Saying HMAC with SHA1 is 'weak' is a bit too worrisome. Even with MD5 broken, none of the breakage applies to use in HMAC as far as I know.
So yes, if you are using a new implementation, go with the best hash. No reason to chose MD5/SHA1 in a new design. However if you are currently reliant upon some use of HMAC that happens to use SHA1 or even MD5, no need to exactly panic and break things to get away from that in an urgent way.
Panic no. Make plans to avoid a predictable risk from a demonstrable weakness in systems likely to be targets - yes.
Just don't be the dick that, after jumping off the tenth floor was heard to say "so far so good" - while passing the third floor.
If you do not have these toys on a private network you are doing it wrong.
If I hadn't already posted I'd mod you up.
It's not a binary problem - like having to deal with the companies investment in SAP/Oracle, old IE is used internally - that doesn't mean it should therefore be foisted on external users. Recognise the problem and contain it until it's feasible to remove it altogether.
Bill "plug my articles" is a classic case of confirmation bias resulting from an emotional over-investment "we made significant investments so we distort risk management to base our decisions on the (optimistic) risk of a problem occurring, while ignoring the severity of the outcome" if (or when) that risk changes from probable to actual". The clue is in the "The very same people who jeered corporate people for staying on IE6 are creating exactly the same situation in regards to SSLv3. They may understand a narrow aspect of cryptography very well, but they completely fail to understand the security of complex systems.". As if "the system is really complex - you wouldn't understand" somehow negates the "I have no clue about the actual problem - cryptography is hard, so the problem is very small". Bill - it's OK to say you were wrong. Seriously. Sticking to your guns and all that other John Wayne bullshit is just that - bullshit (you do know he was a professional liar, right?). SSL3 is not the true successor to SSL2 - back to the drawing board, otherwise the only praise you deserve is "thanks for lowering the standards".
Also consider that in most markets, Windows Phone is closer in phone marketshare to iOS than iOS is to Android. That's not saying a lot. But WP is definitely at the #3 spot, and the way this market is... if they can find that itch to scratch, things could change within the course of two or three years.
I disagree - that is saying a lot. And none of it is good. The first horse past the post was 4 lengths ahead of the second, later the same day horse number 3 dragged itself across the finish line - but, in two or three years that horse may win the Melbourne Cup!!. Maybe stick to your day job, you wouldn't last long as a bookie. Tizen, Sailfish, RIM, and Firefox (and possibly Ewebuntu) are all competing for the same low-end market sector as M$ - I seriously doubt any change in strategy by M$ is going to improve their chances. Either they totally change their business model to take on the high-end device market - and take market from the current leaders (unlikely), or they go even lower (sub $20 instead of sub $50) and take market share from that market - kind of hard to do when they pin their income on apps sales while their competition in that market either don't - Firefox/Ewebuntu), play in all the walled gardens (Sailfish - which isn't really the low-end market), or play in the Great Walled garden where M$ has no traction (Tizen, probably sell a lot more phones than Gartner and ITC report).
To "scratch an itch" (like, um, Open Source), they need to find an unsatisfied market - and not fuck things up. Given their track record... I guess it depends how much more money they have outside the US that they need to invest (flush down the toilet) locally. (lucky for M$ they do hold Apple stock) [/cynic]
Assange left Sweden knowing that there was an ongoing investigation,
Which conveniently contradicts the "up and down" court finding you refer to - who did not find evidence Assange "fled".
I believe this is sufficient cause to call it flight.
Fortunately, courts don't rely on "confirmation bias" - they use "evidence".
I should note that this flight was not illegal, but it sure does look like an attempt to get out of an investigation.
Which is "evidence" acceptable only in a kangaroo court. You don't have evidence he even took a plane flight (and yet I don't claim that's evidence he didn't fly).
Assange is guilty of fleeing from the UK courts and justice system. This is illegal flight. I don't see how his actions can be interpreted in any other way, and have no compunction about describing him as guilty.
No doubt you imagine you are fair, open-minded, impartial and noble. But really you are a sad fucker.
If Assange was afraid of being extradited to the US
He'd have to be insane not to be. If the US can't get him with an extradition order - which the Swedes would service (the "we wouldn't because it'd cause a media backlash" is lame evidence they wouldn't) - the US would likely "vanish" or "render" him.
, going to the UK was a really dumb thing to do. If he was afraid of being snatched by the CIA, and thought he'd be vulnerable to that in Sweden, then going there and applying for permanent residency was a really dumb thing to do.
Logic fail. If he was granted Swedish citizenship they would be unlikely to grant the US extradition - they didn't so he left for somewhere he had more protection by media coverage. The UK was a logical choice - and so far has proven sound.
I haven't seen a shred of evidence that the US even wants him, aside from some announcements by grandstanding politicians.
