Yeah, that's not what I was answering. The question was what crimes was he convicted of, with a mocking "Running a website" theory posited. I pointed out they were real crimes.
Whether he was guilty or not is another question, but that said plea deals aren't a thing in the UK to the same extent that they are in the US. One can speculate as to his motives, but the chances are he believed he would be found guilty because the evidence was overwhelming, and hoped the judge would show leniency if he plead guilty and avoided a long drawn out trial. There are few other incentives to plead guilty to a crime in the UK.
As to why he believed he would be found guilty, TFA covers some of this. One rather damning piece of evidence is that DPR2 used a key to sign incriminating messages. The private key was found on his computer:
Paul Chowles, an investigator from the National Crime Agency (NCA) who worked on the case, told Motherboard in a phone call one piece of evidence included the private encryption key belonging to DPR2 on one of Whiteâ(TM)s computers. If someone possesses the private part of a PGP key, which is used to decrypt and sign messages, it can be a good indicator that they are behind a particular online identity.
Before anyone claims "He might have been hacked", bear in mind this would have been only one piece of evidence used against him, and DPR2 would have had to have some motivation to plant false evidence against White, which seems... stretching it.
Multiple crimes, and they're actually in the summary:
White pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, money laundering, as well as making indecent images of children,
I'm sure he used a website to do that, but that's not the same thing as saying someone was convicted of "Running a web site" any more than murdering someone is the same thing as "using cash" because the murderer bought a gun with cash.
Technically true, but it's always been dubious to pardon someone who hasn't even been indicted. Yes, it's been done - Ford's pardon of Nixon famously was vague enough to cover acts outside of those he was being investigated for - but even then that was hardly an uncontroversial pardon.
For the longest time it hasn't even been clear that Assange was likely to be guilty of anything. As it was, the fact the DoJ didn't indict during the Obama regime suggests that while they were investigating him, they didn't have anything concrete enough, and why should Obama pardon someone under those circumstances?
The case for pardoning Snowden is more clear cut. But I respect Obama's decision not to, even if I'm not comfortable with it.
I've definitely heard them require the US commit to not using the Death Penalty in a case, and IIRC there's been a few extradition requests refused because the US wouldn't. There's not a lot of sense in the US lying about it, it'll just undermine relations, and it's not as if solitary confinement is an absolute necessity.
We shall see. I feel like there's a major principle here I should be defending, but Assange has done so much to demonstrate he's a friend of tyranny and an enemy of human rights that it's really hard to be sympathetic. I shall try. But I'm not going to be upset if, assuming the US's case does go too far, to be upset if "we" lose this one.
So far Republicans aren't advocating "punching commies" or trying to take down Project Gutenberg.
I regularly see violence advocated against the left. Free helicopter rides ring a bell?
Moreover though, forget advocating violence, alt-right terrorism is actually happening, which, a tiny number of exceptions aside, isn't happening on the reverse. The right wing are shooting up schools and Yoga studios because they hate women and/or blacks. They're burning down black churches. They're shooting up the people inside other black churches. They're shooting up Waffle Houses. They're sending bombs to CNN and Democratic congressmen and women and even anti-Trump celebrities.
And I want to make something clear: this isn't a "Nuh, your side is worse" thing. This is a "The fact you are this out of touch is why the violence is happening thing." Somehow, perhaps because of the news sources you choose, perhaps because you're tuning it out, you're ignoring the extreme violence perpetuated by the alt-right over the last three or more years. And that's making it easy for our current government to ignore it too, because they know there's no votes in going after alt-right terrorism.
Open you're god damn eyes.
Also the EU anti-child-porn/terrorism squads are what's going (wrongly) after Project Gutenberg, you'll find no support for them from the left on this. The fact you need to imagine left wing support for nonsensical censorship should make you stop and ask yourself why you're having to reach to link violence to the left.
You don't get to blame the lack of "arrival" when you're at least partly responsible for that lack.
What does Ford have to do with GM's failed efforts, Tesla's failed efforts, and Google's failed efforts?
Ford may have done all the things you mention (except for being partly responsible for the failure of everyone else), but it's absolutely correct in arguing that it overestimated the arrival of autonomous vehicles. It did. It thought it was on the cusp of taking off, and in reality it's still years away from being practical.
