Slashdot Mirror


Julian Assange's Online Dating Profile Leaked

Ponca City writes "The Telegraph reports that an online dating profile created by Julian Assange in 2006 has been unearthed from OKCupid disclosing that the WikiLeaks editor sought 'spirited, erotic' women 'from countries that have sustained political turmoil.' Writing under the pseudonym of British science fiction author Harry Harrison, Assange described himself as a 'passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual.' Assange said he was seeking a 'siren for [a] love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy' adding that he was 'directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project which is, as you might expect, male dominated' and added enigmatically: 'I am DANGER, ACHTUNG.' Among Assange's listed interests were the 'structure of reality' and 'chopping up human brains' – although he added the caveat '(neuroscience background)' lest the latter put off potential admirers. 'I like women from countries that have sustained political turmoil,' Assange wrote. 'Western culture seems to forge women that are valueless and inane. OK. Not only women!'"

334 comments

  1. Hmm... by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That actually sounds like a fairly accurate representation of the man. Honesty in an online dating profile? Whodathunkit???

    1. Re:Hmm... by masmullin · · Score: 2

      makes me want to make sure I delete my dating profile from POF. It doesn't work anyhow.... :(

    2. Re:Hmm... by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      I agree, his honesty is a inspiration.... to my corrupt wallet 3

    3. Re:Hmm... by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      You get what you pay for, with those websites. The free ones are like leper colonies.

    4. Re:Hmm... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      makes me want to make sure I delete my dating profile from POF. It doesn't work anyhow.... :(

      Didn't work for Julian. He had to start an international NGO to get chicks.

    5. Re:Hmm... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      POF used to be decent, then they started requiring you to put up more and more information which had no relevance to anything other than to the people they were marketing the information to.

      When I left, I told them exactly why (not that it mattered). I had also seen others who left for the same reason.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    6. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Go on...

    7. Re:Hmm... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      People who use dateing websites are not the people you want to date. That's why they use dating websites.

    8. Re:Hmm... by pspahn · · Score: 2

      But what about the people the enjoy using dating sites? Don't you think a dating site would be a good place to find like-minded people?

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    9. Re:Hmm... by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, the pay sites are confidence game scams for the most part. OKCupid, which is free to use, and offers value add on an otherwise useful site (that is, rather than a broken, useless site that you pay to make work) that is free.

      Anyway, their blog ripped apart the pay sites with their own numbers. The end conclusion... paying for online dating is for suckers.

      http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/why-you-should-never-pay-for-online-dating/

      Its absolutely scathing. Ok, they are a competing site, but, their assessment seems quite strong and correct.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    10. Re:Hmm... by IICV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't get it, actually - the profile seems to almost be a parody of itself, and the article says absolutely nothing about how they know the profile is actually Mr. Assange's. How do they know it's his, exactly?

      (I've been wondering the same thing about the diplomatic cables honestly)

    11. Re:Hmm... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      The ones you pay for also like leper colonies, only the lepers have a bit more money to spend.

      If you're looking for someone to date, try having some interests other than computers and hanging out with people who share those interests.

      I say "other than computers" because dating geek chicks is like dating geek guys, only they're chicks.

      Just sayin'...

    12. Re:Hmm... by x2A · · Score: 5, Funny

      Then I shall too! Mine's gonna be "RubberLeaks".

      Crap, he's already done that one too :-/

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    13. Re:Hmm... by masmullin · · Score: 4, Funny

      eHarmony rejected me.

      Seriously, Im not joking (even though its fucking funny).

    14. Re:Hmm... by masmullin · · Score: 3, Funny

      try having some interests other than computers

      I did try, and failed. Whats my next move?

    15. Re:Hmm... by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Fake it.

      Pretend you enjoy dancing at the clubs. Or maybe try some other things like taking a Health class at the local school. There's 30 girls for 1 guy in that major. (Basically the inverse of engineering.)

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:Hmm... by PyroMosh · · Score: 1

      Yes, exactly!

      What would stop you, or me, or anybody from faking classified documents by making stuff up, then "leaking" them to an outfit like Wikileaks?

      Which of course raises the counter-conspirasy theory conspiracy theory:

      What would stop a government from faking classified documents ny making stuff up then "leaking" it to Wikileaks or a similar group? /me adjusts tin-foil hat.

    17. Re:Hmm... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      I met my wife on American Singles. We've been married for 13 years this past summer. We've got two kids. We're both busy professionals that don't go clubbing, have different hobbies, and had bad luck dating people based on what they looked like.

      YMMV, but if you don't have a car or put gas in the tank don't expect much.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    18. Re:Hmm... by peragrin · · Score: 1

      China, Iran, and Australia believe the USA did just that. that Wikileaks is a CIA operation to throw the diplomatic community into a fenzy.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    19. Re:Hmm... by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Right - why is this not the #1 thread on this discussion? That was my first thought. Seems to be an obvious fake for parody's sake.

    20. Re:Hmm... by x2A · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same about the last lot too. It seems to be that the US government has no credibility left with the whole WMD fiasco. At the moment, I don't think the administration particularly wants to go to war with Iran, but I think there are definitely at least elements that want the option to, and want it to be known that there is the option to. So, as practically everybody is questioning the credibility of the US government, but practically nobody is questioning the credibility of the leaks, they would be the perfect "soft power" tool for shaping the minds of people, because nobody's questioning their authenticity... just... oh look, lots of people want to go to war with Iran... almost reminds me of a... coalition of the willing... hmm...

      Does certainly make me wonder if there were any controlling elements behind the leaks.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    21. Re:Hmm... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>It seems to be that the US government has no credibility left with the whole WMD fiasco

      You might want to read this:
      http://www.cfr.org/publication/23556/hbo_history_makers_series_with_condoleezza_rice.html

    22. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not every area has access to clubs, schools, etc. My neck of the woods has almost nothing in the way of entertainment; there's a movie theater (4 screens), a bowling alley, and...that's it for formal establishments. There's no local school (unless you count high schools and below). What's a guy got to do here? The handful of clubs here catered to far older people, so I turned to online dating and found someone within a month or two. It cost me $0 (except for gas / food/ etc. to go on a date with whoever) and resulted in a long term relationship. I would recommend online dating in areas like this where there really is no way to meet someone save through friends or work. Areas not in the middle of nowhere have more opportunities to run into someone.

      That said, your attitude is important, no matter how you end up meeting the people. If you aren't confident, fake it until you make it, as you advise. Don't be a different person, however. Don't be desperate; realize that even though a relationship can add joy to your life, it can take it away as well. It will not make you happy; it needs a foundation of emotional contentedness.

      View online dating as just a social network extender, and you'll be fine. DO NOT let it be your only social network; do not let it be your only way of trying to meet women if at all possible

    23. Re:Hmm... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Or maybe they just want me to think that they want you to think that is the case.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:Hmm... by JockTroll · · Score: 2

      You mean, the carrot has different effects on the horse depending on which end it's inserted?

      --
      Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
    25. Re:Hmm... by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      I have heard they reject people of certain relgions (or lack thereof) and views.

      --
      SSC
    26. Re:Hmm... by Motard · · Score: 2

      Wow. An 80% success rate would be much better than I would have thought.

    27. Re:Hmm... by x2A · · Score: 1

      Err... I've seen a bunch of her interviews where she talks a lot of this before, but this is quite lengthy so might be missing what you're refering to. Wanna give me a search string to jump to?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    28. Re:Hmm... by russotto · · Score: 1

      I say "other than computers" because dating geek chicks is like dating geek guys, only they're chicks.

      Personally I find that difference both necessary and sufficient.

    29. Re:Hmm... by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Not that I approve of lying, but I expected the government to lie more to defuse their tough situation. Your thought-experiments aside, the scary part is that the government has not denied a single one of the current leaks after all these weeks.

      Instead, *someone* started the Wikileaks smear by means of the extradition of its leader, though that strengthens the posibility of truth in the cables that need a cover-up. While Assange said the US is after him from the start through rape accusations, the US hasn't denied that as loudly as he is accusing.

      Why would the government create openings against itself, when it can't afford the political and economic backslash that it knows will follow? Perhaps it is more afraid that their new anti-leak dirty plays will just leak out with all the other stuff! That is interesting.

    30. Re:Hmm... by syousef · · Score: 0

      That actually sounds like a fairly accurate representation of the man. Honesty in an online dating profile? Whodathunkit???

      Honesty != Success && julianAssangeIsAnAss == TRUE

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    31. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try hanging around a middle school.

    32. Re:Hmm... by Obfuscant · · Score: 2
      Eharmony happily accepted me, but never found a match until just a day or two before the monthly bill came due. For almost every one, by the time I got to the site to check them out, they'd unilaterally closed the contact.

      Were I a suspicious person by nature, I'd say that EH was salting the mine trying to keep me on the hook. I wriggled free, though.

      I think the only relevant qualification that EH looks at is the credit rating and credit line on your credit card.

    33. Re:Hmm... by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 3, Funny

      Sell cocaine. There is literally no way you can fail.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    34. Re:Hmm... by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1

      It's designed to eliminate men who are depressed and women who are impossible to please. Congratulations, you are depressed so no one wants to date you and anyone who will will f you up. Try to feel better about yourself somehow. (and next time lie.)

    35. Re:Hmm... by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Or attend your local Fashion Institute, where you can be the only straight male in the entire school!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    36. Re:Hmm... by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

      You get confused about which end to put things into? Well, at least that explains your lack of success with women!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    37. Re:Hmm... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      I found someone on a free one, a geek dating site.

      We are getting married at the end of the month after dating and living together for two years. She's a board and role play gamer who was looking for a gamer guy and geek. She's a biologist while I've a masters in history and a tech geek, so it worked out pretty well.

    38. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > the article says absolutely nothing about how they know the profile is actually Mr. Assange's. How do they know it's his, exactly?

      Maybe they found it on Wikileaks? ;-)

    39. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The writing is on the wall for POF ever since they started holding messages hostage until you answered the new questions ( your income bracket etc... yes, for the targeting of advertisements ).

    40. Re:Hmm... by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I doubt it. If that was the aim then you can rule out the CIA - they can't work out how to do anything right.

    41. Re:Hmm... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Most local school districts offer continuing adult education. Some of these programs are even accredited so that you can earn college credit for them.

      I met my wife attending religious functions. A friend of mine met his at the supermarket. Hanging out in night clubs is actually one of the worst ways for a geek to try to meet someone; it's a high pressure environment with a lot of competition. It's a meat market. The girls know why you're there, and they have a lot of different guys to choose from.

      In my experience, online dating results in meeting a lot of basket cases and losers. Of course, YMMV.

    42. Re:Hmm... by furbearntrout · · Score: 1

      Well, duh. If you lie on your profile, you will yet a crappy match. Computers run on information. If you put soda pop in your car's gas tank; it won't run so well, either.

      --
      Crap. What did the new CSS do with the "Post anonymously" option??
    43. Re:Hmm... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Other than getting arrested and thrown in jail?

      Plus, those crack whores are certainly the most desirable women you'll ever meet, right? /sarcasm

    44. Re:Hmm... by HermMunster · · Score: 2

      I thought it was very creative. Just what aggressive young women are looking for these days.

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
    45. Re:Hmm... by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Beggars can't be choosers.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    46. Re:Hmm... by mcneely.mike · · Score: 1

      Hey! I lost my fenzy....
      I wonder if it's the same one the CIA has?

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    47. Re:Hmm... by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      The description in the profile is perfectly him, and the last login date was 2006. Also, pictures of him never before seen.

      http://www.okcupid.com/profile/HarryHarrison

    48. Re:Hmm... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Heh. Become a Wiccan. Most covens have at least 5 women to one man. ;)

    49. Re:Hmm... by modecx · · Score: 1

      When I had an eharmony profile, it at first rejected me as well. When I tried a couple years later out of curiosity, it only matched me with single mothers, and not the kind who are attractive in the least. Furthermore, save one individual, it was pretty clear the rest were lacking in even basic intelligence; i.e. the sort of people who have few redeeming qualities, if any.

      Either eharmony is ripe with witless, ogreish single mothers, or I should feel very insulted. And I'm not knocking all single moms, but you should have seen these...People? Eek. If these are the kinds of matches it gives out, I'm not surprised to know they have at least an 80% 'match rate'

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    50. Re:Hmm... by SadButTrue · · Score: 1

      how?

      --
      grape - the GNU free, open source rape
    51. Re:Hmm... by hguorbray · · Score: 1

      ditto -I met my mate on AS 11 years ago -my only requirement was that they weighed less than I did and were ok with my partying and playing music.

