The only worse idea than using sarcasm online with no formal statement you're doing so, is doing that when we're talking about legal issues most of us don't fully understand.
Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States,
Depending on how much we trust the wording, I suppose them promising not to extradite him implies that they won't extradite him ever for any reason, not just because of this court case.
In which yeah, makes sense they wouldn't promise that. But it's understandable why Assange doesn't want to go back, when they can't provide him any guarantee of not immediately stuffing him on a plane to the U.S.
Hmm. In which case Wikipedia isn't really *lying* about it, just interestingly omitting it (presumably because they're infighting about the reliability of some source).
Since 19 June 2012, Assange has lived in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he asked for and was granted political asylum.[69] Assange’s lawyers invited the Swedish prosecutor four times to come and question him at the embassy, but the offer was refused.[70] In March 2015, faced with the prospect of the Swedish statute of limitations expiring for some of the allegations, the prosecutor relented and agreed to question Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy.[71]
Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States,[72] to which the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.[73] However, the Swedish government is free to reject extradition requests from non-EU countries, independent of any court decision.[74]
This whole affair is so facepalm ridiculous, too. Why the fuck couldn't they just guarantee they won't extradite him to the U.S.? He's facing a Swedish rape charge, why in god's name would that ever involve extraditing him to the U.S.?
If the U.S. wants him for unrelated reasons they can catch him their own damn selves.
In either case, he didn't "flee" as they said they didn't have any more questions for him. Then he left the country, *then* they decided that they wanted to talk to him after all. (Wouldn't you think they'd have a registry of people wanted for X that would have stopped him from leaving the country via airport if he was wanted?)
If they want to prosecute him for something he did there, I just don't see what motivation he would have to go back.
On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it.[7] The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three,[20][21] and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden,[22] which decided not to hear the case. At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months.
Yeah, maybe the Swedes should have used their army, and just invaded the UK to apprehend him! Come on people, we need outside the box thinkers for this.
Why? Because those pesky rules are getting in the way of us sending him to Gitmo?
This is the exact same idiotic argument used by the agencies to justify domestic spying "to catch terrorists."
One would hope that if the President ordered our military to, for example, start exterminating all the brown people in the country, there would be some hesitation.
Sounds like the mantra those at the top of power structures repeat to themselves every night before bed to convince themselves they are good people. "If the people really didn't want to get screwed over, they'd be able to stop me."
Yeah, I didn't mean you specifically; rather the idea of this being a feature added to the mainline kernel for everybody, which sounds like a potential attack vector not unlike the ability to reflash your BIOS from software to me.
I was kind of casually messing around with Linux (LiveCDs, then within a year or two a dual-boot) since not too long after I started college (headed towards 10 years ago now? damn.), but the limit of my expertise on that front was basically googling enough to get some desktop stuff configured.
Then my first job out of college had us on Fedora workstations so I picked up some bash and command line stuff and emacs. Since I gradually got more used to being on the command line than using Windows Explorer* I ended up booting Mint most of the time. Then when my old tower gave out this last summer, I got a x64 Windows 8.1 machine that doesn't let me run the several 1995-2002-era games that I bothered booting Windows at all for, basically. So now they're in an XP VM and I'm trying not to think about wrestling with the update arm-twisting on 8 again next time I boot it, now;)
* Tab complete is so much faster if you know where you're going, right? And it seems like whenever I search for anything in Explorer it always tries to tell me it doesn't exist when I definitely know it does. Now with a simple(ish) grep wrapper and a pipe or two I can actually FIND things that I search for!:)
Logs are for the rare occasions when something *does* go wrong. Saying "when was the last time you needed a log" is a vacuous statement unless the product is 100.00% reliable.
And you're just okay with these bad agreements? What about the users who want to refuse but can't because they need to be able to run J Random Software?
Also, "99% of you aren't on Windows here" is bullshit.
Except for the part where your crazy example is supposed to argue the nonexistence of something that regularly and repeatedly happens throughout history.
In a couple years they'll probably switch the IE rendering engine to WebKit anyway.
Then it won't matter whether you're using IE, Firefox, or Chrome, since they'll all render the same, look the same, and have the same extension library.
Slashdot Mirror
Homo Neophilus? ;)
He's not fleeing anywhere--either he fled, or he didn't. He's just sitting in the embassy now.
And just stating it as a fact gets you nothing. We know that in your eyes, anyone who goes against the government is guilty, no matter what.
The only worse idea than using sarcasm online with no formal statement you're doing so,
is doing that when we're talking about legal issues most of us don't fully understand.
Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States,
Depending on how much we trust the wording, I suppose them promising not to extradite him implies that they won't extradite him ever for any reason, not just because of this court case.
In which yeah, makes sense they wouldn't promise that. But it's understandable why Assange doesn't want to go back, when they can't provide him any guarantee of not immediately stuffing him on a plane to the U.S.
How about "there's no logical way that this could ever result in an extradition to the U.S. so no, that won't happen"?
Or to put it in code terms:
if(false) {
functionA();
}
"No no no, we can't guarantee that functionA() won't be called, even though this is the only place it occurs in the codebase. Because reasons."
I know better than to argue with you, cold "Argument to Authority" fjord.
The whole idea of Guantanamo Bay is to circumvent U.S. law. And you think that they're going to follow their own rules?
