What you don't get is that this is how it works already. And if they can't get away with using cop cars, they'll use taxis. These laws don't protect you from being kidnapped by the cops and murdered.
That doesn't mean they're bad laws. Arrest records must be public if we are ever to have a backlash against bad laws. They don't guarantee it, but how will it happen without it?
Speaking of stopping Morales's plane, that was actually Assange's doing. Largest "SWATting" prank in world history.
So just to be clear, when they forced his plane down, which would have been illegal even if he did have Snowden on board (because he wouldn't have done that without using proper measures to extend his immunity) that was something Assange did? I don't recall him forcing anyone to violate any laws. It seems to me what he does is tell us when other people have already violated laws. Maybe you could explain how he issued an order to illegally ground a plane, and why it was followed.
That could be a much more dangerous game for Assange than what he has played with the Americans. The French state is known to play rough when it feels it is needed in ways that the Americans are very unlikely to match.
You think that France is going to assassinate someone that Russia has in their pocket? That would be a very, very bad decision indeed. Russia can afford to throw away more operatives than France even has. They certainly would not ever do this.
What I find ridiculous is that France mentioned his warrant. France has sheltered people wanted by other countries before, they never cared before, why now?
I can't believe all the stupid shit that is banned or that people have to be warned about because they're just that stupid. My personal favorite was a waiver I had to sign before using an ice rink. It literally was about absolving the rink from responsibility should I slip on the ice and fall... as well getting my initials next to a statement where they inform me that ice is slippery and they wanted it on record that I had been informed of that.
This is what the world looks like without single-payer health care. On the other hand, they often don't bother fixing the walks in Australia because there's no motivation. If someone trips and injures themselves they just go to the doctor, and society suffers. On the third hand, we don't bother fixing the walks here in America because fuck you.
The claim that Sweden would hand him over to the US. Were I to worry about anyone in the EU doing that, it would be the UK. The US and UK have a relationship literally called the "special relationship." They back each other on diplomatic and intelligence matters in a way rarely seen among other nations. So they would be the one I would peg to hand him over all quiet like, if anyone.
The UK courts heard the matter, all the way to the top, and decided that it was a valid request. Your opinion on that doesn't particularly matter, only the opinion of their courts. That is how it works in any case of a nation which has an extradition treaty with another nation: The courts of the nation being asked to extradite decide if said request is allowable per the treaty. What that requires varies treaty by treaty.
In the EU, the extradition treaties are pretty strong. Countries don't have a lot of choice to say no. If a fellow EU member asks and the paperwork is all in order, you more or less have to comply. That is precisely what the British courts found in this case. They reviewed it, found it valid, he appealed, they found it valid and so on.
Doesn't matter if you don't like it, that is how the justice process works there. This was not a case that was handled in some shady back channel matter, it went through the court system properly and the rulings fell against him. That's all there is to it.
The UK now has a case against him, and a very strong one. He fled bail, and that is a crime. That crime is still ongoing since he's still fleeing said bail. So they can arrest and charge him for that. Doesn't matter if the original matter is log dropped, he is still on the hook for this.
That's the thing with court dates, bail, and all that jazz: Even if the case against you was going to be dismissed, if you skip bail you are now guilty of another crime. You have agreed to appear in court and a failure to do so is against the law.
The UK had no beef in this originally, they were just acting on an EU arrest warrant. Sweden said "We want this guy," the UK looked at the warrant and said "looks valid per the treaty" and thus arrested him. They had no interest or ability to decide on the validity of the charges, only if the request required them to act per treaty. It did so he was arrested, and then released on bail.
He challenged the extradition all the way up to the high UK court, but the courts found it was a valid request that the UK had to honour. Nothing to do with his guilt, just that the request was a valid one and they were bound by treaty to hand him over. Had he gone to Sweden then, that would have been the end of the UK's involvement. His bail would be returned and the UK would have no further interest in what happened.
However he fled rather than handing himself over. So at that point, he became a fugitive in the UK. They now have a case against him. It is totally separate from the original case, it is simply a case of skipping bail.
Likely they'll want to act on it too, since he's been flaunting it in their face for years.
HVAC is too mechanical and homeowners are too persnickety. You'd get killed on break fix and maintenance overhead and labor. If you tried not to, your service would suck and people would quit paying the leases or deduct out of pocket repair costs from lease payments.
Plus, what happens when you want to move? "Oh there's this weird lease on the HVAC..." could make it harder to sell.
The bigger problem is that HR and everyone else who sees arrest records take a "where there's smoke, there's fire" attitude towards arrests, assuming that anyone who got arrested is of questionable character, a troublemaker. Maybe there's even some assumptions that a lot of minor arrestees might get the charges dropped or dismissed.
They have no subtlety, willingness to understand what happened or differentiate why you got arrested, just that you were arrested.
Personally, I think arrest records without charges ought to be sealed after six months and it should be illegal for employers to even look at them at all. The unsealed database should be public but controlled and audited access, and not resold to database providers.
Convictions are trickier, and probably have a greater public right to know angle.
Even though the GPU makers focus on D3D and not OGL the GL performance is usually quite close to D3D. So when people start blaming their woes on OpenGL I start assuming they don't know what they're on about.
by Anonymous Coward [...] I think it is.
Who the fuck are you?
If I get fired, why should other people have to know why it was?
Right, you're just an anonymous coward, nobody cares if you die in a fire tomorrow. But one of the best-loved moderators of a public community? Everyone is going to want to know. Maybe the reason is "it was personal" in which case nobody needs to know more.
The big difference is that just about anywhere else, people posting anonymously or with an obviously throw away identity are treated as lesser.
Yes, that's how the whole world works. You really think it doesn't work that way on reddit? Only complete fucking idiots would think otherwise.
4chan is significantly different in that everyone is expected to be anonymous to a point where people trying to have an established identity without a good reason are harassed and usually not taken seriously.
No, they are taken seriously... seriously enough to be worth harassing. You have that backwards.
Uh, that is because they bought out inbox.
No, I meant there isn't much competition for email clients on Android to begin with. Inbox was something statistically nobody had heard of before Google, and both of the dominant Android email clients are from Google, one of them bundled with the OS and the other with typical gapps.
both parties are at being professional in that they aren't talking about the reasons why it occurred...."
Is it professional not to tell the community why you fired an admin of a community site? I don't think that it is. I think that it's half-assed and can only lead to unnecessary speculation which could be avoided by being straightforward. The only reason not to make a public announcement making the situation clear is if they're not acting in their integrity, and legal wants to sit on the announcement like it's an egg and wait for it to hatch.
An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.