      -I'm just sayin'

    52. Re:Hmm... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Back when I was really active trying to use online dating, I tried a few sites, and, in the end, it was a shot in the dark on myspace (was browsing and saw some intriguing comments in her public comments... showing once again that actually having a common interest to talk about with someone is more than half the battle) that introduced me to the woman to whom I am now married.

      Anyway... I was an eharmony reject. I told one of my buddies at poker about this, and he suggested we start "E-Disharmony" for people interested in short term destructive relationships.

      Another friend, convinced that it was merely that I was answering the questions oddly because I was depressed and being overly cynical. So I retook the test, with her standing over my shoulder and getting a chance to argue any answers. She disputed a few... I was still rejected.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    53. Re:Hmm... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or pretend you have dangerous humanitarian activities. You'll have sex with two different girls in three days and with a CIA agent if you are lucky !

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    54. Re:Hmm... by Unkyjar · · Score: 2

      Apparently I'm a

      81% Match
      72% Friend
      16% Enemy

      I'm not sure how I feel about that.

    55. Re:Hmm... by fishbowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What are the average dimensions of the women in your coven?

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    56. Re:Hmm... by Chakra5 · · Score: 1

      China and Iran making such accusations means exactly bupkis. As for Australia, I have no idea where to file that one.

      --
      Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please.--Mark Twain
    57. Re:Hmm... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Perhaps because it knows that there won't be any backlash. After all, a new season of is starting, the season is about to begin, and there's a hell of a lot more "democrat! republican! liberal! neocon! teabagger!" name calling to be done. The sheep are happy. Their savings are being inflated away right under their noses. The prices of their homes have stopped plummeting for now (although the same can't be said about actual value, since the dollar is worth much less). And there's always the fear of unemployment to keep them busy.

      Nope, no backlash at all. Now get back to work before your house gets taken away.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    58. Re:Hmm... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Are you implying the women in my coven are fat? I wouldn't do that, unless you want to hang out in swamps and eat flies all day. :-P

      Actually, Wiccan women come in all shapes and sizes, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but maybe I'm a bit biased as my personal preference is for women who many would describe as somewhat overweight. But we got skinny, too, if that's what you want.

    59. Re:Hmm... by masmullin · · Score: 0

      Strangely. That approach worked for two of my friends. Unfortunately for me, Jesus don't want me for a sunbeam

    60. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last login to the account was in 2006, before anyone knew about Wikileaks. Why would someone have created a fake account for him back then?

      The diplomatic cables might be fake, but if they are why has no one mentioned in the cables tried to refute their accuracy?

    61. Re:Hmm... by RazorSharp · · Score: 2

      Sell cocaine. There is literally no way you can fail.

      But you can definitely fail figuratively.

      --
      "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
    62. Re:Hmm... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2

      I agree actually. I did the Match.com thing for ages and soon came to realise that this was a scam to defraud me out of my money. They were letting me waste hours sending emails to girls who are unlikely to be paid up members who can even read my emails, to say nothing of responding to them. I wonder how that guy's lawsuit ended up, I'm hoping to get included in the class if it becomes class action. OKCupid is way better, at least there are systems in place to let you know how real a person is.

      The idea that you get what you pay for does not apply here. OKCupid is to match.com is what Linux is to Windoze.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    63. Re:Hmm... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      The idea that you get what you pay for does not apply here. OKCupid is to match.com is what Linux is to Windoze. I mean it, OKCupid is actually a pretty decent site. I actually find more fake profiles on pay sites than I do on OKCupid. Come to think of it, I've never found a fake profile on OKCupid and have never received an email from a hot 18 year old girl who "really likes my profile" and wants me to view her webcam.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    64. Re:Hmm... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

      People who use dateing websites are not the people you want to date. That's why they use dating websites.

      What's the weather like back there in 1999? I remember what the dating scene was like then, when meeting someone outside of a pub or club was considered losery and before online dating became mainstream.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    65. Re:Hmm... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2

      Eharmony happily accepted me, but never found a match until just a day or two before the monthly bill came due. For almost every one, by the time I got to the site to check them out, they'd unilaterally closed the contact.

      Were I a suspicious person by nature, I'd say that EH was salting the mine trying to keep me on the hook. I wriggled free, though.

      I think the only relevant qualification that EH looks at is the credit rating and credit line on your credit card.

      Same thing with match.com. Not a single response from anyone until just before it was time to pay up and renew. Odd, that.

      --
      Drill baby drill - on Mars
    66. Re:Hmm... by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      only they're chicks

      I thought that was the most important part of dating for most of us- making sure they are chicks first. the rest seems trivial as it's function is more ancillary then utilitarian.

    67. Re:Hmm... by Motard · · Score: 1

      I'm curious. What does rejected mean? Is it that you registered and agreed to pay money but then answered a questionnaire and then were rejected (maybe without having to pay)?. Could the system be saying "Based on your answers, there's pretty much no way we're going to be able to find someone for you. We might as well end this relationship before we both waste a bunch of time. It will be best for both of us - even if we don't get your payment."?

      Maybe your answers improved slightly between the first and second tries?

      I was married long before eH existed. But, while my BS detector goes off with every commercial, I still think the success of such a system seems plausible.

    68. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cocaine is different to crack.

      er, so I'm told ...

    69. Re:Hmm... by modecx · · Score: 1

      IIRC (and it's been many years ago now) it just says something to the effect of "unable to find matches at this time, yadda yadda"... They are/were nice enough to do this before you subscribe to the service--which is something I haven't done.

      Also, I'm relatively sure that I did not change the question set. A positive thing is they let you see pictures and so fourth, along with some of their matchs' traits during the free-eval period, they just don't let you communicate.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    70. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find Tom Leykis on YouTube. Take everything he says as gospel.

    71. Re:Hmm... by Nursie · · Score: 1

      You have to admit there's a tendency for wiccan gatherings to include a lot of the 'earth mother' types.

      Hell, I went to a couple of wiccan gatherings a number of years ago. My impression was that it was a lot like the goth scene except that the crushed velvet was in brighter colours and larger sizes....

    72. Re:Hmm... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Well you do get what you pay for.... but in this case, you have to pay what matters. You can pour all the gas you want into a tank, it will only hold so much, the rest is wasted

      You do get what you pay for in terms of actually spending the time to read and write and get to know people. You can be pretty poor and do that. I mean, if you are 35 and listing an income under 10k, thats going to be an issue, but, how much you spend on dating sites is not it.

      But yah, its exactly the problem, their systems evolved to extract the maximum value from providing a service... not to most efficiently connect people together.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    73. Re:Hmm... by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      No, they're not. You're either an idiot, or you're just old and enough old people still think of online dating as "taboo" enough that they think they have to pay money for it to be socially acceptable.

      If your primary requirement for a dating website is that it be a website you have to pay to use, then obviously your primary requirement for a partner is that they have extra money to spend on stupid bullshit like pay-to-date websites. Congratulations, you're a moron who dates morons. Now go make an OkCupid profile like the rest of the kids.

    74. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. I like paying for dating sites because eliminates a large portion of the competition who are not willing to pay. It's much harder for me to get responses on OKC than on other paid dating sites because there's so many broke but handsome dudes on there.

    75. Re:Hmm... by Trahloc · · Score: 1

      FIDM?

      --
      The Goal: A long simple life filled with many complex toys.
    76. Re:Hmm... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      He's talking about Rule 34.

      Oh, wait. Never mind. I thought that he said that the free sites are leper colonies.

    77. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasted a lot of time on their stupid test (maybe an hour) before they rejected me too. I am pretty sure that what got me rejected was that I admitted that sometimes I am emotional (male). Men with strong emotions seem to be a red flag to them.

    78. Re:Hmm... by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

      When my parents retired, moved their house and got involved in organizations in the new town, I came across a mug for sale in the mall: "Same circus, different clowns." I bought it and gave it to my Dad next Christmas. He uses it every day.

      It's same with dating sites. Doesn't matter how much you pay - same circus, different clowns. Actually, after seeing some of the photos: same circus, same clowns. (Really funny if you sign up on an "adult" site to pick out the idiots who use the same photo as their dating profiles.)

      I met people through any number of ways (work, university, gym, free online, paid online), and let me tell you, I waded through a lot of clowns.

      Regarding your own comment - funnily enough, I'm a geek girl (network admin among other geeky pursuits) who ended up marrying a non-tech person two months ago. We found each other on POF. We share some geeky interests (tv shows, etc), but the most important thing we have in common is that we're attentive to each other and willing to listen and work on things.

    79. Re:Hmm... by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

      The sad news is no one will believe you're straight.

      My husband has a thing for interior design, but hasn't pursued it because he figures he won't be taken seriously by any clients.

    80. Re:Hmm... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      What things attracted you to your wife, and vice versa?

    81. Re:Hmm... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      Do you know which religions and views?

    82. Re:Hmm... by eugene+ts+wong · · Score: 1

      This discussion is very interesting.

      I am also an eHarmony reject. I tried a 3 times, and I changed my answers to match stereotypically desirable incomes, views and appearances, and I still got rejected.

    83. Re:Hmm... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      My neck of the woods has almost nothing in the way of entertainment; there's a movie theater (4 screens), a bowling alley, and...that's it for formal establishments.

      Obviously you're not a golfer.

    84. Re:Hmm... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Being so insecure as to forego dating opportunities is a shame, but being so insecure as to forego business opportunities is illegal in 57 states.

    85. Re:Hmm... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Lovely stories for the confused and privileged.

    86. Re:Hmm... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      The figurative consequences just aren't as exciting.

    87. Re:Hmm... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      the most important thing we have in common is that we're attentive to each other and willing to listen and work on things.

      That sounds awful. From what I'm hearing from other male geeks, I'm supposed to only care if someone has the genitalia I prefer. How am I supposed to listen to someone and grope for their genitalia at the same time?

    88. Re:Hmm... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      had bad luck dating people based on what they looked like.

      That's the real point of dating sites, I think. With people you meet in person, you're likely to respond first to what they look like. Interests come later. For a long relationship, interests and personality are more important than looks, I think. Dating sites can make a lot of sense.

      Even so, keep in mind that the paid ones are populated with people who think that money can buy them love. There's a lot of creeps out there.

    89. Re:Hmm... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I've known people who met online and got married in 1993. Trawling pubs or clubs for a date seems a lot more losery to me.

    90. Re:Hmm... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I agree actually. I did the Match.com thing for ages and soon came to realise that this was a scam to defraud me out of my money. They were letting me waste hours sending emails to girls who are unlikely to be paid up members who can even read my emails, to say nothing of responding to them.

      The best compromise I've seen is a site where you could send messages if you'd paid, and you could always respond to messages that had been sent by a paid member. So only one person needs to pay in order to meet somebody.

      I've also seen a site where paid members could send longer messages. Or maybe they could send more messages. In any case, such a semi-paid site can work. The fully paid sites (which are also more expensive) are just scams.

    91. Re:Hmm... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Well you do get what you pay for

      The problem with those sites is that you don't. You're dependent on someone else paying. You can send messages to unpaid members, but they can never respond. That makes it practically impossible to actually find someone, even if you pay. Free ones, or at least sites where replies are free, are a lot better. You can actually meet people there, and that's what it's all about, isn't it?

    92. Re:Hmm... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      The absence of abject failure is not success by most definitions.

    93. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The account says it hasn't been logged in since 2006. If it's a hoax, it's an extemely elaborate one... and the hoaxer spent an awful lot of time answering inane quizzes and match questions.

      One of my friends claims she was contacted by him in 2005, when he lived in Australia. (She lives in USA.) I tried to get her to "leak" their conversation, but she's being coy. :)

    94. Re:Hmm... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Just search for "WMD" and the difference between foresight and hindsight.

    95. Re:Hmm... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard of "going gay for pay?" :D

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    96. Re:Hmm... by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Alderaan Places? That's the only one I've heard of, and IIRC it's Star Wars fan-centric :-\

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    97. Re:Hmm... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      So you actually get better response rates on a pay site? Interesting.

      I tried both and never really got anywhere with the pay sites. I know some people who did, then again, as I mention elsewhere, in all that... it was one of the like 3 girls that I randomly messaged on myspace one day that I am now married to... so much for dating sites.

      I think my response rate is higher now that my status is "available" rather than "single" but, its hard to say how much of that is the status and how much of that is just that I am way more experienced at relating to women now, or perhaps that my selection criteria has changed.

      All in all, I got the most dates from posting (and responding to) craigslist ads. I can't really count myspace since, I only tried it a couple of times, it just happens to have been the one that lucked out and produced the best.