Do you mean - "I ignore US history so therefore disregard demands by US politicians someone rid me of the troublesome priest", or, are you just advancing negative proof in an appeal to ignorance (certainly you have an interesting take on evidence - any witch burners in your family tree?) The US can, has, and most likely will bend and disregard the law (as do and have other countries) when someone's actions offends them. Likewise they will, and have, used their power to induce other countries to breach their own laws in support of US ambitions (as with Kim Dotcom in NZ). My own country is guilty too (maybe if Assange had been smuggling heroin for commercial gain he would have had more support). Do you seriously propose the USA will treat Assange with less severity than Manning - even though he is not a US citizen (as distinct from Jefferson Davis's "there is no US citizen" defense)? When the "threat" is not real, the law of bread and circus applies (sigh, which keeps folk like you happy).
tl;dr? Feel free to hide behind the "he's mean" (ad hominen victim) "defense". And pretend that's not exactly what you've been doing to Assange.
Huh? The live television broadcast did not run for "hours".
Your statement is ambiguous.
No, it is not.
You say it started before breakfast
Bullshit. You lie and leave tracks. I wroteHuh?! The radio broadcast started before breakfast, but it was a normal school day until just before lunch. The television broadcast (via Parkes) started just before lunch East Coast Time. It didn't run for "hours".
No such thing as ADD or dsylexia then.
What age range do you define children by? Note: I'm not suggesting that incarceration for debt is "literally the standard operating procedure in most of the US today.", only in some states of the US (a minority - the Angola Plantation would be a case in point).
I hadn't noticed that black children were a big target of the IRS.
Apologies, that was wrong. It was a poorly considered response meant about debt incarceration in general (something the USA is not the only country that's guilty of). I've no reason to believe the IRS is racially bigoted (not that I've researched the subject). Or that they've imprisoned minors.
Lest I be mistaken for someone "who knows the truth", I don't have an opinion as to whether Assange did or did not commit the alleged offenses.
The alleged actions qualify as rape in Sweden
Agreed (one of the alleged actions, the others are "molestation".). I don't think the Swedish laws are wrong (nor do I buy into the "Sweden is run by feminazis" line).
To be clear - he's alleged to have committed one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape.
"unlawfully coerced" a woman "using his body weight to hold her down in a sexual manner"
"sexually molested" by having sex without a condom when it was the womans "express wish" one should be used.
"deliberately molested" Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
had sex with a woman, without a condom while she was asleep. (this is the rape offense)
In most countries when charged with a sexual offense where there is no evidence - just one persons word against another, prosecution will only happen if the prosecution believes they have a reasonable chance of winning in court. (IMO) There can be a number of factors behind a decision not to prosecute - win/lose ratio for the prosecutor, available resources, risk of legal action in the event of an unsuccessful prosecution, trauma to the parties involved (and possible others - I no nothing about Swedish law other than what I've read - and I'm wary of conflating knowledge of law in other countries with knowledge of law in Sweden).
In Australia an allegation of sexual offense (without evidence) should give both parties equal credibility if one claims it occurred, and the other denies it (regardless of what gender the parties are). I say should because both here in Australia, and in the UK, some judges give less weight to the evidence of the victim if it's a woman, and in too many cases even when there was some material evidence the police won't investigate. My experience is that it's very unlikely Australian police would have charge someone in Assange's position - though they should. Anecdotally, it wouldn't happen in the UK either, nor in many US states (though, IMO, it should).
Without evidence the person alleged to have committed a sexual offense should be given less credibility if more than one person makes the same allegation (the allegations are given more credibility than if only one person made them). Usually, it seems, if multiple people make the same allegations and they discussed the allegation amongst themselves prior - the allegations may not be given as much credibility as if they'd never met and discussed the alleged offenses (the prosecution normally tries to ensure they don't discuss the case to avoid the defense using it to weaken the case).
To the best of my knowledge there is no material evidence - just the word of two aggrieved parties who have discussed the claims with each other, against someone who disputes the claims. If I were the judge I'd have great difficulty deciding which claims were true. Please note I'm leaving out things which an aggressive (good?) defense lawyer would introduce to try and convince the court that Assange is being railroaded.
These are the things we know for a fact:-
20 August 2010, Two people Assange is alleged to have committed sexual offenses against go to the police and ask that they find Assange and make him take a VD test. (call me an insensitive prick if you like - but unprotected sex with strangers is not a sign of respect in my book - if that occurred). OK - I have no problem with that, if my daughter was in a similar situation I'd consider legal avenues to get the other party to have a VD test instead of forcing her to wait until tests would be useful. The same day an arrest warrant is issued for Assange (rape and molestation). Swedish law - obviously more proactive than Australian law.
