Actually it is just about as accurate as your average assault rifle if you take the time to adjust the iron sights, that is shoot alot at practice targets and adjust the iron sights until you hit where you aim, and then hang on to that particular gun.
But yes an AK-47 can take just about any abuse, without proper maintenance the accuracy will suffer until you clean it but that's it.
Firing an AK-47 is not very hard, heel a lot of african, south american and some asian nations have children younger than 10 running around and shooting people with them, it can basically be boiled down to a point and click operation. Man portable SAM's, ATGM's, howitzers, MBT's etc howerver are far more complicated things, I have no idea exactly how effective an RPG-7 is against a T-72 but if you need anything heavier than that operating things rapidly become more complicated.
Using guns in a civilian environment is very much different from using it in a military environment which is why cops get said training.
In war you typically try to demonize the enemy or use other forms of propaganda to convince your forces that the enemy is nothing but a bunch of marauding child-rapists that really deserves nothing but your utmost dedication in eradicating them from the face of the planet by any available means(which is why there are occasions in modern armies where troops deviate from orders and commit atrocities(The My Lai massacre comes to mind)).
When done properly it works wonders and well even if it doesn't work perfectly the trauma of killing another person is not an immediate major concern(it is ofcourse a significant concern to the individual soldier but leaders can suppress or ignore it) to the overall war effort, it can be taken care of once the fighting is done and the war is won.
Cops on the other hand should be objective and in most situations does not have the psychological benefit firmly believing that their target are scums truly deserving to put down, and this is why special psychological training is necessary.
People being shot by mistake is usually because they were either playing around, ignoring basic weapon safety rules such as always assuming a weapon is loaded unless you are absolutely sure it is not, or plain old ignorance.
Sure, safe weapon handling requires some education but it is hardly rocket science, push the stock firmly against your shoulder, release the safety, look down the length of the barrel, and gently pull the trigger.
Yes because the British would rather loose India and maintain somewhat good relations with the new country than to massacre the rebellion and alienate a sizable part of India. despite this it took Gandhi and his likes some 30 to 40 and two world wars years to accomplish this.
Muammar Ghaddafi has already shown that he is very much willing to use whatever force necessary to keep himself in power.
The two situations are simply not comparable, it would be more along the lines of trying to convince someone like Joseph Stalin to step down trough peaceful non-violence demonstrations.
Yes it's called plausible deniability(because not even the president is allowed to lie under oath) but that only works as long as the situation is contained because whenever the shit really hits the fan it's not going to be enought to protect him. Claiming you didn't know is not an acceptable excuse because something that important is something you should have known about or atleast been able to control indirectly.
Yes if something goes bad the Director of the CIA and the President will be blamed in a big way because they hold the ultimate responsibility regardless of wether they knew about that particular black-op or not they're supposed to run their organizations in a way that prevents such things from happenning regardless if they know the spcifics or not.
Wikileaks committed no crime since to the best of my knowledge neither the servers or any of the involved officials of wikileaks was on US soil or a US citizen, yes that is only a technicality but an important one. If it's true that any CIA sources where harmed or any missions where affected the CIA would be very quiet about it because technically pretty much eveerything the CIA does would be an act of aggression if it ever came to light. So yes it might equate attacking the CIA but the CIA can never talk about it or act on it in public because doing so would mean admitting they're running intelligence ops in another country which is considered an act of aggression(aka an act of war) against that country.
Likewise if the CIA assassinated Assange in an european country and got caught(or if any other resonable explanation was sufficently farfetched) it would raise a stink and an outcry that would sour US relations with the entire EU for the next decade or more. Every nation knows that pretty much every other nations runs intel ops within their country and they do the same to other countries but as long as noone gets caught it can be waved away as not happening but whenever something goes bad enough that another country can be implicated it's a huge diplomatic incident.
Additionally the justice system in Sweden is somewhat different. There is two levels of arrest, first can be issued by the on duty public prosecutor without having to argue it before a court or judge. The prosecutor can do this if there is resonable suspicion that the person to be detained has committed a crime for which the punishment can be atleast 1 year imprisonment or if the person to be detained is suspected to have information of great importance for the investigation.
