The two women are identified "Miss A" and "Miss W" in Sweden to protect their identities.
On 11 August 2010, Assange arrived in Sweden to speak at a seminar partly arranged by "Miss A". He had met her before but he stayed at her apartment. They had sex on 14 August 2010.
At the seminar, Assange met "Miss W" and they had sex on 17 August 2010.
On 19 August 2010 the two women (who are friends) discovered that both of them had had sex with Assange. Up to this point neither had suggested that the sex was anything other than consensual, but that day they decided to contact a journalist and complain about their sexual encounters with Assange. The journalist insisted they contact the police and the two women went to the police together. They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual, which is rape in Swedish law. The two women were interviewed together by police and this allowed contamination of their evidence.
On 20 August 2010 a warrant was issued for Assange's arrest. On 21 August it was withdrawn by Stockholm's Chief Prosecutor. On 30 August, Assange was interviewed by police.
On 1 September 2010 a different prosecutor announced that she was reopening the investigation. This is not a normal procedure in Sweden. Furthermore, the prosecutor identified Assange to the press, which is against Swedish law. On 2 September she re-interviewed the complainants, but she did did not interview Assange, which is required within a week - she said this was not done because of a police officer being sick.
On 5 September 2010 a journalist reported that the two women did not want to proceed.
On 27 September 2010 Assange left Sweden with the agreement of the authorities.
On 18 November 2010 a court approved a request to detain Assange for questioning. On 20 November an international arrest warrant was issued. It was possible to interview Assange in the UK, as there is a mutual legal assistance agreement, but the prosecutor went for the arrest warrant instead.
That's where we stand at present. Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.
Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation. It's strange that both women claimed the same thing happened, but not until they had discovered they were sharing his favors.
It appears that the prosector has an agenda, but I have no idea why.
Both the women in question are adults and both have said that they do not wish Assange to be prosecuted. After the original complaint was filed, Assange was told he could leave Sweden, and so he went to the UK.
Then a Swedish prosecutor decided to reopen the case (exactly why has never been fully explained) and she wants him back in Sweden. For some reason it wasn't sufficient to interview him by phone or Skype, or by traveling to the UK. The prosecutor wants him in Sweden, to the point of issuing a European arrest warrant - not because he's been charged with anything, just because she wants to talk to him.
The whole thing seems quite strange. Sweden and the UK seem to be treating this as a major incident, even though the complainants have no interest in pursuing the case. In fact, the UK is complaining about the very high cost of watching the Ecuadorean embassy, which they reckon is over 15 million pounds so far.
This leads to another interesting question: once they do discover a really bad exploit in systemd, how hard is it to patch? Can it be done without restarting the system entirely?
Aliases are not realy a fix you can not reliably write shell script with them and stay portable.
Huh? Of course you can, you just define the aliases at the beginning of the file.
And, of course, there may well be built-in aliases, especially for commands that have well-known historical names. PowerShell does exactly this - for example, "Get-ChildItem" is aliased as "ls" out of the box, and "Copy-Item" is aliased as "cp".
Most laptops are pretty power hungry (7-10W). Can you work web and iOS app-only? The iPad air sucks less than 3W when running. Which means you can work pretty long without needing to recharge. Obviuosly a macbook air if you need a laptop or a MS Surface is fairly power-efficient if you need a windows machine, and they'll burn closer to 5-6W. Grab a solar charger (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G6CDTGS) and a Biolite stove (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00BQHET9O/) for recharge and cloudy-weather just-in-case charging.
If you're close enough to civilization for mobile/cell data, that's your best bet (and where the iPad would really shine, tho the Surface 3 has an LTE version). If not, there's more costly solutions like Iridium Go! (http://www.bluecosmo.com/iridium-go/rate-plans $125/mo for unlimited data, but at 2.4kbps rates...you're just telnetting, right?), but still fully portable.
Remember, we're just looking our for your safety*.
*and by "your safety" we really mean "our own jobs."
