I think the real question is "Who do we send up next?".

I would totally download that.

What about "secure in their persons"? I'm pretty certain that my person should not be searched. That would include where I've been in order to determine where I'm going and where I am at any moment.. The government having access to this type of information at will does not make me secure from much of anything. As a direct result of my person being then where my person has been, in near totality, should not be a source of information accessible by government without a warrant. I can't see how any reasonable person can interpret that amendment much differently.

If he wants the desktop he'll need to stop wanting the desktop. It's not a kernel problem, it's an office problem. Communications. Seamless integration has been a pipe dream for far too long from my perch. Without a full package you're tossing rocks at the river and hoping for a damn. KDE? This that or the other wrap that's functional and cool? Nope. Private and secure operations with links to people that will encompass the full work flow, that's the problem. Linux will work all day long on any desktop. It's all of the desktops that are the problem. Isn't there an early adopter that wants to roll their entire country back onto MS? That's not a kernel problem, that's a comms problem, communications with every other mid to large size office on the planet. Linux - not the problem.

without help: 1048576 how many bits is that?

The article said: "That “decay heat” is what led to the Fukushima meltdowns"

and it does matter because in the real world the ideal is to learn from the past in order to better prepare for the future. No?

Dock it in the pirate bay and ask people to pay if they like it, preferably before it saves their life. Safety first I'd say.

It sounds like a requisite function for those that might communicate as if they needn't pay attention to driving and very helpful for those that may know driving requires a good degree of concentration but need and want to communicate anyway. Good luck with your app.

OK. No hurries. I can't help but think, given the laws, rulings, nations and people in play here that the possibility of actually discovering whether or not those girls were harmed (apart from "because, money. secrets") that that would, above all, be the paramount question to answer and fuck all in between if those that have questions could have, should have, can but won't ask these questions, in any setting. And, if the accusations turn out to be more than sufficient to arrest him for real crimes committed, the host nation would, I should think, give more credence to the possibility that they're sheltering a potentially (to other women) dangerous person and that person should be tried.

From a "wow, those law books sure are thick" perspective I perceive a thread of aggression in these events that, on the level of nations, doesn't seem justified. There seems the very real and sufficient threat of extradition to yet a fourth country that is seen as unjust by the third country and the objective here must be to have either the fourth country admit as much and deal with the third country directly or for the second country to regress or seek redress from a world court respective of all four countries, should one exist. Or, more likely, the pieces will simply remain on the board as placed.

Thanks. I'll look for the answer to the fabled question when I can dig for it as the answer wasn't in my top 10 results. But what does an extradition ruling from one nation have to do with facts sought from another nation? Admittedly I'm sort of looking at it rather simply - have questions / seek answers. You know, the center of the onion sort of thing. That and being that he is the guest of yet another country I can't quite see how the first country rulings matter in the slightest. All said and done that is.

I'm not quite sure that I'd call it hiding out like a common criminal. They can, after all, interview him, can they not? They want their terms met more than they seem to want to investigate and piece together truth in order to properly evaluate the accusations. As such I would definitely think that somebody is not on the level. There seems to be a lot of aggressive persecution and prosecution going on in general so why not this? And, for the record, I firmly believe that he had every right to publish everything. He even tried to have it vetted. So what, exactly, is the actual fucking problem?

Fuck man. This shit is starting to drive me crazy. If you're not the sender and you're not the recipient you're not fucking privileged. My house. My phone. My mail. My text. Get a fucking warrant. Christ.

I don't participate but ... that's fucking insane. My house. Get a warrant.

By offering a purchase agreement for the goods noted. If they buy it then the strike is stricken if they don't then when they get six they have a mandatory fee of 60.00 (or 10$ per strike) that is then distributed to the ISPs who in turn give it to those middle-men to keep them off their backs (or off their knees so they can stop biting our dicks). And the customer (media leecher) strike record is set to zero. If the customer does not pay it then the ISP can choose to implement customer behavior corrective actions. Or the customer can simply say "wasn't me." and pay anyway because *proof*.

NOW punctuation exclamation mark

Actually I believe that you're wrong. Monsanto authorizes their seed progeny to the elevators. The farmer that sold his seed to the grain elevator was allowed to do so contractually. Another farmer subsequently purchased seed from the grain elevator, with the Monsanto seed mixed in, and planted it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/feb/09/soybean-farmer-monsanto-supreme-court