I would agree about solitary confinement but the question isn't about whether you or I think so, but whether the UK government is on record of recognizing this as torture and therefore whether Assange would actually have a real fear of torture should he have given himself up to the UK authorities.
(Interestingly if the UK government does recognize it as torture, then the consequences may not be as Assange wants them. After all, if the UK government does, then the UK government wouldn't extradite without commitments from the US that they won't do this. If the UK government doesn't, then Assange can't argue it's torture in court and expect the court to agree with him. Kinda a Catch 22. Of course, doing everything in your power to replace a moderate who just doesn't hate torture enough with a right wing lunatic who's pro-torture does kinda mean Assange has built these little paradoxes for himself.)
Does the UK recognize any US law enforcement standard practices as "torture"? Because that's going to be a hard case to make. Sure, if Assange could argue he was likely to be rendered, then that'd be one thing, but the reality is the very fact the US is doing things through the correct channels right now would undermine that aspect of Assange's argument (should he choose to make it.)
NOTE: I am not arguing the US doesn't torture, and doesn't torture prisoners on US soil. Amnesty International has a long list of things the US does that it considers that and I agree with 90% of them. What I'm stating is that the UK doesn't, as far as I'm aware, recognize what it does as torture: if it did, it wouldn't ever extradite anyone.
Scrub this, I'm wrong. I know the original intent was that the service was delivered by a dedicated wire, but it appears that they've switched to running over a pre-existing, independently bought, Internet connection, which is a shame.
I'm struggling to understand the question. I think you're assuming this is an over-the-internet service. It's not, this is straight cable. It's as if T-Mobile had bought Comcast, not Sling.
This is only for files served via HTTP from webpages that were loaded using HTTPS. Either change your bookmarks site (or whatever it is) to be HTTP, or change the site that serves the "compressed log files" to HTTPS. If your bookmarks site is HTTPS, you probably should be serving the log files via HTTPS anyway.
Also while I'm at it, a flying car does not need anything like the amount of land based infrastructure to support it that a regular car does. And that, ultimately, might be where the environmental savings are realized, especially as energy could, potentially, be obtained from renewable resources.
It's not impossible, just difficult. The device would have to save enough energy by, for example, going in a straight line without constantly slowing down and speeding up, to make up for the fact it's also fighting gravity. And bear in mind the experiment will be considered a success if an average flying vehicle can beat an average single family motor vehicle - the rise of SUVs and light trucks as a means of primary transportation in the US means that that's actually much easier than it sounds. A Cessna does about 15mpg. An SUV somewhere around 20. But the Cessna can go in a straight line.
Now I'm thinking about it, I can think of multiple other strategies, from using updrafts, to using a hybrid lighter-than-air design, where you could minimize the energy spent lifting the vehicle up. I'm not sure how practical these are, but the efficiencies of, say, airships have been well known for a long time.
If they create manual flying cars, then sure, but I seriously doubt that'll ever be a thing. I suspect flying cars - if they ever become mainstream - will be 100% computerized.
I think the key phrase there was "old Roku box". Get a new(er) Roku. They've a zillion times faster, and apparently what devs use to test everything (if they don't I can't imagine PlutoTV's app's developers as anything other than massive sadists given how unusable it was on my old Roku stick.)
I use a Roku Premiere+, which was already in the process of being replaced in 2017 when I got it, and it's awesome.
I've never had problems with the remotes for either Roku, they're very responsive and thankfully they're ISM, not IR, which means I can control the Roku with the remote pointing behind me if I need to. Best remote I've used. Also it has a headphone jack, which is nice, but uses up the battery too quickly.
I can't imagine how a Slackware solution is more convenient or higher quality, but I'm glad it works for you. We went in the opposite direction, going from a Ubuntu box with a web browser to the Rokus. It makes things much, much, easier.
It's a picture of what you'd see if you looked at a black hole, albeit with some false color modifications, which is generally what we think of when we say something is a picture of something.
"Antifa", or rather some people in one or two of the anarchist groups that associates with that term, has thus far (1) broken a few windows in the middle of a white nationalist-instigated street fight, and (2) punched one Neo Nazi leader (Richard Spencer) in the face on camera.
