Slashdot Mirror
Julian Assange Could Be Time's 'Person Of The Year', And Is Also Still Not Dead (time.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader cstacy noticed Saturday that Julian Assange hadn't made any communications or public appearances in six weeks. But today an anonymous reader writes:
Julian Assange is still not dead, reports The Inquisitr, noting "the WikiLeaks founder made his first appearance in weeks, speaking with an interviewer for a conference in Beirut" including comments about the recent death of Fidel Castro.
Assange is also in the running to be chosen as "Person of the Year" in Time magazine's annual online reader's poll, and last Monday even moved briefly into first place, inching past Donald Trump. "It's worth noting that the poll presents people alphabetically," Time reported, "so Assange is the first option participants consider and Trump comes near the end of the poll."
I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%), and Donald Trump is locked in a tie for fourth place with India Prime Minister Narendra Modi at 9%. Time worked with Opentopic and IBM's Watson to assemble the initial list for reader's votes, which also included Apple CEO Tim Cook and FBI director James Comey. Surprisingly, a few celebrities also turned up on the list too, including comedian Samantha Bee, Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Olympic gymnast Simone Biles.
Assange is also in the running to be chosen as "Person of the Year" in Time magazine's annual online reader's poll, and last Monday even moved briefly into first place, inching past Donald Trump. "It's worth noting that the poll presents people alphabetically," Time reported, "so Assange is the first option participants consider and Trump comes near the end of the poll."
I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%), and Donald Trump is locked in a tie for fourth place with India Prime Minister Narendra Modi at 9%. Time worked with Opentopic and IBM's Watson to assemble the initial list for reader's votes, which also included Apple CEO Tim Cook and FBI director James Comey. Surprisingly, a few celebrities also turned up on the list too, including comedian Samantha Bee, Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Olympic gymnast Simone Biles.
owe Mr. Assange a debt of gratitude for Wikileak's sabotage of Hillary Klinton's campaign. Well done.
an ill wind that blows no good
Not by an online poll at the very least.
This is a reader poll. It's a different thing and like any other internet poll it means very little.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
No one is happier that Donald Trump won the election, including Mr. Trump himself.
For Assange, it literally might have been a life-or-death matter: she wanted to kill him (at least, that's how he perceived it). If anyone sponsored the email hacking, it was probably him.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Trump is always in the news either because of his own scandalous mouthing (or thumbing) off or because of his haters' constant hate and prejudices. He basically won the highest position on Earth by being in the news all the time.
With his "influence", he already killed the TPP as a side-effect of not yet taking office and he moved the powerful USD up and down for the past 6 months.
Maybe undisclosed "Russian hackers" can be runner up..
for lowering the bar even further, human garbage all over the world can now realistically aspire to be your man of the year.
wtf slash dot. aggregate the news, it is not your responsibility to add misinformation by adding in what you think. either find out the facts or just report on the news. Shit like that makes this place just as bad as any trashy tabloid.
Did you ever think that because the poll is on a website that just about anyone could vote, that doesn't mean that it could be hacked and you have no proof of this.
Hitler was also named man of the year. It's not about who was the "best" person of the year just the most influential.
Nigel Farage
Indeed. He already won a prior reader poll, and Time chose someone else. There's no reason to think they won't do the same this time as well.
Also everyone should come to my apartment to see my cats.
Big whoop, I was Time's Person of the Year 2006. Didn't mean a thing.
Jeez ..... Stop being retarded.
Hate him or love him...he's the person of the year.
I think the poll's being hacked by state actors, since Vladimir Putin now leads with 38%, followed by Theresa May (16%) and North Korea leader Kim Jong Un (13%),
Then realized it was part of the summary, so probably not a joke.
The editors in Slashdot are really pushing on the (Russian) state actors hacking tale. Why would state actors act on Times' online poll? If they did, why would they put up these results?
Times' poll was hacked by 4chan before. Kim Jong Un won in 2012 thanks to them, the magazine just discarded the results.
They're not going to have another bogus vote again this year I hope.
Why don't they do something radical. Make the person of the year a group of people.
Or even better, make it the readers!
Or something that isn't a person at all. Like an internet server or something. Genius!
