None of those jobs are executive jobs. Therefore "entry-level executive" is an accurate description.
Good point. Doubling down on a bad decision is a Microsoft trademark.
And Windows itself (NT, i.e., the good one) used to run on PowerPC, Alpha and MIPS.
Congrats, I think you've come up with more solid ideas than the MS marketing department has in the last 5 years.
No, _you_ came up with more solid ideas than the MS marketing department has in the last 5 years. The GP came up with more solid ideas than the MS marketing department has ever come up with.
I would argue that people buy Windows PCs because that's the only thing thing 99% of people are aware exists, except for Apple, which costs twice as much. Period. Legacy apps drive this somewhat, but the primary driving force is still that MS is a monopoly.
And as we've seen Microsoft simply cannot compete because everything they do is targeted towards their own goals regardless of what consumers wants, which is what really would allow them to do better. Regardless of the reasons (and good marketing plus the Jobs reality distortion field) people buy Apple because they want it. People buy Windows because that's the default.
When Jesse Jackson was running for President, a frequent (and valid) criticism was that the Presidency is not an entry-level position. It's a shame that 30 years later we elected an entry-level executive. It's shown since Day One.
1) Straus-Khan was not prosecuted, but nor was his accuser
2) In what world is does one case falling apart in the US invalidate every rape case everywhere in the world?
3) The Straus-Khan case was in a very preliminary stage - he was only arrested because he was considered an immediate flight risk. In the Assange case, there have been *five different courts of law in two different countries* which have considered the case, including two supreme courts. There is a standing court finding of probable cause against Assange after a review of all of the evidence collected on a months long investigation (including testimony from Assange's attorneys).
4) The simple reality is, famous people do rape. And their fans invariably smear the victims and portray it as a giant conspiracy against them. Every bloody time.
It should also be added that *lots* of people rape, period. Roughly 10% of young men have raped at least once, and about 3% of young men are serial rapists. What, you thought that a quarter of women getting raped at least once in their lifespan was the work of just a couple bad apples?
And it should be added that Julian "Women's Brains Can't Do Math" Assange has a *long* history of this sort of stuff.
"concern surrounds the Swedish detention facility, where Mr Assange would be held incommunicado upon arrival. Similar treatment can be seen in the case of Gottfrid Svartholm, founder of The Pirate Bay, who was held in solitary confinement for months without being officially charged."
From the ruling of Stockholm's Tingsrätt: “Åklagaren får inte tillstånd att meddela beslut om restriktioner.” ("The prosecutor is not allowed to impose restrictions."). The prosecutor is legally *banned* from imposing restrictions on Assange while in custody. So this is a complete red herring excuse, and they know it. The prosecutor has elaborated in more detail, that he will have no restrictions on ability to mingle, use the phone, use the computer, etc.
see "Assange is willing to return to Sweden but prosecutors can also question him in the UK." [nicholasmead.com]
See my previous comment.
or dropping them as looks increasingly likely [firedoglake.com]
Assange and his followers have been making this claim since day one - yet one of the list of, well, essentially everything that Assange has said about his case and Manning's that's turned out to be flatly wrong (Manning will be convicted of aiding the enemy, it's all a show trial, they'll lock Manning up for life and throw away the key, there's a secret indictment against me, I'm going to win 15% of the Australian vote, become a senator, and then they'll have to drop the case.... etc). The line about Ny being forced out is also a lie that could have been debunked with a simple phone call. As is the no DNA line.
The reality is that the case is in a holding pattern. There's literally nothing being done with it, and nor will anything be done until he's in custody. The entire case against him has been built and they have an appeal-upheld probable cause finding against him by a full court hearing in which all evidence was reviewed and Assange's own attorney testified. There's literally nothing more they need except Assange.
PS as to the alleged victims you're fakely so concerned about, NEITHER OF THEM say they were raped.
There are two women in question here - AA and SW. AA did *not* say she was raped. She has on multiple occasions denied being raped. She *has* said she was the victim of sex crimes. Guess what? There are no rape charges concerning AA. The charges concerning AA are 1x unlawful sexual coersion and 2x molestation. The only rape charge concerns SW.