White supremacists?
In 2018, Orlando Yoga studio, the Tree of Life synagogue, Cesar Altieri Sayoc, Jr's attempts to bomb 13 Democratic politicians and CNN, Gregory Bush's murder at a Kroger grocery store of two black men following a failed attempt to shoot up a church, the murder of MeShon Cooper, the terrorist threats against the Jamaat ul Muttaqeen mosque in Pembroke Pines, Florida, the Waffle House restaurant killings, and the murder of Blaze Bernstein. You can probably pin the Parkland shootings on them as well given Cruz adopted a serious amount of white supremacist symbolism, including carving swastikas on his gun magazines, immediately before the shooting.
That's just 2018. Not "Since Trump was elected" like my full list of incidents by Antifa, but just last year. That doesn't include things like, for example, this year's attempt by a White supremacist coast guard officer to murder Democratic politicians and mainstream journalists (among others.)
Why are "antifa" people on watchlists? Probably because of the inherent right-wing bias of the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies. Same reason investigations into white supremacist terror groups has been systematically undermined and in many cases dropped altogether, despite being the only real terror threat to ordinary Americans right now.
(The parent was posted as a reply to the wrong comment, mods.... I guess I have enough karma, so if you could mod this down as redundant I'd be very grateful for your hiding my idiocy.)
What exclusive agreement? Adobe licensed Helvetica and shipped it with pretty much every DTP-related product they had on any platform. Helvetica is in every Postscript printer, for example. Those aren't Mac only.
Helvetica was never cheap to license which meant that Microsoft went hunting elsewhere pretty early on and licensed the cheap (in every sense of the word) knock-off "Arial". But that was a Microsoft decision, it wasn't made by Monotype or Apple.
I agree it isn't ubiquitous, most of the time a sans-serif font that looks like Helvetica is a knock off or a font inspired by it but redesigned for a specific purpose like the Rail Alphabet. But occasionally you get to see it in its glory, and it has to be said, it's one of the most beautiful fonts in the world.
What exclusive agreement? Adobe licensed Helvetica and shipped it with pretty much every DTP-related product they had on any platform. Helvetica is in every Postscript printer, for example. Those aren't Mac only.
Helvetica was never cheap to license which meant that Microsoft went hunting elsewhere pretty early on and licensed the cheap (in every sense of the word) knock-off "Arial". But that was a Microsoft decision, it wasn't made by Monotype or Apple.
I agree it isn't ubiquitous, most of the time a sans-serif font that looks like Helvetica is a knock off or a font inspired by it but redesigned for a specific purpose like the Rail Alphabet. But occasionally you get to see it in its glory, and it has to be said, it's one of the most beautiful fonts in the world.
I'm not getting where you think that terrorism is rare in the US. Are you one of these people who ignores terrorism when it's not being done by brown people?
Have you already forgotten about the massacres at the Orlando Yoga studio, the Tree of Life synagogue, Cesar Altieri Sayoc, Jr's attempts to bomb 13 Democratic politicians and CNN, Gregory Bush's murder at a Kroger grocery store of two black men following a failed attempt to shoot up a church, the murder of MeShon Cooper, the terrorist threats against the Jamaat ul Muttaqeen mosque in Pembroke Pines, Florida, the Waffle House restaurant killings, the Parkland shootings, and the murder of Blaze Bernstein (killed by a self-described Nazi because he was gay and Jewish)?
Because those were all LAST YEAR. I didn't even mention anything from this year.
You think America has "near zero" "attempted" terrorism in the US? Really?
Exactly. It's "Film lovers who love spending money on movies spend money on all sorts of sources for movies". This is as bad as the "Music lovers both pirate and buy CDs!" claims that were made 10 years ago, respun as "People who pirate more buy more CDs".
BTW by making this bizarre, dishonest, equivalence you are doing NOTHING to dispel the liberal charge that Republicans are opposed to people voting and are doing what they can to prevent legitimate voters from voting.
I'm not exactly a fan of C++, and would like to see a decent programming language take over from it, but what makes you feel that Go is that language? It's the internal programming language of one company who hasn't done anything to encourage development in Go in the projects its released. Chrome/Chromium (and Blink) is still 100% C++ (even Firefox is putting its money where its mouth is with Rust), Java is still the only first class language supported by Android, with C++ getting more support for that platform than Go.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, that's not what I was answering. The question was what crimes was he convicted of, with a mocking "Running a website" theory posited. I pointed out they were real crimes.
