Posts by Windrose 157 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Dec 2009
Quote:
Bevisbörda
En parts skyldighet att lägga fram bevis för sitt påstående. När det gäller brottmål har åklagaren hela bevisbördan, dvs. det är åklagaren som ska bevisa att den misstänkta personen har begått det brott som åklagaren påstår. Till dess betraktas personen som oskyldig.
And no. No jury.
Wowsers. That sounded suspiciously like a child. Suspect your generation is the one mine begot, and now regret.
Here is the point, rephrased: YOUR DATA TYPING WAS WRONG*.
Your students were quite a bit smarter than you. Note that I never onced referenced your ideas about gender. That bout of hysteria above is yours alone.
(Why it was wrong? You made an assumption based on personal experience and opinion. You cannot have missed that today people - regardless of YOUR opinion - want and need (see link you were given) more choices that fit in your typing. It's your kind of thinking that gave us two-digit years to suffer. Might have worked when you were a toddler, but poor practice today)
Group A state that they have a problem with how Group B is treated when interacting with A. This is referenced on El Reg.
The comments are, immediately, of the "Group A only THINK they have a problem and are stupid and snowflakes and ... " variety.
Very SO actually. For a bunch of people who claim to care more about ability than gender, you are damned touchy and sensitive on the topic.
... and then some people here actually believe techies don't care about gender ...
Were did you learn your data modelling, mate? What did the requirement state? You DID start with a requirement?
No? So you started with facts? Oh,no! You started with "when *I* was young", and get surprised when people view the world differently.
Who the snowflake is might just be debatable.
Get off that lectern. You are not qualified.
They do indeed - http://saab.com/air/gripen-fighter-system/gripen/gripen/the-fighter/Gripen-E/
That's the SAAB JAS-39 "Griffin" E (or Gripen NG). Take a note of http://saab.com/globalassets/commercial/air/gripen-fighter-system/pdf-files-download-section/facts/gripen-e-fact-sheet--en.pdf - in particular the "Full Engine Replacement" bit.
For the amusement value I can mention that the Swedish version of IDG had a lengthish article on the JAS, including the detail that there still are backup mechanical computers in the thing, "just in case". Worth a read - https://techworld.idg.se/2.2524/1.174315/reaktionsmotor-12---bade-vacker-och-stark
"... they were not prepared to make such an undertaking."
This IS true. The Swedish government actually, honestly and opened REFUSED ... to break Swedish law to benefit St. Julian.
Only a Swedish court can legally refuse an extradiction request and only AFTER it was actually MADE. What'cha know. Them fiendish swedes comply with their own laws! Terrible.
... exactly how far the apologists will go before they accept that there IS a teensy-weensy little problem with IT culture.
Don't think I have ever, ever read so many absolutely idiotic ways of attempting to get out of one hole. This is worth remembering for future articles that make claims of the "boys are put upon!" variety. "Naah, it's just you malenazis trying to censor free expression!"
Oh, yeah. We're nearing adulthood here, without a doubt.
I'm not sorry for the downvotes.
-a- There is no "Linux Desktop", only "What I want my desktop to look like". If you want decisions made for you, there are alternatives. Linux-with-a-GUI ain't one.
-b- Sensible replacement for Outlook? Mutt. No, thats not a joke. You don't agree? Thats ok. To me, mutt handles mail in such a spectacularly better way than Outlook I wince when forced to use the MS "mail client" (hello? Doesn't even handle adressing right?) You might be looking for decisions to be made for you again. See -a-.
Linux isn't, never was, and despite the work of Gnome et al, never will be a drop-in replacement for Windows. If THAT is what you want, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by looking elsewhere. Telling off DeLorean 'cause it's a poor substitute for your stationwagon isn't productive.
I'd hope you'd think first, check facts - something El Reg *did not do* - and then decide.
96% of the revenue is tucked away and not used. By law the Greedy Buggers(tm) don't get to use more than 4%. So we avoid the slash-and-burn of "conservatives" with grand ideas of statues and 8-lane motorways.
And that other sort which people think exists, who want to use cash on humans. Don't worry. We have none of those either.
Ever BEEN on a plane?
Voice calls in that sonic nightmare matters not an iota. You need ANC to take out the screaming kids, snoring buffons, drunk iDrones, and nattering salespeople - sorry "stewards". Not to mention those humungous noise generators on the bloomin' wings!