After the person has been detained the prosecutor have to argue before a court for a formal arrest within 3 days or set the person free. After a formal arrest has been made and argued the prosecutor have 14 days to charge the arressted person with a crime, when the 14 days are up the prosecutor either has to set the suspect free or again argue before the court for an extension of the arrest(this is only approved if there is sufficient reason and suspicion against the suspect or if the suspect is considered a flight or suicide risk).
No it is not but on the other hand the warrant for his arrest probably seemed warranted at the time since the charges seemed credible. Thats all well within normal operations for any justice system and theres nothing particularly wrong about that modus operandi.
That the media got air and splashed it all over the first page on every major international media is not something that can be attributed to the juducual system and everytime the government tries to limit if and how media can publish these sort of things the media cries foul and starts a huge witchunt until the problem goes away.
The swedish government did not mess things up. Two women who seemed to have credible accusations against Assange came forward and accused him of rape. Over here in Sweden rape is very prioritized at the moment so the prosecutor acted according to the accusations(which at the time seemed credible) and started an investigation into wether Assange was guilty of a crime or not. There is nothing to fault in that action as long as the accusation seemed credible or do you think that when somone is accused of a crime the government should first spend several days or weeks looking into wether the accuser is credible or not? Or should the prosecutor do what is normally the norm, start an investigation and follow the eveidence in the direction they lead, if there is little to no evidence or witnesses/accusers turn out not to be credible then the case will be dismissed before ever reaching a court.
If the two women who brought the charges were either agents of CIA(or some other agency) or where coerced/bribed by aforementioned agencies then that is unfortunate but that is not something the police and prosecutors can know or assume and they can't just ignore accusations because the accused is a public person wanted by the United States etc. Justice is slow but until you are formally sentenced in court you are in the eyes of the justice system and the government assumed to be innocent, that the media completely blows things out of proportions and goes wherever the profit is not something the prosecutor can or is even allowed to take into consideration when deciding wether or not to start an investigation.
Yes if you incriminate yourself while under interrogation or while testifying for example, but a forum is hardly a credible or reliable source. The accused could easily have claimed that what was stated in the forum was a lie which isn't much of a stretch. Sure, that might or might not be perjury depending on wether the accused actually committed the offense but without any other evidence or witnesses than a forum post the government has no way of proving guilt if the accused denies the offense.
Incriminating yourself while in custody is very much different than incriminating yourself in a random forum on the internet.
Maybe you can construe it as that but in a court of law as long as you don't formally plead guilty there simply is no way that admitting guilt in an online forum rises beyond the level of resonable doubt.
According to the article the accused pleaded guilty which is why he was convicted, not because he confessed his crime in a public forum(although that is why he was sued it is not why he was convicted), had he pleaded not guilty it is extremely unlikely that he would have been found guilty by the court solely based on him admitting to the crime in a forum without any corroborating evidence whatsoever.
In Sweden the police are the only institution who have the right to require the last 4 digits of your personal ID number(Personal ID number is made up by your birth date YYMMDD followed by a string of 4 numbers which amongst other things identify the the county you were born in aswell as your sex) failure or refusal to give your personal ID number to a police officer who has a legit reason for requiring it will earn you the night in detention.
You are not required by law to carry an ID card but you can under certain circumstanse be required to state your personal ID number as stated above, Anyone can ofcourse ask you to give it up for identification but you can always refuse that(though you will probably be refused the service you were trying to acquire)
Well if he underprovisions his home network thats his own problem and he can't blame anyone else.
The problem when an ISP does it is that they usually don't tell their customers about it and then they get all upset when the customer tries to fully utilize the bandwidth they are paying for but not recieving(the fact that if the ISP didn't underprovision their network the monthly cost would be much higher isn't something the customer is told and the ISP's advertise it as "up to XXMbit" and then try to limit the customers in what they can and cannot do with that connection and how much they can utilise it).