SW has *never* denied being raped, and *has* said she was raped. She told the police:
Friday 20 August 2010 I, inspector Linda Wassgren was temporarily on duty in the reception at Klara Närpo, normally I am on duty outside at the
same station. At around 14:00 same day two women came into the station and talk and get some advice on two earlier events and they were a little insecure on how to proceed. The crime rape was mentioned.
She told AA:
Then he told me that Julian hade been accused of raping that young woman, [SW]. And that [DB] had spoken with [AA], and that [SW] had spoken with [DB]. And that [AA] was furious about what [SW] had told her — that for one reason or another, she believed what [SW] had said and that they were going to meet.
She told her ex boyfriend:
[SB] related that he had a relationship with [SW] for two and a half years. They had lived together during the last year of the relationship. Seth related that it was very important for [SW] that they use a condom, partly to prevent infection but also to prevent unwanted pregnancy.
[SB] said the issue of infection was crucial for [SW] and that, before they had sex the first time, they had both got tested for disease and shown each other the results. They did not have sex without a condom on a single occasion during their two and a half years together. That was completely unthinkable for [SW]. [SB] said that such was their agreement. He said that, as far as he knew, [SW] had never had sex with anyone without using a condom.
[SB] related that he learned about what had happened when [SW] sent an SMS message to him, asking if she could telephone him. He was somewhat baffled, because they had not been in contact with each other for several months. When [SW] called, she immediately asked what [SB] thought of WikiLeaks and Julian Assange. He answered that WikiLeaks seemed positive.
Then [SW] said that she had been raped by Julian Assange, in that he had initiated unprotected sex with her while she lay sleeping. [SW] said that she had asked Assange if he was wearing anything and that Assange had replied, “Yes, you.”
The interviewer asked [SB] how [SW] had reacted to that. [SB] said that [SW] had related that she was shocked and did not know what to do. [SB] said that, given [SW]’s definite views on the use of condoms during sex, he could imagine that she was very shocked and afraid. He knows how important it is to [SW] that a condom is used when she has sex.
[SW] has told [SB] that she could not understand how a representative for WikiLeaks, which does so much good, could be so lacking in respect for another human being.
I could keep going if you' like.
Moreover, they have withdrawn their complaints when the prosecutor told them to sign a declaration of an accusation of rape.
First off, you're distorting the distortion of the distortion. The "statement" only concerns SW. It wasn't a "statement of rape"; it was concerning a police report representing that her words were accurately represented in the report (which isn't even a legal requirement in Sweden). Third, it wasn't even about signing. But, most critically, here's what it actually says:
In the course of the interview, [SW] and I were informed that Julian Assange had been arrested in absentia. After that, [SW] had difficulty concentrating, as a result of which I made the judgement that it was best to terminate the interview. But [SW] did mention that Assange was angry at her. There was not enough time to obtain any further information about why he was angry at her or how this was expressed. Nor did we have time to discuss what had happened afterwards. The interview was neither read back to [SW] nor read by her for approval; but [SW] was informed that she could do so at a later date.
Is that what you call "refusal to sign"? It says nothing of the sort. First off, the standard - which is not even required - is "read and approved". Secondly, the *officer* decided to terminate the interview. SW never objected to any content. Third, it would be quite difficult to "sign" a report which hadn't even been typed up yet.
Oh, well, I'm sure that SW didn't want to cooperate further, right? Like it's not like she'd hire an attorney to push the case forward for her, or that she then consented to a forensic medical report, or anything like that, right? Oh wait, yes she did:
[SW] gives her consent to the acquisition of a forensic medical report.
[SW] wishes to be represented by an attorney whom she will name at a later time.
The women had a legal defender, and his name is Claes Borgström. He is the man who got the case re-opened (more on that later) and who has relentlessly pushed forward the case ever since. Or are we to assume that the women don't know what their own representative is doing? Poor damsels!
