The Judge did nothing of the sort, the chimps were the ones named in the case by the animal rights activists, the Judge had to direct any motion at the chimps for the owners of the chimps to respond - and thats what he did here. He asked the owners to respond, via the Habeus Corpus motion - he had no other recourse.

The activists are claiming something that didn't happen.

sata has overhead of the, well, sata and scsi layers.

the pci-e ssd stuff is going to be based on NVMe and that cuts thru all the old layers and goes more direct. its also network-able (some vendors).

this is really NOT for consumers, though. consumers are just fine with ssd on sata ports.

you can rent apartments for 2500/mo and houses for about 3k/mo in the bay area (I live here and I do rent).

2000 is very bottom of rent price for anything livable. house rents start at 2500 (usually townhouses with shared walls).

yes, its insane. don't come here. and if you live here, move.

Its amusing how all four of the points you raise are false:

1. The initial prosecutor threw the case out, but a second senior prosecutor took up the case on request from the victims.

2. Assange was not told he was free to leave Sweden, infact his lawyer was specifically told they wanted to talk to him again and he should contact the police before leaving Sweden.

3. No Swedish or Interpol law was contravened by the issuance of Assanges warrant - infact, this is exactly the sort of use they are for.

4. All UK courts where this case has been argued has actually both affirmed the legality of the arrest warrant, and affirmed the right of the Swedish to issue it. No UK court has ruled it illegal, and most certainly no UK court has said what you claim they have said.

How about you get your facts in order before claiming bullshit, k?

He is, the "embassies are sovereign soil" thing is a myth, not fact. Add to that fact that the Ecuadorian Embassy is a rented flat in a shared building and I'm sure the owner will dispute the fact that its Ecuadorian soil...

Assange fled UK jurisdiction to avoid being legally extradited by a recognised court of the land - so yes, he is a fugitive. So your example is complete rubbish because its not equivalent to the Assange situation at all - if the chief justice of Scotland appeared in front of a court in Iran and the court ruled against him, and then he fled Iran, then yes he would be a fugitive.

No he isn't, regardless of how much you want him to be. But it is interesting how many have bought into his PR bullshit while ignoring the fact that if the US wanted him, they had ample opportunity to get him from the UK in the years before he fled into the embassy.

If the "quote" actually occurred there should be a source for it, and none is noted. On the other hand it appears to be a popular quote on various fringe web sites that are likely more open to fabrications, especially if they tend to demonstrate some sort of conspiracy involving Germany, Jews, and Churchill.

It seems highly likely that "quote" is spurious given the strange wording, the false contents, and the lack of any specific attribution. If you doubt it yourself it makes no sense to post it.

Why do you think Churchill was there?

That's a load of crap, front to back.

That's funny, you seem to have completely overlooked the possibility that you got the fake "quotes" from dodgy sources, but jump right into some sort of conspiracy involving Jews. Do you have any ideas about why that might be?

Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech is a quite famous speech. Tampering with it wouldn't be hard to find out. I think you're grasping at straws.

You don't really need that extra twist of lemon.

Here is the text of the speach that Winston Churchill gave at Fultun. The phrases you show as being attrributed to Churchill don't appear there, nor do they appear to be Churchill's words, nor do they fit with history. That doesn't seem to be a genuine quote.

The second attribution also seems highly unlikely.