You obviously [blah, blah, dodge, dodge, more attempts to baffle with bullshit]
Read the first paragraph of the first link you referred to, then re-read what I wrote (if your lips don't get too sore). Big difference between your claim Google "actively participated" and "the NSA gained access". Confirmation bias much?
You need to workshop your shilling with Mike Rogers before you post - that way you'd look less of a dick when claiming Google, Apple and others co-operated with the NSA, while he happily claims the "backdoors" "don't harm privacy" - and simultaneously "wants front-doors". But you're right, he, and Bruce Shneier, are wrong. Bruce is obviously shilling for the NSA when he claims PRISM is a series of backdoors into Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple. And the moon is made of green cheese.
'cause "infiltration" is the NSA code word for "they let us in through the front door"?? Rogers admitted that concerns about US government infiltration of US companies’ data represented a business risk for US companies, but he suggested that the greater threat was from cyber-attacks..
If you are NOT already running a licensed full windows it aint free.
CAN WE PLEASE LOSE THE FUCKING SHARE BUTTONS, there offensive AND waste screen space.
( i am NOT in any social crap )
Stop shouting. I see no share buttons, or ads, or signatures - and you don't hear me complaining. What is your problem? (rhetorical question - space wouldn't allow you to list them all).
Thanks to Snowden and Greenwald, we know Google, and its 800lb gorilla friends Apple and Microsoft actively participated with the NSA and its PRISM program.
Bullshit. You lie and you've been called out. We do notknow anything of the sort. Feel free to link to a single released document from Snowden (or any of the NSA leakers) that shows, or claims otherwise.
We know that Powerpoint slides purportedly from Snowden, that he proportedly stole from the NSA, show NSA boasting of having broken into Google. If they had to break in where was the "active participation"? And why the rapid restructuring to stop the data breach?
We know Google has lead and participated in major campaigns that threaten the wholesale spying by the NSA. And we know that despite the usual "gravitate towards evil in the name of short-term profits" that shareholder owned companies succumb to - that Google remains a company that mostly practices "enlightened self-interest" (probably helped by the type of people they employ). We believe it's more productive to cheer good work and criticise bad than the reverse (we, in this instance, does not include you).
You on the other-hand, demonstrably - know nothing (Yeah - that Bill Gates is an altruist and Google only implements securityafter the Snowden leaks). The reason you smell shit everywhere is not because of your superior vision and intellect - it's that your head is up your arse.
You seem like the fanboi face-painter type who refuses to consider it possible not to worship at a particular altar of commerce or technology (like shopping at a range of retailers instead of recalcitrantly spending at one only, while singing their jingle).
Actually it worked pretty good, the number of parties in Parliament doubled, we had a string of minority governments which slowed down on the ass fucking from the politicians and I prefer it to the current government spending 100's of millions of dollars of tax payer money to tell us what a good job they've done.
Elections weren't totally funded from the public purse either, though donations are limited to only from flesh and blood people and limited to just over a $1000.
Around 610 A.D. I'm not certain of the official numbering system, but from memory it was World Religious End-Times War Number 114.2. It was a long time ago, forget about it - there are more modern End-Times Wars now. We've moved on from fighting over ownership of Judaism (won't someone tell the Baptists?).
[...], he's moved the goal posts - suddenly there's some OTHER reason he can't be interviewed[...]
Do you have any credible supporting information for the claim that the Ecuadorean refusal of admission to the Swedish prosecutors is in any way the result of the wishes of Assange?
Note: wishful thinking is not credible evidence. Witch burning is bad m'kay.
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.
Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law. (you can go back to lecturing the television now)
The reason the prosecutor now decides to request permission to interview Julian Assange in London is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to statute of limitation in August 2015 i.e. in less than six months’ time. Source:(Swedish) Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
What Assange is alleged to have done. Please name the countries where the alleged actions qualify as rape.
Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.
All that says is you have already formed an opinion which you now need far-fetched "what ifs" to justify. Sounds like you may have made an emotional over-investment.
I can't find any reliable source of information for the reasoning behind Ecuador's refusal of admission to the Swedish prosecution team - or any source of information that indicates Assange in any way influenced the Ecuadorian decision to refuse admission. It's possible that the Ecuadoreans weren't happy with the members of the prosecution team - or the terms of the visit, it's also possible the entry was denied for reasons of political grandstanding - or a thousand other reasons, any of which might be despite Assange wanting the visit. So I won't speculate on the "real story" - it's as useful as arguing over scenarios we know to be fiction (e.g. the motivations of characters in Star Wars).
Note: I only spent ten minutes searching for more information - and I don't read Swedish, so my inability to find supporting/expanding information shouldn't be taken as evidence it doesn't exist. We could argue with no evidence to support our opinions - but as you weaseled the scenario in the first place it's incumbent on you to supply supporting information.
