassies everywhere in the world. Who will for instance hinder the Russian police in the next Litvinenko-like case to storm the UK embassy in Moscow, citing the London precedent? That's the main reason why the UK retracted so fast from their bold statements - it would endanger the UK more than anyone else.
I also doubt Russia would risk that diplomatic uproar with the UK. It could also have been a British official who misspoke and mentioned that the UK had such laws, but forgot that mentioning it would certainly sound threatening. British law enforcement has a long history of incompetence.
I am not saying Ecaudor isn't without its right to be mad at the US, and I completely understand why they are doing what they are doing. I am just saying why they are, rather than assuming that Ecuador has definitive prove that Assange will be extradited to the US.
Assange has not committed access of espionage. He has not unlawfully approached secret information, instead, Bradley Manning went to him with the information, or rather Wikileaks. The way Wikileaks is set up means that Assange or Wikileaks in general, cannot know who leaked information to them. This ensures more safeguards for Wikileaks.
Manning's trial will start soon and I am sure he will be convincted. Assange on the other hand, have not committed any form of espionage in the USA. Furthermore, espionage count as military engagement, an area Sweden will not extradite under.
If he's so unimportant, why does the U.S. ambassador to Australia negotiate the terms of an extradition - just in case?
That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.
If he's so unimportant, why insists Sweden on a witness statement given on swedish soil? (Yes, the extradition request is for a witness! It's not as if the state attorney already has filed charges.)
In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism. Sweden has the highest number of rape cases per capita of any country in Europe. And not just by a small margin, twice as many as the country in second place, the UK.
Getting Assange to Sweden to be questioned and perhaps convicted of a rape would set a great example, not just at home, but abroad, considering the international fame of Assange. At least, that is the thought of the Swedish prosecutors.
If he's so unimportant, why does the UK government threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy over him?
Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.
Ecuador is using the situation to make a stand off against the USA, the UK and Sweden, because of its own demented obsession with its Anti-American sentiment. I don't know if Ecuador honestly believes he won't receive a fair trial in Sweden, but that doesn't really matter, because Ecuador can 'make a stand' against the USA.
I could also ask you a counter-question: Why is he not getting extradited from the UK? Sweden - unlike the UK - has never been an ally of the USA. Not that they are enemies, but they are not active allies. Sweden is far too liberal to be thinking about extraditing Assange to the USA.
And one more question: What laws can the USA extradite Assange for? Assange hasn't broken any American laws. And even if they could, those laws would likely fall under military or political prosecution, two areas Sweden will not extradite people under.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the story about the applause no one dared to finish, after Stalin had spoken. First one to stop clapping was sent to Siberia. Good times.
Note: There is a good chance this story is entirely false, but since Snopes won't cover it, I'll go with 'it probably happened'.
According to the source, it is Go, not Go!. But yes, the summary was confusing.
Wouldn't they improve even more by practicing with real laparoscopes?
Maybe they are so expensive, that they cannot afford enough to let all the surgical residents practice one hour a day, five days a week. That and the fact, that they are probably also a lot more fragile.
In my freedom loving country, animals are even allowed to do it with humans.
Actually, the European headquarters of Scientology is in Copenhagen (according to this US report), while the Brussels office is merely a lobbying firm for Scientology to the EU.
I don't understand why there is so little violence in the schools in my country. Surely Huckabee cannot be wrong?!
Unions may seem useless in the USA, but in Europe they actually matter, which is probably why my country has a union for developers. In Europe, unions represent employees when negotiating working rules.
For instance, this means that very few European countries actually have minimum wage laws, because the minimum wag 'laws' are agreements between unions and employers. The idea is to keep government out of working rules (I am beginning to feel this is not the actual term in English), but rather let it remain between the employees (unions) and employers (corporations). However, unions have some rights (e.g. strikes) to protect their negotiation position. Employers too have rights.
I do not see a problem with this system.
no transparency/rounded_borders/shadows/effects
These lacks are good things. The rest, not so much.
Gee, as it turns out, I cannot even spell 'endeavour' correctly. Goddamn, Muphry's Law.
I've never heard of a Space Shuttle named Endaevor .
It's not illegal in Belgium
Yes it is. Please read the link I provided, or you can use Google to find hundreds of other references.
