git is a tiny fraction of what's needed to replace OneDrive - unsurprising given it's a source code version control/management system. If you were to start from scratch creating a OneDrive alternative, you'd probably start with Apache, not git. Add versioning and more advanced permissions to Apache's WebDAV implementation, a web interface to the same directory (preferably linked to something capable of at least viewing Word etc documents online), and client tools to sync with Apache, and you're pretty close to being there.
This is about Microsoft's non-subscription version of Office being able to access the corporate version of OneDrive, so LibreOffice won't help here.
It'd be interesting to see the FOSS community come up with an equivalent to OneDrive (if we could somehow do it without needing a central server, that'd be a major step forward) but a FOSS office suite isn't going to help.
Those will still work with the business version of OneDrive after 2020? Or did you misunderstand the summary and think Microsoft is deactivating Office 2016 in 2020 completely?
What Microsoft is announcing is relatively obscure and probably won't affect many people at all. Home users will be completely unaffected. Businesses are largely moving over to Office 365 anyway, the combination of "Corporate OneDrive + non-subscription Office" is pretty unusual.
Switching over to the Mac (or, more easily, to LibreOffice/OpenOffice) won't help in the slightest.
That's unfair. Blender did undergo some big changes, but they were more than justified. It's not like they're just continuously changing it, or that the changes weren't warranted. I think Blender is a better tool today because of their changes.
I have much more of an issue with GIMP. Pushing forth changes that the vast majority of the userbase hated (and railed against on the forum), and got a big "FU, if you don't like it, use another tool" response from the developers. Comments on the "can only save XCF through the save menu, changes to other formats pester you about "unsaved changes" even if you do export" design change were over 10:1 against. The brush size slider is a mess. Text editing is broken in about ten different ways, from it forgetting what font size you're typing in to not rendering full text deletion in some cases. The general quality has gone way downhill. Meanwhile, things that have supposedly been "in the works" for years, like higher bit-depth colour, seem further away than ever. Even if I didn't want to export to a higher bit depth, if I want to do a gaussian blur on a high-res image I need to do a combination of dithers and blurs because of the loss of precision at 8 bits per channel.
Facebook is the classic example of terrible product evolution (particularly Messenger... have these people never heard of the concept of screen real estate?). I'd also like to zing Google for Google Maps. Today it's way slower, they took the very convenient full-length zoom bar out (and only put the tiny one in after user complaints), buttons with similar functionality are scattered out (e.g. satellite is on the bottom left, but landscape hidden in the menu top left), photo integration is terrible (no longer shows photos where they actually are, but in a giant "bar" on the bottom of the screen, opened by an ambiguous icon that looks like three different buttons, with lines that point to the map seemingly at random), make you zoom in twice as far to see the same amount of map information (ex. road labels), added icons to the upper right that have no connection to Maps at all just for "product consistency", and so on. And it's 2017, why is their landscape option still so terrible? Even little local companies' map services have vastly superior landscapes.
Seriously, that's the best you have, a case from over a decade and a half ago? No country is perfect, but when you have to reach back sixteen years to find something to damn them for., you're really stretching.
World Justice Project (which uses a peer-reviewed methodology to rank judicial systems from around the world; there are over 17 experts just for Sweden alone) ranks Sweden the best in the world in terms of fundamental rights. Their biggest weakness in the rankings? Letting criminals off too easily. But never mind that, because there was a single incident sixteen years ago involving two people who had no legal right to be in the country (versus Assange who has no legal right to *not* be in the country) and who had been misidentified as convicted terrorists being extradited, that means that the whole country is evil and corrupt and just loves to extradite people, right?
