Thanks for that. One key statement in the judgment was:
There is no statutory definition of accused person, nor for this purpose is there any statutory definition of “prosecution”.
I checked the EU Framework Decision on EAWs, and the wording is also quite ambiguous, as it refers to "purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution".
I guess the problem lies in the difference between inquisitorial and adversarial systems used respectively in civil law and common law jurisdictions.
Thanks for the clue, but I still don't grok how "questioning with intent to prosecute" is equivalent to being charged with an offence.
I followed the Guardian's links and found this: "... the Swedish prosecutor has made it clear that Mr Assange is wanted for trial if he goes back. Unless he can demonstrate his innocence before trial, he will be tried."
* The sense of being alone and isolated in the world; Check
* A new-found grasp or appreciation of one's mortality; Check
* Believing that one's life has no purpose or external meaning; Check
* Awareness of one's freedom and the consequences of accepting or rejecting that freedom; Check
* An extremely pleasurable or hurtful experience that leaves one seeking meaning; Quite likely
Technology is constantly developed to make killing more precise; which means LESS killing.
And there are a hell of a lot of spin-offs that are used in civilian markets. I don't see why you have created some sort of demarcation between killing tech and non killing tech. there is just tech that is used. The same tech is often used for killing as it used for non killing.
Gatling gun, A-bomb, H-bomb, Napalm, MOAB... precise enough for government work I guess.
Drunk drivers have been killing about a 9/11 worth of Americans every couple months since the 1960s. [... I'm happy to see them do something genuinely effective against a problem that's about a hundred times worse than terrorism.
Well, just plain driving has been killing 10 x 9/11 worth of Americans every couple of months since the 1960s.
From TFA: He was sentenced to six months each for the mail fraud and copyright infringement crimes and an additional 24 months for the aggravated identity theft.
No trademark infringement? I doubt he was passing these off as the real thing, i.e., counterfeiting.
What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.
From the link in TFA: “The Stockholm district court has today found guilty the four individuals that were charged with accessory to breaching copyright laws,” said the statement from the Stockholm district Court.
Either Sweden has very weird laws or very bad translators. There was no mention of any conviction of breaching copyright laws. How can anyone be an accessory to a "crime" for which no one was convicted?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for that. One key statement in the judgment was: There is no statutory definition of accused person, nor for this purpose is there any statutory definition of “prosecution”.
I checked the EU Framework Decision on EAWs, and the wording is also quite ambiguous, as it refers to "purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution".
I guess the problem lies in the difference between inquisitorial and adversarial systems used respectively in civil law and common law jurisdictions.
Thanks for the clue, but I still don't grok how "questioning with intent to prosecute" is equivalent to being charged with an offence.
I followed the Guardian's links and found this: "... the Swedish prosecutor has made it clear that Mr Assange is wanted for trial if he goes back. Unless he can demonstrate his innocence before trial, he will be tried."
WTF?
TFA says: "to face allegations of sexual assault"
But there are no charges in Sweden against Assange. Why didn't the defence lawyers bring this up? He is not formally accused of anything.
Well its all an act / business to him.
Boom, right there. Glenn Beck plays a character on TV, named Glenn Beck.
The actor who plays Glenn Beck is named Paul Giamatti.
Would it make you more concious of your choices?
Yes, Cristal or Krug.
...an Australian pub--wait, actually they didn't but for different reasons.
I think that would be a kibigram.
Don't let the industry fool you. They introduced that distinction so they can put less in a box and still sell it to you as 1kg of Mac and Cheese.
They have you fooled already, since the right question to ask is not "How much does 1 kg weigh?", but rather "What is a dollar worth?".
At this rate, there will be naked chicks in The Economist by 2014!
They're already there. And yes, I get it on my iPad.
From Wikipedia:
An existential crisis may result from:
* The sense of being alone and isolated in the world; Check
* A new-found grasp or appreciation of one's mortality; Check
* Believing that one's life has no purpose or external meaning; Check
* Awareness of one's freedom and the consequences of accepting or rejecting that freedom; Check
* An extremely pleasurable or hurtful experience that leaves one seeking meaning; Quite likely
I would have had an existential crisis.
In my household I have been implementing SAP (Spousal Approval Protocol) for years.
slave Suzy, slave Suzy, faster than lightning
No one, you see, is smarter than he...
Technology is constantly developed to make killing more precise; which means LESS killing.
And there are a hell of a lot of spin-offs that are used in civilian markets. I don't see why you have created some sort of demarcation between killing tech and non killing tech. there is just tech that is used. The same tech is often used for killing as it used for non killing.
Gatling gun, A-bomb, H-bomb, Napalm, MOAB... precise enough for government work I guess.
He "printed out" a raptor skull in Jurassic Park.
Drunk drivers have been killing about a 9/11 worth of Americans every couple months since the 1960s. [... I'm happy to see them do something genuinely effective against a problem that's about a hundred times worse than terrorism.
Well, just plain driving has been killing 10 x 9/11 worth of Americans every couple of months since the 1960s.
From TFA: He was sentenced to six months each for the mail fraud and copyright infringement crimes and an additional 24 months for the aggravated identity theft.
No trademark infringement? I doubt he was passing these off as the real thing, i.e., counterfeiting.
What a God-damn whiner. It's always someone else's fault. If you had kept your dick in your pants, would you be in this situation? I think not. But go ahead and blame the women. It makes you look like the pathetic whiny crybaby you really are.
Is that you Miss A? Say hi to Miss W for me.
And tag TFS "badsummary".
Is that a statute about liberty?
How does one buzz it?
Did he just print it out, and fly his plane over it? If so, that seems like something anyone could do.
Yes, something about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Judging from the concerns voiced in the comments, he definitely buzzed it.
In my experience most people misidentify pedestrian phenomena and call it a UFO.
MFOs anyone?
Archimedes' principle. The Fisch implementation is pretty good.
It was either the Liquidate Bradley Manning brigade or this.
From the link in TFA: “The Stockholm district court has today found guilty the four individuals that were charged with accessory to breaching copyright laws,” said the statement from the Stockholm district Court.
Either Sweden has very weird laws or very bad translators. There was no mention of any conviction of breaching copyright laws. How can anyone be an accessory to a "crime" for which no one was convicted?
TFA doesn't say how these worms were genetically modified.
This dupe was totally periodictable.