The way most western countries works is that anyone who owns land is in fact just renting it(for a onetime cost) from the government. The government can if deemed neccessary for the good of the public buy it back or under extreme conditions choose to seize the land.
When a government is overthrown then your deal with said government is obviously useless unless the new government chooses to give you the same deal you had with the previous government. If they do not then the land defaults back to the government. Fortunately such changes in government is quite uncommon in western countries and as such forceful government seizures rarely happens except to enforce judgment on a convicted felon.
Considering that that type of radar depending on size can cook a sausage and boil water in anything between 5-10 seconds and up to about half a minute your buddy and his friends are lucky they just felt sick and threw up, a few seconds more and they would have been beyond rescue.
Where on earth did you get the information that he didn't have a valid passport? The article sure doesn't say anything to that effect.
They do not even let you onto flights going to another nation unless you have a valid passport.
Even then there are some really effective poisonous substances that either can be stored in gaseous form easy(because of their extremely high lethality/unit of weight) or can be stored as a solid or liquid in various body cavities until it comes in contact with air or water at which point the substance assumes gaseous form.
So if your aim is just to kill everyone on the plane rather than make it crash somewhere spectacular(though everyone onboard dying will make it crash eventually ofcourse)
From what I understand thats because EU don't have the right to mandate legislation except when it concerns internal free trade or the movement of goods and/or people.
The problem in such a low bond is that the fee isn't even remotely painful for the large corporations which are the ones that makes the overwhelming majority of the patent claims that are obvious or merely for obstruction.
Personally I think any such fee needs to be a percentage of income. That way it hits the small inventor guy and the large corporation at equal terms, ofc the rules needs to be written in such a way that a corporation can't just transfer the costs to a small unprofitable subsidiary(and thus get a lower cost than it would have otherwise)
IANAL.
This trial is not something that will be resolved quickly, I expect it to take around 5 years atleast since it will almost certainly appealed up to and including the Supreme Court and possibly even further going over to the EU court.
Nothing of significance is ever resolved at the 'Tingsrätten'(approximate equivalent to a district court) since the only individual in the court with a law degree(except for the lawyers on each side ofcourse) is the judge, the other members of the court are selected citizens of good standing.
The legal grounds in this case is shaky at best but should they be found guilty the fines and reparations will be nowhere near the requested amounts because The Pirate Bay founders are not beeing charged with accessory to commercial scale infringement but with several specific infringements and there's a roof as to high the fines for each infringement can go.
Even better, force the newspapers and other media to dedicate the same amount of coverage to proclaiming the individual's innocence in case of a dropped or innocent verdict as they do spend on blackening said person before the trial. Meaning if it's on the first page for 3 consecutive days said newspaper have to dedicate the frontpage to proclaiming his innocence for 3 consecutive days.
The government is not at fault for investigating him, the media is at fault for judging him in the court of public opinion before they know wether said person is guilty or not.
Any Employer who fires somone on such basis should also be forced to rehire the individual if the individual so desires as well as paying a hefty fine.
Make it one strike, if you run for office you better damn well know how to operate that office, this is one of those things that are so important that society can't afford to give them a second or a third chance
Any member of the executive or the legislative branch who has one of their laws declared as unconsitutional should also suffer the full extent of any and all punishments detailed within that law
Well the pirates won't go away anyway they will still pirate the game, the whole game that is because all it takes is 1 person downloading that final content and putting it on the pirate bay.
What such a stance will do is eventually alienate the regular buyers because they would feel they have b een cheated on the content so they will go to the piratebay to get it for free and worse, once you piss them off enough they will just switch to downloading the entire game off the pirate bay and then you have lost a paying customer.
Another very important thing is wether such a clause would be enforeacble or not.
If that particular clause of the EULA is in violation of some law then it is void and as such you can ignore it.
Lots of software companies knowingly puts alot of stuff into their EULA's that they know there's no way in hell they would get through with in court and in my opinion that behaviour is something that ought to be punished but unfortunately it isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it is just about as accurate as your average assault rifle if you take the time to adjust the iron sights, that is shoot alot at practice targets and adjust the iron sights until you hit where you aim, and then hang on to that particular gun.