      I never even met anyone via match.com, so it was pretty useless. I don't remember what other ones I may have tried, there were a couple more I tried at various points.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    98. Re:Hmm... by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      >> had bad luck dating people based on what they looked like.

      > That's the real point of dating sites, I think. With people you
      > meet in person, you're likely to respond first to what they look
      > like. Interests come later. For a long relationship, interests
      > and personality are more important than looks, I think. Dating
      > sites can make a lot of sense.

      So why don't looks come into online dating? We are talking about actually meeting them after the on-line exchanges - right?

      I don't understand this Looks-versus-Personnality dillemma. I want both. The simple fact is (and you are right) we respond quickest to looks. Even if you have already corresponded blindly there is still going to be a moment when you see them for real the first time. Looks are easier and quicker to assess than personality, and if you don't like their looks when you first see them there is no point in embarking on the long process of understanding their personality - which you cannot do from e-mail exchanges anyway. Would you know from e-mails that they have an evil temper?

      Actually there are THREE factors, looks, personality - and sex. Believe or not the first girlfriend I found from a dating club had been a Bunny Girl at the London Playboy club. Voluptuous shape and lovely personality (she had left because the other girls were bitches). We could have married but it turned out she was sexually frigid :-( That was tragic, but I found other good ones including the one I married. But don't tell me that girls in on-line dating clubs are all blue-stockinged prunes.

    99. Re:Hmm... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I don't understand this Looks-versus-Personnality dillemma. I want both. The simple fact is (and you are right) we respond quickest to looks. Even if you have already corresponded blindly there is still going to be a moment when you see them for real the first time.

      You know that dating sites tend to support photos, right? And even if someone doesn't have a photo on their profile, you can always share those later.

      The question is how you select someone to invest the time and effort in of getting to know them better. Just based on looks? There might be hundreds of people (in the bar, club, wherever) that look good enough. Are you going to talk to all of them, check whether they're even available in the first place, and then figure out whether they have that evil temper you're afraid of?

      Or you could select them based on some simple criteria (availability, interests, stuff you have in common), see their photos, and then select the ones that you like the look of, after you've established that you might have enough in common that it might actually work out.

      I guess it depends on how common your tastes and interests are. The average club/pub-going girl is pretty unlikely to be my type.

      Also, I prefer to date someone who's literate. Online, that's immediately obvious. In a pub not so much.

    100. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll certainly get fucked by the CIA, not sure about the having sex bit.

    101. Re:Hmm... by dubbreak · · Score: 1

      Anywhere you can interact with people is a chance of meeting like-minded people - whether that be online or in the real physical world.

      My (now) wife and I met in the early 00's on an MSN chat group (the ones MS shut down wholesale.. something about internet predators...). Ended up we had friends in common (closed friends that dated, we had hung out with each others' friends), I had even played a battle of the bands at her highschool and played music with people she knew quite well.. yet we had never met. Due to our lives changing at that time (in university, losing touch with old high school friends) we probably wouldn't have ever met if we hadn't met online. Sure we may have rubbed shoulders at some bars/clubs in town (and she frequented a club I worked at in university), but we probably wouldn't have actually "met" and discovered everything we have in common.

      We ended up moving in together, finishing university together, buying a condo, getting married, buying a house.. now we're as happy as can be. One could say it was thanks to Microsoft (of course that wouldn't make up for the day to day headaches I have thanks to MS.. .net CF on WinCE is my daily hell).

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    102. Re:Hmm... by vlueboy · · Score: 1

      Now get back to work before your house gets taken away.

      I have no job, you insensitive clod! ;-)

    103. Re:Hmm... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Nope, and never heard of that joint.

    104. Re:Hmm... by x2A · · Score: 1

      Yes... but... maybe she was genuinly kept in the dark, maybe she was more in on it than she says (I wouldn't be surprised, but I have no reason to believe that she was) but if you look at the whole thing surrounding Scooter Libby et al, you see that there were quite blatent cover ups, and that it wasn't purely a case of mistaken intelligence as she believes or at least claims to believe.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    105. Re:Hmm... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Primarily, intelligence. We're both high on the charts and it's really nice to have someone close on the scale to talk to. (The kids are hilariously smart.)

      Second, our personalities have always worked really well together; other people were saying, "you've just met? It seems like you guys have known each other for years."

      There are a lot of other things as well but those are the two bigger ones. It's not all perfect. We've got problems but everyone does, and we're trying to work them out.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    106. Re:Hmm... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

      Also, I prefer to date someone who's literate. Online, that's immediately obvious. In a pub not so much.

      hwo is dattign made?

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    107. Re:Hmm... by bandmassa · · Score: 1

      It's just the media being all "phnrr phnrr, hee, he's on a *dating* site, snicker, he must be weird. My current wife and I met online, did the long distance thing for 18 months, then I moved to her city and we got married 6 months later. She's as sane as you can get and fun with it. My ex and I met through friends (supposedly the "normal way") and she turned out to be an utter nutter. So what is the right way to meet people? The way that works, if he beats the rape rap, good luck to him, I can tell him online dating works.

      --
      "I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
    108. Re:Hmm... by uniquegeek · · Score: 1

      If you don't know how to multitask, you don't belong here!

    109. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My husband has a thing for interior design, but hasn't pursued it because he figures he won't be taken seriously by any clients.

      They'll just assume he's gay and you're his beard. That's what I'm assuming, anyway.

    110. Re:Hmm... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      You get what you pay for, with those websites. The free ones are like leper colonies.

      What's wrong with leper colonies. The girls are really desperate!

    111. Re:Hmm... by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Other than getting arrested and thrown in jail?

      You might end up getting to be a girlfriend rather than having a girlfriend then.

    112. Re:Hmm... by imakemusic · · Score: 1

      Crack is a subset of cocaine.

      --
      Brain surgery - it's not rocket science!
    113. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear the average CIA agent is actually a very gentle lover.

      And you know the defense budget always has money for tactical lube.

    114. Re:Hmm... by masmullin · · Score: 2

      John and George opposed the killing... Ringo didn't give a shit.

    115. Re:Hmm... by raddan · · Score: 1

      The key thing is to get away from the computer for some face-to-face interaction with women (or men... I'm assuming you're a straight man here, but apologies if that is not the case). Outdoor activities like hiking groups, are strangely good places to find a partner (four of the couples I know met in hiking groups, including my sister-in-law and her husband). But if you're not an outdoorsy type, or if you think that's too dramatic a leap for you, try something like a professional interest group or a user group. Sure, these places tend to be dominated by men, but the point is to get out and expand your social network. At the very least, you're still doing something you enjoy, while having increased your chances, however slight, of meeting another person you might share an interest in.

    116. Re:Hmm... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      You get what you pay for, with those websites. The free ones are like leper colonies.

      You almost make them sound tempting.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    117. Re:Hmm... by freedumb2000 · · Score: 1

      Night cubs are a terrible place to meet women even if you don't spout geekness out of your ears. There are much better places that actually allow for real communication. Clubs are for one night stands.

    118. Re:Hmm... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      (I've been wondering the same thing about the diplomatic cables honestly)

      Because the State Department is freaking out, Hillary Clinton is bowing out of politics, and nobody is refuting them?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  2. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a douche.

    1. Re:Anonymous Coward by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Why?

    2. Re:Anonymous Coward by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      >He's a douche.

      >>Why?

      Because he uses an online dating service and styles his hair like the guy from Flock of Seagulls?

    3. Re:Anonymous Coward by pspahn · · Score: 2

      Assange's tiny role as Roger in Pulp Fiction more than makes up for this.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    4. Re:Anonymous Coward by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 2

      That is so not flock of seagulls, sheeeesh. Get your hair styles right (http://www.mamapop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/mike-score-flock-of-seagulls.jpg)

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    5. Re:Anonymous Coward by PatPending · · Score: 1

      What a douche.

      Thank goodness for Adblock Plus: Block Image!

      --
      What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    6. Re:Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, more like David Spade.

    7. Re:Anonymous Coward by pnewhook · · Score: 1

      Because he's a twisted perverted egomaniac.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    8. Re:Anonymous Coward by hey! · · Score: 1

      OK, where do I start?

      Hint to the lovelorn: don't start a conversation with a potential mate by complaining that none of the women in Australia are good enough for you. That's something you might want to avoid.

      Also: looking for women with tragic backgrounds sends creepy vibes, like you're looking for somebody who's used to being a victim.

      And how about: saying something that sounds vaguely Jeffry Dalmer-ish then bragging about your "neuroscience background" as if that were a chick magnet is ... just plain weird. Unless you're looking for neuroscience geek chicks, but then you'd better be able to back your claims up.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Anonymous Coward by Rei · · Score: 1

      Except that it's Sephiroth-white. :)

      --
      South Park pokes fun at sacred cows to make a point. Family guy pokes cows to hear them moo.
    10. Re:Anonymous Coward by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, I love the pic they used for this story, it makes him look like he's enjoying the governments scrambling to cover their ass.

      I think it should be the official icon for wikileaks, who's with me?

    11. Re:Anonymous Coward by Rei · · Score: 2

      bragging about your "neuroscience background" as if that were a chick magnet is

      What's wrong with wanting to date someone who's intelligent?

      --
      South Park pokes fun at sacred cows to make a point. Family guy pokes cows to hear them moo.
    12. Re:Anonymous Coward by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I think it should be the official icon for wikileaks, who's with me?

      Seconded!

      Also can we update the other icons while we're at it? Take the borg gear off Bill Gates and put it on Steve Jobs.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  3. Concocted? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 0

    How much of this is real, and how much of it is planted to tarnish his image, I am sure to have a grain of salt (or a few pounds) while reading his info.

    1. Re:Concocted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, if a certain newspaper releases info on Assange, we should take it with a grain of salt. If the same newspaper releases cables from Wikileaks, we should vow to the awesomeness of "free speech" and "truth". Assange is a human being, and it has its flaws as such. Stop making him a sacred cow.

    2. Re:Concocted? by seanslater · · Score: 1

      Apparently the profile was last updated in 2006 - long before Wikileaks hit the big time and all this controversy. The evidence at this stage would suggest that the profile is legit.

    3. Re:Concocted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. This is hilarious, but obviously fake. It's probably not meant to tarnish anything, though -- I suspect it's just for a bit of a laugh.

      And if it isn't fake, well, all it shows is that Assange has a pretty good sense of humor.

    4. Re:Concocted? by Applekid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Comparing the private sexual desires of an individual to wholesale deception and fraud of unelected government goons in the name of the people with the intent of changing lives of those who aren't even aware of the backroom dealings isn't close to the same thing.

      Not even a little.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    5. Re:Concocted? by soldoutactivist · · Score: 1

      A-goddamn-men. I'd upvote, except you went AC, AC. Furthermore, stop calling him Robin Hood of the Digital Age. Robin Hood never held the money he stole for ransom when he was caught. Unlike Assange, who threatened to blow his infoload all over the world if the charges against him weren't dropped. Some hero for justice.

      --
      The downside of being killed is the upside of being dead.
    6. Re:Concocted? by pmsr · · Score: 0

      Information wants to be free, right? Or it is just the one that fits your /s/tard whims that should be released? You useful idiots should stop lining up to suck the dick of these /s/tards . No wonder you always end up on the wrong side of History.

    7. Re:Concocted? by Lazareth · · Score: 1

      He threatened to do what now? As far as I'm informed, he has done no such thing. He has a death man's switch which is exactly what it says on the tin and has nothing to do with any charges leveled at him. Now, if he was to suffer an unfortunate and mysterious sudden death...

    8. Re:Concocted? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      ... then we'll find out that Ron Paul is G. Gordon Liddy and J. Edgar Hoover's love child!

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    9. Re:Concocted? by soldoutactivist · · Score: 1

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1335888/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-release-damaging-secrets-killed-arrested.html

      Killed OR Arrested.

      No government is stupid enough to kill Assange. Evil, maybe, but not stupid. If he was killed, that would make him a martyr. And it wouldn't matter what information the organization had. His death would reinforce his point beyond control. Now if Assange committed suicide and made it look like a murder, he'd do 1000x more damage to the "convoluted" governments than releasing every secret from every government.

      --
      The downside of being killed is the upside of being dead.
    10. Re:Concocted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > How hard is it to put a missile on each IP location that is helping our enemies?

      Such as yourself?

