Microsoft has had the benefit of being the single controller of the
Microsoft has had the benefit of being the single controller of the
Not this fucking idiot again.Hhe showed a complete and utter lack of knowledge and was thoroughly ripped to pieces here on Slashdot for it last time.
Why the fuck is he back poisoning our screens once more with his uninformed tosh.
For what it's worth no, they're not a tie and this just highlights once more how little a fucking clue this guy has on the topic. The
Sadly that's the way of the games market in general and has been for some time now. No resale has been mostly dead since Steam in the PC world and single account associated unlock codes in the console world and no offline play came about with the likes of Starcraft 2, Diablo and Sim City to name a few.
This is one that really can't be pinned on Microsoft as it's been entirely the publishers that have pushed it - EA, Valve, Ubisoft, Activision/Blizzard. They've all been at it and all been pushing it ever more vigorously across every platform. It's annoying to say the least.
"I don't think your reputation can be salvaged at this point... most people have already decided on the PS4, and will be leary of signing up since you're just a firmware update away from returning to putting 'em over a barrel."
This made me lol. It's as if you actually believe Sony can't and wouldn't do exactly the same.
Are you really that naive? really?
"Advocates for Assange understand everything except why he should be treated the same as the vast majority of people that go before the Swedish legal system."
So there we have it, you're saying it's about "advocates of Assange", this has the implication that you're the counter to that because if you're painting it as black and white, you're either an advocate for Assange or you're not, then you must be the counter.
In admitting that you view this in black and white and that you're anti-Assange you're demonstrating why you can't think clearly on this, why you can't see that it's more than that.
There's a fundamental and simple reason why he shouldn't be treated the same as everyone else and that's simply because he's not the same as everyone else. Everyone else doesn't have a secret court in the US running test trials against him, everyone else doesn't have US politicians suggesting he should be assassinated, everyone else isn't wanted by a state with a track record of extraordinary rendition and throwing national norms out the window. Everyone else hasn't faced extradition for mere questioning. One can't simply pretend that Assange hasn't done something perfectly legal but that America still desperately wants to get hold of him for, you can't just pretend that doesn't exist. You can't pretend there aren't oddities about the whole case, there are, that's why Ecuador saw it valid to grant him asylum.
If you can't see why there is something special about this case then there's no point continuing this conversation as you have far too black and white a view of the world turning it into an "Advocates for Assange" against "Haters of Assange" petty fanboy battle.
I don't misunderstand it but I think you must've completely ignored what I said.
I said it doesn't matter if there are differences, the differences aren't so great that Sweden can't question him in the UK, in the Ecuadorian embassy before pressing charges, because as the Ecuadorian FM said at the time, they've done exactly this before. What's so hard to understand about that? It's a made up excuse that they can't question him here, there's no merit to it, they've done it before.
Right and that's fine, but what's to stop them questioning him still in the embassy to get to that point?
They have a perfectly trivial cheap and easy option to strengthen their case but for some obscure reason they want to avoid it.
The most likely reason they want to avoid it is because they know their case has no merit and what they're really actually interested in is just getting him to Sweden where they have also refused to give a guarantee that they wont send him on to the US with or without Britain's blessing.
If I was the Swedish authorities, and I genuinely believed in my case and that he genuinely needed to be brought to justice for rape, I'd do what needed to be done to prove my case and get him to face justice. I wouldn't go out my way to avoid making him face justice by refusing to question him on neutral territory and refusing to explicitly delink his trip to Sweden with potential onwards extradition to the US by at least giving a guarantee he would be returned to Britain or somewhere else and a re-extradition attempt would be made to pass him on to the US if the US put a request forward.
If Assange is guilty of rape I have absolutely no problem with him facing justice, but the Swedish authorities must understand his suspicions and those shared by Ecuador and many millions of other people in the world. They must accept that to get him to face justice over the rape allegations that he must be protected from arbitrary extradition to the US given that he has broken no law in US territory.
It's not that I'm an Assange fanboy but I am a justice fanboy and serious attempts at seeking justice just aren't being sought here - again it'd cost nothing and take so little effort to just question him in the Ecuadorian embassy, why not just do it to strengthen their case? why so desperately attempt to avoid that?
This excuse has come up before but it was debunked when Assange was granted asylum as the Ecuadorian authorities explicitly addressed it pointing out that the excuse is invalid given that Sweden has done exactly what they are requesting in other cases in the past.
In other words it's a made up excuse by his detractors that has no actual basis in reality. If they've done it in the past they can do it in this case.
Yes I would.
