Not authoritatively, but basically any money obtained, or avoidance of paying money, through illegal falls foul of anti-money laundering rules.
It means that you get hit with two charges not one, but is far nastier than that: Anybody that suspects money laundering is obliged to report it, or they themselves are committing an offence.
Actual crime is not needed, merely suspicious activity.
The idea to customize insurance up to individual profiles is completely opposite to the very first idea of the insurance itself which is a way to share a risk within a large pool of fellows in order to distribute the cost.
Why do you think this? That happens to be the primary implementation in consumer markets due to the difficulty of accurately assessing individual risk, but it's also possible to go to an insurance company and get a very individualised tailored policy covering something nobody else on the planet has - e.g. a supermodel's legs.
Insurance is about sharing a risk over the largest population possible.
No. Insurance is about offsetting a risk. Sharing it over a large population is often a more efficient mechanism, but far from essential.
False comparison. This is actually a potential benefit for both parties.
The insurer wins as there should be a reduced number of claims, resulting in reduced staff numbers required and lower payouts for claims.
The driver wins as they get a lower premium.
The rest of us lose out as we'll now get stuck behind slow cocks that don't dare accelerate away from junctions, adding to overall congestion and causing accidents for others as a result. But that doesn't make it a bad choice for the insured driver.
The actual issue is that it's just 200 miles - hardly a reasonable sample.
Exactly. Get onto a motorway at 2am, hit 70mph, cruise control on, no need to brake, accelerate or turn corners for the next 200 miles.
Or maybe 100 miles, if you then find a junction and take a leisurely trip around a roundabout to get back onto the motorway to come home again.
That approach also avoids them
monitoring where I go
I'm not going anywhere, just doing a quick data gathering exercise to save money on my car insurance.
Where all of this breaks down is that such a journey would cost me £25 in diesel, and that's well over 10% of my annual car insurance premium. Given that Aviva are around 15% more expensive than my current insurer, I'm better off just not bothering.
A 20% discount just doesn't justify the time, effort and (since they'll never stop at 200 miles, within a year it'll be ten times that) intrusion.
. given past UK police operations, it would likely be 2 unarmed, uniformed PCs in stab vests entering through the front door and asking Assange to come with them
Given past UK police operations this will be a 4am raid by armed police in which an innocent foreign national will be executed in front of a curiously malfunctioning security camera by someone clearly in fear of his life due to the danger posed by the unarmed, naked, blind, sleeping man.
No, Bradley Manning is getting held without trial, in abusive conditions, with behaviour that's banned in the UK as it constitutes human rights abuses and/or torture.
Don't even fucking pretend Manning's treatment is a shining beacon of light in the world of justice - unless, in the US, it is. In which case you're still not selling me on the idea Assange would get a fair trial.
yes, I assert that grabbing him was an unlawful act. or the attempt to grab him.
(...)
when the arrest was unlawful to begin with
The arrest was lawful. Shit, it's been through every fucking court in the country to prove that.
The European Arrest Warrant legislation is implicitly corrupt, inequitable and abusive, but it is law and it has been properly applied in this case.
None of which I particularly like, but the issue here is the fuckwit behaviour by Sweden, including - explicitly confirming he could leave the country then deciding they needed to talk to him after all - refusing to give assurances that he wont be extradited to a country renowned for torture and state sponsored murder - giving those women any fucking credibility after already reaching the conclusion that there was no case to answer.
You mean, they let a terminally ill person leave prison so he could die at home instead of waiting the extra few months it would've taken him to demonstrate his whole trial was a fucking sham and that his conviction was politically driven and an abuse of justice?
I don't think they could. I think there's sufficient doubt that he'd get a fair trial, that he wouldn't be tortured and that he wouldn't be murdered - sorry, executed. The British judiciary would take into account the comments by members of the US government, the activities at Guantanamo and probably refuse to extradite him on human rights grounds.
I'd certainly hope so.
Sweden doesn't appear to have the same regard for basic rights.
Violation of diplomatic rights would have immediate worldwide implications. The current protection of those rights is a remarkably strong support to "world peace" (to the extent we have it).
Sure, we could spank South America. It'd cost us a hell of a lot, and you're assuming Russia, India and China would stay out of it, which (in the face of "Western imperialist aggression") is pretty fucking unlikely.
Or, possibly, promise not to fucking extradite him to a country that practices state sponsored torture and kills poor people.
Sadly the Swedish Government have refused to do that, which is (along with the refusal to question him in the UK) why Ecuador have decided the action against him is indeed politically motivated and thus makes him eligible for political asylum.
I can't properly express how bewildered I am that a South American country is having to demonstrate a recognition of basic human rights to two European countries.
So given I wont get in quickly enough to grab is.gay, should I opt for mohammedis.gay or saudisare.gay or go straight for bigotedmisogynistignorantsavagesare.gay and cover off several countries at once?