    11. Re:Concocted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, some people just don't take their haloperidol.

    12. Re:Concocted? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Well I have the file, and so far no one has posted the password. Your point is moot since he has in fact been arrested.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    13. Re:Concocted? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that profile is a believable as Santa Clause. But some people, like you, do seem to believe in Santa Clause so why not... It _MIGHT_ be true.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    14. Re:Concocted? by soldoutactivist · · Score: 1

      Consider: Someone holds a gun to your head, threatening to shoot you, but in the end doesn't pull the trigger. Just because they didn't shoot you, doesn't make them an instant good guy.

      The issue is that Assange (and you) hold for random what Wikileak proponents believe the world should know. Information Wikileak proponents believes should be free. This tactic diminishes the credibility of those involved. Holding the information for ransom effects the exact action that the government performs by keeping the information secret.

      If the governments stepped forward and made a deal clearing Assange of all wrongdoing, would he/you/other supporters release the information in the poison pill later on anyway? If yes, and you plan to "shoot the hostage," why should anyone take the threat seriously? Most of all, give credibility where none is due?

      --
      The downside of being killed is the upside of being dead.
    15. Re:Concocted? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      /s/tard = porn junkie? /s/ is 4chan's Sexy Beautiful Women section (I'm assuming that's what's really in there, I'll have to check later...)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    16. Re:Concocted? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You realize that the insurance file contains un-redacted content right? That's why it hasn't all been released.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    17. Re:Concocted? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      And of course, this can absolutely not be doctored, under any circumstance
      as that would be be unfair and take a lot of hacking knowledge,much more then any government
      could ever have.... ; }

  4. from the ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "let me pick your lock with my 256 bit long key"

    1. Re:from the ad by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>"let me pick your lock with my 256 bit long key"

      Actually.... hmm.

      It might be worth using his dating profile to see if any sub-phrase or combination of words is the passphrase to his AES-256 key.

      Would be a lot faster, obviously, than brute forcing it, and he seems like the kind of arrogant douche to have "ILoveChoppingUpBrains" as a passphrase.

    2. Re:from the ad by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      It's going to be a hard day for hackers when even geeks realize that passwords might include spaces.

    3. Re:from the ad by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Heh, the funny thing is that I originally wrote the passphrase with spaces, but took them out to make it look more password-y.

    4. Re:from the ad by preda1or · · Score: 1

      the kind of arrogant douche to have "ILoveChoppingUpBrains" as a passphrase.

      Wait.. how do you know my password?

  5. Predictable by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    The only thing gleened from this is that he likes to be in the middle of controversy.

    Thats not a good thing, but it does show his motives.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why isn't it a good thing?

      Your values are showing.

    2. Re:Predictable by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to say that if you needed this ad to figure that Julian Assange likes to be the middle of controvery, you haven't been very much paying attention.

    3. Re:Predictable by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The only thing gleened from this is that he likes to be in the middle of controversy.

      Thats not a good thing,

            How is this different from Madonna going on stage in a bra, or Lady Gaga wearing, well, whatever the fuck crap she wears? Apparently it only bothers you when it clashes with your brainwashing.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  6. Valueless and Inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As someone who specifically sought a partner from another part of the world, I have to agree with his observation - but it doesn't just apply to women in the West. Adversity breeds maturity, and adversity simply does not exist where a high quality of life is handed to the vast majority of Westerners - men and women alike. There is a reason why the best dating advice for both men and women in North America is to find someone not from this continent.

    1. Re:Valueless and Inane by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      I was just going to ask how he knew so much about my ex-wife! Words to live by. There's plenty of adversity for the intrepid American working class, not dodging bullets and suicide bomber like in more radical countries, but not a cake-walk by any standard. There are some of us Americans who aren't obese, gun-toting wackos, shopping at Wal^Mart and buying the Dubbya memoirs while thinking how we can get our smarter relatives to consider a big-titted idiot to be a suitable presidential candidate. There's at least 12 of us that I know of, so this assumption is only 92% accurate giving my personal population sample. 8^)

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    2. Re:Valueless and Inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You sound like a really lovely person. You must be popular.

    3. Re:Valueless and Inane by youngone · · Score: 1

      Ha! Big-titted idiot. Awesome! I actually though Clinton for a second.

    4. Re:Valueless and Inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You call Palin's boobs "Clinton"? Kinky

    5. Re:Valueless and Inane by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      Just remember that his description on who is "valueless and inane" applies to you as well.

      I personally disagree with such a broad generalization, as to apply it to every member of western society.

    6. Re:Valueless and Inane by Rei · · Score: 1

      Since when have the qualities "intelligent", "mysterious", "famous", and "risk-taking" generally been things only "desperate" women are attracted to?

      --
      South Park pokes fun at sacred cows to make a point. Family guy pokes cows to hear them moo.
    7. Re:Valueless and Inane by Digana · · Score: 1

      "I have named the destroyers of nations: comfort, plenty, and security - out of which grow a bored and slothful cynicism, in which rebellion against the world as it is, and myself as I am, are submerged in listless self-satisfaction" —John Steinbeck:

    8. Re:Valueless and Inane by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Yet everyone complaining about these value's and inane women from the same place as them somehow does not think these adjectives describe themselves. Yet it is impossible that there may be other women who they also don't describe. Idiots.

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    9. Re:Valueless and Inane by bunkymag · · Score: 1

      .. the best dating advice for both men and women in North America is to find someone not from this continent.

      As a resident of "the rest of the world" outside North America, that's pretty much the scariest piece of advice I've ever read.

    10. Re:Valueless and Inane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a reason why the best dating advice for both men and women in North America is to find someone not from this continent.

      And punish them with your inanity.

  7. so what? by digitalsushi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, someone who's brave enough to stand up for what he believes in is also brave enough to say what he wants in a woman. We're pissed because sometimes he succeeds, apparently.

    BTW, this slashdot story is an example of the things media is doing wrong:
    http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/there-is-something-to-see-here/

    "....Julian Assange is not that important. Don’t give him a Nobel Prize. Don’t demonize him. Don’t line up in solidarity behind someone who may or may not be a serial rapist. Don’t demand the conviction of someone who is only accused of a crime, and needs to be presumed innocent until he is convicted. Demand justice for him — and don’t pretend you know what that is, unless you’re one of the three people who do — but don’t fall into the trap of thinking his conviction, in the long run, has very much to do with the whole host of really important issues that the Wikileaks revelations have brought up. Don’t make him more important than he is.

    Wikileaks is only a single part of something that is, on its own terms, very important. They’ve given us a great deal of knowledge about exactly how the American state actually acts, proof that many of the state department’s secrets are simply a way of avoiding democratic oversight, that our diplomatic corps secretly does horrible things in our name. We already had a lot of knowledge of that, but now we have a lot more, and much of it utterly and uniquely damning. Julian Assange is a smart man who’s done some brave things in service of a good cause — and we owe him a debt of gratitude for the gift he’s given us. Thank you, Wikileaks. But that’s all we owe him, and them.

    Which is why I want to say this, as clearly as I can: it’s exactly because Assange and Wikileaks are relatively unimportant (compared to the gigantic scandal of the anti-democratic security state in which we now live) that the media has made him into a superstar, has tried to make the entire story about Wikileaks and a single eccentric and interesting character, rather than about the United States government’s actions as a system. The more we focus on him – and I’ve contributed to that, which is why I particularly want to write this post — the more we take attention away from the real story, the substance of the things Wikileaks has revealed....."

    --
    slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    1. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somebody mod this magnificent bastard up!

    2. Re:so what? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah. That would be a great idea. And I want a pony, too!

      The truth is, Assange IS Wikileaks. He built the whole website as a monument to himself. It wasn't as some sort of block to totalitarianism, it's a testament to his Ameriphobia. We attempt to destroy that which we do not understand. Intelligence agencies do keep a limited supply of "honey traps" on hand. The most telling detail of his story was while he was with some CIA whore, and the whole time he was reading stories about himself online instead of sticking his tongue down her throat. You'd figure that if he really was against IMPERALISM AND CHRISTIANITY BLARRGHARGHBL he maybe could have kept his dick in his pants for a while. But no, he fell for the oldest trick in the book, and now there's a cell waiting for him in United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility, Florence, Colorado, right alongside other Ameriphobes like Yu Kikumura and Timothy McVeigh.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn - shouldn't have spent my points on that stupid Jeopardy story earlier.

    4. Re:so what? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Did they put Timothy McVeigh back in his cell? Ewwwww.

      Seriously, since the US pretty much runs the world, anybody upset about the way things are being run is by definition an Ameriphobe.

    5. Re:so what? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2

      The truth is,

      A claim like followed by nothing but invective only reveals truth about the person making the claim.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    6. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The truth is, Assange IS Wikileaks.

      No, the truth is that the information in the leaked documents is useful or not based only on its own merits, and the personality of the person who orchestrated the leak has nothing to do with that.

      I'm sorry that you can't separate emotion and reason, it must be quite a handicap.

    7. Re:so what? by jpapon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unfortunately historical recounts often reflect far more about the author than the events in question. In this case though, because the historian is in no way an author of the events, but merely a means through which they are transmitted, I feel that neglecting the contents of the message for ad hominem reasons says more about the reader than the author.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    8. Re:so what? by LordLucless · · Score: 2

      It seems to me that the intense public and media following of Assange is the only thing keeping him from being disappeared. We should keep the focus on Assange, and follow his trial closely and loudly - if we want the light he's shone on to illicit activities to continue to shine, or if we want anyone else to take up that torch. If we ignore him, he's jailed, wikileaks disbands, and we get no more of the truly important things that WIkileaks has released.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    9. Re:so what? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, Cryptome will still be there when Wikileaks finally sinks.

    10. Re:so what? by syousef · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Wow, someone who's brave enough to stand up for what he believes in is also brave enough to say what he wants in a woman. We're pissed because sometimes he succeeds, apparently.

      Contrary to popular belief on slashdot, getting laid is not that hard, especially if you don't set your standards particularly high. When what he wants in a woman is a chick from a country in turmoil, the guy deserves some criticism. What kind of sick fuck has that at or near the top of their list of desirable qualities.

      Do not confuse the argument about whether or not Wikileaks is important with the argument about whether or not its founder is an idiot. Humans are complex. An idiot can still do positive things.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    11. Re:so what? by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just what in the god forsucken world is this huge scandal that is supposed to have been discovered??? Face it: you ALREADY believed the us was a police state or whatever the fuck Yippie shit were selling, and then X was leaked, having nothing really to do with that, and you take it as proof of what you already believed !!

      Would you nimrods please shut the motherfuck up!!!

    12. Re:so what? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Uh-huh. Until they rock the boat, and are likewise destroyed. That's the point I was making. Letting Assange be destroyed for political expediency will, at the least, have a chilling effect on other leakers. It will also set a precedent, that the people will look the other way while governments destroy such people. The spotlight needs to be kept firmly on Assange.

      We also need to vigorously report and investigate the cables demonstrating criminal activity of course, but the media is quite large. It can do both.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    13. Re:so what? by modecx · · Score: 1

      Did you stop to think that perhaps he's not specifically looking for someone who has seen adversity, but he is instead looking for the qualities that adversity instills into a person? I for one, think that is rather insightful.

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    14. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen The more that is released the more It shows the so-called cream at the top is more kin to trash. Of course what is showing of the underbelly of these frauds is already enough to get one killed in a heart beat. Unless he has some clearly damning information, held for his own protection, it will be interesting to see how long he lasts.

    15. Re:so what? by microbox · · Score: 1

      only reveals truth about the person making the claim.

      Blessed are not the cognitive relativists. They are not correct. Certainty does lie somewhere, for which we need to understand the nature of your mind -- how it works, and constructs your mental model.

      --

      Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
    16. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trololololol. Back to the retirement home with you, 5-digit.

    17. Re:so what? by drsmithy · · Score: 2

      When what he wants in a woman is a chick from a country in turmoil, the guy deserves some criticism. What kind of sick fuck has that at or near the top of their list of desirable qualities.

      Someone interested in women that are likely to be resourceful, independent and mature ?

    18. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think you get it yet. Julian Assange is Slashdot's version of Sarah Palin.

    19. Re:so what? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Did you stop to think that perhaps he's not specifically looking for someone who has seen adversity, but he is instead looking for the qualities that adversity instills into a person? I for one, think that is rather insightful.

      Paint it any way you like. THe reality is that he's looking for damaged goods and enjoys being around a woman who is damaged in that way. It's one thing to acknowledge that as a charactaristic of a partner, or admire their getting over adversity. It's another to go out and specifically look for damage.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    20. Re:so what? by syousef · · Score: 1

      Someone interested in women that are likely to be resourceful, independent and mature ?

