Whether that consequence happens depends on the Swedish authorities. If the Swedish authorities are looking for a way to legally extradite Assange to the US, then I don't see why they would choose to penalize the US for breaking their assurance.
Why should any student worry about getting ahead honestly when the most powerful people in the world commit massive amounts of fraud and nobody seems to care? Haven't we sent the message to people that fraud is OK? Why not academic fraud?
Why should I give a shit about adademic dishonesty when fraud is what makes the world go around?
But most of all, Swedish law and customs say that it has to be done a certain way, and again, Sweden doesn't treat fame differently. Just like everybody else who is a person of interest in a criminal case, he has to come to Sweden for questioning.
So you are asserting that no one has ever been questioned by Swedish authorities in foreign embassies?
Did you really expect the Swedish parliament and king to change the law for Julian Assange?
Again, where in Swedish law is this actually prohibited? Oh wait, It's NOT.
Olof Johnson decided to write to Fredrik Berg in Marianne Ny's office and ask what statute made the trip to London illegal. Olof received a reply inside half an hour.
From: Berg Fredrik Date: 28 July 2012 16:21 To: Ivan Johnson Subject: Illegal to question Assange in the UK
Hej Ivan,
The headline 'Illegal to question Assange in the UK' was set by SvD. That is not a quote of mine. On the other hand, the prosecution authority earlier stated that the process must be carried out the formal way in accordance with the EAW once one has been submitted, at which point questioning on English (or Ecuadorean) soil is not applicable.
Best regards, Fredrik Berg Information Clerk Prosecutor's Office
Berg claimed he himself did not set the headline for the article and had in fact not said it was 'illegal' to question Assange in London, only that it was not 'aktuellt', translated above as 'applicable'.... Yet in Berg's reply to Olof Johnson, the meaning is more on the order of 'on the table', 'planned', 'being discussed'. What Berg's telling Olof is that they're not considering traveling to London - a far cry from the claims of Ny and Bildt that it's actually illegal. What Berg is also doing is being as evasive as possible - the word has so many disparate meanings, so when you don't want to actually explain something to someone, 'aktuellt' is your friend.
The disinformation lies not in the falsehood, but the lack of relevance.
Also, Ecuador's free speech record is highly relevant:
Nothing you say following this colon shows any sort of relevance of Ecuador's free speech record. The only thing that matters is that the West is persecuting Assange and Ecuador is not. If you were Assange, who would you choose?
Nothing about seeking asylum in a country can be reasonably construed as an endorsement of that country.
Second, why are Western governments "persecuting" Assange (ignoring for a moment that if ANY Western government wanted Assange out of the picture, he would have been dead long ago) to whatever extent they are? Could it be that in free and open societies governed by the rule of law we don't allow individuals to unilaterally decide, on their own, what secrets of their own governments should be released? Intelligence operations and diplomatic work demand secrecy even in free societies. We allow for that as a people.
Ah, so you admit that this is prosecution is politically motivated. Good. I'm glad we can agree on that much.
do you really believe Correa and Assange are some kind of kindred spirits?
No I don't. Do you believe that the US and Saudi Arabia are some kind of kindred spirits? By your argument, the US is as smeared by its association with Saudi Arabia as Assange is by association with Ecuador.
Does our alliance with Saudi Arabia "absolutely smear" the US? If not, how can you say the same about Assange?
And you believed them? All it takes is an assurance on the part of the US that the death penalty won't be sought, and Sweden can legally extradite to the US. And there are no consequences for breaching that assurance.
If he were here as part of his job, he wouldn't make it so obvious. Slashdot is probably more of a disinfo hobby for him than a job. What's unclear to me is if he honestly believes what he's saying. The hamfisted propaganda techniques* make him seem disingenuous, but it's entirely possible he believes this crap.
Also, you should have used the second person pronoun in your post. Always check who you are replying to.
*e.g. in the first post of this thread. Ecuador's free speech record is irrelevant to Assange escaping active persecution by Western governments. But if you can smear Ecuador, you smear Assange by association. This is not how honest people debate.
Sweden wants to question him...and that needs to take place in Sweden legally.
Citation please. Preferably from the actual section of the Swedish legal code that compels this.
There is no practical reason for such a requirement, and I doubt very much that such a requirement actually exists. Questions are questions, no matter where they are asked or answered.
If anyone wants to question Assange, they know exactly where he is. Drop by and ask some questions, or give him a phone call. That they haven't done this is proof that they are not really interested in asking questions, but getting Assange into custody.