But yes an AK-47 can take just about any abuse, without proper maintenance the accuracy will suffer until you clean it but that's it.
Firing an AK-47 is not very hard, heel a lot of african, south american and some asian nations have children younger than 10 running around and shooting people with them, it can basically be boiled down to a point and click operation. Man portable SAM's, ATGM's, howitzers, MBT's etc howerver are far more complicated things, I have no idea exactly how effective an RPG-7 is against a T-72 but if you need anything heavier than that operating things rapidly become more complicated.
Using guns in a civilian environment is very much different from using it in a military environment which is why cops get said training. In war you typically try to demonize the enemy or use other forms of propaganda to convince your forces that the enemy is nothing but a bunch of marauding child-rapists that really deserves nothing but your utmost dedication in eradicating them from the face of the planet by any available means(which is why there are occasions in modern armies where troops deviate from orders and commit atrocities(The My Lai massacre comes to mind)).
When done properly it works wonders and well even if it doesn't work perfectly the trauma of killing another person is not an immediate major concern(it is ofcourse a significant concern to the individual soldier but leaders can suppress or ignore it) to the overall war effort, it can be taken care of once the fighting is done and the war is won.
Cops on the other hand should be objective and in most situations does not have the psychological benefit firmly believing that their target are scums truly deserving to put down, and this is why special psychological training is necessary.
People being shot by mistake is usually because they were either playing around, ignoring basic weapon safety rules such as always assuming a weapon is loaded unless you are absolutely sure it is not, or plain old ignorance.
Sure, safe weapon handling requires some education but it is hardly rocket science, push the stock firmly against your shoulder, release the safety, look down the length of the barrel, and gently pull the trigger.
Yes because the British would rather loose India and maintain somewhat good relations with the new country than to massacre the rebellion and alienate a sizable part of India. despite this it took Gandhi and his likes some 30 to 40 and two world wars years to accomplish this.
Muammar Ghaddafi has already shown that he is very much willing to use whatever force necessary to keep himself in power.
The two situations are simply not comparable, it would be more along the lines of trying to convince someone like Joseph Stalin to step down trough peaceful non-violence demonstrations.
Yes it's called plausible deniability(because not even the president is allowed to lie under oath) but that only works as long as the situation is contained because whenever the shit really hits the fan it's not going to be enought to protect him. Claiming you didn't know is not an acceptable excuse because something that important is something you should have known about or atleast been able to control indirectly.
Yes if something goes bad the Director of the CIA and the President will be blamed in a big way because they hold the ultimate responsibility regardless of wether they knew about that particular black-op or not they're supposed to run their organizations in a way that prevents such things from happenning regardless if they know the spcifics or not.
Wikileaks committed no crime since to the best of my knowledge neither the servers or any of the involved officials of wikileaks was on US soil or a US citizen, yes that is only a technicality but an important one. If it's true that any CIA sources where harmed or any missions where affected the CIA would be very quiet about it because technically pretty much eveerything the CIA does would be an act of aggression if it ever came to light. So yes it might equate attacking the CIA but the CIA can never talk about it or act on it in public because doing so would mean admitting they're running intelligence ops in another country which is considered an act of aggression(aka an act of war) against that country.
Likewise if the CIA assassinated Assange in an european country and got caught(or if any other resonable explanation was sufficently farfetched) it would raise a stink and an outcry that would sour US relations with the entire EU for the next decade or more. Every nation knows that pretty much every other nations runs intel ops within their country and they do the same to other countries but as long as noone gets caught it can be waved away as not happening but whenever something goes bad enough that another country can be implicated it's a huge diplomatic incident.
Additionally the justice system in Sweden is somewhat different. There is two levels of arrest, first can be issued by the on duty public prosecutor without having to argue it before a court or judge. The prosecutor can do this if there is resonable suspicion that the person to be detained has committed a crime for which the punishment can be atleast 1 year imprisonment or if the person to be detained is suspected to have information of great importance for the investigation.