1. If you can't construct a sentence, I'm not sure you should be airing your views on more complex issues.
2. Someone took a coworker's Bologna sandwiches from the staff fridge. I told them it was very likely state actors, as I munched down on a delicious Bologna sandwich.
3. Boaty McBoatface
The story says it's a poll of online READERS.
I find it hard to believe that Time still has readers.
Assange doesn't have the funds and probably also not the influence.
In any case, the whole "russians are hacking us" is mostly paranoia.
"Mostly" is being generous.
Assange took the unprecedented step to say specifically "it was not the Russians". He has stated that they never reveal their sources, so to go that far (eliminating Russia gives information about the actual source) he probably felt the fear-mongering was a prelude to a declaration of war, or at least minor hostility.
(And to be fair, it sure looked, at the time, that America was ginning up for a fight with Russia.)
And as for Clinton wanting to kill him, she specifically asked in a meeting "can't we just drone this guy", apparently was not joking, and as a result of the meeting the aides sent her a list of "legal and non-legal strategies" for dealing with assange.
But then again, this could be fake news. Hillary doesn't remember joking about Assange, and Snopes has the "drone strike" claim listed as "unproven".
(Note: The "legal and extra-legal" link is to a copy of the actual memo sent to Hillary.)
is still dead.
Bored people in boring places read Time.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
The Assange/Wikileaks situation has been a bit weird for the past month, and no strong proof of life has been shown. Going with an audio interview is just going to fuel all the conspiracy nuts in /r/WhereIsAssange.
I dislike him intensely and I think he's a horrible person, but most of us (I believe anyway) didn't think he would win and yet he did.
Like him or not, disagree with the electoral college or not, he will be the next President.
I'm not even sure what Modi has done this year to even be in the running (screwed up their current bank note fiasco?)
Putin, May and Fatty Kim haven't done anything nearly as impressive or shocking as what trump has done - again, just my opinion of course.
If Brexit were a person eligible for person (thing?) of the year I guess you could make a case for that.
Or if you want to open it up to Immigrants to Europe or Daesh as "person" of the year, those could also be valid candidates.
If you mean shitty audio and uncharacteristic commentary, then yeah, "he" made and "appearance".
He has not been seen alive with any evidence since Oct 20th, period end of story.
TIME, aside from the usual Lib bias, has a bizarre sense of newsmakers. Last year, they made it Angela Merkel. In 2001, they made it Osama. They'll give it to anyone unless he happens to be a Republican achiever that year. From what I recall, President Bush never got it.
If the poll is being hacked, good for them! Ideally, it should be Trump, since he had been firing on all cylinders throughout the year, not just since the Dem convention. Wikileaks came into the picture only at the DNC convention, when they exposed the shenanigans of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and subsequently on the Clinton emails. Putin did nothing this year that stood out from any other year - intervention in Syria, while important, doesn't count. (That is an achievement Putin could have claimed in 2013, when the Assad regime stood alone amongst Arab regimes in not collapsing, unlike Egypt, Libya and Tunisia). Teresa May would get it somewhat by fluke, since the real hero of Brexit was Nigel Farage. Kim Jong Un's fireworks displays don't earn it either. And Narendra Modi would have deserved it 2 years ago, when he got elected by the largest ever landslide. He really didn't do much to earn that this year.
RT? That's what you're using as a source? The state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia? The "news" organization who only says what Putin tells them?
I'd take the Fox tabloid over RT any day. At least Fox puts out something truthful once in a while.
I notice that you don't say the claim is wrong.
Was that on purpose?
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
Fidel can be corpse of the year.
Are they going to stuff and mount him, like Lenin and Mao?
So trump making it the list is a genuine act of voting but Putin making the list is 'state agents'?
They'll give it to anyone unless he happens to be a Republican achiever that year.
Achiever? I'm not sure you quite get what the "award" is for. Past "winners" include Hitler, Stalin, and even Henry Kissinger.
From what I recall, President Bush never got it.
HW got it, and W twice. You mean Jeb?
By achiever, I mean someone who achieved the most in a given year. Like in 2001, when Osama got it for 9/11, Bush should have gotten it, since he toppled the Taliban by the end of November or mid December. I do stand corrected on his getting it, though.