Assange has a choice between an authoritarian government that is actively persecuting him, and an authoritarian government that is not. Which would you choose? There are no free countries to escape to.
You're absolutely right that Ecuador has a poor record on free speech. But when you're being actively persecuted by the supposedly freest country in the world for acts of speech, what are you supposed to do?
The only ones showing their true colors in this debacle are the Americans. They are showing how much they truly value free speech (only when it's speech they like) and the rule of law (our law even applies to foreign journalists). Them, and sycophantic authoritarians like yourself. You're really showing your true colors too.
Then why haven't Swedish prosecutors come to the UK to ask Assange questions. Or even asked him questions over the phone? If all they want is questions, why does Assange need to be in Sweden for that?
I await your simple answer to this simple question.
The concept of what a civilized society really looks like varies per person. I find it very civilized that I am fairly free to say what I think in this country (being the U.S. now), contrary to the U.K. (or The Netherlands, for that matter). I find it very civilized that I am welcomed by my neighbors and colleagues, and my slightly different background is respected, contrary to my previous residence. I can go on and on, but that would get very very off-topic.
In the Netherlands they are civilized enough not to lock you in a cage for growing a plant. No amount of neighborly behavior can make Prohibition civilized.
People in the Netherlands might ostracise you for being different, but they won't imprison you for your private behavior. That's far more civilized than the US.
Organic and non-GMO are labels people care about because they've been marketed to effectively. With the right marketing, DRM-free would have as much appeal. It should be even easier, because using DRMd products has actual negative consequences, whereas the organic label just means it costs more and you should be smug about it.
So you would be OK with the entire contents of this database being made public? So not just the police, but your boss or your ex-girlfriend being able to look up your location whenever they want?
No? That's not OK? Well now that we've established that it's reasonable to feel uncomfortable with some public data being known by some members of the public, can you understand why I'd feel uncomfortable with the police having that information?
If it's truly public, it should be available to anyone and everyone. If it's not truly public, the police should have to get a warrant before they access it.
One would think that the ostensibly geeky audience of this site would understand that technology advances, and when it does, it helps everyone
Yes, it helps people who want to abuse the technology as much as it helps those who want to use it to make things better. We need to put limits on the former.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether that consequence happens depends on the Swedish authorities. If the Swedish authorities are looking for a way to legally extradite Assange to the US, then I don't see why they would choose to penalize the US for breaking their assurance.
But even under xmonad, web browsing is at best super slow with Midori. Chromium is completely useless.
With luck this will spur the development of an actually light weight web browser.
As some other commenters noted, the 256mb memory is not enough to run X.
That's quite plainly bullshit. I run X on a P200MMX with 128MB of RAM. X itself is quite efficient unless you start loading up kdelibs or some shit.
Why should any student worry about getting ahead honestly when the most powerful people in the world commit massive amounts of fraud and nobody seems to care? Haven't we sent the message to people that fraud is OK? Why not academic fraud?
Why should I give a shit about adademic dishonesty when fraud is what makes the world go around?
They cannot legally question him on foreign soil.
What section of Swedish law prohibits this?
But most of all, Swedish law and customs say that it has to be done a certain way, and again, Sweden doesn't treat fame differently. Just like everybody else who is a person of interest in a criminal case, he has to come to Sweden for questioning.
So you are asserting that no one has ever been questioned by Swedish authorities in foreign embassies?
Did you really expect the Swedish parliament and king to change the law for Julian Assange?
Again, where in Swedish law is this actually prohibited? Oh wait, It's NOT.
The disinformation lies not in the falsehood, but the lack of relevance.
Also, Ecuador's free speech record is highly relevant:
Nothing you say following this colon shows any sort of relevance of Ecuador's free speech record. The only thing that matters is that the West is persecuting Assange and Ecuador is not. If you were Assange, who would you choose?
Nothing about seeking asylum in a country can be reasonably construed as an endorsement of that country.
Second, why are Western governments "persecuting" Assange (ignoring for a moment that if ANY Western government wanted Assange out of the picture, he would have been dead long ago) to whatever extent they are? Could it be that in free and open societies governed by the rule of law we don't allow individuals to unilaterally decide, on their own, what secrets of their own governments should be released? Intelligence operations and diplomatic work demand secrecy even in free societies. We allow for that as a people.
Ah, so you admit that this is prosecution is politically motivated. Good. I'm glad we can agree on that much.
do you really believe Correa and Assange are some kind of kindred spirits?
No I don't. Do you believe that the US and Saudi Arabia are some kind of kindred spirits? By your argument, the US is as smeared by its association with Saudi Arabia as Assange is by association with Ecuador.