(parties are required to record their electoral spending and get it back on a "how many votes did you get" basis).
sounds like after the election the parties are reimbursed based on "how many votes did you get" basis, which is sorta how it was done here (parties got so much money based on the last election results)
Reimbursed yes - the funds they spend come from donations. Not that they don't try and spend taxpayer funds on their re-elections (stamp funds etc). Funding election campaigns from the public purse - based on previous election results sounds like a recipe for totalitarianism (overlooks performance in office and public opinion - given that spending levels has a higher influence on results that pre-election voter preferences).
It was a joke about how no-one on Slashdot reads the articles.
Ah - obscure and misplaced humour. Misplaced because I read the article, and the article it referenced. Obscure because I can't work out how the fuck you decided that I hadn't (psychic powers?). Perhaps you "believed" I meant "read the original article" was "reading supporting material". It doesn't, - it means do some background research on the subject so I could better understand the story (how polls work, what they're used for, whether they're a waste of time etc.). While it's probably safe to presume the average slashdot poster doesn't read the article on which a "story" is "based", or even read the story... in this case you are mistaken. Thanks for helping raise the standards(?)
I bet facebook and google have pretty good ideas on who is going to vote, and who they will vote for. The world of machine learning.
I don't gamble so will have to decline your bet. Certainly it's been "said" that Google can predict election outcomes. Whether they can or not partially hinges on how much effect votes have on an election. I suspect other factors may influence outcomes - ballot stuffing, gerrymandering, voter exclusions, scrutineering fraud (the pencil stub that invalidates), and result manipulation (fraudulent counts).
[...] In particular if you have served more than 30 months in prison a conviction is never spent.
Spent conviction schemes vary from State to State (and Vic has none). The 30 month rule only applies to the Commonwealth and QLD (I've worked in Cth vetting). Note also that exemptions are made to those rules e.g. Michael Coutts-Trotter I don't disagree with the rest of what you say - except that you've overlooked the Privacy and Discrimination Acts, and civil remedies that apply "if you have obtained a spent conviction and someone makes it known that you have a criminal record" e.g. an NV1 cleared person whose relative told a journalist they've previously been convicted of cannabis possession. The person had disclosed the previous offense to vetting. Both the relative and the journalist settled out of court as the result of civil proceedings. If the journalist had published she could have been charged under the Discrimination act. The AFP considered charging the relative with other related offenses (be careful what you say about people in classified positions).
My point was that we have Spent Convictions schemes - not that it applied to every state, or was uniform.
For the record, the unemployment rate in the EU is 9,6% on average.
Source: Eurostat
Probably not a reply to me... but I knew that (hence my earlier sarcasm). Even so it's still not the full picture. Europe supports a higher percentage of immigrants (whereas the USA has a very large number of invisible immigrants integral to their economy who don't figure in the official statistics), has less working hours per week (figures based on full time work - which doesn't account for the large number of working poor in the USA, e.g. the staff at Costco, Wallmart, Waffle House, and just about anywhere you buy fast food - that work two jobs). From that I strongly suspect that for the vast majority - not being employed in Europe is a lot better than not being employed in the USA.
Retirement USA Currently, the full benefit age is 66 for people born in 1943-1954, and it will gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.
Country Ave State France 59.4 60 Greece 60 65 (m) 60 (w) Italy 60.4 65 (m) 60 (w) Germany 62 65 Spain 62.1 65 Portugal 62.6 65 UK 62.6 65 (m) 60 (w) Netherlands 63.9 65 Ireland 64.1 66 Norway 64.4 62
Back on topic, the pollsters have done quite bad in 3 out of 4 Provincial elections here, getting the results totally wrong. It seems partly due to the supporters of the side that didn't do as well as the predictions staying home on election day.
Thanks, that anecdotally mirrors my suspicions (pre-election polls are the polishing of cloud apples). Looking for more complete information on the effectiveness of polls in predicting election results is still on my list of "things to do that aren't likely to be real important".
I found the article interesting - though I'm still "digesting" it and have yet to read up supporting material. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to point me at some sources about what the poll results gets used for - and, correct me if I'm wrong in "suspecting" that poll results don't reflect election results (in the USA). TIA
Bro-- do you even slashdot? Something tells me you're new around here.
Bro!? I seriously doubt we even have common ancestors. If you have a point, other than the one on top of that growth on top of your neck - you've failed to make it. I'm sorry if my questions triggered a bout of cognitive dissonance. Next time save your finger the chore of typing and write nothing if you've nothing to contribute. Just a suggestion.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying HMAC with SHA1 is 'weak' is a bit too worrisome. Even with MD5 broken, none of the breakage applies to use in HMAC as far as I know.
So yes, if you are using a new implementation, go with the best hash. No reason to chose MD5/SHA1 in a new design. However if you are currently reliant upon some use of HMAC that happens to use SHA1 or even MD5, no need to exactly panic and break things to get away from that in an urgent way.
