Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

Oh Puleez don't be so insulting...

I've got a group of Greenies who are interested. I've got this bridge where I'm selling them the rights to charge a toll for crossing. Their upside is that once they get enough money to buy one of these E-Cat devices, they can raise the toll so high that only a fool would want to drive across it, thus reducing the congestion in the city on the other side of the bridge.

So they are very sharp indeed, so please stop insulting them. At least until they close my deal.

@Brian Re: Definitely misleading

No, I didn't miss that point.

Your cost in hardware isn't actually that trivial but the bulk of the cost is going to be in the software.

(Which you belatedly admit ;-)

You really don't expect anyone to run a wheelchair using this as input on completely open source with no proprietary software, did you?

Or the liability insurance you'll need in case something happens to someone like driving over a cliff, or someone hacks their computer... (Or the wheelchair suddenly lurches in to traffic and the poor sod gets hit by a bus or garbage truck [lorry]...)

You also have to realize that the use of this would be a very small niche environment. So you have a small user base to cover the cost of software/hardware/insurance/etc ...

Like I said, I applaud the tech, spot on and with more research could lead to some other interesting devices. However... at best you could probably reduce some of the total costs but not by as much as you think...

Now if you had said shoot the lawyers first... then maybe you'd have a chance.

@P.Lee Re: Here's a clue

In order to comply with Icelandic law, they will be breaking US law.

Since they are US corporations, what do you think they will do?

And technically it wasn't Visa or MC but the Icelandic bank that was breaking the law.

Re: Although I am against censorship from governments and nation states...

I really wish you would get your facts straight.

Visa, MC, Amex, etc are all US Based corporations.

There are laws on the books that make it illegal and levy heavy fines and more if a corporation knowingly violates these laws.

What's the US's status on Wikileaks? If its deemed to be on the wrong side of the line, The US declares them bad and then these companies stop processing their funds.

Not to mention that Wikileaks threatened to go after a bank. You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

The only loser is the Icelandic bank. It can lose its Visa status so it won't be able to process any Visa transactions. They are in a lose/lose situation.

@Kain Preacher...Re: Tumble-dryers...

Sorry you lost me.

"you know the rules before you move and oh yeah most of the country does not have HOA. It's Americans."

Not sure what you meant by this.

Not everywhere are there HOAs. You can disolve HOAs if you want, but that usually takes 75% of the vote and you will have a hard time showing me anywhere in the world that you can get 75% of the vote on anything unless there's a gun pointed to your head.

That aside, not all home owners associations are bad. Although if you get a neo-nazi be-itch running it... yeah you will want to go postal.

Re: Taking bets ....

Yup Lil Bro wants what's best for the people.

If they make Cuba the new hot tourist spot... money rolls in.

Use the military to keep the mob and drug mobs out, and you have a money maker where everyone wins.

Except the US since anyone who is not an American Citizen can already go to Cuba and carve their position out ahead of the thaw.

Now if they rejigger their tax laws... it could become the next tax haven and make even more money.

Re: Taking bets ....

I'll take that bet.

Seems you don't follow a lot of what is happening in the geo political wars these days.

While Castro lies on his death bed ranting anti-american slogans, what do you think that the people want?

Russia can't continue to prop up the status quo and while American's cant' travel, Europeans and Canadians can. Along with money from the OAS south of the border.

When Castro goes. Watch for the land grab and revolt... to a point.

This fiber is just the start. ...

Re: @Big Dumb Guy 555 -- -What???? ...But the US didn't

Poor Graham,

Had you paid attention to the news, the guys at Fermilab had discovered more evidence from the data they collected years earlier.

The SSC was halted for a couple of reasons. While I forget the list of reasons, the major one was cost. Considering that it took the entire EU, including the US to fund CERN, having the US go it alone, let alone any country, would have been cost prohibitive.

If it wasn't for the research done at Fermilab, then it would still take some more time for the boffin's at CERN to find it.

Please don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

While you may not care much for US politics, need I remind you that much of the US's foreign policy is based on events starting back at lessons learned from post WWI and WWII. And speaking of bailing out allies, I seem to recall the US getting put in a bind during this thing in the Falklands where the US tried to remain neutral as both a member of NATO and OAS. Of course that didn't stop the US in supplying in flight refueling to their NATO allies since they lacked both long distance capabilities along with suitable warships and aircraft to do the job.

But what do I know?

BTW, I do agree with you. The US is no longer spending our tax dollars on basic science for the world's benefit. We're too busy funding this global agency that has no real value. Its called the UN.

The Nuke Blast Icon because we still have enough stockpiled weapons to end life as we know it. A left over from the Cold War Europeans helped start.

@Adam WillRe: I usually disagree with pretty much everything you have to say

I guess then the States could tax the shite out of Google. Except that they aren't in the UK but in Ireland reaping the benefits of their tax laws.

Or what you could do is essentially remove the market from Google. Pass a law that any orphaned works that had been scanned couldn't be sold and had to be given away for free since they neither created the work, nor compensated the author or their estate. This way the public wins.

@PyLETs Re: minefields are expensive places to do business

Your analogy doesn't work.