Nah, sorry. What the heck am I doing here? Clearly you already know without a trial that the two women are lying sluts and Assange is innocent because People We Like never rape. They're too important after all, and any accusations are just an attempt to take them down - the women don't deserve their day, they deserve a massive smear campaign against them for being lying sluts! Just like what happened with those poor innocent football players in Steubenville!
Nobody has ever or will ever in the history of Sweden been "charged" for anything, for the simple reason that the Swedish judicial system doesn't use English terms. This may sound semantics, but it's actually the key point. There are two terms of relevance in the swedish system: "anklagad" and "åtalad". Look them up in a handful of Swedish dictionaries (there's dozens out there); you'll find that both can be translated "accused, charged, or indicted".
In a legal process, being anklagad comes first. The prosecutor raises this stage and must have grounds for probable cause. At this point warrants can be issued for the person's arrest. The person also has the right to appeal being anklagad and have a full court hearing reviewing the evidence (and even to appeal that court ruling).
The only thing that being anklagad doesn't do is lead to a trial. This is what being åtalad does. In fact, once åtalad, you *must* be tried within a fixed period of time. As a standard, there is a questioning immediately before being åtalad.
So while people can play word games, probably the most analagous terms would be "charged" for anklagad and "indicted" for åtalad.
Assange has been anklagad but not åtalad. Nor can he be åtalad, because he refuses to hand himself over and he cannot be tried in absentia. So to use "he hasn't been charged!" as a defense of him is simply deceptive.
And, FYI, here's the sworn-in-court written statement of the Swedish prosecutor:
Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be launched with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries.
Don't be surprised that Assange pulls stuff like this, the guy is a BS artist about almost everything in his life. Check out the 10 different stories he's told about why his hair is white, for example. My favorite is that it's due to gamma radiation from a nuclear reactor he built as a child.
Trumped up charges? Why thank you, Amazing Kreshkin, for your amazing psychic judicial insights! Never mind that of the three investigating officers, two (Gehlen, Wassgren) wanted him charged for 2x counts of rape, 1x unlawful sexual coersion, and 2x molestation, while the third (Krans) felt it should be 1x, 1x, 2x; that the initial prosecutor (Finne) started investigating for 2x, 1x, 2x, then changed the investigation to 0x, 1x, 2x; that an appeal to a judicial review board by the women's legal rep (Claes Borgström) ruled her in error and restored the investigation for 2x, 1x, 2x
No no - who cares what everyone who's actually involved in the case has to say, we've got TWiTfan here to tell us what's what! You put those uppity women in their place, how DARE they get a day in court. Don't they know that Assange is just Too Important to deem to stand trial for trivial things like prying a girl's legs open to force sex and F*ing a sleeping girl to work around her refusal to consent to his preferred form of sex? Pish, don't they know that Assange is just the Awesomest Aweome that ever did Awesome? Lie back and take it, girls, it's for the greater good!
Oh, by the way, TWiTfan, I've found some great property listings in Steubenville if you're interested.
Reminds me of the classic response I got from an Australian when I asked him what the benefit of being a Commonwealth of the Crown was.
His response was "It's worth 3/5 of Bugger Off".
I dunno... those campaign commercials from The Onion for Zombie Reagan a few years ago were mighty convincing...
That was originally a John Lennon song, BTW.
As I've been saying for about 10 years now, the Republicans usually talk a good game, but almost never live up to what they say they are going to do, and do stupid things instead. The Democrats simply promise to do stupid things, and then do them.
Both parties have lousy track records with respect to making the government actually be useful. Both are too beholden to the oligarchy and are too wedded to increasing government control and power, regardless of what the end result will be.
It's the Party of Big Government vs. the Party of A Little Bit Bigger Government. In the Republican Party, the actual "small-government" conservatives are a minority who are constantly marginalized by the party leadership. Yes, they made a big to-do with the government shutdown and everything, but the end result was never in doubt. It was purely a symbolic gesture, for better or worse. In the Democrat Party, they have been very effective in establishing much more unity in terms of policy goals and political principles. The end result however, is that whoever is in charge erodes our rights and increases government debt. It's only the rate of these things getting worse that changes.