Whether he was guilty or not is another question, but that said plea deals aren't a thing in the UK to the same extent that they are in the US. One can speculate as to his motives, but the chances are he believed he would be found guilty because the evidence was overwhelming, and hoped the judge would show leniency if he plead guilty and avoided a long drawn out trial. There are few other incentives to plead guilty to a crime in the UK.
As to why he believed he would be found guilty, TFA covers some of this. One rather damning piece of evidence is that DPR2 used a key to sign incriminating messages. The private key was found on his computer:
Before anyone claims "He might have been hacked", bear in mind this would have been only one piece of evidence used against him, and DPR2 would have had to have some motivation to plant false evidence against White, which seems... stretching it.
No, he's guilty.
Multiple crimes, and they're actually in the summary:
I'm sure he used a website to do that, but that's not the same thing as saying someone was convicted of "Running a web site" any more than murdering someone is the same thing as "using cash" because the murderer bought a gun with cash.
Technically true, but it's always been dubious to pardon someone who hasn't even been indicted. Yes, it's been done - Ford's pardon of Nixon famously was vague enough to cover acts outside of those he was being investigated for - but even then that was hardly an uncontroversial pardon.
For the longest time it hasn't even been clear that Assange was likely to be guilty of anything. As it was, the fact the DoJ didn't indict during the Obama regime suggests that while they were investigating him, they didn't have anything concrete enough, and why should Obama pardon someone under those circumstances?
The case for pardoning Snowden is more clear cut. But I respect Obama's decision not to, even if I'm not comfortable with it.
I've definitely heard them require the US commit to not using the Death Penalty in a case, and IIRC there's been a few extradition requests refused because the US wouldn't. There's not a lot of sense in the US lying about it, it'll just undermine relations, and it's not as if solitary confinement is an absolute necessity.
We shall see. I feel like there's a major principle here I should be defending, but Assange has done so much to demonstrate he's a friend of tyranny and an enemy of human rights that it's really hard to be sympathetic. I shall try. But I'm not going to be upset if, assuming the US's case does go too far, to be upset if "we" lose this one.
I regularly see violence advocated against the left. Free helicopter rides ring a bell?
Moreover though, forget advocating violence, alt-right terrorism is actually happening, which, a tiny number of exceptions aside, isn't happening on the reverse. The right wing are shooting up schools and Yoga studios because they hate women and/or blacks. They're burning down black churches. They're shooting up the people inside other black churches. They're shooting up Waffle Houses. They're sending bombs to CNN and Democratic congressmen and women and even anti-Trump celebrities.
And I want to make something clear: this isn't a "Nuh, your side is worse" thing. This is a "The fact you are this out of touch is why the violence is happening thing." Somehow, perhaps because of the news sources you choose, perhaps because you're tuning it out, you're ignoring the extreme violence perpetuated by the alt-right over the last three or more years. And that's making it easy for our current government to ignore it too, because they know there's no votes in going after alt-right terrorism.
Open you're god damn eyes.
Also the EU anti-child-porn/terrorism squads are what's going (wrongly) after Project Gutenberg, you'll find no support for them from the left on this. The fact you need to imagine left wing support for nonsensical censorship should make you stop and ask yourself why you're having to reach to link violence to the left.
What does Ford have to do with GM's failed efforts, Tesla's failed efforts, and Google's failed efforts?
Ford may have done all the things you mention (except for being partly responsible for the failure of everyone else), but it's absolutely correct in arguing that it overestimated the arrival of autonomous vehicles. It did. It thought it was on the cusp of taking off, and in reality it's still years away from being practical.
Forced labor is exclusively a States thing.
I would agree about solitary confinement but the question isn't about whether you or I think so, but whether the UK government is on record of recognizing this as torture and therefore whether Assange would actually have a real fear of torture should he have given himself up to the UK authorities.