After the person has been detained the prosecutor have to argue before a court for a formal arrest within 3 days or set the person free. After a formal arrest has been made and argued the prosecutor have 14 days to charge the arressted person with a crime, when the 14 days are up the prosecutor either has to set the suspect free or again argue before the court for an extension of the arrest(this is only approved if there is sufficient reason and suspicion against the suspect or if the suspect is considered a flight or suicide risk).
No it is not but on the other hand the warrant for his arrest probably seemed warranted at the time since the charges seemed credible. Thats all well within normal operations for any justice system and theres nothing particularly wrong about that modus operandi.
That the media got air and splashed it all over the first page on every major international media is not something that can be attributed to the juducual system and everytime the government tries to limit if and how media can publish these sort of things the media cries foul and starts a huge witchunt until the problem goes away.
The swedish government did not mess things up. Two women who seemed to have credible accusations against Assange came forward and accused him of rape.
Over here in Sweden rape is very prioritized at the moment so the prosecutor acted according to the accusations(which at the time seemed credible) and started an investigation into wether Assange was guilty of a crime or not.
There is nothing to fault in that action as long as the accusation seemed credible or do you think that when somone is accused of a crime the government should first spend several days or weeks looking into wether the accuser is credible or not? Or should the prosecutor do what is normally the norm, start an investigation and follow the eveidence in the direction they lead, if there is little to no evidence or witnesses/accusers turn out not to be credible then the case will be dismissed before ever reaching a court.
If the two women who brought the charges were either agents of CIA(or some other agency) or where coerced/bribed by aforementioned agencies then that is unfortunate but that is not something the police and prosecutors can know or assume and they can't just ignore accusations because the accused is a public person wanted by the United States etc. Justice is slow but until you are formally sentenced in court you are in the eyes of the justice system and the government assumed to be innocent, that the media completely blows things out of proportions and goes wherever the profit is not something the prosecutor can or is even allowed to take into consideration when deciding wether or not to start an investigation.
Yes if you incriminate yourself while under interrogation or while testifying for example, but a forum is hardly a credible or reliable source. The accused could easily have claimed that what was stated in the forum was a lie which isn't much of a stretch.
Sure, that might or might not be perjury depending on wether the accused actually committed the offense but without any other evidence or witnesses than a forum post the government has no way of proving guilt if the accused denies the offense.
Incriminating yourself while in custody is very much different than incriminating yourself in a random forum on the internet.
Maybe you can construe it as that but in a court of law as long as you don't formally plead guilty there simply is no way that admitting guilt in an online forum rises beyond the level of resonable doubt.
According to the article the accused pleaded guilty which is why he was convicted, not because he confessed his crime in a public forum(although that is why he was sued it is not why he was convicted), had he pleaded not guilty it is extremely unlikely that he would have been found guilty by the court solely based on him admitting to the crime in a forum without any corroborating evidence whatsoever.
In Sweden the police are the only institution who have the right to require the last 4 digits of your personal ID number(Personal ID number is made up by your birth date YYMMDD followed by a string of 4 numbers which amongst other things identify the the county you were born in aswell as your sex) failure or refusal to give your personal ID number to a police officer who has a legit reason for requiring it will earn you the night in detention.
You are not required by law to carry an ID card but you can under certain circumstanse be required to state your personal ID number as stated above, Anyone can ofcourse ask you to give it up for identification but you can always refuse that(though you will probably be refused the service you were trying to acquire)
Well if he underprovisions his home network thats his own problem and he can't blame anyone else.
The problem when an ISP does it is that they usually don't tell their customers about it and then they get all upset when the customer tries to fully utilize the bandwidth they are paying for but not recieving(the fact that if the ISP didn't underprovision their network the monthly cost would be much higher isn't something the customer is told and the ISP's advertise it as "up to XXMbit" and then try to limit the customers in what they can and cannot do with that connection and how much they can utilise it).