You have the current land owners. Not those who owned the land prior to the current owners and there's a record in the town hall of the property owners. They fail to pay tax then the land becomes part of the city unless they confiscate it and resell it.

Sorry but the rest of your argument makes no sense.

Re: Amazing...

But its not theft....

The humungus internet corp is obligated to pay you fair market value for your work, right?

Of course they get to decide what is fair market...

And of course they have to know where to find you to send you the check.

And if they can't find you... then its your fault.

But its not theft because its allowable under the proposed law.

BTW, you know you're off the grid if the likes of Google or FB can't find you. Here's a free clue. They could if they wanted to, but its not their responsibility now is it? You still have to let them know that its your work and that you want to get paid whatever that amount is...

And here I thought those of us who live in Chicago, IL had all of the corrupt politicians. Looks like those in the UK make our politicians look like rank amateurs.

@SJRulez ... Re: Bull

Sorry to disappoint... but had you actually read the court documents and transcripts you will see what you claim is what the defense counsel purports to be true. However, when under questioning, Assange wasn't free to leave the country and that the prosecutor was having conversations with Assange's attorney. The attorney was well aware that the investigation was on going.

To your point that the charges were 'dropped' by Eva Finne is incorrect. Assange was never charged with the crime in the first place. Eva Finne may have decided not to pursue charges for several reasons which the prosecutor who is pursuing charges doesn't agree with. It doesn't matter.

We can assume under advice of counsel, Assange fled Sweden in an effort to avoid the charges. While this is an assumption, it is based on the fact that his attorney perjured himself in court documents by claiming that he had no communication with the Prosecutor, or her office that they wanted to bring in Assange for questioning and eventual charges were to be filed. He may have dodged the emails, phone calls, etc... but he couldn't dodge those SMS text messages left by the prosecutor.

In short, he lost all credibility in the eyes of the UK court.

Re: @ Allan Dyer Would be quite funny

Not sure why you got down voted... At least you were honest about the cheap shots... :-)

But there is one other reason why you won't see anything happening over the short time...

This is an election year. Assanage while a prat, embarrassed the current administration. So the wont do anything until after the election. Also note that they are under attack over the fast and furious gun sting that went horribly awry. You can bet that Assange will see the shit fly after the election and after the conclusion to Manning's court martial. You can expect the book to be thrown at him and he will become someone's prison be-itch. (but I think he may actually like that based on statements from his defense team)

They won't put Assange in G Bay. They should be in a process of shutting it down, Most likely a high security Fed Prison.

Of course I'm predicting he will be charged, found guilty and sentenced to 20 + years ... It's a safe bet unless Assange pisses off his Russian handlers or the Russian mob. They don't fool around.

Re: Technicalities

Well. There are a couple of ways it could have been done...

I believe they could have served his lawyers with the papers, it would be legal in the US until the lawyers are removed from the case they are his legal representatives.

They could have arranged a meeting though diplomatic channels and had a face to face meeting with Assange. They just couldn't arrest him.

They could have served the papers to the embassy staff which would be under obligation to present them to Assange.

@ AC Re: This isn't a joke - rape is a serous offence

Clearly you haven't read the extradition court documents...

I pointed this out in a different thread but I will add more details here.

Under the EAW treaty, there are 32 crimes which do not require that there be a 'duality standard'. I put this in quotes because I'm going from memory and I'm not sure of the correct legal term. The point is that these specific 32 criminal charges are valid based on the jurisdiction of where the crime took place. I believe rape is #26 on the list, however again I'm going from memory... That is to say that it only matters what the Swedes define as rape for the EAW to be valid.

While you may not consider this to be rape, the Swedes do and have in court documents defined the charges Assange faces to be rape. Not Swedish courts, but at the appeal hearings in the UK.

And guess what... The UK courts agreed with them.

I personally don't understand why Assange can't be charged in abstensia ?sp? But that's Swedish Law for you. Much more civilized, don't you think?

You can bet Assange ran because he figured that the Swedes would waste the time and money on an EAW, or the court fight of an appealed extradition hearing. I wonder what happened to his Swedish lawyer. Was he censured for his actions?

Re: ....The Facts v Gumby et Alia

I think you need to reread the complaints against Assange.

In both complaints Assange did not wear protection and both women claim that they indicated that they did not want to have unprotected sex.

So yes, no means no. At the same time the second woman said she was asleep and woke to find Assange attempting to engage in sex. Asleep means that she could not consent to having sex.

Had you also paid attention to the extradition hearing, Assange's laywer pointed out that the charge of rape in Sweden, which Assange is going to be charged with, wouldn't be considered a chargeable offense. Had you also read the prosecutions response, you might have learned that rape is one of the 32 offenses #26 on the list, I think, where you don't have to consider the 'duality' of the charge. This means that all that matters is what Sweden considers rape is all that matters.

It's troubling that you don't seem to get the importance of that when a woman says no to sex that you don't feel that you have to respect their wishes. And no, I didn't miss out on anything in my 'earlier days' , except when I decided not to close the deal. ;-)

You also unfortunately give too much credit to Assange. He's a wuss for running away from the charges. IMHO had he stayed to face the charges, he could have this all behind him by now... The US has time to build their case against Assange. Let's see what happens with Manning first...