Unless there's clear evidence of actual intent rather than just a throwaway statement then it should be treat as just that, a throwaway statement.
He's not wanted on allegations of sexual assault either, he's wanted for questioning over allegations of sexual assault. There's a subtle but distinct difference in that there still isn't enough evidence backing those allegations to go ahead with actual charges to try him over the allegations.
I'm not sure that a lot of those things are really static typing overhead, for example even in some dynamic languages you still have to type var.
A lot of the things you mention are more related to OOP than specifically a result of static vs. dynamic typing, for example most dynamic languages still have interfaces. Take point 7 also for example - C++ doesn't require a mandatory class container for static methods, constants and globals, this is entirely a language specific thing.
No he's not. He's wanted for questioning. There's a distinct difference.
If he was officially accused of rape - i.e. if there was enough evidence to accuse him then the Swedish authorities would've decided to prosecute and ask for extradition based on that prosecution, instead they just want to get him to Sweden merely to "question" him, even though as the Ecuadorian authorities have pointed out there's no reason they couldn't do this at the embassy if it's necessary before pressing charges because they've done this before in other cases so it's perfectly possible under Swedish law.
Which is really what makes it all so odd, if there's so much certainty he committed rape, why not just press charges and issue a warrant based on that? Why pull him all the way to another country merely to just ask a few questions? He even offered to go to them and do this at the Swedish embassy in London for a while prior to seeking asylum.
Really if the rape charges are legit and he desperately needs to answer them this question could be resolved way more cheaply than funding this ongoing saga. Flying a couple of officers to the UK or using some possibly already present in the Swedish embassy would cost next to nothing just to question. Then once they've question if they want to press charges they can, and Assange's case is suddenly greatly weakened. The fact they're unwilling to spend next to nothing to backup their assertions is quite telling.
You don't spend $3.8million guarding an embassy and then millions more in politician, advisor, lawyer and additional police wages just to ask some questions. There's much more to it than that.
Well that's absolutely a fair argument in practice there's very little that good be done.
The only thing I will say is such actions are what have scraped away and weakened American and British credibility on the international stage in the last decade or so though. Things like throwing torture laws out the window, arbitrarily going to war without international legal support, doing away with fair trials with guantanamo, and extraordinary rendition. All these things have chipped away at Anglo-American political capital which is precisely why they now can't get universal agreement on action in Syria. Countries like Russia know that Britain and America can no longer claim the moral high ground on this sort of thing so they get away with blocking.
Any action against the embassy would just be the loss of further capital and would put British ambassadors and over citizens at risk of arbitrary arrest of other interference overseas because we'd no longer have the political capital to prevent it.
So Ecuador couldn't do anything directly, but it'd absolutely harm the UK.
"It might also harm your claim that Assange does not fall under the definition of a "refugee" under those very protocols that you mention."
Yes he does. Go learn what a political refugee is. Refugees aren't just poor black African people at risk of massacre by some butcher in their home country or whatever the hell you think the definition actually is. Risk of political persecution is very much one of the grounds under which someone can be granted asylum and that's the grounds he has been granted asylum on by the Ecuadorian government.
"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..."
Yes they do. International law trumps national law once you've signed up to it. If it didn't then dictators could make genocide legal whilst retaining their seats at the UN by not pulling out of the relevant treaties they'd signed up to because they'd be doing nothing wrong. Granting asylum is not something done on a whim, it's something granted by a country when it has a genuine belief that someone is at risk of persecution which is why it's used so sparingly worldwide. The whole reason for example that the European Court of Human Rights was created was because Hitler was persecuting the Jews and they had no one higher than their own government to turn to so post war the British authorities above all else realised it was essential to have such supra-national authorities. The relevant UN authorities were created with the same recognition.
Why don't you learn a bit more about the topic before making anymore of a fool of yourself by making shit up on the fly that just isn't true?
If you don't like Assange that's fine, just say that and stick to highlighting your opinion. No need to start making up stuff that is simply false as if that somehow bolsters your opinion and gives it credence. It doesn't to anyone other than those who already share your opinion that Assange is the anti-christ or whatever.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
Sorry, my mistake, I thought people on Slashdot would all be technically literate enough to use the internet and Google it. The UK is signatory to and has implemented all of these, in fact, it helped write most of them.
Ambassadors don't just turn up at Buckingham palace and ask the Queen if they can stay.
The country of origin phones the foreign office and tells them they're declaring a new ambassador, the foreign office then decides whether to grant or deny, if they grant they stay, if they deny they send them home.