Does our alliance with Saudi Arabia "absolutely smear" the US? If not, how can you say the same about Assange?
And you believed them? All it takes is an assurance on the part of the US that the death penalty won't be sought, and Sweden can legally extradite to the US. And there are no consequences for breaching that assurance.
All he's done is made the news - again - after breaching US
When did Assange break US law?
If he were here as part of his job, he wouldn't make it so obvious. Slashdot is probably more of a disinfo hobby for him than a job. What's unclear to me is if he honestly believes what he's saying. The hamfisted propaganda techniques* make him seem disingenuous, but it's entirely possible he believes this crap.
Also, you should have used the second person pronoun in your post. Always check who you are replying to.
*e.g. in the first post of this thread. Ecuador's free speech record is irrelevant to Assange escaping active persecution by Western governments. But if you can smear Ecuador, you smear Assange by association. This is not how honest people debate.
Over and over it has been said
Repetition doesn't make it true.
Sweden wants to question him...and that needs to take place in Sweden legally.
Citation please. Preferably from the actual section of the Swedish legal code that compels this.
There is no practical reason for such a requirement, and I doubt very much that such a requirement actually exists. Questions are questions, no matter where they are asked or answered.
If anyone wants to question Assange, they know exactly where he is. Drop by and ask some questions, or give him a phone call. That they haven't done this is proof that they are not really interested in asking questions, but getting Assange into custody.
Assange has a choice between an authoritarian government that is actively persecuting him, and an authoritarian government that is not. Which would you choose? There are no free countries to escape to.
You're absolutely right that Ecuador has a poor record on free speech. But when you're being actively persecuted by the supposedly freest country in the world for acts of speech, what are you supposed to do?
The only ones showing their true colors in this debacle are the Americans. They are showing how much they truly value free speech (only when it's speech they like) and the rule of law (our law even applies to foreign journalists). Them, and sycophantic authoritarians like yourself. You're really showing your true colors too.
During sleep it's *always* non-consentual. A sleeping person *cannot consent*, period.
Oh my god, I've been raped. And I liked it. If that's rape, we should legalize rape.
Maybe you should reconsider your definition of rape. It seems a bit disrespectful to those who have actually been raped.
Then why haven't Swedish prosecutors come to the UK to ask Assange questions. Or even asked him questions over the phone? If all they want is questions, why does Assange need to be in Sweden for that?
I await your simple answer to this simple question.
The concept of what a civilized society really looks like varies per person. I find it very civilized that I am fairly free to say what I think in this country (being the U.S. now), contrary to the U.K. (or The Netherlands, for that matter). I find it very civilized that I am welcomed by my neighbors and colleagues, and my slightly different background is respected, contrary to my previous residence. I can go on and on, but that would get very very off-topic.
In the Netherlands they are civilized enough not to lock you in a cage for growing a plant. No amount of neighborly behavior can make Prohibition civilized.
People in the Netherlands might ostracise you for being different, but they won't imprison you for your private behavior. That's far more civilized than the US.
Organic and non-GMO are labels people care about because they've been marketed to effectively. With the right marketing, DRM-free would have as much appeal. It should be even easier, because using DRMd products has actual negative consequences, whereas the organic label just means it costs more and you should be smug about it.
So you would be OK with the entire contents of this database being made public? So not just the police, but your boss or your ex-girlfriend being able to look up your location whenever they want?
No? That's not OK? Well now that we've established that it's reasonable to feel uncomfortable with some public data being known by some members of the public, can you understand why I'd feel uncomfortable with the police having that information?
If it's truly public, it should be available to anyone and everyone. If it's not truly public, the police should have to get a warrant before they access it.
Isn't there any love for police here being able to do their job more effectively?
As long as our police think that arresting protesters is a bigger priority than arresting bankers, no not at all. The police are not on our side.
Every civilized nation needs a police force.
Show me a civilized nation, I'd like to move there.
So even if you don't like the current government, a new government still would need police.
How are we going to get a new government with the police breaking up demonstrations? Harassing protestors, etc.
One would think that the ostensibly geeky audience of this site would understand that technology advances, and when it does, it helps everyone
Yes, it helps people who want to abuse the technology as much as it helps those who want to use it to make things better. We need to put limits on the former.
And draw even more attention to oneself?
I'm pretty sure the police can track your location while you're using your house. They don't even need a warrant.
Parent post was perfectly articulate, you're just dumb.
Moronic troll.
So, what exactly are they looking for in the shit, and what does it tell them? If it looks like shit, is that good or bad?