(Interestingly if the UK government does recognize it as torture, then the consequences may not be as Assange wants them. After all, if the UK government does, then the UK government wouldn't extradite without commitments from the US that they won't do this. If the UK government doesn't, then Assange can't argue it's torture in court and expect the court to agree with him. Kinda a Catch 22. Of course, doing everything in your power to replace a moderate who just doesn't hate torture enough with a right wing lunatic who's pro-torture does kinda mean Assange has built these little paradoxes for himself.)
Does the UK recognize any US law enforcement standard practices as "torture"? Because that's going to be a hard case to make. Sure, if Assange could argue he was likely to be rendered, then that'd be one thing, but the reality is the very fact the US is doing things through the correct channels right now would undermine that aspect of Assange's argument (should he choose to make it.)
NOTE: I am not arguing the US doesn't torture, and doesn't torture prisoners on US soil. Amnesty International has a long list of things the US does that it considers that and I agree with 90% of them. What I'm stating is that the UK doesn't, as far as I'm aware, recognize what it does as torture: if it did, it wouldn't ever extradite anyone.
Scrub this, I'm wrong. I know the original intent was that the service was delivered by a dedicated wire, but it appears that they've switched to running over a pre-existing, independently bought, Internet connection, which is a shame.
I'm struggling to understand the question. I think you're assuming this is an over-the-internet service. It's not, this is straight cable. It's as if T-Mobile had bought Comcast, not Sling.
This is only for files served via HTTP from webpages that were loaded using HTTPS. Either change your bookmarks site (or whatever it is) to be HTTP, or change the site that serves the "compressed log files" to HTTPS. If your bookmarks site is HTTPS, you probably should be serving the log files via HTTPS anyway.
Also while I'm at it, a flying car does not need anything like the amount of land based infrastructure to support it that a regular car does. And that, ultimately, might be where the environmental savings are realized, especially as energy could, potentially, be obtained from renewable resources.
It's not impossible, just difficult. The device would have to save enough energy by, for example, going in a straight line without constantly slowing down and speeding up, to make up for the fact it's also fighting gravity. And bear in mind the experiment will be considered a success if an average flying vehicle can beat an average single family motor vehicle - the rise of SUVs and light trucks as a means of primary transportation in the US means that that's actually much easier than it sounds. A Cessna does about 15mpg. An SUV somewhere around 20. But the Cessna can go in a straight line.
Now I'm thinking about it, I can think of multiple other strategies, from using updrafts, to using a hybrid lighter-than-air design, where you could minimize the energy spent lifting the vehicle up. I'm not sure how practical these are, but the efficiencies of, say, airships have been well known for a long time.
If they create manual flying cars, then sure, but I seriously doubt that'll ever be a thing. I suspect flying cars - if they ever become mainstream - will be 100% computerized.
I think the key phrase there was "old Roku box". Get a new(er) Roku. They've a zillion times faster, and apparently what devs use to test everything (if they don't I can't imagine PlutoTV's app's developers as anything other than massive sadists given how unusable it was on my old Roku stick.)
I use a Roku Premiere+, which was already in the process of being replaced in 2017 when I got it, and it's awesome.
I've never had problems with the remotes for either Roku, they're very responsive and thankfully they're ISM, not IR, which means I can control the Roku with the remote pointing behind me if I need to. Best remote I've used. Also it has a headphone jack, which is nice, but uses up the battery too quickly.
I can't imagine how a Slackware solution is more convenient or higher quality, but I'm glad it works for you. We went in the opposite direction, going from a Ubuntu box with a web browser to the Rokus. It makes things much, much, easier.
It's a picture of what you'd see if you looked at a black hole, albeit with some false color modifications, which is generally what we think of when we say something is a picture of something.
"Antifa", or rather some people in one or two of the anarchist groups that associates with that term, has thus far (1) broken a few windows in the middle of a white nationalist-instigated street fight, and (2) punched one Neo Nazi leader (Richard Spencer) in the face on camera.
White supremacists?
In 2018, Orlando Yoga studio, the Tree of Life synagogue, Cesar Altieri Sayoc, Jr's attempts to bomb 13 Democratic politicians and CNN, Gregory Bush's murder at a Kroger grocery store of two black men following a failed attempt to shoot up a church, the murder of MeShon Cooper, the terrorist threats against the Jamaat ul Muttaqeen mosque in Pembroke Pines, Florida, the Waffle House restaurant killings, and the murder of Blaze Bernstein. You can probably pin the Parkland shootings on them as well given Cruz adopted a serious amount of white supremacist symbolism, including carving swastikas on his gun magazines, immediately before the shooting.