Panic no. Make plans to avoid a predictable risk from a demonstrable weakness in systems likely to be targets - yes.
Just don't be the dick that, after jumping off the tenth floor was heard to say "so far so good" - while passing the third floor.
If they support HTTP, what is the problem?
If you do not have these toys on a private network you are doing it wrong.
If I hadn't already posted I'd mod you up.
It's not a binary problem - like having to deal with the companies investment in SAP/Oracle, old IE is used internally - that doesn't mean it should therefore be foisted on external users. Recognise the problem and contain it until it's feasible to remove it altogether.
Bill "plug my articles" is a classic case of confirmation bias resulting from an emotional over-investment "we made significant investments so we distort risk management to base our decisions on the (optimistic) risk of a problem occurring, while ignoring the severity of the outcome" if (or when) that risk changes from probable to actual". The clue is in the "The very same people who jeered corporate people for staying on IE6 are creating exactly the same situation in regards to SSLv3. They may understand a narrow aspect of cryptography very well, but they completely fail to understand the security of complex systems.". As if "the system is really complex - you wouldn't understand" somehow negates the "I have no clue about the actual problem - cryptography is hard, so the problem is very small".
Bill - it's OK to say you were wrong. Seriously. Sticking to your guns and all that other John Wayne bullshit is just that - bullshit (you do know he was a professional liar, right?). SSL3 is not the true successor to SSL2 - back to the drawing board, otherwise the only praise you deserve is "thanks for lowering the standards".
3) a million dollars will appear overnight in a company's budget to replace gear for highly theoretical risks
Sort of like DDT. Except we didn't call the people who formerly championed it out when they finally saw the light.
Also consider that in most markets, Windows Phone is closer in phone marketshare to iOS than iOS is to Android. That's not saying a lot. But WP is definitely at the #3 spot, and the way this market is... if they can find that itch to scratch, things could change within the course of two or three years.
I disagree - that is saying a lot. And none of it is good. The first horse past the post was 4 lengths ahead of the second, later the same day horse number 3 dragged itself across the finish line - but, in two or three years that horse may win the Melbourne Cup!!. Maybe stick to your day job, you wouldn't last long as a bookie. Tizen, Sailfish, RIM, and Firefox (and possibly Ewebuntu) are all competing for the same low-end market sector as M$ - I seriously doubt any change in strategy by M$ is going to improve their chances. Either they totally change their business model to take on the high-end device market - and take market from the current leaders (unlikely), or they go even lower (sub $20 instead of sub $50) and take market share from that market - kind of hard to do when they pin their income on apps sales while their competition in that market either don't - Firefox/Ewebuntu), play in all the walled gardens (Sailfish - which isn't really the low-end market), or play in the Great Walled garden where M$ has no traction (Tizen, probably sell a lot more phones than Gartner and ITC report).
To "scratch an itch" (like, um, Open Source), they need to find an unsatisfied market - and not fuck things up. Given their track record... I guess it depends how much more money they have outside the US that they need to invest (flush down the toilet) locally. (lucky for M$ they do hold Apple stock) [/cynic]
Assange left Sweden knowing that there was an ongoing investigation,
Which conveniently contradicts the "up and down" court finding you refer to - who did not find evidence Assange "fled".
I believe this is sufficient cause to call it flight.
Fortunately, courts don't rely on "confirmation bias" - they use "evidence".
I should note that this flight was not illegal, but it sure does look like an attempt to get out of an investigation.
Which is "evidence" acceptable only in a kangaroo court. You don't have evidence he even took a plane flight (and yet I don't claim that's evidence he didn't fly).
Assange is guilty of fleeing from the UK courts and justice system. This is illegal flight. I don't see how his actions can be interpreted in any other way, and have no compunction about describing him as guilty.
No doubt you imagine you are fair, open-minded, impartial and noble. But really you are a sad fucker.
If Assange was afraid of being extradited to the US
He'd have to be insane not to be. If the US can't get him with an extradition order - which the Swedes would service (the "we wouldn't because it'd cause a media backlash" is lame evidence they wouldn't) - the US would likely "vanish" or "render" him.
, going to the UK was a really dumb thing to do. If he was afraid of being snatched by the CIA, and thought he'd be vulnerable to that in Sweden, then going there and applying for permanent residency was a really dumb thing to do.
Logic fail. If he was granted Swedish citizenship they would be unlikely to grant the US extradition - they didn't so he left for somewhere he had more protection by media coverage. The UK was a logical choice - and so far has proven sound.
I haven't seen a shred of evidence that the US even wants him, aside from some announcements by grandstanding politicians.
Do you mean - "I ignore US history so therefore disregard demands by US politicians someone rid me of the troublesome priest", or, are you just advancing negative proof in an appeal to ignorance (certainly you have an interesting take on evidence - any witch burners in your family tree?)
