You live on the equator?
The "sex without condom" that you refer to was found to be rape under UK law if proven. I'm not sure many people would consider rape to be a small crime.
The alleged offence... did not occur in the UK and therefore cannot be treated as a criminal offence by the judiciary.
Extradition is nearly always about things that didn't happen in the country that the person is being extradited from*. So are you contesting that extradition is inherently invalid in all circumstances? And, guilty of that or not, he skipped bail which is a 12 month imprisonment offence in the UK.
It is the same as speeding down the highway in Norway, getting a ticket, and then travelling to the Saudi Arabia without paying the fine or appearing in court in lieu of simply paying without protest. The Norwegian government can issue a bench warrant for the speeder and even with an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia there is no way Saudis can claim speeding is a violation of the law if in fact there are no speed limits in that country. I am not saying there are no speed limits in Saudi Arabia, just using the country as an example.
No it isn't anything like speeding. A criminal act in Norway is alleged. That act would also have been criminal here. We have an extradition treaty with Norway, and they do not have excessive punishments for this crime over there, so we extradite. Simple.
*Gary McKinnon is a shameful counter-example, but at least we decided not to extradite him in the end
Not the text, "just the amount of "nested" quote marks"! It's hard to keep count, but I think we're left with two un-closed quote contexts at the end.
Both that post, and the article, are talking about attempting to make some correction for an existing imbalance, not reversing the imbalance so it swings the other way.
Expressing any opinion in support of "affirmative action" is trolling, apparently. Now I don't mind if you disagree with me, it's a thorny subject and is definitely wide open for debate, but modding me as a troll is just not cricket. I'm all discussed-out on the actual issue elsewhere, I'm just talking about abuse of moderation here. Hopefuly it gets fixed in meta, but I've not seen the option to metamod for years, is it still even a thing?
So far it's been about fifty-fifty. The people that work for the same company as me, they're usually ok, that's why I've been here so long, and we have a lot of excellent women including in senior positions. It's the clients and their contractors that I've mostly noticed the problem most with. I work on short to medium term projects, usually a year or two, sometimes as little as 6 months, so I see a lot of different environments and I don't have the luxury of judging them beforehand and choosing based on that judgement. And in previous companies, when it's been people in the company I've worked for, well, yes I put up with it because I needed the paycheque.
Concluding that I'm a sexist pig because I'm aware of the impact of everyday sexism is a bit of a non-sequitur.
Extensive first-hand witness.
... shifting your hiring processes in such a way that it will quickly be dominated by the opposite sex is not a "fix;"...
Who said that that is happening? They said there is a bias towards women of equal qualifications. If there are only a small number of women applying, then you could hire 100% of them and not make a dent in the gender balance. If a woman has to be better than a man to get the equivalent qualifications (and yes, this can be contended, but I think it's likely to be true), why not view women's CVs more favouraby than men's?
Yes. It's sexist because women are discouraged from pursuing it. It's sexist because women are ostracised if they do. If I see a woman with a particularly impressive qualification, I would hire her over a man with the same qualification, because I know that the woman had to be better than the man to get it.
Only an idiot would bother trying to persuade someone called DoofusOfDeath of anything. It's clearly a pointless endeavour.
...was built into a piece of drainpipe.
Apple created the f-ing platform, both hardware and software as well as the distribution system. It is WILDLY successful and popular. If you don't like how they do it, go somewhere else.
Seriously? If I disagree with something, if I consider it harmful to society, I will say why I disagree with it and why I think it is harmful, which is exactly what the article and the OP are doing. I think it can be assumed that people with concerns like this will, as you say, go somewhere else. There's a subtle implication in your post, however, that people with such concerns should shut up about them.
Why would getting a bootleg copy help with the licence agreement? The free version produces non-watermarked files so no-one can prove that any given video was produced with a free version or a bootleg version. If you're going to commit theft or copyright violation or whatever your legal system calls it, it doesn't really matter which route you take.
You going to watch the new Game of Thrones then?