If what you propose would become a reality, it sounds like any person who has had a sexual relationship could then be accused of rape, and, so long as the mere fact of intercourse is proven, would basically be considered guilty by default unless they can show some proof of consent. Do you not see the obvious and incredible potential of abuse here?
FWIW, as far as your analogies go, I don't think they're correct, either. If I go to the local convenience store and buy something, and then later accuse the shopkeeper of stealing my money, I very much doubt that any court would entertain the notion that the shopkeeper should prove on preponderance of evidence that the transfer was voluntary, and that if he is unable to do so, he gets locked up for robbery.
Achieving practical nuclear fusion for power generation would be a very nice step forward. But "holy grail" is rather overselling it, I suspect.
Even when practical, we're still talking very big, very expensive plants that depend on a long supply chain for all its parts, the high-purity fuel and so on. When you consider the building, running and maintenance costs, and the cost of dealing with the spent fuel (much better than for fission plants of course) the energy won't be all that cheap. Hopefully cheaper than fossil fuels at least, but I would not be surprised if a first generation of plants, at least, become more expensive than that.
And they'll be competing with rapidly dropping costs for solar and other renewables. A big, expensive plant like that will need a 40-50 year lifetime to pay for itself. If you can't show that it will likely run profitably for that time period few or no companies will be willing to take on the very major investment. We may well see a technical breakthrough for fusion, and still get no plants actually built.
Much more likely to actually be used.
Yea, because open-source software is famous for having well-designed, easy-to-use comprehensive instructions.
It often sucks, certainly. But there is one compelling advantage, in the case of unusual stuff such as this. The developers themselves are happy to talk about and answer questions around their tools. And open source tools tend to attract hobbyists that do things for fun, and are happy talking about what they do, and not just commercial developers that won't publicly say a word.
So with open source tools you're much more likely to find blog posts, forums and so on with information to help you along. There's a chance there's be people out there that had the same trouble you do, and wrote about it in public. With commercial tools - and especially tools with a userbase in the hundreds rather than tens or hundreds of thousands - there may simply be no public information out there at all beyond the docs written by the provider.
235 million registered voters, barely over half of which voted.
Still an anomoly? At the presidential level, possibly. Though 74,000 votes separated Obama from Romney over 29 electors in Florida, for example.
But you don't even have to drop to the state legislature to see small numbers matter. In 2014, Martha McSally beat Ron Barber in Arizona for the US House of Representatives by 219 votes. That's a pretty slim margin for a district with 640,000 residents.
So, yes...it actually does matter.
" quality of finish, all of these little details that make a beautiful design"
Yeah, that's nice and all, but what we really want is usability. Freedom from the advertising deluge. Control. Everybody and their brother can make a svelte 3D mockup that looks beautiful. But in the end it's going to come down to software. It's why Apple ruled the roost early on. A beautiful piece of garbage is still a piece of garbage. And, tbh, we have enough of that out here at the moment.
It depends on how the law is actually worded. A prohibition on lethal weapons is not a legalization of non-lethal weapons. FTFA:
"Then Bruce Burkett of the North Dakota Peace Officer’s Association was allowed by the state house committee to amend HB 1328 and limit the prohibition only to lethal weapons. “Less than lethal” weapons like rubber bullets, pepper spray, tear gas, sound cannons, and Tasers are therefore permitted on police drones." (emph mine)
While it's true that anything that is not prohibited is permitted, this bill does not somehow make non-lethal weapons "legal" where they weren't yesterday. Aside form the FAA having a few things to say on this topic (including "NO!"), unless the statute defines lethal weapon narrowly, any weapon which *can* kill, even if that is not the sole purpose or design, is still a "lethal" weapon. Usually, the definitions of those things go something like "can result in death," which would include anything which has ever caused, or could be reasonably considered to potentially cause death.
tl:dr, this story isn't about weapons on drones, it's about corrupt politicians watering down restrictive in laws for their friends at the expense of public safety.
Possessions increase to fill the space available for their storage. -- Ryan