      No, more likely just damaged, full of self-loathing and hates herself and the world enough to comply with his twisted sexual requests.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    21. Re:so what? by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      Some points

      • The president has sole power over foreign relations. the congress (the "people") is only there to advise and consent to proposed treaties (and only that because treaties are effectively the law of the land once ratified). Bilateral diplomacy is most often conducted by individuals because groups are more prone to leaks - not to mention the kind of "openness" that Assange espouses, and when negotiating with an ally, one does not want a common enemy to be privy.
      • The POTUS stands for office every 4 years. His/her performance in matters of national interest are judged by the outcomes. Of course outright illegality is undesirable and practically assumed. But as long as that illegality does not work against the national interest - including the erosion of the rights and privileges of the citizens for which the POTUS is acting, then it is understood with a wink and a nod that such behavior is justified as long as no one knows about it.
      • Any illegal activities noted in these dispatches are of course regrettable and should not be tolerated. The bigger question is how common these activities are and, in general, whether they can be satisfactorily justified as being in the national interest. (Again keeping in mind the mandate to maintain the rights and privileges of citizenship and human rights in general).

        And if your reply is that no illegal activities can ever be tolerated, you are upholding an honorable tradition of principle in the face of a shockingly grim reality. Human beings do not behave with a common standard, regardless of the culture in which they live. And the leaders of a given nation are naturally going to be of a more ambitious and morally compromised mold. In general they would not be in charge if they were not willing to compromise principle for success. (Sometimes you get lucky with this or that leader, but they are decidedly a minority.)

        I would like to say that I am in favor of something like Wikileaks for whistle blowers. I simply don't think Assange is doing what he says he is. I think he's operating with a particular anti-government slant. (not anti-US necessarily, but he definitely has his targets)

    22. Re:so what? by modecx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's obvious that what he considers damaged goods are those who share the all-too-common traits of Womanii Needicusmoniescus, also known as Ninjacus Bitchicus, i.e. selfishness, neediness, superficiality, a tendency to manipulate, etc. Someone, strike that, anyone from Jersey Shore could be the ultimate example of this subspecies. This disease comes in various strengths, and it's rare to find someone naturally immune to it. Maybe he figures political turmoil and other adversities act as an inoculation?

      The very fact that you consider a woman from a country undergoing/emergent from political turmoil "damaged goods"--well, it really says more about you and your world view than it does about any of Assanges' proclivities. When I see that profile, I see someone who knows what he likes, and is looking for a partner, someone with whom he can share mutual respect, someone with whom he can see himself growing old.

      You used the word "partner"...that word doesn't often have have the same meaning to a western woman that it does to a woman from an eastern European culture. The Russian equivalent to partner truly has the connotation of partner, someone with equal stake in a relationship. In the US, it has degenerated to "spouse" and even now it's hanging on the precipice to becoming little more than "roommate". No, strike that as well... This quality is in fact not limited women at all.

      Really, how can you care so strongly about what people find attractive in their mates? To me, this is a much more interesting neurosis. If someone really digs transgendered Inuit-Filipinos, fictional though they (probably) are...How can that possibly be such a big deal to you?

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
    23. Re:so what? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      No, more likely just damaged, full of self-loathing and hates herself and the world enough to comply with his twisted sexual requests.

      No need for a country in turmoil to produce that, you just need the average woman who grew up reading Cosmo and watching shows like "Bridalplasty".

    24. Re:so what? by ormondotvos · · Score: 1

      That's real purty, but it's a pile of logical spaghetti, with all those nod-your-head of courses and presumptions of what's natural or good for citizens or humans in general. Assange has clearly stated, in "Conspiracy as Governance" that he considers governments conspiracies that need constant resistance to keep them inefficient in trampling human rights. He's not an anarchist, he's a scientist. He wants conspiracies to barely work right. Wikileaks is just a negative feedback loop against human power grabbing tendencies.

    25. Re:so what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assange is a conspiracy theorist with a Messiah complex. The diplomatic cables do not reveal difference between the official US position and the "real" US position. Nowhere do the cables show the US "avoiding democratic oversight". Quite the contrary, the cables are for the most part professional, articulate and consistent with US policy.

      I am afraid you are buying into Mt. Assange's conspiracy paranoia.

      The Iraq helicopter attack video on the other hand is a shocking revelation. But things like that have always been leaked long before WikiLeaks.

      Mr. Assange is, intoxicated on his fantasy persona, not however my Messiah.

    26. Re:so what? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Nobody cares about cryptome though. What does it matter that it exists if it has very little influence?

    27. Re:so what? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      You consider people who have seen adversity to be "damaged goods?" Real nice.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    28. Re:so what? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The problem with first-world types, exhibit A:

      Someone interested in women that are likely to be resourceful, independent and mature ?

      No, more likely just damaged, full of self-loathing and hates herself and the world enough to comply with his twisted sexual requests.

      Their cute naivete is just the other side of their arrogant ignorance.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    29. Re:so what? by tibman · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i have the feeling that he's looking for someone who knows how shitty life can get. But most women i've met in poor countries are uneducated.. not as in they don't have college, as in the don't know anything at all (writing, math, astronomy).

      The fact that it's an online dating thing means he wants a woman who came _from_ that environment but is no longer part of it. It really is a odd taste in women. He specifically wants someone from a shithole, not a mature girl with a great personality. I only read the summary but i'm reading into the details far too much as is. I'm sure my early 2000's dating profile is also stupid.

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    30. Re:so what? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Whistleblowing sites aren't about the influence, they are clearing houses for information that would otherwise not be available.

      Wikileaks got an agenda and stopped being a whistleblowing site.

      Other sites being obscure is just fine as long as the whistleblowers know they exist.

    31. Re:so what? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Whistleblowing is precisely about the influence.

      When a whistleblower reports that for instance, company X is secretly dumping poison into a river or some such thing, why do they do it? Why do their risk their career and wellbeing? To have information archived at some obscure site for historical purposes? Heck, no. They're doing it because they believe they found something that is deeply wrong, want it to stop, and are unable to do it by the official channels. So they go public with the information.

      For that to work, the information needs to become very public. The entire point of doing things like that is causing a mass outrage at the company to pressure them to change.

      So, same thing here. There's no point in getting information released if that release isn't going to get results.

    32. Re:so what? by ubermiester · · Score: 1

      If what I said is logically invalid, perhaps an example instead of childish sarcasm?

      As for the constant revolution thing, Mao said that a long time ago. He thought you needed a good revolution every once in a while to keep the govt honest. (Which worked out really well for the tens of millions of people his revolutions ended up killing by violence and famine). To give Assange credit for that little gem is the either the height of arrogance or plain old ignorance.

      Assange is not a prophet or a sage or even a particularly smart guy. He is just realized that information can be distributed on the internet with ease, and he was willing to take the heat for whistle blowers. On the face of it, I think it's a noble endeavor. Be he has taken it too far in the name of ego and fame. Even his own top people thought he had gone too far and quit to start over with the original concept.

      Wikileaks is just a negative feedback loop against human power grabbing tendencies.

      Representative governments are made of people who seek power. It's built into the system. A republic could not function without them. That much was learned before the US constitution was written. If you don't believe me go read the Federalist Papers, especially Madison's writing on the nature of competing interests and using them to avoid a monolithic power center.

      In addition, the US constitution gives complete authority over foreign affairs to the POTUS - as I wrote earlier. A representative govt's executive branch therefore is made up of power seeking people who are tasked with negotiating with other power seeking people in order to get what's best for each side. There's not much more than that. It's not a conspiracy, it's simply how governments work. It's how they've always worked. And more and more govts have gotten consistently better at working for the interests of all of their people. Of course they are far from perfect, but I have been studying politics for 20 years and even in my experience things have most definitely gotten better. And all of this has happened without Assange!

      Is there room for improvement? Of course. But is the best way to do that by sabotaging the international relations of the one large nation that has set a good example in such matters? Is it a good idea to release generally harmless documents that embarrass individuals but do not expose any of the "conspiracies" you assume to be taking place? Wouldn't that simply result in diplomats doing more to keep things secret? What about a backlash from people who do not share your extreme view of govt? Wouldn't it be better to look for actual crimes against the people a govt is supposed to be representing? Why is it a surprise that one govt attempts to manipulate another? If that's shocking for you I think you should get out a bit more.

      I think Wikileaks was a good idea. I think it's important for whistle blowers to have a safe harbor. But when the "gotcha" mentality takes over, you end up with an egomaniac like Assange and no one benefits but him (and maybe some newspapers).

    33. Re:so what? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      The way it has turned out Wikileaks is (possibly was) nothing more than a honey pot for useful idiots feeding Assange information to use on his publicly stated quest against the US.

      Yes, they are making things very public but only some things and they do editing to make things conform to their agenda.

      That's not whistleblowing.

      The site itself doesn't need to be DDoSing major companies to get the word out. As long as people with influence know about the site and *they* report whats on there the word will get out without the site needing to resort to douchebaggery to get the word out.

    34. Re:so what? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      The way it has turned out Wikileaks is (possibly was) nothing more than a honey pot for useful idiots feeding Assange information to use

      If you mean Manning, he outed himself. Wikileaks did nothing to reveal his identity, and in fact said they'd support him financially.

      on his publicly stated quest against the US.

      Wikileaks published information on icelandic banks and quite a few other things as well, that's part of the anti-US agenda?

      But even if for whatever reason they're going to focus on the US exclusively now, I see nothing wrong with that, so long the information is accurate.

      Yes, they are making things very public but only some things and they do editing to make things conform to their agenda.

      Proof of the editing please. Other than the removal of names they do, of course.

      The site itself doesn't need to be DDoSing major companies to get the word out. As long as people with influence know about the site and *they* report whats on there the word will get out without the site needing to resort to douchebaggery to get the word out.

      Wow, you're VERY badly misinformed.

      The DoS is not coming from wikileaks, it's from anonymous. Anonymous is a very loosely defined group of people who hang out at 4chan, which is sort of a forum without user accounts. As a result, nobody knows who is who, hence "anonymous". They're not affiliated with wikileaks or with anybody else really, and don't have much of a fixed agenda.

      Think of them as a disorganized group of bored people who hang out at some park. No established structure. One day somebody goes on a rant against somebody who wronged them, and they get together and egg their house. Another day they're feeling unusually charitable and rescue a trapped kitten. It's pretty random.

      Now they're going on a revenge against those who they feel wronged Wikileaks. Previously they staged bizarre protests against scientology with signs featuring lolcats. They also grief online games and post lots of cat pictures on saturdays. Eventually they'll get tired of this and come up with something else to do.

    35. Re:so what? by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks has said nothing like "stop it you morons you're not helping". Wikileaks is at least using the misguided angst to their advantage.

      Also, I never said they outed Manning. I said they were a honey pot for useful idiots. Assgange has an agenda and Manning willingly gave him the weapons he wanted.

    36. Re:so what? by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Wikileaks has said nothing like "stop it you morons you're not helping". Wikileaks is at least using the misguided angst to their advantage.

      Well, it did help in a way actually. Paypal decided that they'll pay Wikileaks what they owe them, though they won't reinstate their account.

      But, there's a problem there: Who exactly would make a statement? Assange would have some trouble with it. I'm not sure if in his absence anybody has the right to speak for wikileaks. With Assange being in the situation he is I doubt anybody else feels like doing public speaking. And I'm not entirely sure anonymous would care anyway, they're not the type to take orders.

      Also, I never said they outed Manning. I said they were a honey pot for useful idiots. Assgange has an agenda and Manning willingly gave him the weapons he wanted.

      Honey pot, in my understanding means you're trying to trap somebody. Like giving the appearance of "drugs are sold here", then arresting everybody who enters. Wikileaks accepts leaks and publishes them, the leakers submit material that gets posted without their identity being revealed. That works exactly as advertised, no honey pot here.

      Assgange has an agenda and Manning willingly gave him the weapons he wanted.

      So what if he does?

      I don't understand your interest in Assange and Wikileaks. My interest is in what is leaked. Who leaks it, and what their motives are is completely unimportant to me.

  8. Douche Alert by andoman2000 · · Score: 0

    Wow so he even describes himself as a douche.

  9. Riders & The Media by cosm · · Score: 0

    They are riding the popularity of his name. Fueling the character assassination. They are diverting actual attention from the leaks. This article is just one more in the pile of NOTIMPORTANT documents. Yet I'm sure it's being tweeted and liked all across The United Social Network of Corporate America.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Riders & The Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The Media? The same Media that leaked the cables is doing that? Ahh you probably want a special kind of media, one that does your bidding. Right!!! Crawl back to the wrong side of History where you came from, dude.