Perhaps Putin is doing well in the polls not because his mythical hackers are doing it, but because we are still in the middle of an 18-month, 10+ billion dollar propaganda campaign that hoped first to prevent a Trump win, and, that having failed, is now spreading the idea that his win was not because of his populist/nationalist message, but the result of Russian hackers.
If half of the country genuinely believes that Trump's victory was the result of Russian interference, is it surprising really that Putin would do well in a poll of the most influential person of the year?
See that "Preview" button?
Time wont pick Julian. They have no journalistic integrity.
Bush should have gotten it, since he toppled the Taliban by the end of November or mid December.
Does not look like much of an achievement from here. Not that I think any other president would have succeeded in either invasion either. Give the award to GWH Bush for taking intelligent advice to contain and _not_ invade neighbouring Iraq.
The Taliban is alive and well, held back from Kabul only by an unsustainable flow of cash from the US to local warlords.
It's the selection of which person had the biggest impact on shaping world events for the year. That's why Adolf Hitler was PotY in 1938. Not because Time thought he was a great guy, but because his actions sent shockwaves throughout the world. (Stalin won in 1939 for signing a non-aggression pact with Hitler thus allowing WWII to grow into the behemoth it became, rather than nipping it in the bud with a two-front war against the Nazis.)
In that respect, Julian Assange is a braindead choice. He goes incoummunicado for 6 weeks and nobody notices - that's how unimportant he is to world events. Putin may be a good choice, especially if you buy into the Russia hacked U.S. election conspiracy. Arguably, he is the ideological figurehead of the current nationalism movement sweeping through many countries. Theresa May is an attempt to give credit/blame for the Brexit vote to a single individual - Brexit was arguably one of if not the biggest shocking event of the year. Kim Jong Un is in the running because he's managed to turn the most recalcitrant, unpredictable country on Earth even more recalcitrant and unpredictable. And while Trump's election was a big deal, he hasn't actually done anything (except win an election), and won't until late January 2017. This isn't the Nobel Peace Prize which you can win just because they think you're going to do big things.
Bush wouldn't have done any of what he did were it not for Osama, which to me makes Osama a better candidate. Good or evil don't really come into it at all, just the influence the person had on the world.
I'd probably argue that Trump would be the best candidate this year. If you look at the historical results, there's a pretty strong tendency for newly elected presidents to receive the award as everyone since H.W. Bush received the award the year of their election, and both George W. Bush and Obama received it on reelection as well.
Actually, in looking at the list of winners on Wikipedia to verify that bit about the former presidents getting it on their election, they list the 2001 winner as Giuliani. While he's not quite as detestable as Osama, he apparently was the PotY for being mayor during 9/11. Really though it should have been bin Laden as you point out as it makes a hell of a lot more sense.
Osama didn't get person of the year on 2001. It was given to Giuliani.
You have strong opinions about something you apparently no next to nothing about.
Osama never got it. Bush got it twice. At least you managed to get Merkel right. 1 out of 3 ain't bad I guess...
And you really don't think Bush, Bush, Bush, Gingrich, Giuliani, Nixon, Nixon, and Reagan were Republican?
By achiever, I mean someone who achieved the most in a given year"
The Time award is not for achievement but for the person or thing that has most influenced the news in a particular year.
That, unquestionably, for this year is Donald Trump
For the last 20 years just winning the US Presidential election was enough to get it. There have only been 4 occassions since 1964 that the newly elected President wasn't given it, and on all of those occasions that person got it the year before or during that term... It is an American publication after all.
Time magazine, being mainstream American corporate media, would do well to give Trump the nod in order to try and get into his good graces and thus increase the odds of access. Paraphrasing CBS' Les Moonves who told the audience at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference, such a move would not be good for America, but it could be very good for Time Magazine.
Digital Citizen
They don't give it to the person who "achieved" the most. They give it to the person they believe to be the most influential. That's why Osama Bin-Laden got it.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Julian Assange Could Be Time's 'Person Of The Year', And Is Also Still Not Dead
Perhaps Time know something we don't...
That would cover Brexit and Trump winning the US election.
You could say the "working white male" if you want to try to avoid some hot wires.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Bush should have gotten it, since he toppled the Taliban by the end of November or mid December. I do stand corrected on his getting it, though.
The Taliban that is currently fighting against ISIS?
They don't seem very toppled.
They're filthy rich anyway.