Indeed. There's a lot of skepticism here. When you factor in confounding factors:
Crucially, the association with stroke and dementia disappeared after adjusting for diabetes and vascular risk factors, such as high blood pressure and prior heart attack
The study appears to be an excellent example of the reverse causality effect. For example, let's say I was doing a study on on the effects of taking a heart medication on heart attacks. So I randomly collect thousands of people and study their incidence of heart attacks, and compare which people who had heart attacks were taking a heart medication and which weren't. Lo and behold, the people taking heart medication are far more likely to have a heart attack! Does that mean the medication is to blame? Not at all; it means that the people who are on heart medication are already more likely to be taking heart medication. It's the risk of a heart attack that's causing the taking of heart medication, not the heart medication that's causing the risk of heart attack.
Not even the women who are the victims say it was rape.
1) According to the witness statements, SW told several people that she was raped.
2) AA did not, and denied that she was raped.
3) There were only rape charges concerning SW, not AA.
And this isn't an arrest, it's asking questions
Only if you play word games between "anklagad" and "åtalad". The Swedish judicial system, shock of all shock, isn't exactly the same as the US judicial system, and does not break down the concept of charging in exactly the same manner. Regardless, the British court system - at every level - ruled him as considered "charged", under the guidelines of an EAW.
Beyond that, from the sworn statement of the prosecutor herself:
10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. 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
As it stands right now, if the US charged him and he were kicked out of the Ecuadorian embassy, the following things would happen:
1) He would be surrendered to Sweden under the EAW, which takes precedence over extradition, and was also the first filing.
2) If tried and convicted in Sweden, he would serve his sentence.
3) Regardless of the outcome in #2, he would then be returned to the UK, as standard in the EAW surrender process (which does not allow for transfer to "third states")
4) He would serve time for skipping out on his house arrest and jumping bail in the UK, as he's already been convicted of that; it postdates the EAW filing but would predate any extradition request.
5) During the events of #1 - #4, the UK court system would rule on the US request. The UK government would also have the right to block the request. Because of brexit, the UK may well drop out of the ECHR; if so, that avenue of appeal would be lost. The US would likely have to guarantee certain standards, likely including no supermax prison, to get the extradition approved.
6) Assuming the extradition is approved, he would be sent to the US, tried, and if convicted, sentenced and serve. The details depend on the exact nature of the charges.
The real story was her comment during an all important meeting: Cant we just drone this guy?
Which was a fake story. That never happened. That story came from "True Pundit", which is a website famous for fake news stories.
Somewhat dubious - most allegations turn out to be dubious extrapolations, quotes out of context, and things all parties do, but in any case, it's not the Democrats that are proposing prosecuting Assange. It's the guy he ultimately helped.
Haha, so in reality they're actually moving away from charging him, but plan to double back and actually charge him once they've resolved previous commitments to Australia?
Indeed. A Post-ABC poll conducted in 2013 found 22% of Republicans and 38% of Democrats supported punitive strikes against Syria for using chemical weapons. In 2017, under Trump? The number from the Democrats only dropped one point, to 37%, but the number for Republicans totally reversed, to 86% support.
Another aspect of this: the US can, if they charge him, continually toll the statute of limitations because Assange isn't present. Which means that the charges will remain until Assange dies. Which, if he doesn't leave, will be in the embassy. Also: how many elections do you think Ecuador will have before Assange dies?
The funny thing is, had he just faced up to the charges in Sweden, he would have long since been done with serving his time, then left to the shelter-state of his choice, since Obama never saw fit to charge him. Remember how Assange kept ranting for years about the US having a "secret warrant" out for his arrest? The fact that this is just now happening is proof that there never was one, because you can't charge someone with something that they've already been charged with.
At no time has Assange had a US security clearance. He has no legal obligation to not publish info others have provided. Those others (Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, etc) are legally liable for leaking information they were legally obligated to protect. Not Assange.
Which is why it had previously been determined that the US couldn't prosecute him, and didn't.
Now, if he was actively involved in the commission of a crime, that's a different story entirely from being handed information. It doesn't matter if you personally didn't have security clearance and weren't the one who walked out with the documents if you plotted and assisted in the action's commission. Just like how it doesn't matter if you weren't the one who robbed a bank and walked out with the cash if you helped arrange the robbery and drove the getaway car.
Genetics explains why you look like your father, and if you don't, why you should.