    2. Re:Riders & The Media by david.emery · · Score: 0

      What he said! (I don't have mod points otherwise I'd have used them on the parent post.)

  10. Ad Hominem by Haedrian · · Score: 2

    Allright, we get it. He's a bit of a weirdo as far as his love-life is concerned.

    Now how is this news? Hooray, he likes a particular subset of the female population. What does this have to do with his ability to run a website which leaks government information?

    Does this even have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING? Is this good proof that he raped/didn't call in the morning/whatever someone?

    If you want to discredit someone, find something more useful. Like "Dear Diary, raped a woman today. Felt good about myself"

    1. Re:Ad Hominem by scubamage · · Score: 1

      It could help reveal his sources. If he was looking for affairs to give him political information, that is.

    2. Re:Ad Hominem by Altus · · Score: 1

      Man, that profile doesn't even register as weird compared to most I have run across. Hell thats down tame by OKCupid standards

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    3. Re:Ad Hominem by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      It's not news. It's irony.

      He wants embarrassing but harmless info made public that diplomats say bad things about other diplomats, because "information wants to be free". So here we are seeing embarrassing but harmless info about the same guy. Question is, is Assange going to applaud this as putting important information into the public sphere? None of the latest batch of wikileaks have discredited anyone or uncovered sinister deeds so far, and this dating profile isn't going to discredit Assange either.

    4. Re:Ad Hominem by Borland · · Score: 1

      While I agree that a public figure's sexual preferences are irrelevant, there are bits in there that I think are legitimate fodder for his professional motivations. You focus on the irrelevance to his ability to run a website which leaks government information; I focus on the relevance to his motivation.

      Does wikileaks simply want to be an anti-western tool, or does it have ambitions to be an international investigative force for transparency? One doesn't have to be a basement nerd envious of kinky sex with exotic women to be critical of Assange. Casting every critic in that light is just as wrong as simply labeling Assange a douche and leaving the commentary at that.

    5. Re:Ad Hominem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Date rapists never think they're rapists. They just convince themselves that "No" means, "Yes."

    6. Re:Ad Hominem by ormondotvos · · Score: 1

      Except Interpol isn't issuing warrants worldwide for Henry Kissinger, Dick Cheney (you get my drift)... and Wikileaks only released ~1500 documents so far very carefully. I'm on tenterhooks waiting for the long, long list to be made public. Wikileaks is EDITING this stuff. Heh.

    7. Re:Ad Hominem by nauvillain · · Score: 1

      Allright, we get it. He's a bit of a weirdo as far as his love-life is concerned.

      Now how is this news? Hooray, he likes a particular subset of the female population. What does this have to do with his ability to run a website which leaks government information?

      Does this even have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING?

      :

      For the same reason we like to read the biography of anyone whose work had a certain impact on society: to compare ourselves to them, to try and find out what motivated them to act that way. Would you have leaked government information, if you had been given the chance? What separates you from Julian Assange? What do you have in common? Is what we know about him relevant to determine how he came to leak this information?

      As always, we try to create models, or build theories, that tell us something about ourselves. It is very unlikely that this article tells us much (and I personally don't give much credit to its veracity), but we still read it. If only for the analytical exercise of assessing its relevance.

    8. Re:Ad Hominem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if a guy is accused of date rape, his online dating profile is relevant. I don't think this puts Assange in a bad light at all.

      Is it Newsworthy? Maybe moreso than articles that paraphrase what was published the day before because nothing happened in 24 hours.

      Idle curiosity: Why Harry Harrison?

  11. International man of mystery by whiteboy86 · · Score: 1

    I do not believe and would never claim that it is a real profile and not a fake, but the title:

    Current mission: "Fomenting Revolution."

    Is certainly fitting.

  12. and... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    after online dating fails, it's on to 'sex by surprise', I suppose...

  13. Social Nudity by thescreg · · Score: 1

    I get the feeling that he won't be too upset by this coming to light. Someone like Assange probably posts things online with the full knowledge that they could (and probably will) be exposed for the world to see.

  14. Suspicion confirmed by Gunkerty+Jeb · · Score: 2, Funny

    I was on the fence about the whole rape-charge thing until I read this article. That online dating profile is no doubt the profile of a rapist.

    1. Re:Suspicion confirmed by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

      I was on the fence about the whole rape-charge thing until I read this article. That online dating profile is no doubt the profile of a rapist.

      You forgot your [sarcasm] tags.

      --

      "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    2. Re:Suspicion confirmed by md65536 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yep. He even expresses interest in women. Case closed in my book.

      "Assange said he was seeking a 'siren' for [a] love affair," -- as in, police van siren???
      "children" -- anyone care to wonder why he is seeking CHILDREN??? sick.
      "and occasional criminal conspiracy'" -- what, like condom-related international sextreason?!

      Mod parent up a promotion to be a court judge. We need more people like you, who are able to extract the truth immediately based on personal opinion and nothingness, rather than people who will waste time bothering with facts and evidence and logic and reason.

    3. Re:Suspicion confirmed by synthespian · · Score: 1

      yeah, coz he just sounded dumb.

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
    4. Re:Suspicion confirmed by ormondotvos · · Score: 1

      Whereas your comments profile an envious serial killer? Please, spare me the CSI drama.

    5. Re:Suspicion confirmed by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Parent is not joking, check his post and submission history. He has a raging hate-on for Assange.

      (Not to say the parent post isn't Funny)

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. He's being sarcastic to downplay his image? by Securityemo · · Score: 1

    Even if he comes of as violently histrionic, I can't see the bulk of that ad as anything but an attempt to make himself appear less intimidating to approach. I guess it could be a sign of romantic insecurity if he wrote it like that to preemptively deflect criticism.

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
  16. Re:My wife of 8 years and I met on yahoo personals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew it! Online dating sites are infested with perverts looking for eight year olds!

  17. Um, how do youi know it's actually HIS profile? by melted · · Score: 1

    Let me ask the obvious question. How do you know it's actually his profile?

    1. Re:Um, how do youi know it's actually HIS profile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't, but the fact it's from 2006 -- and actually, it may be from earlier since OKC stopped showing people's sign-up date -- means there's a good chance it's legit. Wikileaks wasn't really on anybody's radar back then, and almost certainly not enough for some government or other entity to put up this profile at that time. Besides, it's actually a pretty good profile; a little fruity for my tastes, but my profile's silly and nerdy (and maybe a little pretentious).

    2. Re:Um, how do youi know it's actually HIS profile? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Same way people know the documents on WikiLeaks haven't been modified prior to publication, I imagine.

  18. I can see it now... by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

    ...Sarah Palin posts to her Facebook: "I knew Assange was a terrorist! Only terrorists chop up human brains!"

    $10 says some politician takes something from that profile out of context

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

    1. Re:I can see it now... by rbollinger · · Score: 1

      I'd hate to see that, a politician taking what a journalist says out of context.

  19. And This Is What Happens by $lingBlade · · Score: 0

    And this is what happens when you make *this* kind of guy, the figurehead of your cause. The focus becomes the man, and not what he and his organization were trying to do.
    I fault him for this. Not because he leaked his dating profile or even *had* a dating profile, but because he *relishes* the power and control he has over WikiLeaks and as such
    clearly has an agenda of his own. What's wrong with that? Well, when you get on a soapbox and start yapping about how you're unveiling this sordid world of lies and backroom handshakes
    of various governments of the world, and claiming some kind of moral or ethical superiority, don't be surprised when every piddly thing you've ever done in life comes under a microscope.

    He's like a candidate running for political office. Blissfully unaware that that bong hit, or naked photo of them in college will someday come round to haunt them. And moreover, he's unaware that for all his leaks, at least
    as far as government leaks are concerned, it's all for not. What's going to change? Security protocols and the methods by which they select who has access to data, where and when. That's about it. Personnel changes, that's what these leaks are going to change.

    If it were truly about being transparent, then it would have been better to leak these documents in any number of other outlets. Without the prestige, hand-waving and bullshit agenda, presented as "freedom" or some kind of informational liberation. As in, oh *gasp* the governments of the world are acting in their own best interests, as opposed to the interests of those that put them in power... shock... horror. Wake up. That's reality. Is it a sad one? Sure. But are these leaks going to "change the world"? Not in the long term. In the short term, it's a nice news story and not much more. When the focus is on you the individual, the message you'd hoped to convey gets lost. If his leaks were really as epic and world changing as he and his organization would have us believe, they should stand on their own merits. And they don't.

    1. Re:And This Is What Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something? What is damning about this profile?

      I agree about him having an agenda and all that, but this profile is... mundane

    2. Re:And This Is What Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What an asshat you are...

      As in, oh *gasp* the governments of the world are acting in their own best interests, as opposed to the interests of those that put them in power... shock... horror. Wake up.

      And all you can do is clamor about how this was the wrong guy to expose the actual bullshit you so easily dismiss as general knowledge. I know one thing for sure, you weren't the right guy for the job, because you didn't do it.

      It takes slightly crazy people to expose this BS. You have to really, really care about it. There are tons of ways to make a decent living for yourself, and exposing corruptions is by no means the easy route.

    3. Re:And This Is What Happens by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      Thats the whole brilliant point. Everyone spends all their time blasting him and forgets about wikileaks. Its security by misdirection.

    4. Re:And This Is What Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *this* kind of guy

      Really. I mean, what kind of guy wants "spirited, erotic" women? Besides like... all of us.

    5. Re:And This Is What Happens by NEW22 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't really understand what you are trying to say. You say you fault him as his style is making him the focus more than the information that has been leaked. On the other hand you seem to be saying that the leaks are unimportant. If the leaks are unimportant in the 1st place, why is Julian Assange's fault in this of any concern to you? The ol' cynical "Governements do horible things, is anyone surprised?" angle. Basically anything could be leaked and there would be somebody sitting around acting like the cool guy saying "Yeah, like we didn't already know that the US is hooking warlords up with little boys, psh... old news". Is any leak going to change the world? If it doesn't, do we just act like hipsters that are too cool to give a shit about anything at all?

    6. Re:And This Is What Happens by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

      And moreover, he's unaware that for all his leaks, at least as far as government leaks are concerned, it's all for not. What's going to change? Security protocols and the methods by which they select who has access to data, where and when.

      No, that is precisely his goal.

      Ultimately wikileaks is not about leaking information. It's about fighting conspiracies. Back in 2006 Assange wrote some essays that explain the motivation for the creation of wikileaks. Assange's operational plan is a form of jiu-jitsu.

      He has two core assumptions. First is that authoritarian organisations need secrecy to thrive. Second is that secrecy is a barrier to effective communication. He believes that demonstrating leaks to an authoritarian organisation will cause it to increase its secrecy. Pushed far enough, that secrecy makes the organisation cumbersome and inflexible, allowing opponents to easily get inside its OODA loop. The end result is that the organisation must choose between curbing its authoritarian tendencies or collapse.

      You may not agree with his assessments but to say he's unaware of the kind of response wikileaks will provoke is just a total misread of the situation. Understandable since so little of the news coverage bothers to do any better, but still totally off the mark.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:And This Is What Happens by $lingBlade · · Score: 0

      Well that's the thing about people like you, who seem to want to have it both ways. On one hand you seem to want this information to be some epic unveililng of the "true" nature of governments of the world, as though the mere "existence" or revelation, would cause some kind of uproar or revolution. On the other hand, some of you claim that the information is all benign, known well already and is therefore harmless. Harmless in its existence and harmless in the damage it could potentially cause. So which is it? Is this information *really* that important, or are you another unwitting victim of WikiLeaks hype machine?

      It seems to me that you're in the latter group. Personally I *don't* think any information they've released concerning the government is doing more good, than harm. I think these leaks are like a dropped rock in a pond, the effects of which will take some time to be felt. That might be good, that might be bad. But if I'd have to *guess* how things would go, I don't think these leaks will alter our reality. And, I never said I was the "right" guy for any job. Hear that? That's the sound of my point rushing right past your head.

      What BS is WikiLeaks exposing? Diplomatic cables that amount to high school gossip amongst various "cliques"? Oh the horror. Video footage of soldiers doing their job, with the Leftist spin as though they were just *looking* for targets to light up on a whim? Please. Gimme a fucking break. I don't trust "slightly crazy" people with anything. The fact that you do, speaks volumes.

