Some countries are returning to the US sphere, some are trying to make their own path, and some are turning away. I think the turn toward the US may be strengthening somewhat as the Chavistas lose influence since the death of Chavez and the nightmare that Venezuela has become, but Bolivia is still charting its own course while not completely blowing off the US, and, of course, Venezuela is still cursing the US.

For all the peasant look and desire for peaceful relations with everyone that Evo Morales has, I'm sure his daily briefing includes intelligence updates from spies in surrounding nations.

People fled to the USSR to escape at least what they perceived to be unfair trials during the Cold War. Many of them arranged to live in allied countries, but some returned when they realized just how difficult life was in the Soviet Union and their allies.

There is no crime of 'skipping bail' in the UK- only the USA has the 'crime' of breaking bail conditions.

The Bail Act of 1976 says otherwise. Section 6, Offence of absconding by person released on bail, says in part:

(1) If a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings fails without reasonable cause to surrender to custody he shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) If a person who— ..(a)has been released on bail in criminal proceedings, and ..(b)having reasonable cause therefor, has failed to surrender to custody,
fails to surrender to custody at the appointed place as soon after the appointed time as is reasonably practicable he shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) It shall be for the accused to prove that he had reasonable cause for his failure to surrender to custody.

(4) A failure to give to a person granted bail in criminal proceedings a copy of the record of the decision shall not constitute a reasonable cause for that person’s failure to surrender to custody.

(5) An offence under subsection (1) or (2) above shall be punishable either on summary conviction or as if it were a criminal contempt of court.

(6) Where a magistrates’ court convicts a person of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above the court may, if it thinks— ..(a)that the circumstances of the offence are such that greater punishment should be inflicted for that offence than the court has power to inflict, or ..(b)in a case where it commits that person for trial to the Crown Court for another offence, that it would be appropriate for him to be dealt with for the offence under subsection (1) or (2) above by the court before which he is tried for the other offence,
commit him in custody or on bail to the Crown Court for sentence.

(7)A person who is convicted summarily of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above and is not committed to the Crown Court for sentence shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or to both and a person who is so committed for sentence or is dealt with as for such a contempt shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine or to both.

He was granted bail (which was posted by followers) in a criminal proceeding (extraditions are criminal proceedings). He was ordered to return on a specific day and failed to do so. He was granted chances to return in order that his bail would be returned to those who had donated to it, but still did not, and the bail was revoked and the money kept by the Crown. Unless Assange can prove that his failure to appear was reasonable, he's in for three months at a minimum but it could be up to 12 months, plus a possible fine.

I don't know that any country would make bail jumping not be a crime. It's intentionally evading criminal prosecution. Assange will probably never get bail again anywhere in his life.

Third-world countries are probably at least as likely to spy on allies, if only because allegiances to world powers shift far more rapidly, especially in Africa. As their ability to handle independence grows, the various African nations have changed their loyalties for political, economic, and ethnic reasons. Countries that were close allies once could turn on each other to the point of outright war in the space of a year, and a few years later, a new president or prime minister on either or both sides could see the return of extremely close relations.

Similar things have happened on a lesser scale in South America as some nations tried to reduce US influence, and the resulting partisanship has meant that a shift in presidencies can turn a relationship with the US, formerly seen as the protector of the continent, into a very cold one where US desires are outright and very publicly ignored. That unpredictability certainly adds to the desire to know what's going on next door, and so increases the need for espionage.

Countries that are friends today can easily be adversaries tomorrow and the US and France haven't had the closest of relationships.

Thank you for pointing this out. Most people don't realize it.

France dropped out as a full member of NATO in 1966, ordering most non-French forces out, and didn't rejoin it until 2009. The original purpose was so that France could potentially come to a separate peace with the Warsaw Pact nations if it didn't agree with the reasons for a war with them. This didn't last long, as a secret agreement for France to rapidly re-integrate into NATO forces was signed soon after.