The way most western countries works is that anyone who owns land is in fact just renting it(for a onetime cost) from the government. The government can if deemed neccessary for the good of the public buy it back or under extreme conditions choose to seize the land.
When a government is overthrown then your deal with said government is obviously useless unless the new government chooses to give you the same deal you had with the previous government. If they do not then the land defaults back to the government. Fortunately such changes in government is quite uncommon in western countries and as such forceful government seizures rarely happens except to enforce judgment on a convicted felon.
Considering that that type of radar depending on size can cook a sausage and boil water in anything between 5-10 seconds and up to about half a minute your buddy and his friends are lucky they just felt sick and threw up, a few seconds more and they would have been beyond rescue.
Where on earth did you get the information that he didn't have a valid passport? The article sure doesn't say anything to that effect.
They do not even let you onto flights going to another nation unless you have a valid passport.
Even then there are some really effective poisonous substances that either can be stored in gaseous form easy(because of their extremely high lethality/unit of weight) or can be stored as a solid or liquid in various body cavities until it comes in contact with air or water at which point the substance assumes gaseous form.
So if your aim is just to kill everyone on the plane rather than make it crash somewhere spectacular(though everyone onboard dying will make it crash eventually ofcourse)
From what I understand thats because EU don't have the right to mandate legislation except when it concerns internal free trade or the movement of goods and/or people.
The problem in such a low bond is that the fee isn't even remotely painful for the large corporations which are the ones that makes the overwhelming majority of the patent claims that are obvious or merely for obstruction.
Personally I think any such fee needs to be a percentage of income. That way it hits the small inventor guy and the large corporation at equal terms, ofc the rules needs to be written in such a way that a corporation can't just transfer the costs to a small unprofitable subsidiary(and thus get a lower cost than it would have otherwise)
IANAL.
This trial is not something that will be resolved quickly, I expect it to take around 5 years atleast since it will almost certainly appealed up to and including the Supreme Court and possibly even further going over to the EU court.
Nothing of significance is ever resolved at the 'Tingsrätten'(approximate equivalent to a district court) since the only individual in the court with a law degree(except for the lawyers on each side ofcourse) is the judge, the other members of the court are selected citizens of good standing.
The legal grounds in this case is shaky at best but should they be found guilty the fines and reparations will be nowhere near the requested amounts because The Pirate Bay founders are not beeing charged with accessory to commercial scale infringement but with several specific infringements and there's a roof as to high the fines for each infringement can go.
Subsidiary companies ;)
Even better, force the newspapers and other media to dedicate the same amount of coverage to proclaiming the individual's innocence in case of a dropped or innocent verdict as they do spend on blackening said person before the trial. Meaning if it's on the first page for 3 consecutive days said newspaper have to dedicate the frontpage to proclaiming his innocence for 3 consecutive days.
The government is not at fault for investigating him, the media is at fault for judging him in the court of public opinion before they know wether said person is guilty or not.
Any Employer who fires somone on such basis should also be forced to rehire the individual if the individual so desires as well as paying a hefty fine.
Make it one strike, if you run for office you better damn well know how to operate that office, this is one of those things that are so important that society can't afford to give them a second or a third chance
Any member of the executive or the legislative branch who has one of their laws declared as unconsitutional should also suffer the full extent of any and all punishments detailed within that law
Well the pirates won't go away anyway they will still pirate the game, the whole game that is because all it takes is 1 person downloading that final content and putting it on the pirate bay.
What such a stance will do is eventually alienate the regular buyers because they would feel they have b een cheated on the content so they will go to the piratebay to get it for free and worse, once you piss them off enough they will just switch to downloading the entire game off the pirate bay and then you have lost a paying customer.
Another very important thing is wether such a clause would be enforeacble or not.
If that particular clause of the EULA is in violation of some law then it is void and as such you can ignore it.
Lots of software companies knowingly puts alot of stuff into their EULA's that they know there's no way in hell they would get through with in court and in my opinion that behaviour is something that ought to be punished but unfortunately it isn't.