What I think is definitely odd is that people seemingly don't seem to educate themselves before "wondering" about things. The court ruling touches on your "issue".

It might also harm your claim that Assange does not fall under the definition of a "refugee" under those very protocols that you mention.

Oh, and also, neither of those conventions or protocols require a country to ignore its own law with regard to actionable arrest warrants unrelated to refugee status - so even if he did fall under the definition, there is still nothing there which requires Britain to grant him passage out of the Ecuadorian embassy...

Would you like to point to the precise, actual line which covers your assertion?

Yes, I am technically literate enough to google it, but *you* are the one who made the assertion without backing it up - so therefor, provide evidence to back your position up please.

Please show where a country is obligated to allow a person who has a valid arrest warrant outstanding to be allowed safe passage out of their jurisdiction. Go on, please do.

Oh look, another Assange supporter who hasn't bothered to read the Court rulings...

The Court covers such offers of questioning-while-remaining-outside-judicial-authority, and gives good reasons as to why it was declined.

From the 2nd November 2011 British Court ruling against Assange:

Mr Assange submitted that even if under the EAW he was technically a person accused of offences, it
was disproportionate to seek his surrender under the EAW. That was because, as he had to be
questioned before a decision was made on prosecution, he had offered to be questioned over a video
link. It would therefore have been proportionate to question him in that way and to have reached a
decision on whether to charge him before issuing the EAW. (para 155)

The Court dismissed this argument on the facts. The President of the Queen's Bench Division said:

"First, in this case, the challenge to the issue of the warrant for the arrest of Mr Assange failed before
the Court of Appeal of Svea. In those circumstances, taking into account the respect this court should
accord the decision of the Court of Appeal of Svea in relation to proceedings governed by Swedish
procedural law, we do not consider the decision to issue the EAW could be said to be
disproportionate.

"Second and in any event, this is self evidently not a case relating to a trivial offence, but to serious
sexual offences. Assuming proportionality is a requirement, it is difficult to see what real scope there
is for the argument in circumstances where a Swedish Court of Appeal has taken the view, as part of
Swedish procedure, that an arrest is necessary." (paras 158 - 159)

He added:

"... The Prosecutor must be entitled to seek to apply the provisions of Swedish law to the procedure
once it has been determined that Mr Assange is an accused and is required for the purposes of
prosecution. Those procedural provisions must be respected by us given the mutual recognition
and confidence required by the Framework Decision; to do otherwise would be to undermine the
effectiveness of the principles on which the Framework Decision is based. In any event, we were far
from persuaded that other procedures suggested on behalf of Mr Assange would have proved
practicable or would not have been the subject of lengthy dispute." (para 160)

Once again the *court* shoots down a common argument made about Assanges situation in these threads...

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

Further to my previous comment, see the following British Court ruling, dated 2nd November 2011:

The EAW sets out four offences:

  “1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in
Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting
her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s
arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body
weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2.Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in
Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner
designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her
knowledge.

3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that
date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested
the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying
next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping,
Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting
that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.

It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The
sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.” (para 3)

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

Yes, it is rape. Under Swedish law and UK law.

From the ruling on the 2nd November 2011:

The EAW sets out four offences:
  “1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in
Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting
her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party’s
arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body
weight preventing her from moving or shifting.

2.Sexual molestation - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in
Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner
designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her
knowledge.

3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that
date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested
the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying
next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.

4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping,
Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting
that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the
expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a
condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The
sexual act was designed to violate the injured party’s sexual integrity.”

Note the fourth offence Assange is sought for under the EAW.

Now, how does the court handle that?

Again, in the 2nd November 2011 court ruling:

The Court rejected Mr Assange’s contention that under the law of England and Wales consent to
sexual intercourse on condition a condom was used was remained consent to sexual intercourse even
if a condom was not used or removed. (paras 86-91)

The Court considered the issue of Offence 4 and ruled that the conduct described in the EAW was
fairly and accurately reported. The President of the Queen's Bench Division concluded:

"It is quite clear that the gravamen of the offence described is that Mr Assange had sexual intercourse
with her without a condom and that she had only been prepared to consent to sexual intercourse with
a condom. The description of the conduct makes clear that he consummated sexual intercourse when
she was asleep and that she had insisted upon him wearing a condom. ...... it is difficult to see how a
person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complaint alleges a state of sleep or half
sleep, and secondly it avers that consent would not have been given without a condom. There is
nothing in the statement from which it could be inferred that he reasonably expected that she would
have consented to sex without a condom." (para 124)

The court went on to say:

"It is clear that the allegation is that he had sexual intercourse with her when she was not in a position
to consent and so he could not have had any reasonable belief that she did." (para 126)

The Court ruled that Mr Assange's objections raised in relation to Offence 4 fail.