      And I never said this guy's antics were "easy" or the best way to go about earning a buck in this world, once again, you've missed the point. The point is that he's the wrong person to be running the show, calling the shots. If you're a fame whore, power hungry and egotistical, I wouldn't trust you to polish my shoes, let alone airing the governments dirty laundry in public. And more importantly, all he's done is made himself a VERY easy target. If he were on some truly altruistic crusade, he should have released this information quietly, without drawing attention to himself. But he didn't, so neither you, nor him, should be surprised when large groups of angry people seize on anything and everything they can in his past background that paints him as a "less than stellar" person. The focus is on him. Not the issues at hand. And the issues at hand don't stand on their own very well without constant media attention and hype.

    8. Re:And This Is What Happens by Zouden · · Score: 1

      I fault him for this.

      Fault him all you like, but Assange has ensured that Wikileaks and himself are both household names. A common meme here on slashdot is "I generally support Wikileaks but I think Assange is a douchebag" - well, fair enough, but we're all talking about him aren't we?

      --
      "A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
    9. Re:And This Is What Happens by $lingBlade · · Score: 1

      I'm saying I don't think the leaks are as important as he, and his followers/fans would have us believe. I've yet to see anything come to light that is truly a game changer. Not in the "I'm joe-cool, I already knew that" kind of way, just that, some things I've read are new to me, and others are like "yeah, and???". That's the thing. I think Mr. Assange has done a wonderful job making himself (the person) the focal point for WikiLeaks and I think that if there *was* ever any good to come of that organization, or idea, that it is better served by just putting the information up without spin, without editorializing it, without a lot of fuss. Just put it out there, let it speak for itself. I'm not a fan of WikiLeaks releasing government information, I freely admit that. Not because some Afghan villager will *possibly* get his nuts in a vise for talking to our troops, or because the Taliban will know the location of our troops 8 months ago, but because I'm pessimistic about the government actually *changing* anything. As in, I don't foresee any sweeping changes coming from the government as a result of these releases, so what's the fucking point? Airing dirty laundry? Opening the stall door while the government has its pants down? For what? To mock them? Sure that's fine. But to get them to change their behavior? Sorry, I don't think it's going to happen. Color me jaded.

      Since his background has been called into question, and will continue to do so, he's doing himself a disservice by trying to run the show, or direction of WikiLeaks. The more that he claims he wants transparency for the government's of the world, the less he should be surprised and/or upset when the sword cuts in the other direction and the parts of his life that he thought were private and/or trivial are brought to light. It's as though he was on this soapbox claiming foul for all these government secrets that have no real impact or bearing on how the government operates and is shocked when the spotlight gets put back on him. If the information released should speak for itself and I don't think it does. Not without constant attention.

    10. Re:And This Is What Happens by $lingBlade · · Score: 1

      Well let me be one of those that goes against the common meme then. I don't support WikiLeaks, I think they're about as effective as pissing in a ceiling fan. And yes Assange is certainly a douche nozzle.

    11. Re:And This Is What Happens by $lingBlade · · Score: 1

      Well I think then, if that is his goal, that he's naive and short-sighted. The governments of the world is a BROAD term, covering governments that have been around for a few hundred years, to countries (and their governments) and institutions that have been around a few thousand years. For the sake of argument, I'd single out the US government and I'm sorry but I'm jaded, I don't believe the US government is going to reach some kind of tipping point, whereby they'd put so many arbitrary roadblocks to information sharing (secret keeping) that they suddenly, collectively, have an epiphany and decide to scrap the whole thing and scale things back or dismantle what they've built altogether.

      I understand what you're saying, and I understand now what his goal might be, and I understand that my initial assessment was off the mark, but I think it is Mr. Assange that is off the mark, woefully so, if he thinks he's going to push the government into "painting itself" into a "secret-keeping corner" thus causing it's collapse and/or failure. Seems like his ultimate goal is still transparency in government right? My contention is that a government NEEDS some level of discretion.

    12. Re:And This Is What Happens by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Like I said, his goal is fighting conspiracies. You appear to think he wants 100% transparency, that's a strawman. His goal is improved transparency by forcing organisations to make a choice - make the price of enabling conspiracies through secrecy high enough that organisations will choose the low-overhead of reduced secrecy and thus reduced opportunity for conspiracy.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    13. Re:And This Is What Happens by horza · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If the leaks were of interest then you would have respectable newspapers like the Guardian or New York Times trying to publish them.

      btw, what has Wikileaks got to do with some guy's dating profile?

      Phillip.

    14. Re:And This Is What Happens by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      What BS is WikiLeaks exposing?

      Illegal espionage against U.N. officials. The U.S. putting pressure on the Spanish government to quash investigations into torture and into the deaths of journalists. War crimes by the U.S. military.

      If you don't know what WikiLeak has already exposed, you're disqualified from discussion about the topic. Go read the Guardian's coverage and come back when you're educated.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    15. Re:And This Is What Happens by gustgr · · Score: 1

      Educated by the Guardian? Seriously?

    16. Re:And This Is What Happens by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      I am sick and fucking tired about hearing about "conspiracies."

      No, there is NOT a conspiracy to keep down information. There is NO conspiracy to oppress people.

      Best explained by ignorance, bigotry, and the general confusion of life.

      Conspiracy? feh. Incompetence. short sighted incompetence.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    17. Re:And This Is What Happens by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      No, there is NOT a conspiracy to keep down information. There is NO conspiracy to oppress people.

      You watch too many movies. A conspiracy doesn't have to be grandiose. But just because its not grandiose doesn't mean its not harmful.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    18. Re:And This Is What Happens by naasking · · Score: 1

      I'm saying I don't think the leaks are as important as he, and his followers/fans would have us believe. I've yet to see anything come to light that is truly a game changer.

      You have to start somewhere. The content of some of the leaks will piss X% of people, these other leaks Y%, and so on. With 250,000 documents, everyone is going find something to piss them off, guaranteed. Once enough public opinion turns against you, change is inevitable. This is how every counterculture gets started, by a slow erosion of government support. This century has proven that sweeping societal change is possible with persistence.

      The leaks have proven the government literally lied to our faces, and it's only going to get worse as more leaks are published.

      As in, I don't foresee any sweeping changes coming from the government as a result of these releases, so what's the fucking point? Airing dirty laundry? Opening the stall door while the government has its pants down?

      Frankly, these leaks have already spurred otherwise complacent people into getting more involved in politics and commenting on government policies. The game has already changed. A less complacent populace makes for a more honest government.

      [Assange] is shocked when the spotlight gets put back on him

      I'm not sure where you got that idea, but I doubt very much that Assange is shocked that the spotlight is on him. He's intentionally brought the spotlight on him and served as Wikileaks' lightning rod so the other journalists can continue their good work.

    19. Re:And This Is What Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is NO conspiracy to oppress people.

      That is correct! The whole notion that powerful people would meet together and discuss, in secret, strategies for maximising their own benefit is simply absurd.

      Now go back home where you are safe and happy. There is nothing to see here.

    20. Re:And This Is What Happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Back in 2006 Assange wrote some essays [cryptome.org]

      I read that, they look like inane drivel, pseudo-scientific crap to me.

      No testable experiments arise from that mumbo-jumbo. If Assange really did write that, he might have been in his teens: it's the typical speculation and playing with the words that smart young people do but I cannot connect that and the actual managing of WL.

    21. Re:And This Is What Happens by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      The English government has been around since 1066 with incremental changes since then, and as far as I'm aware that is the oldest surviving government, with the possible exception of a couple of the Cantons that make up what is now Switzerland. So I don't think there are any governments that have been around for a few thousand years. As for institutions, the only one that might qualify is the Roman Catholic Church, which has been around for certainly more than 1000 years but certainly not yet 2000.

    22. Re:And This Is What Happens by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      And moreover, he's unaware that for all his leaks, at least as far as government leaks are concerned, it's all for not.

      Nought--not not.

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    23. Re:And This Is What Happens by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Actually, not is an unstressed variant of nought.

  20. he's a douche, that's all that matters by hxnwix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As the countless posts calling Assange a douche reveal, it's important to establish that he's a douche. This is called poisoning the well and is meant to discredit more relevant information presented by Assange.

    1. Re:he's a douche, that's all that matters by synthespian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...and meanwhile, the leak that Amir Karzai gets money in suitcases to release drug lords is not important.
            Or that the Saudis asked the US to bomb Iran.
            Or that Hillary asked diplomats to steal credit card info from fellow colleagues.
            Or the leak (with video) about US Army personnel not complying with the rules of engagement and killing Reuters reporters.
            None of that is important.
            What is important is who Assange fucked.
            Put a condom over that enemy combatant!
            Oh well, blame the feminists who never thought about the consequences of going to the police because of a condomless one night stand. You heartless bitches.

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
    2. Re:he's a douche, that's all that matters by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 1

      I don't think he's a douche. I want to hang out with him and ask some questions about the good shit he may have not posted.

      If you're ever in Wisconsin, Mr. Assange, we shall puff tough.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    3. Re:he's a douche, that's all that matters by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You need to widen your media tastes. Those are a big deal in any media outlet where depth has meaning.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:he's a douche, that's all that matters by Rei · · Score: 1

      I think they're just jealous that he's a 39-year-old computer geek who gets to live like a rock star and alter the course of world history while they're stuck working on accounting software for Initech. ;)

      --
      South Park pokes fun at sacred cows to make a point. Family guy pokes cows to hear them moo.
    5. Re:he's a douche, that's all that matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh yeah, so far there isn't anything "new" or "eye opening" being released in those cables. As for the rules of engagement, STFU, it's called war besides I don't see you geting all pissed off at US Airmen who did massive bombing campains in Germany in WW2.

    6. Re:he's a douche, that's all that matters by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Those are a big deal in any media outlet where depth has meaning.

      Have you found such a thing? Please tell, I may consider reading it.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    7. Re:he's a douche, that's all that matters by GrifterCC · · Score: 1

      Oh well, blame the feminists who never thought about the consequences of going to the police because of a condomless one night stand. You heartless bitches.

      Is that what passes for "+5, Insightful" these days? Asking a woman who thinks she was raped not to come forward because of your politics is disgusting and terrifying. Your attitude exemplifies the reason that so many rapes go unreported. If she's not a liar or "regretting it the next morning," she's being politically insensitive.

      Anyone who modded this Insightful should turn in their mod points or grow some humanity.

  21. What's wrong with this profile? by joh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really. Online dating is not rare or anything, this profile is actually quite funny and honest, so what's wrong with it? I'm pretty sure that many Assange-/WL-haters have profiles on such sites and many of them would be more painful to read.

    So get over it.

    1. Re:What's wrong with this profile? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2

      You pretty much need to have an eclectic profile like Julian's on OKCupid to attract the interesting women and to keep the vapid ones away. Hell, I'm taking notes.

    2. Re:What's wrong with this profile? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hello, voice of reason.

      Or maybe I just think that because I have a 92% match with him.

  22. In Project Mayhem... by Puzzles · · Score: 1

    In Project Mayhem, your name is Harry Harrison.

    --
    "So don't get programmed by anybody but yourself" --Bill S. Preston, Esquire
  23. You don't wanna get mixed up with a guy like me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a loner, Dottie. A rebel.

  24. Re:My wife of 8 years and I met on yahoo personals by masmullin · · Score: 0

    Your wife is 8 years old? thats sick!

  25. Come on, you can do better than that! by AftanGustur · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The world's top intelligence agencies are all hard a work digging up dirt on the man .. and they come up with ... his DATING profile ??

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:Come on, you can do better than that! by mldewey · · Score: 0

      Somehow, I doubt this came from any intelligence agency.

    2. Re:Come on, you can do better than that! by gustgr · · Score: 1

      They don't need to dig up any dirt on the man. They could, but it would be a worthless effort. Unless he has raped children before eating their fleshes while they were still alive or has been the central figure of some major economical scandal, they know they can't make him look bad to his followers and to the whole lot of people supporting WikiLeaks. The kind of support and supporters he has attracted are quite hard to get, and once gathered they are quite hard to get rid of as well. Besides finding a way to put him behind bars (be it legal or not) and perhaps shutting down his whole operation in order to avoid the disclose of the rest of the cables, there isn't much they can do about what has happened already.

    3. Re:Come on, you can do better than that! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Related story...
      Some months ago in Italy the judge that imposed a fine of 750M€ on a Berlusconi's business (Mondadori) was the target of Berlusconi's media attention (he own several tv channels, newspapers and magazines) and the only thing they discovered following him with a camera during his free time was that he wear... turquoise socks.

    4. Re:Come on, you can do better than that! by Kashgarinn · · Score: 1

      I think it's funny and cute.

      They're dealing with an honest man with ideals, and all they can do is dig up a few cases of looking for love and broken condoms.