However, it caused a great deal of mistrust in other countries, and France has maintained interests in other countries around the world, not always for the betterment of those outside of France. It's strongly suspected of being behind the Israeli nuclear arms program, something that was originally opposed by the United States because it risked rising tensions in the Middle East where the Soviets had a strong presence in countries such as Egypt, Iraq, and Syria. France has also been caught conducting industrial espionage in numerous countries including the United States, and there's little reason to think that they've stopped there. The country has an international independence streak much longer than that of the US, and it's not likely to change anytime soon.

Nations spy on other nations, because almost every one has been assured of something and then been stabbed in the back. Reagan told Thatcher that the US had no intention of invading Grenada even as forces were moving in, and the attack began just a few hours later. I'm sure that as much as Thatcher may have forgiven Reagan later, plans were put in place to try to catch this kind of thing at an earlier stage, whether through satellites, photography from chartered aircraft, and 'tourists' who happen to be near key locations, or through traditional espionage techniques of stealing or turning people.

It's an understood game. Everyone does it, everyone tries to stop it. They get better at both sides, and the dance continues.

Spies neither start nor end wars. The capture of a spy won't be what starts a war. You don't have two countries start off perfectly happy with each other until one finds a spy from the other and suddenly they're sending tanks across the border. Finding a spy might be claimed as the reason for a war, but there are always other, far more significant reasons, almost always having to do with the exploitation of resources (whether mining, farming, space, or people). Even allegedly religious wars usually have to do with claiming land (and therefore resources) for one's deity.

Security failures may result in decreased performance through CPU, storage, and network utilization. It may result in loss of access through crashes or account lockouts. It can result in the release of private information, whether passwords, PKI keys, financial data, or love letters. With the loss of passwords and PKI keys, the ability to guarantee someone is who he claims may be lost.

With those examples, you have loss of availability, confidentiality, and integrity, all affecting usability. Security vs. usability isn't a see-saw. It's a much more complex graph. An unusable security implementation may get scrapped, but that doesn't mean that usability is automatically improved.

That's not really the reason for speedy trials. Guarantees of a speedy trial were so that the accused couldn't sit for an arbitrarily long time in prison, or if let out, then an arbitrarily long time with travel restrictions over their head. Also, memories fade, some people move, others may die, and this affects the ability to conduct a fair trial. It was far less about physical evidence (which in the case of organic material could putrefy long before even a very rapid trial could be brought about) than it was about alibis being corroborated.

Because if the statute of limitations runs out, then Assange can leave. Apparently, under Swedish law, even a fugitive's statute clock still ticks. Not all of the potential charges expire this August, but some do, and I think the others will as well.

Of course, Assange still has to deal with the bail-jumping charge in the UK which involves up to a year in prison and quite likely deportation after that. In addition, if he's ever picked up on any offense in any country for the rest of his life, he'll sit in jail, without any chance at bail, until the trial is complete.

Exactly. We will probably see more dysfunctional political behavior before the system breaks and a new third party develops. The only way for that to happen is to have someone who appeals to the broad center and has enough money to pay for a complete run. None of the existing, significant third parties (Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, or American Independent) is moderate enough for this, having their own extreme views that alienate too many people, much like the Republicans and Democrats. Even then, it will require overcoming the total lack of inertia among those who don't vote.

Pandering to the base tends to alienate the rest of the electorate, often to the point of discouraging them from voting. They think, what's the point in voting when the person likely to win is going to ignore you and the rest don't have a chance anyway? Sure, you get the base from the other side voting, but a lot of people who don't vote are in the middle and feel like they're largely ignored anyway.

I wonder if that has more to do with unfamiliarity with the UK electoral and polling environments. His past record has been pretty solid in the US, but he has a lot more experience with the US systems. If he improves over time (if 538 lasts ten years or more), that could be a reason for the poor showing. Or perhaps polling is already fundamentally broken in the UK.

And there's the possibility that he's just been extraordinarily lucky for the last few elections. :)

Oops. You're right. I'm blaming it on a radio glitch. :)

The Aibos don't compare. But later robots may, if they reach a state of sentience.

Same here. Verizon only works near my front porch; Sprint works throughout the house. I also pay significantly less for Sprint than I would for Verizon or AT&T. I've no real complaints about it.