I'll make it a single page site, containing only the text
I'm not so quick to say arrest them all because that kind of offense can ruin their life and also the victim of that kind of groping is going to likely be pissed at that moment in time and seek to ruin their life.
So someone shouldn't be prosecuted for sexual assault because a sexual assault conviction can ruin their lives?
I disagree, completely.
If you want to mitigate the negative impacts of a sexual assault conviction, to make it more proportionate to the offence, that's great. A lifetime impact from a few seconds of stupidity may be harsh.
But arresting people that commit a violent and intrusive crime? That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I find coding a constant set of new and interesting problems.
Admittedly that's because I automate the tedious tasks and re-use the solutions to previous problems, so any actual effort does get directed towards solving new (and thus interesting) problems.
Most software engineering is about the communication not the programming anyway - as highlighted earlier in this discussion.
Working in IT is different every day.
Possibly so, but that doesn't mean that programming is dull, and indeed building infrastructure needs to be even more meticulous than programming. If I code a bug, two minutes later my testing finds it and I get to fix it. If I plug the wrong wire into the wrong socket, I've just damaged some potentially very expensive hardware.
That's the second time I've seen drug use mentioned in this discussion.
I'm intrigued, because I haven't seen any evidence of increased drug use in geek/nerd/hacker cultures. None of my friends participate in a way that might be considered above societal norms, and drug use has never been on the agenda of any of the tech sites/blogs that I frequent.
That doesn't mean there's no drug use, but I do generally have the impression that it's no greater than broader society, and quite possibly less.
Slashdot Mirror
Not authoritatively, but basically any money obtained, or avoidance of paying money, through illegal falls foul of anti-money laundering rules.
It means that you get hit with two charges not one, but is far nastier than that: Anybody that suspects money laundering is obliged to report it, or they themselves are committing an offence.
Actual crime is not needed, merely suspicious activity.
The co-op claim a success on their young drivers product that puts a black box into the car and monitors all the time.
I'm not sure whether that success claim is backed up by hard data.
The idea to customize insurance up to individual profiles is completely opposite to the very first idea of the insurance itself which is a way to share a risk within a large pool of fellows in order to distribute the cost.
Why do you think this? That happens to be the primary implementation in consumer markets due to the difficulty of accurately assessing individual risk, but it's also possible to go to an insurance company and get a very individualised tailored policy covering something nobody else on the planet has - e.g. a supermodel's legs.
Insurance is about sharing a risk over the largest population possible.
No. Insurance is about offsetting a risk. Sharing it over a large population is often a more efficient mechanism, but far from essential.
Tell them you work from home and you drive an average of 20 miles a week. Your rate will drop.
Until they cross reference your stated mileage against your MOT certificate and you get prosecuted for insurance fraud.
It's fraud (and these days, money laundering) and you get spanked for it. Don't lie to insurance companies*.
*Disclaimer: I work for an insurance company.
False comparison. This is actually a potential benefit for both parties.
The insurer wins as there should be a reduced number of claims, resulting in reduced staff numbers required and lower payouts for claims.
The driver wins as they get a lower premium.
The rest of us lose out as we'll now get stuck behind slow cocks that don't dare accelerate away from junctions, adding to overall congestion and causing accidents for others as a result. But that doesn't make it a bad choice for the insured driver.
The actual issue is that it's just 200 miles - hardly a reasonable sample.
Exactly. Get onto a motorway at 2am, hit 70mph, cruise control on, no need to brake, accelerate or turn corners for the next 200 miles.
Or maybe 100 miles, if you then find a junction and take a leisurely trip around a roundabout to get back onto the motorway to come home again.
That approach also avoids them
monitoring where I go
I'm not going anywhere, just doing a quick data gathering exercise to save money on my car insurance.
Where all of this breaks down is that such a journey would cost me £25 in diesel, and that's well over 10% of my annual car insurance premium. Given that Aviva are around 15% more expensive than my current insurer, I'm better off just not bothering.
A 20% discount just doesn't justify the time, effort and (since they'll never stop at 200 miles, within a year it'll be ten times that) intrusion.
. given past UK police operations, it would likely be 2 unarmed, uniformed PCs in stab vests entering through the front door and asking Assange to come with them
Given past UK police operations this will be a 4am raid by armed police in which an innocent foreign national will be executed in front of a curiously malfunctioning security camera by someone clearly in fear of his life due to the danger posed by the unarmed, naked, blind, sleeping man.
The U.K. High Court properly held that what he is charged with qualifies as rape under U.K. law
Given he hasn't been charged with anything, you're clearly wrong.
The document you linked referred to offences detailed in the European Arrest Warrant. Those are not charges laid against Assange.
The Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act is itself illegal under international law.
Oh cool, didn't realise Slashdot readers included experts on international law.
You don't just declare an embassy an un-embassy when it suits you.
No, according to the legislation you give the embassy seven days notice first.
Bradley Manning is getting a trial.