The US can, has, and most likely will bend and disregard the law (as do and have other countries) when someone's actions offends them. Likewise they will, and have, used their power to induce other countries to breach their own laws in support of US ambitions (as with Kim Dotcom in NZ). My own country is guilty too (maybe if Assange had been smuggling heroin for commercial gain he would have had more support).
Do you seriously propose the USA will treat Assange with less severity than Manning - even though he is not a US citizen (as distinct from Jefferson Davis's "there is no US citizen" defense)? When the "threat" is not real, the law of bread and circus applies (sigh, which keeps folk like you happy).
tl;dr?
Feel free to hide behind the "he's mean" (ad hominen victim) "defense". And pretend that's not exactly what you've been doing to Assange.
Your statement is ambiguous.
No, it is not.
You say it started before breakfast
Bullshit. You lie and leave tracks. I wrote Huh?! The radio broadcast started before breakfast, but it was a normal school day until just before lunch. The television broadcast (via Parkes) started just before lunch East Coast Time. It didn't run for "hours". No such thing as ADD or dsylexia then.
Which of that applies to black children?
What age range do you define children by?
Note: I'm not suggesting that incarceration for debt is "literally the standard operating procedure in most of the US today.", only in some states of the US (a minority - the Angola Plantation would be a case in point).
I hadn't noticed that black children were a big target of the IRS.
Apologies, that was wrong. It was a poorly considered response meant about debt incarceration in general (something the USA is not the only country that's guilty of). I've no reason to believe the IRS is racially bigoted (not that I've researched the subject). Or that they've imprisoned minors.
Lest I be mistaken for someone "who knows the truth", I don't have an opinion as to whether Assange did or did not commit the alleged offenses.
The alleged actions qualify as rape in Sweden
Agreed (one of the alleged actions, the others are "molestation".). I don't think the Swedish laws are wrong (nor do I buy into the "Sweden is run by feminazis" line).
To be clear - he's alleged to have committed one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation, and one count of rape.
In most countries when charged with a sexual offense where there is no evidence - just one persons word against another, prosecution will only happen if the prosecution believes they have a reasonable chance of winning in court. (IMO) There can be a number of factors behind a decision not to prosecute - win/lose ratio for the prosecutor, available resources, risk of legal action in the event of an unsuccessful prosecution, trauma to the parties involved (and possible others - I no nothing about Swedish law other than what I've read - and I'm wary of conflating knowledge of law in other countries with knowledge of law in Sweden).
In Australia an allegation of sexual offense (without evidence) should give both parties equal credibility if one claims it occurred, and the other denies it (regardless of what gender the parties are). I say should because both here in Australia, and in the UK, some judges give less weight to the evidence of the victim if it's a woman, and in too many cases even when there was some material evidence the police won't investigate. My experience is that it's very unlikely Australian police would have charge someone in Assange's position - though they should. Anecdotally, it wouldn't happen in the UK either, nor in many US states (though, IMO, it should).
Without evidence the person alleged to have committed a sexual offense should be given less credibility if more than one person makes the same allegation (the allegations are given more credibility than if only one person made them). Usually, it seems, if multiple people make the same allegations and they discussed the allegation amongst themselves prior - the allegations may not be given as much credibility as if they'd never met and discussed the alleged offenses (the prosecution normally tries to ensure they don't discuss the case to avoid the defense using it to weaken the case).
To the best of my knowledge there is no material evidence - just the word of two aggrieved parties who have discussed the claims with each other, against someone who disputes the claims. If I were the judge I'd have great difficulty deciding which claims were true. Please note I'm leaving out things which an aggressive (good?) defense lawyer would introduce to try and convince the court that Assange is being railroaded.
These are the things we know for a fact:-
The same day an arrest warrant is issued for Assange (rape and molestation). Swedish law - obviously more proactive than Australian law.
You obviously [blah, blah, dodge, dodge, more attempts to baffle with bullshit]
Read the first paragraph of the first link you referred to, then re-read what I wrote (if your lips don't get too sore). Big difference between your claim Google "actively participated" and "the NSA gained access". Confirmation bias much?
You need to workshop your shilling with Mike Rogers before you post - that way you'd look less of a dick when claiming Google, Apple and others co-operated with the NSA, while he happily claims the "backdoors" "don't harm privacy" - and simultaneously "wants front-doors". But you're right, he, and Bruce Shneier, are wrong. Bruce is obviously shilling for the NSA when he claims PRISM is a series of backdoors into Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple. And the moon is made of green cheese.
'cause "infiltration" is the NSA code word for "they let us in through the front door"?? Rogers admitted that concerns about US government infiltration of US companies’ data represented a business risk for US companies, but he suggested that the greater threat was from cyber-attacks..