It was a ban on burkas. Yes, it's ridiculous, but it is not illegal to wear masks in Belgium. It was a ban on religious clothing that obscures a face, particularly forced upon women. But the amount of burkas used in Belgium is probably at a minimum.
Italy or Spain.
Italy and Spain have local bans. For instance, obscuring your face in public is illegal in Barcelona.
Actually, it's only illegal in public buildings, such as markets and libraries, which your link itself lists quite clearly. You can still walk outside while having your face obscured.
So basically, your "many EU countries" is "France". Belgium's law will likely have little consequence, and it seems that the Barcelona law is a protection of public buildings. Not that Turkey is the pedestal of civil rights, but they also had a similar ban as Barcelona (until at least very recently).
Denmark also have a ban on masks, but only during demonstrations and other large crowds. The usual freedom was previously abused heavily by activists to destroy property rather than actual demonstrate. The rationale is that if you are really interested in your message, you will have no issue showing your face at a public demonstration.
But most of these laws seems to be a form of Islamophobia than an actual crackdown on civil liberties, which seems to be collateral damage. There was even talk about banning burkas in Denmark, until politicians realised only 5 people in the whole country wore them, and they were ethnic Danes who had converted to Islam. The cases might even be similar in most other EU countries. Like the Swiss ban on Minarets. Ridiculous.
I did 230km/h there once. But 130km/h (~80mph) is the common standard across Europe, though. There are some exceptions, though.
Freeman speaking? You must be new here.
Simple! They build the elevator on Earth, then strap it to a rocket that they fly directly into the moon. Fortunately, they have turned the elevator upside down, so when the rocket crashes into the moon, the elevator stands upward.
This is kinda like how they build skyscrapers: Build it lying down, then straight it up when it's done. Much cheaper and safer.
As with any licence, I suppose, it is whatever you label with that licence that it becomes. A single thing (e.g. website, software program, etc.) can include parts that consists of multiple licences, which means the whole 'thing' cannot become one licence, unless altering one of its 'sub' licences does not violate that licence.
On Wikipedia, for instance, the software, i.e. MediaWiki (both server side and the default skins) is GPL, but the content (e.g. text, custom CSS, images, etc.) is CC-SA as you correctly noted. Unless, of course, wherever stated (a lot of images have a variety of licences).
Essentially, no licence wins, because if they cannot be converted to one another, your website has to be released under several licences. However, in general terms, a website appears under one licence, unless noted otherwise. As such, you may wish to include with your Wikipedia excerpt that it is CC-SA content.
I have no idea how much sense this post made, but essentially, it is not uncommon for a multitude of content to have a multitude of licences, even if within the same 'scope'/website/etc.
I am not confident that he will get a fair trial with regards to the rape charges. But whether Sweden will extradite seems less likely. To me.
The Pirate Bay trial proved American companies' influence of foreign court rooms. That was a sad sight to see. But also under a much more pro-American Swedish government.
But I wonder, if the US is willing to risk the outcry that will occur both domestically and abroad if they apprehend Assange. And for what? Wikileaks will still operate without Assange. Surely, he doesn't matter.
I will admit this; in the past, and certainly in times to come, governments have surprised me in their illogical decision making.
Would you risk your life on it ? Especially given all the other irregularities surrounding this case ?
The problem with that question - to me at least - is that it assumes I am stupid enough to end up in this situation in the first place. I probably wouldn't have slept with those two women in Stockholm to begin with, is what I am saying. So given that, I don't know. But I probably would. And that I bet that is pretty much what is going to happen right now. Assange cannot escape British custody.
In Sweden, it's both actually. The feminism has arisen incredibly because of the failed immigration policy, and as such there is a much larger effort in Sweden to track down rapists and suspected rapists. Primarily because Sweden does not wish to admit that its immigration policy has failed.
What's interesting about that case is that seems to violate the Swedish system of 'ministerstyre', where ministers cannot directly interfere in the actions of an agency. According to Swedish extradition laws, if a person to be extradited refuses, the courts will decide, but if the person complies, it is the foreign ministry that takes care of it.