      The guys isn't a douche, he's a normal honest man with ideals.

      It's a shame US politicians don't realise that and get his opinion on how to make their government better.

  26. Also leaked his CIA code name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Big Mouth"

  27. Huh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He sounds like a twat.

  28. Why is Sweden bad at asking questions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. If they want to ask Julian some questions, how hard is it for them to simply pick up a phone? Didn't we invent phones so we wouldn't have to shout over long distances? Are there no phones in Sweden, is that the problem? Then what about email? Hell, write a damn letter!

  29. Wait a second... by MikeMo · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't he have already posted this leak on Wikileaks?

  30. Assange happy profile finally receives attention! by hxnwix · · Score: 1

    Assange had grown despondent that his dating profile hadn't generated much attention. However, for some unknown reason, it's now a topic of discussion worldwide amongst women who all agree with each other that he is a douche. Of course, many of these women proceed to privately email him nude pictures and lewd proposals. Assange is reportedly happy to be out on bail and is having the time of his life.

  31. He's also a public figure by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    And in case you haven't noticed, people love to know all about public figures, even really trivial shit. It is the price you pay for fame, more or less. You can't be an enigma, you can't have privacy like you did before. People will want to pry in to your life for no reason other than that you are in the public eye.

    In Assanage's case, it'll be all the worse because of how he made his fame. He loves revealing secrets. Some people will find it funny/poetic/whatever to do the same to him.

  32. The reason your government is after Assange... by synthespian · · Score: 1

    ...is because he'll fuck you up.

    --
    Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
  33. Unbelievable by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Here in slashdot laughing at someone else pickup lines? Pot calling the kettle black?

    Of all the bullets used to shoot the messenger, that particular one should not be used here.

  34. I agree - this isn't bad at all! by JimMarch(equalccw) · · Score: 1

    Jeez, look at what's NOT there: nothing remotely kinky, nothing disrespectful of ladies, some humor, a HELL of a lot of truth...

    ?

    The only "odd" bit is preference for gals from places that have seen a lot of "reality" and even there, yeah, I see where he's coming from. He's trying to avoid the "vapid" types that care more about the ads in the latest issue of Vanity Fair or whatever than they do about stuff that matters. Not at all odd, given who he is :).

    Why would anybody call him a "douche" or whatever based on this?

  35. Oh Julian, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you dirty bird...

  36. Linky by CraigoFL · · Score: 1

    ...though you'll need an OKC account to view it. http://www.okcupid.com/profile/HarryHarrison

  37. I am shocked! by Hartree · · Score: 1

    Shocked to find that his semi-confidential information has been plastered all over the internet and newspapers.

    I wonder what he did that would make people want to do that? ;)

  38. Wow by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    I'd have had more respect had Wikileaks leaked it.

  39. OMG! by Dean+Edmonds · · Score: 1

    Julian Assange is a nerd!

    Doubtless the next revelation will be that he had acne as a teenager. All of which is clear evidence that he is a rapist, terrorist and traitor.

    --

    -deane

  40. Aaaaaah by unity100 · · Score: 1

    anyone who is able to identify and know one of their undesirable traits as 'pig headed', in an open and direct manner as such, is ok in my book.

    it seems he was fully aware of the activities he was engaging in.

  41. It's normal by dbIII · · Score: 1

    He's from a small city where you are only two or three degrees of separation from everyone else. If you try to bignote yourself like an American MBA someone will say "I've heard of you, you're the guy my cousin saw do something stupid when you were 15. You're nothing special". It's a habit that looks like has been carried over into his dating profile.
    It's amusing that people call him a reclusive attention seeker and egomaniac. I would have been in the same room as the guy on at least a dozen occasions (I took some of the same CS subjects as easy credit engineering electives that year but mostly made paper aeroplanes) but had never heard of him until Wikileaks released the Kenya stuff.

    1. Re:It's normal by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      I'm from a small town as well, and that sort of behavior *is* common in some people. If that's the reason, he does it with unusual vigor though.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    2. Re:It's normal by ormondotvos · · Score: 1

      Assange went, by his count, to 37 different schools, and was very bored by all of them. C'mon, geeks, read his stuff! Break out the Google, do the work.

  42. How predictable. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    Go up against the powerful, and nothing on you remains out of the public eye.

    However, there is a notable flaw in this tactic: It is completely irrelevant to the veracity of Wikileaks' documents whether Assange is a arrogant, horny, conceited, a chauvinist or even a rapist.

    Okay, a second flaw: As dating profiles go, this is ridiculously non-scandalous. Calling himself "dangerous" or talking about working in a "male-dominated organization" is hard to twist into even circumstantial evidence of even fantasized rape. The rest suggests a desire for an intellectual and ideological equal. Pretty much the only character flaw one can pin on him from this is narcissism, and that's easy to develop when you grow up smarter than everyone around you and caring about stuff most people don't give a crap about. It's a common hacker trait.

    1. Re:How predictable. by Jiro · · Score: 1

      Go up against the powerful, and nothing on you remains out of the public eye.

      I don't think that gets to the heart of the matter. It's more like "make a career out of making sure that nothing about your enemies remains out of the public eye, and you'll find that not much about yourself will stay out of the public eye either".

      If you can dish it it out, you'd better be willing to take it.

  43. Booring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You people just love to shoot the messenger don't you...and in this case, the saying "beating a dead horse" also applies.

    As long as there are leakers, there will be people to publish those leaks. Of course the obvious solution being, don't do stupid shit and you will have nothing to hide. Where have I heard that before?

  44. Is it real? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Insightful

    has there been any confirmation that it's actually his profile, or if it's a parody or fake?

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Is it real? by mmmmbeer · · Score: 1

      Who would have created a fake profile for him in 2006 (or before)?

    2. Re:Is it real? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Probably no one... but one could easily have created a profile in 2006, and then changed all the photographs and details last week.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    3. Re:Is it real? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      How about the dating site? They got plenty enough marketing value from this.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    4. Re:Is it real? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that the account owner hasn't logged in since 2006.

  45. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys all really believe this is his, or even ANYONE's dating profile? No one writes that. Because if that's really how someone is they would want to hide it, and as a joke it's really not very funny. When I read this story, the first thing I did was check my calendar because I thought it was April 1.

  46. This is why I don't do online dating by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    I'm sure he didn't mean that to read the way it does and I'm sure that can be said about most people. Internet dating profiles almost always sound creepy / awkward / weird.

  47. Checklist by Scorch_Mechanic · · Score: 1

    Steel nerves? Check. Rat? Check. Stainless? Certainly not.

    --
    You should turn signatures off.
  48. "not only women" by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    What? he's interested in fuzzy double-breasted green creatures from Optimus Prime? Whodathunkit?

  49. Seems like....... by Conspire · · Score: 1

    It must of been during a dry spell.......could happen to anybody

    --
    Real men don't need signitures!!!
  50. What's the Noteworthy Part of This? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone is so fixated on the sexual assault charges.

    What grabs my attention is the obnoxious comment about women (and not only women!) produced by Western culture.

    The man himself is a product of Western culture, just quietly.

  51. Re:"sick fuck"? by ormondotvos · · Score: 0

    " sick fuck"? I hear projection, not any evidenced view of how Assange engages in sex. Assange is consistent, very lively, brutally honest, and using his intelligence to improve the world. I doubt he'd even talk to you for more than three sentences. The sex was consensual. One of the women was enamored of him, letting him use her apartment. The other could be described as a protest groupie. If you ever get famous, you'll find them everywhere. Really. He made no mistakes. It was just blind luck and CIA honeypots. Make a nice Nikita episode.

  52. are they sure? by cashman73 · · Score: 1

    Are they sure that's not just CowboyNeal's online dating profile? Oh, wait! Why the hell would CowboyNeal even have an online dating profile?!?! Nevermind!

  53. All of the Profile! by uolamer · · Score: 1

    Last Online: Dec. 31, 2006, His inbox is full. Multiple tests taken that seem to be similar to what I know about him. (The Politics Test- Strong Democrat, high in a lot of math, knowledge of Australia 77%, but The GNU Linux Test: 32 - The Newbie) Several pictures of him that are obviously him.. Seems to be real..

    Copied from site
    Main Profile:

    Last Online
    Dec. 31, 2006

    Ethnicity

    Height
    6' 2" (1.87m).

    Body Type

    Smokes
    No

    Drinks
    Socially

    Drugs
    Never

    Religion
    Atheism

    Sign

    Education

    Job

    Income

    Children

    Pets

    Speaks
    English (Fluently)

    My self-summary
    WARNING: Want a regular, down to earth guy? Keep moving. I am not the droid you're looking for. Save us both while you still can.

    Passionate, and often pig headed activist intellectual seeks siren for love affair, children and occasional criminal conspiracy.

    Such a woman should spirited and playful, of high intelligence, though not necessarily formally educated, have spunk, class & inner strength and be able to think strategically about the world and the people she cares about.

    I like women from countries that have sustained political turmoil. Western culture seems to forge women that are valueless and inane. OK. Not only women!

    Although I am pretty intellectually and physically pugnacious I am very protective of women and children.

    I am DANGER, ACHTUNG, and ??????????????!
    What I’m doing with my life
    Directing a consuming, dangerous human rights project which is, as you might expect, male dominated. Variously professionally involved in international journalism/books, documentaries, cryptography, intelligence agencies, civil rights, political activism, white collar crime and the internet. Formal background in neuroscience, mathematics, physics and philosophy.

    I’m really good at
    A gentleman never tells.
    The first things people usually notice about me
    Height. Nordic appearance. Unusual presense. Often carrying mystery brown paper packages tied up with strings; these are a few of my first things.
    My favorite books, movies, music, and food
    Russian. (D) anything but Russian!
    The six things I could never do without
    I could adapt to anything except the loss of female company and carbon.
    I spend a lot of time thinking about
    Changing the world through passion, inspiration and trickery. Travel (33 countries). Structure of reality. Birth and death of the universe (physics background) Ontology. Chopping up human brains (neuroscience background)
    On a typical Friday night I am
    Working, or in wilderness, which I retain an undying love for. Parties with good friends are glue, otherwise entertainment is less entertaining than working!

    The most private thing I’m willing to admit
    I have asian teengirl stalkers. Hello.
    I’m looking for

    Everybody
    Ages 22-46
    Located anywhere
    For new friends

    You should message me if
    You are a spirited, erotic, non-confomist. Non-conformity is not the adoption of some pre-existing alternative subculture. I seek innate perceptiveness and spunk.

    Do not write to me if you are timid. I am too busy. Write to me if you are brave.

    36 / M / Straight / Single
    Melbourne, Australia (9075 miles)

    Tests Results (They have little quizzes on the game that give you a 'score')

    --
    s/©//g
  54. Idle comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it just me or is it impossible to drag the sliders to show more comments in an Idle story?

    Firefox and IE both have the same problem.

    Bah!

  55. The only interesting thing about this story ... by jopet · · Score: 1

    ... would be by whom and how it was "unearthed".

  56. Pics or it didn't happen. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not seeing pics (or am I just not seeing the link?)

    All I'm seeing is something that looks pretty fantastic, and I don't know about you guys, but I try to make my interests sound more mundane so the girl can figure out I'm a creep after we meet.

    Wouldn't surprise me if someone was attempting a character assassination for the internet nerds that support him. Mind you, it also seems they don't know how depraved internet nerds are.

  57. Something U ought 2 read (some "FYI" 4U)... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1903798&cid=34559886

    APK

    P.S.=> Just some "FYI" 4U on HOSTS files, & Windows Defender/Microsoft Security Essentials... apk

  58. Harry Harrison by Phreakiture · · Score: 1

    Minor point: Harry Harrison is American, not British.

    --
    www.wavefront-av.com
  59. This is why the terrorist win by scarface71795 · · Score: 0

    We have all this info on Someone who is no threat to us but we can't even find a man who had his men blow up two building that hurt us more than this guy ever will Seriously?

  60. A few years down the line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God help him when he hears the inevitable question

    Missus Assange: 'But seriously, what is it that you love about me?'
    Mister Assange: 'Um, it's your political turmoil innit.'

  61. see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hackers can get laid too if they put their mind into it ;)

  62. Children?!? by Stregano · · Score: 1

    So he is looking to date Children? Take it easy Assange, ya pervert.

    --
    The world is how you make it
  63. SOME FYI 4 U... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  64. metrix007 got PLAYED, he played himself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    metrix007 is pissed about this http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1888084&cid=34462614 where he blundered on hosts files. metrix007 got played. He played himself, and very badly, due to his skimming.