The British Court agreed that it was indeed a valid offence of rape under the definitions given.

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/assange-summary.pdf

I suggest you go read the extradition rulings against Assange in the British courts, they address your point precisely (several of the things Assange is wanted for questioning over passes the definition of rape in the UK as well). Infact, the extradition rulings cover most of the often cited "issues" people come up with in these discussions - well worth a read if you are actually interested!

Which international law would that be? Ahh right, it wouldn't be because it doesn't actually exist.

Country A granting someone asylum does not obligate country B to do anything at all, including ignoring domestic law and allowing someone with a valid arrest warrant to leave the country. The ony place in which country A's asylum status means anything is in country A.

Your order of events is wrong :) Boeing announced the 787, customers demanded a response from Airbus and so they launched the A350 as an updated A330, which customers rejected and so they launched the A350XWB.

Airbus wasn't caught off guard, and the A380 was not an ego measure - Boeings new 747 proposals were being rejected by customers at the time as they wanted an all new airframe design which would encompass modern aerodynamic efficiency increases over the 747s 1960s vintage. Go and google the 747-500, -600 and -700 concepts as they all existed on paper. Airbus responded to the market demands by supplying a design for an all new VLA airframe.

Airbus basically have the VLA market now, as Boeings response, the 747-800, has seen lukewarm reception at best. Airbus thought they could hold their own in the 200 - 350 passenger market segments with the A330 and A340 models, and nterestingy enough the A330 has infact held its own, and continues to sell even as the 787 becomes available.

Where Airbus did falter was in the top end of the 200 - 350 market, covered by the A340. This was being beaten resoundedly by the Boeing 777, which was launched a decade earlier than the Boeing 787. Airbus are countering the top end of the market with the A350XWB, which will cover the larger 787 variants (-9 and -10) while also covering most of the 777 range as well.

Airbus is confident enough in the A330 that it doesn't see the need to immediately replace it like for like.

Just to round off your post, there was also issues with the fuselage sections that came from US suppliers as well, and Boeing had to re-acquire an entire US company that it had previously sold, just so it could resolve the technical and manufacturing issues in that company.

Boeing announced the Boeing 787 right after Airbus committed to the A380 - Airbus was going for the VLA market, which Boeing had dominated since they launched the Boeing 747 in the 70s as they had no effective competition in that particular market segment.

Once Airbus committed themselves to the VLA segment, Boeing committed itself to the smaller 250 seat segment, in which it already had an aging product in the Boeing 767 - sales of which were rapidly tailing off, and customers were demanding something more efficient.

Airbus responded by announcing a package of updates to their A330 airliner, but customer demand was poor - a lot of large customers wanted an all new fuselage design (the Airbus A330 and A340, both circa 1990 in vintage, used the same fuselage as the A300, which preceded them by 20 years), and carbon fiber as a primary structural component, so Airbus went back to the drawing board and came up with the A350XWB.

Its an aircraft that "Airbus didnt want to build" in the same vein as Boeing "didnt want to build" the Boeing 787, as that program only came about after customers outright rejected Boeings Sonic Cruiser concept in the years leading up to the 787s program launch - the 787 uses many of the same technologies (the carbon fiber barrels for the fuselage), and is a direct follow on from a prior program that was rejected by customers.

Interestingly enough, the Airbus A330, which customers didn't want an updated model of, has sold well over 500 aircraft since that "rejection". You never can tell....

Aside from the criminal side of the argument about protecting thyself, this point here did make me pause for consideration - my government protects me from attack by foreign states in many other ways, why aren't they protected me from attack across the internet as well?

The British Government spends billions a year maintaining a QRA (Quick Reaction Alert) fleet of aircraft, primed to intercept any foreign aircraft that happens to skirt our shores, it maintains a coastal fleet primed to intercept any foreign ships, it has a nuclear deterrent that costs billions a year, it maintains security at the borders to make it difficult to smuggle arms etc into the country, and it maintains a police force which has anti-terrorism branches specially aimed at preventing foreign attacks within the country.

So where are the protections on the digital borders? And don't say there aren't any digital borders, because there are definitely peering points at which its possible to identify traffic originating from outside the UK.

Who gives a fuck whether they are end user machines or not, they are control nodes and that is enough to target them.

And I never said Microsoft on their own petitioned for a warrant, thats why they involved the FBI and thats why I said "the FBI and Microsoft..." .

And it just so happens that the court gives them the authority to disrupt them. Obviously.

Where has authority been assumed? The way botnets are taken down is the control nodes are eliminated, not that the infected machines are cleaned - in this case, the control servers may be gone but the end user machines are still infected, they just have nothing controlling them anymore.

The FBI and Microsoft get warrants and court authority which allows them to sieze and control digital assets that disrupts the control nodes, such as domain names, hosting space, IP routes, servers etc - they never touch the infected PCs.