Thinking that a phonecall which most people will try once, not hear a frak of what the other say and give up, require a LAW shows that someone need upgrade their government to v2.0.
"What's the problem here?"
Try applying the former part of your argument ("... Rewards can come in many flavours") to the latter part ("An awful lot of music production, CD and other merch manufacturing, packing, shipping etc... ").
How many manufacturers, packers, shippers, and so forth do YOU believe would volunteer their time and materials to get "valuable exposure"? If she, or anyone else, expect profession X to donate time, effort and material (yes, instruments get worn), then surely professions Y and Z should do the same!
No? There's the problem. The supporting musicians, who will get far less exposure than Ms. Palmer, can't pay their foodbills with differently flavoured rewards. I'm sure SOME can, and some probably will, but it's the assumption that they SHOULD which grates 'pon many.
Us of the all-should-be-free generation doesn't pay a living wage to most of the artists who entertain us as it is.
No surprise, really, that some of them get a little cranky when one of their own make the same assumption.
"So which copyright materials have TPB directly infringed by distributing themselves?"
None.
"Clearly their 'crime' is to state where stuff, some of which rights owners don't want you to have, is made available."
Nope.
"That's the classic case arguing for for limits of freedom of speech, but this isn't an issue of public safety."
Nor is it a case of free speech.
"It's really just a way of asking us to ignore the important issues in this particular case by puffing out a smokescreen isn't it ?"
Nope.
The important issue in this case has been effectively ignored by people around the 'net for a long time ALL BY THEMSELVES.
Fact 1: TPB - the people involved with it - was not convicted for spreading copyrighted material.
Fact 2: They WERE convicted for knowingly assisting others in doing so.
In other words: what TPB did was link to material but, as opposed to others, refuse to REMOVE links when informed the material on the other end was in violation of copyright.
The way the case was handled, on the other hand, stinks to high heaven, but that's a different matter. Had the TPB Four, when notified of copyright violations, blocked the torrents in question they would have been in the clear. Now? Now they are considered to have willingly AND knowingly helped out.
So keep knickers untwisted, eh?
"No love for the N900(maemo) users? :("
Mmm-mm. Maemo on the N900 - best darn mobile computer I EVER had. Why Nokia didn't keep to that track, but do the hardware updates we now see I'll never grok (of course, it could NOT have ANYTHING to do with their new CEO. Of course not. We're not CYNICS after all)
But, then again, that IS why I got two of them ... and I've yet to find anything better. Yep, that's lookin' at you iOS. And Android.
"Why do you think iOS is ugly?"
P'nally I couldn't comment, since I've never laid eyes on iOS.
Oh, I've seen loads of screenshots of the APPLICATIONS that run on it, but I've never seen the *OS*.
Pet peeve: people who comment on a tech site and can't tell the difference between an *operating system* and the *applications that run on it*.
"Seriously - this is what they call innovation?"
Ah, but as we have been told - repeatedly - over the years, the "thing" with the iPhone is not the technology, but the design and userfriendlyness. (We need a Dustypuppy icon).
So you shouldn't look at the minor technology updates, but focus on the vastly improved design and userfriendlyness.
Enjoy!
Mine's the one with the sarcasm in the pocket.
"But the whole idea of laws that are simply ignored and not enforced because they're stupid seems to be an impossible concept for UK civil servants and enforcement groups."
Oh, yes. Let's reinforce a culture in which un-elected civil servants can decide on their own which laws to ignore and which to enforce because said laws are "stupid". LET'S!
I can only hope this monumental example of stupidity is meant as sarcasm.
"They spent money to develop something and countless android companies just swoop in, copy it, sell their item for less and over take apple."
Ah, but that is the question, is it not?
Did Apple spend money to develop something, or did they just rip off those that came before? For example - as was pointed out: touch sensitive screen with grid of icons representing applications? Palm, for one, did it before and better than Apple. No patent should be allowed.
Besides, as a side note, it's impossible to mix up the iOS-only-app-icons-allowed with Android-widgets-and-apps-and-oh-myyyyy desktops.
"As parts of the specification mature, and implementations ship, the spec cannot be changed in backwards-incompatible ways (because the implementors would never agree to break compatibility unless for security reasons). "
The 'spec' has already broken backwards compatibility several times. More BS from a true master at the trade.
"Does this meal that the WHATWG will be creating a kind of bleeding edge specification which will make it into the browsers?"