And will people who just downloaded the beta, and are using it and filing bug reports, still get a free copy of the release evrsion?
You're replying to the wrong post (and yes, you will - as long as you keep testing, which maybe isn't completely free.).
Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law.
Personally, I think your ego needs a check.[blah blah fap fap]
legal illiteracy ... (you can go back to lecturing the television now)
I have [fap fap]
So you know more about Swedish law than Marianne Ny? I doubt it. [yawn]
You win another FIGJAM award. But nothing for reading and comprehension.
If you are NOT already running a licensed full windows it aint free. CAN WE PLEASE LOSE THE FUCKING SHARE BUTTONS, there offensive AND waste screen space. ( i am NOT in any social crap )
Stop shouting. I see no share buttons, or ads, or signatures - and you don't hear me complaining. What is your problem? (rhetorical question - space wouldn't allow you to list them all).
Thanks to Snowden and Greenwald, we know Google, and its 800lb gorilla friends Apple and Microsoft actively participated with the NSA and its PRISM program.
Bullshit. You lie and you've been called out. We do not know anything of the sort. Feel free to link to a single released document from Snowden (or any of the NSA leakers) that shows, or claims otherwise.
We know that Powerpoint slides purportedly from Snowden, that he proportedly stole from the NSA, show NSA boasting of having broken into Google. If they had to break in where was the "active participation"? And why the rapid restructuring to stop the data breach?
We know Google has lead and participated in major campaigns that threaten the wholesale spying by the NSA. And we know that despite the usual "gravitate towards evil in the name of short-term profits" that shareholder owned companies succumb to - that Google remains a company that mostly practices "enlightened self-interest" (probably helped by the type of people they employ). We believe it's more productive to cheer good work and criticise bad than the reverse (we, in this instance, does not include you).
You on the other-hand, demonstrably - know nothing (Yeah - that Bill Gates is an altruist and Google only implements security after the Snowden leaks). The reason you smell shit everywhere is not because of your superior vision and intellect - it's that your head is up your arse.
You seem like the fanboi face-painter type who refuses to consider it possible not to worship at a particular altar of commerce or technology (like shopping at a range of retailers instead of recalcitrantly spending at one only, while singing their jingle).
Actually it worked pretty good, the number of parties in Parliament doubled, we had a string of minority governments which slowed down on the ass fucking from the politicians and I prefer it to the current government spending 100's of millions of dollars of tax payer money to tell us what a good job they've done. Elections weren't totally funded from the public purse either, though donations are limited to only from flesh and blood people and limited to just over a $1000.
Interesting - thanks.
when did the World Islamic War start?
Around 610 A.D. I'm not certain of the official numbering system, but from memory it was World Religious End-Times War Number 114.2. It was a long time ago, forget about it - there are more modern End-Times Wars now. We've moved on from fighting over ownership of Judaism (won't someone tell the Baptists?).
[...], he's moved the goal posts - suddenly there's some OTHER reason he can't be interviewed[...]
Do you have any credible supporting information for the claim that the Ecuadorean refusal of admission to the Swedish prosecutors is in any way the result of the wishes of Assange?
Note: wishful thinking is not credible evidence. Witch burning is bad m'kay.
I don't know about Sweden, but in most places, limitation clocks only tick while you reside within their jurisdiction.
The term is tolling. When a person becomes a fugitive from the jurisdiction where he committed the crime, the statute of limitations tolls, meaning it has been legally suspended, so the clock is stopped as long as the person is outside the jurisdiction.
Your nationalistic ego and legal illiteracy seems to have blinded you to the fact that US law is not Swedish law. (you can go back to lecturing the television now)
The reason the prosecutor now decides to request permission to interview Julian Assange in London is chiefly that a number of the crimes Julian Assange is suspected of will be subject to statute of limitation in August 2015 i.e. in less than six months’ time.
Source:(Swedish) Director of Public Prosecution Marianne Ny
Anyways, what Assange did qualifies as rape in every country I know of.
What Assange is alleged to have done. Please name the countries where the alleged actions qualify as rape.
Also, I can't help but wonder if wikileaks currently has any dirt on Ecuador but doesn't release it for fear of what might happen to Assange. If so, it says quite a bit about their intentions.
All that says is you have already formed an opinion which you now need far-fetched "what ifs" to justify. Sounds like you may have made an emotional over-investment.
I can't find any reliable source of information for the reasoning behind Ecuador's refusal of admission to the Swedish prosecution team - or any source of information that indicates Assange in any way influenced the Ecuadorian decision to refuse admission. It's possible that the Ecuadoreans weren't happy with the members of the prosecution team - or the terms of the visit, it's also possible the entry was denied for reasons of political grandstanding - or a thousand other reasons, any of which might be despite Assange wanting the visit. So I won't speculate on the "real story" - it's as useful as arguing over scenarios we know to be fiction (e.g. the motivations of characters in Star Wars).