No, Bradley Manning is getting held without trial, in abusive conditions, with behaviour that's banned in the UK as it constitutes human rights abuses and/or torture.
Don't even fucking pretend Manning's treatment is a shining beacon of light in the world of justice - unless, in the US, it is. In which case you're still not selling me on the idea Assange would get a fair trial.
yes, I assert that grabbing him was an unlawful act. or the attempt to grab him.
(...)
when the arrest was unlawful to begin with
The arrest was lawful. Shit, it's been through every fucking court in the country to prove that.
The European Arrest Warrant legislation is implicitly corrupt, inequitable and abusive, but it is law and it has been properly applied in this case.
None of which I particularly like, but the issue here is the fuckwit behaviour by Sweden, including
- explicitly confirming he could leave the country then deciding they needed to talk to him after all
- refusing to give assurances that he wont be extradited to a country renowned for torture and state sponsored murder
- giving those women any fucking credibility after already reaching the conclusion that there was no case to answer.
Boris stuck dangling on a wire
Hey, that was proper value for money. I'll pay extra if we can get the current Cabinet on one too.
You mean, they let a terminally ill person leave prison so he could die at home instead of waiting the extra few months it would've taken him to demonstrate his whole trial was a fucking sham and that his conviction was politically driven and an abuse of justice?
Yes, they did.
Except you're missing the part about where Ecuador caves
This whole discussion is just so much fun to read, just a few hours after Ecuador granted asylum to Assange.
I don't think they could. I think there's sufficient doubt that he'd get a fair trial, that he wouldn't be tortured and that he wouldn't be murdered - sorry, executed. The British judiciary would take into account the comments by members of the US government, the activities at Guantanamo and probably refuse to extradite him on human rights grounds.
I'd certainly hope so.
Sweden doesn't appear to have the same regard for basic rights.
You don't grant someone asylum then extradite them to the country persecuting them.
That would be stupid, counter-productive and a terrible waste of time, money and credibility.
Violation of diplomatic rights would have immediate worldwide implications. The current protection of those rights is a remarkably strong support to "world peace" (to the extent we have it).
Sure, we could spank South America. It'd cost us a hell of a lot, and you're assuming Russia, India and China would stay out of it, which (in the face of "Western imperialist aggression") is pretty fucking unlikely.
Or, possibly, promise not to fucking extradite him to a country that practices state sponsored torture and kills poor people.
Sadly the Swedish Government have refused to do that, which is (along with the refusal to question him in the UK) why Ecuador have decided the action against him is indeed politically motivated and thus makes him eligible for political asylum.
I can't properly express how bewildered I am that a South American country is having to demonstrate a recognition of basic human rights to two European countries.
So given I wont get in quickly enough to grab is.gay, should I opt for mohammedis.gay or saudisare.gay
or go straight for
bigotedmisogynistignorantsavagesare.gay and cover off several countries at once?
I'll make it a single page site, containing only the text
gay: adj. - Happy, joyful
Given a quick fondle is my example of extreme behaviour that wouldn't normally be tolerated, oddly enough no, I wouldn't recommend rape.
Lets make this explicit: Do not rape anybody.
thanks.
Sadly, there actually is something called the rape fantasy subculture
I fantasise about rape sometimes, but anybody trying to rape me will get castrated.
There's a difference between fantasy and reality.
I'm not so quick to say arrest them all because that kind of offense can ruin their life and also the victim of that kind of groping is going to likely be pissed at that moment in time and seek to ruin their life.
So someone shouldn't be prosecuted for sexual assault because a sexual assault conviction can ruin their lives?
I disagree, completely.
If you want to mitigate the negative impacts of a sexual assault conviction, to make it more proportionate to the offence, that's great. A lifetime impact from a few seconds of stupidity may be harsh.
But arresting people that commit a violent and intrusive crime? That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I find coding a constant set of new and interesting problems.
Admittedly that's because I automate the tedious tasks and re-use the solutions to previous problems, so any actual effort does get directed towards solving new (and thus interesting) problems.
Most software engineering is about the communication not the programming anyway - as highlighted earlier in this discussion.
Working in IT is different every day.
Possibly so, but that doesn't mean that programming is dull, and indeed building infrastructure needs to be even more meticulous than programming. If I code a bug, two minutes later my testing finds it and I get to fix it. If I plug the wrong wire into the wrong socket, I've just damaged some potentially very expensive hardware.
who don't use drugs
That's the second time I've seen drug use mentioned in this discussion.
I'm intrigued, because I haven't seen any evidence of increased drug use in geek/nerd/hacker cultures. None of my friends participate in a way that might be considered above societal norms, and drug use has never been on the agenda of any of the tech sites/blogs that I frequent.
That doesn't mean there's no drug use, but I do generally have the impression that it's no greater than broader society, and quite possibly less.
That even goes for alcohol.
Thanks for the clarification - I did say I hadn't researched :)