Yes - and no. It means that browser vendor X will add new, shiny, fancy feature Y, the WHATWG will document it, and the other vendors will (likely) follow suit. After a while the W3C will add it to their spec, and it'll be formalised.
In the meantime vendors of, say, assistive technologies will run like mad to keep up, releasing new, costly versions.
Developers rejoice. Users? Not so much. Imagine it like this: you start building a gross of houses on a huge plain. The LAST house won't use the same power adapters as the FIRST house, but sooner or later ONE or the other of those plugs will get formally standardized.
Yes - both Swedish legal experts (one of whom is a judge as well) has made this quite clear. Under the EAW Sweden must ask the UK whether or not Assange can be extradited to the US.
A direct US<->Sweden treaty exist, which complicate stuff. However, that also pose the regular problems for our friends in the 5-gallon hats: first, they must charge Assange with something which IS a crime in Sweden (accepting documents from an informer is not), secondly they must not charge him with something he'll be executed for (espionage is PARTICULARLY complicated), and ...
The complications go on and on and on and on and we've not even touched 'pon the publicity shitstorm that would occur should they decide to break the rules.
'Look up "temporary surrender". Sweden actually doesn't even have to ask the UK.'
The wobbly concept "temporary surrender" is defined in our old friend TIAS 10812, specifically Article VI. It state:
"If the extradition request is granted in the case of a person who is being prosecuted or is serving a
sentence in the territory of the requested State for a different offense, the requested State may:"
Notice anything peculiar? I refer my learned friend to Article 2, part 1. In addition, Swedish law explicitly forbids extradition in specific cases where there is a fear of torture, the death penalty, etc; and under some circumstances if it is a political crime.
Since some US politicians already HAVE called for the death penalty (for an innocent man, no less; let's not forget the 'unless proven guilty' here) it is not a politically popular idea.
'All that for an alleged minor offense that doesn't exist in the UK (in the whole world bar Sweden it would be called "lack of manner"), and doesn't carry prison time in Sweden'
I AM aware that quite a few people would like to see 'rape' not being an offense, but alas, it is, in Sweden as in most places. The penalty for this would likely be in the 2-4 year bracket. BS, in other words.
I am not, but these are:
http://lundagard.se/2011/02/08/obefintlig-risk-att-assange-utlamnas-till-usa/
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/12/07/wikileaks.assange/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/experter-utlamning-till-usa-utdragen-process
http://www.svd.se/nyheter/utrikes/inte-sveriges-beslut-om-utlamning_5793955.svd
It would appear that quite a few legal eagles agree with my take on it. Besides, you do yourself refer to Article 3 of TIAS 10812. Did you bother to read Article 2 which IT refer to?
This is simple enough, as you say: if Assange did something in the US that THEY consider a crime, but which is NOT a crime in Sweden, or is a crime but with a sentence of less than two years, it is NOT an "extraditable offense". Which Art. 3 refer to.
"The Swedes had Nokia and Saab as US payments for support in the cold war. Now they don't exist anymore.... who is paying who?"
Uh. You DO know that Nokia is Finnish and that SAAB still exists? Are you simply trying for sarcasm, or are you this amazingly lacking in general knowledge?
Nokia was created in 1871 as a paper manufacturer. SAAB was created in 1937 to produce military aircraft for the Swedish armed forces (primarily). I dunno whether to laugh or swear.
"Once he is in Sweden, and when the US asks, the UK can (and will) just bend over and give consent."
First the US has to get a case. Then they have to ask - which they can't do while the current case is worked on - and then they have to get it approved by the Swedish courts. Which, for example, they can't do for anything resembling a political crime - nor, likely, for accepting information from a third party. Swedish laws in this area are solid.
Then the UK has to consent. Which you appear to believe is likely. Fair enough; I shan't rip you of your beliefs, but: if there is a case, Sweden WILL charge him. No-one has said he won't be charged. TRY to understand this. He is questioned FIRST, charged LATER. Right now no-one KNOW whether he'll be charged.*
Nor is rape a "minor misdemeanor" in Sweden. Clue, meet bat.
* It is unlikely he'll be charged. Most of those accused of rape are not, most of those charged are acquitted.
"Once in Sweden (note the limited use of the letter "e") the US can extradite him under one of several TIAS extradition agreements, not only *can* the US do this, the legalities would be water tight"
Except ... if he is extradited to Sweden, it is under an EAW. Which means the UK must consent to him being extradited further.
Endgame.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