Hmm. In which case Wikipedia isn't really *lying* about it, just interestingly omitting it (presumably because they're infighting about the reliability of some source).
This whole case is annoyingly murky.
Since 19 June 2012, Assange has lived in the Embassy of Ecuador in London, where he asked for and was granted political asylum.[69] Assange’s lawyers invited the Swedish prosecutor four times to come and question him at the embassy, but the offer was refused.[70] In March 2015, faced with the prospect of the Swedish statute of limitations expiring for some of the allegations, the prosecutor relented and agreed to question Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy.[71]
Assange has said he would go to Sweden if provided with a diplomatic guarantee that he would not be turned over to the United States,[72] to which the Swedish foreign ministry stated that Sweden's legislation does not allow any judicial decision like extradition to be predetermined.[73] However, the Swedish government is free to reject extradition requests from non-EU countries, independent of any court decision.[74]
This whole affair is so facepalm ridiculous, too. Why the fuck couldn't they just guarantee they won't extradite him to the U.S.? He's facing a Swedish rape charge, why in god's name would that ever involve extraditing him to the U.S.?
If the U.S. wants him for unrelated reasons they can catch him their own damn selves.
In either case, he didn't "flee" as they said they didn't have any more questions for him. Then he left the country, *then* they decided that they wanted to talk to him after all. (Wouldn't you think they'd have a registry of people wanted for X that would have stopped him from leaving the country via airport if he was wanted?)
If they want to prosecute him for something he did there, I just don't see what motivation he would have to go back.
On 18 November 2010, Marianne Ny ordered the detention of Julian Assange on suspicion of rape, three cases of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. The Stockholm District Court acceded to the order and issued a European Arrest Warrant to execute it.[7] The warrant was appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal which upheld it but lowered it to suspicion of rape of a lesser degree, unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation rather than three,[20][21] and the warrant was also appealed to the Supreme Court of Sweden,[22] which decided not to hear the case. At this time Assange had been living in the United Kingdom for 1–2 months.
Yeah, maybe the Swedes should have used their army, and just invaded the UK to apprehend him! Come on people, we need outside the box thinkers for this.
Why? Because those pesky rules are getting in the way of us sending him to Gitmo?
This is the exact same idiotic argument used by the agencies to justify domestic spying "to catch terrorists."
It's not "fleeing" if he hasn't been charged with anything.
I didn't "flee" to work this morning. I commuted.
Doesn't "discovery" imply that they're reasonably sure he did it? I'm not sure the language supports "we discovered that something may have happened."
Especially in this case. If they had DNA evidence against him, sure--discovered. But isn't it just the word of these two women against his?
If we accept that postulate then the distinction you're making evaporates.
One would hope that if the President ordered our military to, for example, start exterminating all the brown people in the country, there would be some hesitation.
There's always a line somewhere.
I practically read the comments section just to find out how the headline is lying to us.
Sounds like the mantra those at the top of power structures repeat to themselves every night before bed to convince themselves they are good people. "If the people really didn't want to get screwed over, they'd be able to stop me."
Yeah, I didn't mean you specifically; rather the idea of this being a feature added to the mainline kernel for everybody, which sounds like a potential attack vector not unlike the ability to reflash your BIOS from software to me.
I was kind of casually messing around with Linux (LiveCDs, then within a year or two a dual-boot) since not too long after I started college (headed towards 10 years ago now? damn.), but the limit of my expertise on that front was basically googling enough to get some desktop stuff configured.
Then my first job out of college had us on Fedora workstations so I picked up some bash and command line stuff and emacs. Since I gradually got more used to being on the command line than using Windows Explorer* I ended up booting Mint most of the time. Then when my old tower gave out this last summer, I got a x64 Windows 8.1 machine that doesn't let me run the several 1995-2002-era games that I bothered booting Windows at all for, basically. So now they're in an XP VM and I'm trying not to think about wrestling with the update arm-twisting on 8 again next time I boot it, now ;)
* Tab complete is so much faster if you know where you're going, right? And it seems like whenever I search for anything in Explorer it always tries to tell me it doesn't exist when I definitely know it does. Now with a simple(ish) grep wrapper and a pipe or two I can actually FIND things that I search for! :)
Why do you think they want to lock down bootloaders?
Except as the install base size increases, the probability that said functionality will be implemented by *someone* approaches 1.
(probably for free but with questionable support)
Logs are for the rare occasions when something *does* go wrong. Saying "when was the last time you needed a log" is a vacuous statement unless the product is 100.00% reliable.
It can be done with kexec right now (I think?) but having it native and automated
What could possibly go wrong with allowing automated patching of the running kernel...
Because it spies on all your shit.
Although admittedly they're doing their best to retroactively add that feature to the older versions people are staying on for this exact reason.
Maybe I could find somebody who would surgically remove my lungs FOR FREE!!! but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
And you're just okay with these bad agreements? What about the users who want to refuse but can't because they need to be able to run J Random Software?
Also, "99% of you aren't on Windows here" is bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
Except for the part where your crazy example is supposed to argue the nonexistence of something that regularly and repeatedly happens throughout history.
P.S: Wat
In a couple years they'll probably switch the IE rendering engine to WebKit anyway.
Then it won't matter whether you're using IE, Firefox, or Chrome, since they'll all render the same, look the same, and have the same extension library.