Both Assange and Snowden have outlived their usefulness, and the puppeteers pulling their strings don't want any blowback. If they aren't already on your dead pool list they should be.
The news that he isn't is fake news.
Real news: see here
Loads of people have been selected in the past.
Hell, I won it in 2006.
For the last 20 years just winning the US Presidential election was enough to get it. There have only been 4 occassions since 1964 that the newly elected President wasn't given it, and on all of those occasions that person got it the year before or during that term... It is an American publication after all.
Well, they certainly will name Trump POTY next year, after his assassination by one of his disappointed voters because he ran America into the ground again.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Considering previous winners (Hitler) and the current roster of candidates, why don't they just call it Cunt of the Year?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
By achiever, I mean someone who achieved the most in a given year. Like in 2001, when Osama got it for 9/11, Bush should have gotten it, since he toppled the Taliban by the end of November or mid December.
Actually, Rudolph Giuliani got it in 2001. Dubya the year before. Osama never did. Thanks for trying.
Oh BTW, the Taliban are still doing their thing. Mission accomplished.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
By achiever, I mean someone who achieved the most in a given year"
The Time award is not for achievement but for the person or thing that has most influenced the news in a particular year. That, unquestionably, for this year is Donald Trump
Or Putin - he did influence the news about Trump.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
Considering previous winners (Hitler) and the current roster of candidates, why don't they just call it Cunt of the Year?
IOW Trump.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
"By achiever, I mean someone who achieved the most in a given year. Like in 2001, when Osama got it for 9/11, Bush should have gotten it, since he toppled the Taliban by the end of November or mid December. I do stand corrected on his getting it, though."
Fake news. Osama never got chosen. 2001 Man of the Year was Giuliani. W was man of the year twice, in 2000 and 2004, same number as Obama and Clinton (2-term presidents) and one more than Bush Sr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Person_of_the_Year#Persons_of_the_Year) Not that it matters. Maybe you should leave your Republican biases at the door.
i believe both snowden and assange to be dead , their appearances are digitally faked. There has been no real proof that they are still alive. only "digital" proof which is all to easy to fabricate or fake.
Nigel Farrage or the mad Brexiteers (Gove and Johnson). They were the first to prove that post-truth politics can work and adopted it for their winning campaigns. Trump is just a more bombastic imitation.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I am just glad white voters banded together and voted as a block. It shows you what is still possible in this country.
Yeah, I don't get it, was Osama Bin Laden involved in some giant event that had world wide ramifications in 2001 or something? And yeah, I totally agree Bush should have gotten it, with his completely unprovoked, out of the blue, totally unrelated to anything Osama Bin Laden did, toppling of the Taliban...
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
... unless Trump is named Man of the Year.
While I don't think Assange is a criminal or should be thrown in prison, by many accounts a slimeball, so hopefully not person of the year.
If anyone it should Snowden. Though I see in looking at the list the "Whistleblowers" won in 2002 so perhaps they think that might be a duplication.
I'd not be surprised if it is Trump. Certainly the most newsworthy of 2016 anyway, won when no one apparently thought he would.
Like Seth Rich?
Theresa May is an attempt to give credit/blame for the Brexit vote to a single individual
Hardly, she was on the losing side. She just didn't campaign strongly enough to alienate leavers.
Thanks TIME ... for lowering the bar even further, human garbage all over the world can now realistically aspire to be your man of the year.
Time's "Person of the Year" isn't "BEST Person of the Year". It's "MOST INFLUENTIAL ON THE WORLD Person of the Year". That's why people like Castro get it.
Time has pointed this out LOTS of times.
IMHO Assange is a good candidate for THIS year. Trump did a lot of shaking things up, too - but mainly by being elected. As with Obama's Nobel Peace Prize, it's a bit early. I'm sure he'll have more effect on the world once he's ACTUALLY BEEN INAUGURATED and has been yanking the levers of power for most of a year.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We won the war in Afghanistan? Better tell the guys who are dying there 15 years later. I'm sure they'll be happy to get the good news.
Osama SHOULD have gotten it for 2001 -- no one else had such an affect on world affairs, certainly not Bush, and absolutely not the winner that year, Rudy Giuliani.
What universe are you from? Rudolph Giuliani got it in 2001.