Re: Bull

Did you ever bother to read any of the court documents?

Sorry but Schoroi has it right.

@Velv

Sorry but no.

Assange gets the boot from the embassy, he goes directly to jail until its time to board a plane to Sweden.

After Sweden, he gets the boot back to Australia.

In Australia, he could end up losing his passport. (There was an article on this...)

He could also be denied a Visa or entry in to countries.

He could theoretically could be denied entry in to the UK.

@Matt Bryant... Re: FLAME: I know that eric blair wrote about this 64 years ago

First, any crime against the US regardless of where the crime took place will be prosecuted.

Lets also be clear that the publishing of the documents may have some potential legal coverage based on a journalist covering the VIet Nam war back in '71 and the US Supreme Court ruled giving some protection to the press.

What is causing Assange some royal pain is that there was evidence of his assisting Manning in the theft of the documents. This was presented at Manning's Article 32 hearing. Its this overt act of assisting in the theft that is so worrisome for Assange. If a grand jury finds the evidence credible, they could decide to charge Assange.

To your point about Assange not being an American citizen and the crime didn't take place on American soil... it doesn't matter.

Assange if charged will have the same rights as a US Citizen. Again this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. If anything he could be charged on the theft.

@ Allan Dyer Re: Would be quite funny

Sorry no.

Why would the US screw up a good thing?

First the US has a lousy recent history of wet work for the past 10-15 years.

Second, they will be pissing on a very good ally.

Third there are other options which are just as good and will end up having the same outcome without any risk.

Sorry, but either they[Ecuador] grant him asylum or they turn him out from their embassy.

From a political perspective, Ecuador would be on thin legal grounds to provide him asylum. Assange does not face any charges at home (Australia) or any charges from the US. The only legal issue he faces is the EAW back to Sweden where they will question him and then charge him for rape.

Ecuador would be within their rights to grant asylum, however, there would probably be some repercussions from Sweden since it would be direct interference in their EAW.

IMHO, Assange messed up on this one. I wonder if anyone gave him legal advice about seeking asylum. I think it will only extend the inevitable.

Re: Bull

Huh?

Really, I wonder what goes through the minds of some people.

Why would the US want to have Sweden issue another EAW?

Hypothetical situation...

He goes to Sweden. He faces his charges and if/when found guilty, pays the fine, does the potential jail time, whatever... then gets the boot from the country.

Most likely he's put on a plane back to Australia because that's the country on his passport.

There if the US wants him, they can file charges and issue an extradition warrant.

Assume that Assange will try and fight the extradition. (Note: No death penalty issue since Manning the prime conspirator isn't facing the death penalty, so Assange wouldn't either.)

Because of his actions in the UK, there is a strong argument for no bail. (Assange shows he's a runner).

Assange then sits in jail while facing the extradition and eventually he'll lose. If it takes 4 years or longer, he'll sit in an Aussie jail cell. I don't think that time would count as time served so if he faces a trial in the US and is found guilty.... he will still face 10+ years of hard time.

Note this is all hypothetical. The cruelest thing the US Could do is to ignore him and when he pisses off the KGB/FSB, they look the other way.

Re: ....

Sorry no.

I suggest you go back and review the facts of the case.

The issue of rape is that it wasn't consensual sex in either case. One was asleep and the other said no when Julian didn't want to wear a 'rain coat'.

No means no, and poor Julian didn't like their response.

Re: Might as well just bite the bullet.

Scorchio!! has it right.

If the US wants Assange, he's going to be fair game once this whole rape thing goes away.

By the time Assange goes to Sweden and faces the music, Manning's court martial should be winding down. Already at the Article 32 hearing there was evidence presented of Assange communicating w Manning prior, mos the actual theft.

All of this evidence would be admissible, not to mention the possibility of Manning becoming a very cooperating witness against Assange once he is face with a very long jail term.

So its quite possible that when Assange gets the boot from Sweden, he'll be put on a plane out of the country most likely Australia so he can once again be united with his mum. (Read some of the articles in ABC ...)

Re: OLED's time has come

I agree. 2HD or 4HD would be even better.

Sure the amount of bandwidth would be high, but if we sacrificed 1/2 of the 500 useless cable channels, we could get the necessary bandwidth for 2HD.

Maybe that will also kill off this reality TV madness killing 2birss with one stone?

Sir that's an insult to all muppets everywhere!

And on behalf of all of the muppets, I demand an apology!

Re: typical US law extends to everything

Wow, retreads...

"If as is stated by the Swedish\EC warrant the purpose is too question him in relation to possible offenses which as yet he hasn't been charged with then surely that can be done from a police station in the UK under interview condition, incidentally he offered to do this at the Swedish Embassy or Scotland Yard."

This has been pointed out to be completely false.

The Swedes want to question him prior to officially charging him which is their legal procedure. He fled their jurisdiction prior to being brought in for this questioning and eventual arrest. As already stated under oath in the UK, and in filed court documents, Sweden intends on charging him after he is returned to Sweden and questioned.

Don't know what you've been smoking, but please share.