That's just 2018. Not "Since Trump was elected" like my full list of incidents by Antifa, but just last year. That doesn't include things like, for example, this year's attempt by a White supremacist coast guard officer to murder Democratic politicians and mainstream journalists (among others.)
Why are "antifa" people on watchlists? Probably because of the inherent right-wing bias of the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies. Same reason investigations into white supremacist terror groups has been systematically undermined and in many cases dropped altogether, despite being the only real terror threat to ordinary Americans right now.
(The parent was posted as a reply to the wrong comment, mods.... I guess I have enough karma, so if you could mod this down as redundant I'd be very grateful for your hiding my idiocy.)
What exclusive agreement? Adobe licensed Helvetica and shipped it with pretty much every DTP-related product they had on any platform. Helvetica is in every Postscript printer, for example. Those aren't Mac only.
Helvetica was never cheap to license which meant that Microsoft went hunting elsewhere pretty early on and licensed the cheap (in every sense of the word) knock-off "Arial". But that was a Microsoft decision, it wasn't made by Monotype or Apple.
You can buy it here.
I agree it isn't ubiquitous, most of the time a sans-serif font that looks like Helvetica is a knock off or a font inspired by it but redesigned for a specific purpose like the Rail Alphabet. But occasionally you get to see it in its glory, and it has to be said, it's one of the most beautiful fonts in the world.
What exclusive agreement? Adobe licensed Helvetica and shipped it with pretty much every DTP-related product they had on any platform. Helvetica is in every Postscript printer, for example. Those aren't Mac only.
Helvetica was never cheap to license which meant that Microsoft went hunting elsewhere pretty early on and licensed the cheap (in every sense of the word) knock-off "Arial". But that was a Microsoft decision, it wasn't made by Monotype or Apple.
You can buy it here.
I agree it isn't ubiquitous, most of the time a sans-serif font that looks like Helvetica is a knock off or a font inspired by it but redesigned for a specific purpose like the Rail Alphabet. But occasionally you get to see it in its glory, and it has to be said, it's one of the most beautiful fonts in the world.
I'm not getting where you think that terrorism is rare in the US. Are you one of these people who ignores terrorism when it's not being done by brown people?
https://www.theatlantic.com/id...
https://www.csis.org/analysis/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...
Have you already forgotten about the massacres at the Orlando Yoga studio, the Tree of Life synagogue, Cesar Altieri Sayoc, Jr's attempts to bomb 13 Democratic politicians and CNN, Gregory Bush's murder at a Kroger grocery store of two black men following a failed attempt to shoot up a church, the murder of MeShon Cooper, the terrorist threats against the Jamaat ul Muttaqeen mosque in Pembroke Pines, Florida, the Waffle House restaurant killings, the Parkland shootings, and the murder of Blaze Bernstein (killed by a self-described Nazi because he was gay and Jewish)?
Because those were all LAST YEAR. I didn't even mention anything from this year.
You think America has "near zero" "attempted" terrorism in the US? Really?
Exactly. It's "Film lovers who love spending money on movies spend money on all sorts of sources for movies". This is as bad as the "Music lovers both pirate and buy CDs!" claims that were made 10 years ago, respun as "People who pirate more buy more CDs".
Yes, you're right, I forgot Kotlin, but obviously that only underlines how little support Google is giving Go.
BTW by making this bizarre, dishonest, equivalence you are doing NOTHING to dispel the liberal charge that Republicans are opposed to people voting and are doing what they can to prevent legitimate voters from voting.
I'm not exactly a fan of C++, and would like to see a decent programming language take over from it, but what makes you feel that Go is that language? It's the internal programming language of one company who hasn't done anything to encourage development in Go in the projects its released. Chrome/Chromium (and Blink) is still 100% C++ (even Firefox is putting its money where its mouth is with Rust), Java is still the only first class language supported by Android, with C++ getting more support for that platform than Go.
If Google's not going to push Go, then who is?