Furthermore, that was under the previous government, Sweden now has a liberal government, whom are more anti-American than the previous one. Not that that is 100% guarantee that they won't extradite him, but it is certainly a factor. And considering the scandal you mention, I presume the Swedish government is not likely to try it again. Especially not with such a high-profile characters as Assange.
I cannot say what kind of rape it is, obviously, but the statistics are real. But there have been cases of false accusations of rape in Sweden, just any other country nowadays.
That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.
No. The Sydney Morning Herald states that: 'American responses to the embassy's representations have been withheld from release on the grounds that disclosure could "cause damage to the international relations of the Commonwealth".' So we know mainly Australia's side of the conversation, but that doesn't mean that they consist purely of speculation. And why does Fred Burton of Stratfor then claims that the U.S. has a sealed indictment against Julian Assange?
I don't know, but Assange is not in Australia. However, I will give you that Australia has certainly not been showing any signs of being interested in helping Assange.
In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism.
This is mainly calling people names.
Be that as it may, many Swedes I often talk to echo this sentiment, although would not use this strong turn of phrase. Sweden is notorious for routing around opinions it does not deem to be 'decent'. And it is not law enforcement, but rather society at large that will shut out extremist opinions. Communists and fascists have a hard time getting anything said in Sweden.
Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.
It's not about other nations pulling their business. It's about protecting UK embassies everywhere in the world. Who will for instance hinder the Russian police in the next Litvinenko-like case to storm the UK embassy in Moscow, citing the London precedent? That's the main reason why the UK retracted so fast from their bold statements - it would endanger the UK more than anyone else.
I also doubt Russia would risk that diplomatic uproar with the UK. It could also have been a British official who misspoke and mentioned that the UK had such laws, but forgot that mentioning it would certainly sound threatening. British law enforcement has a long history of incompetence.
I am not saying Ecaudor isn't without its right to be mad at the US, and I completely understand why they are doing what they are doing. I am just saying why they are, rather than assuming that Ecuador has definitive prove that Assange will be extradited to the US.
Assange has not committed access of espionage. He has not unlawfully approached secret information, instead, Bradley Manning went to him with the information, or rather Wikileaks. The way Wikileaks is set up means that Assange or Wikileaks in general, cannot know who leaked information to them. This ensures more safeguards for Wikileaks.
Manning's trial will start soon and I am sure he will be convincted. Assange on the other hand, have not committed any form of espionage in the USA. Furthermore, espionage count as military engagement, an area Sweden will not extradite under.
If he's so unimportant, why does the U.S. ambassador to Australia negotiate the terms of an extradition - just in case?
That was pure speculation on Australian diplomats' part.
If he's so unimportant, why insists Sweden on a witness statement given on swedish soil? (Yes, the extradition request is for a witness! It's not as if the state attorney already has filed charges.)
In Sweden, it is about setting an example. Sweden is the Saudi Arabia of feminism. Sweden has the highest number of rape cases per capita of any country in Europe. And not just by a small margin, twice as many as the country in second place, the UK.
Getting Assange to Sweden to be questioned and perhaps convicted of a rape would set a great example, not just at home, but abroad, considering the international fame of Assange. At least, that is the thought of the Swedish prosecutors.
If he's so unimportant, why does the UK government threats to storm the Ecuadorian embassy over him?
Because it's Ecuador; who gives a shit? The UK has had this law for a while now, and all embassies in London should be quite aware of it. I sincerely doubt other nations will 'pull their business' if the UK storms the Ecuadorian embassy.
Ecuador is using the situation to make a stand off against the USA, the UK and Sweden, because of its own demented obsession with its Anti-American sentiment. I don't know if Ecuador honestly believes he won't receive a fair trial in Sweden, but that doesn't really matter, because Ecuador can 'make a stand' against the USA.
I could also ask you a counter-question: Why is he not getting extradited from the UK? Sweden - unlike the UK - has never been an ally of the USA. Not that they are enemies, but they are not active allies. Sweden is far too liberal to be thinking about extraditing Assange to the USA.
And one more question: What laws can the USA extradite Assange for? Assange hasn't broken any American laws. And even if they could, those laws would likely fall under military or political prosecution, two areas Sweden will not extradite people under.
Well, I'll be damned. I stand corrected. Thank you.