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.

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 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.

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.

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.