Note: I only spent ten minutes searching for more information - and I don't read Swedish, so my inability to find supporting/expanding information shouldn't be taken as evidence it doesn't exist. We could argue with no evidence to support our opinions - but as you weaseled the scenario in the first place it's incumbent on you to supply supporting information.
Australia still publicly funds elections?
No. When did they?
Your comment above,
(parties are required to record their electoral spending and get it back on a "how many votes did you get" basis).
sounds like after the election the parties are reimbursed based on "how many votes did you get" basis, which is sorta how it was done here (parties got so much money based on the last election results)
Reimbursed yes - the funds they spend come from donations. Not that they don't try and spend taxpayer funds on their re-elections (stamp funds etc). Funding election campaigns from the public purse - based on previous election results sounds like a recipe for totalitarianism (overlooks performance in office and public opinion - given that spending levels has a higher influence on results that pre-election voter preferences).
It was a joke about how no-one on Slashdot reads the articles.
Ah - obscure and misplaced humour. Misplaced because I read the article, and the article it referenced. Obscure because I can't work out how the fuck you decided that I hadn't (psychic powers?). Perhaps you "believed" I meant "read the original article" was "reading supporting material". It doesn't, - it means do some background research on the subject so I could better understand the story (how polls work, what they're used for, whether they're a waste of time etc.). While it's probably safe to presume the average slashdot poster doesn't read the article on which a "story" is "based", or even read the story... in this case you are mistaken. Thanks for helping raise the standards(?)
I bet facebook and google have pretty good ideas on who is going to vote, and who they will vote for. The world of machine learning.
I don't gamble so will have to decline your bet. Certainly it's been "said" that Google can predict election outcomes. Whether they can or not partially hinges on how much effect votes have on an election. I suspect other factors may influence outcomes - ballot stuffing, gerrymandering, voter exclusions, scrutineering fraud (the pencil stub that invalidates), and result manipulation (fraudulent counts).
[...] In particular if you have served more than 30 months in prison a conviction is never spent.
Spent conviction schemes vary from State to State (and Vic has none). The 30 month rule only applies to the Commonwealth and QLD (I've worked in Cth vetting). Note also that exemptions are made to those rules e.g. Michael Coutts-Trotter I don't disagree with the rest of what you say - except that you've overlooked the Privacy and Discrimination Acts, and civil remedies that apply "if you have obtained a spent conviction and someone makes it known that you have a criminal record" e.g. an NV1 cleared person whose relative told a journalist they've previously been convicted of cannabis possession. The person had disclosed the previous offense to vetting. Both the relative and the journalist settled out of court as the result of civil proceedings. If the journalist had published she could have been charged under the Discrimination act. The AFP considered charging the relative with other related offenses (be careful what you say about people in classified positions).
My point was that we have Spent Convictions schemes - not that it applied to every state, or was uniform.
For the record, the unemployment rate in the EU is 9,6% on average.
Source: Eurostat
Probably not a reply to me... but I knew that (hence my earlier sarcasm). Even so it's still not the full picture. Europe supports a higher percentage of immigrants (whereas the USA has a very large number of invisible immigrants integral to their economy who don't figure in the official statistics), has less working hours per week (figures based on full time work - which doesn't account for the large number of working poor in the USA, e.g. the staff at Costco, Wallmart, Waffle House, and just about anywhere you buy fast food - that work two jobs). From that I strongly suspect that for the vast majority - not being employed in Europe is a lot better than not being employed in the USA.
Retirement
USA
Currently, the full benefit age is 66 for people born in 1943-1954, and it will gradually rise to 67 for those born in 1960 or later.
Av = Average retirement age, State = State pension age
Australia still publicly funds elections?
No. When did they?
Back on topic, the pollsters have done quite bad in 3 out of 4 Provincial elections here, getting the results totally wrong. It seems partly due to the supporters of the side that didn't do as well as the predictions staying home on election day.
Thanks, that anecdotally mirrors my suspicions (pre-election polls are the polishing of cloud apples). Looking for more complete information on the effectiveness of polls in predicting election results is still on my list of "things to do that aren't likely to be real important".
I found the article interesting - though I'm still "digesting" it and have yet to read up supporting material. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to point me at some sources about what the poll results gets used for - and, correct me if I'm wrong in "suspecting" that poll results don't reflect election results (in the USA). TIA
Bro-- do you even slashdot? Something tells me you're new around here.
Bro!? I seriously doubt we even have common ancestors. If you have a point, other than the one on top of that growth on top of your neck - you've failed to make it. I'm sorry if my questions triggered a bout of cognitive dissonance. Next time save your finger the chore of typing and write nothing if you've nothing to contribute. Just a suggestion.