Anything with a one-button rescue beacon service informs the purchaser that rescue isn't free. But for a few bucks a year you can buy what is essentially insurance that will cover most incidents:
Actually, I spotted a bit of apocryphal in the story.
It's generally not free to push the rescue button on those satellite locators. It's generally thousands of dollars per incident. The cost isn't paid when you buy the device, either, it's billed after you use it that way.
So I went and looked up the criminal codes in Australia, and it declares a criminal anyone who "advocates or encourages... the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of a State or of any other civilized country or of organized government..."
Now, while he's hardly advocating violent overthrow of the U.S. government, he is encouraging the Taliban to overthrow the elected governments of Afghanistan and its provinces, by handing them reams of intelligence material collected by their enemy.
There are also sections about inciting "members of the Queen's forces" to treasonous or mutinous acts. Since Assange isn't solely focussed on American soldiers, but in fact advertises for spies in all forces, he is also violating that law.
It includes a long section about exceptions for acts done "in good faith", but "in good faith" is not a synonym for "the ends justify the means". There are legal means to expose the crimes Assange claims he was exposing, means that would preserve the safety of individuals named in the information he obtained, but he ignored those means in favor of means that maximized publicity. His faith was anything but good, his intent was to embarass and destabilize the coalition forces while aggrandizing himself and his organization.
I know of no laws in Sweden, Australia or anywhere else that Assange has broken.
Australia has laws against releasing secrets, and it has treaties and information-sharing agreements with the U.S.
The rape charge appears legit. The woman bringing it clearly doesn't want to be part of Assange's circus, didn't anticipate being likened to a CIA plant any more than she anticipated being date-raped by Assange, and has asked the police to protect her from all of it by dropping the charges and refusing to give any more evidence.
Assange is not "just the messenger". He is recruiting and running spies. He doesn't just leak, he edits the material he collects for political impact. He has more concern for publicity than for the safety of people named in the documents. He uses his fame to get women and then treats them like appliances. His organization is the one "smearing the messenger", calling the paper that broke the rape story "just a tabloid" and claiming the charge is a CIA fabrication. The U.S. has nothing to gain by merely smearing Assange. They have everything to gain by silencing him outright; and if they could get a woman into his bedroom that easily she could have slit his throat and ended the threat he poses. It's more parsimonious to believe that Assange himself cooked up this rape-charge-and-recant plot to make himself out to be a victim of such a nonsense slander.
He remains a sociopath, possibly also a psychopath. The data have not refuted that, ever.
Or they're afraid of the publicity and have told the police they no longer want to prosecute and are going to the US or Israel to avoid becoming part of the circus.
And the whole incident will result in a lot more women who suspect they were sexually abused not coming forward to find out if something illegal happened to them.
It's a win for douchebags everywhere. Assange 2, morality 0.
If a person has a good attitude towards women and sex, it can make the sex a lot better. (Cf. Capt. Sullenberger's comment about his relationship with his wife after he brought that plane down in the Hudson).
But if a person has a wrong attitude about women, even if he's hidden it with every woman he's been with before, that rock-star attitude can bring out his character flaw.
Owing to the plaudits he's received from a large number of people who, like him, don't understand right and wrong, he's got a big head right now, and it's not keeping him from acting on his other character flaws, as this story indicates.
Like I said earlier, the CIA does some stupid stuff, but something like this would be too blatant.
The warrant wasn't withdrawn because they think he didn't molest the woman. They're still investigating that. If their investigation turns up the Swedish version of "probable cause", they'll likely reissue the warrant and wait for him to come to Sweden so they can serve it.
I don't think it's even popularity, just interest in a keyword.
I just googled linux mint, and it looks like they're a bit enamored of screen backgrounds and not too bright about feature prominence.
They've got a nifty sample screen for 5 different flavors of mint (see what I did there?) but then you have to click-through just to find out what feature each has that makes it different. The one with the KDE is the only one that hints at what its thing is. (And really, is anyone excited about KDE? I bet you really think the new Chrysler Catalog is a brag-tag, too, hunh...)
3. Sue in federal court. (Do it through a lawyer if you're afraid to show up yourself.)
It's against the law to classify something just to keep it from embarassing you or to hide a crime.
Dozens of people would be liable for jailtime when a judge rules they (a) classified the information illegally, and (b) obstructed declassifying it.
Instead, dozens of people are liable for jailtime because they (a) stole classified information, and (b) released the classified information while it was still classified. And there will be other charges once someone's death is linked to the leaked information.
Instead of begging a soldier for the documents, Assange should have begged the soldier to go to JAG officer and have the illegal classification investigated.
But Assange isn't about the legal way of doing things. He's about the sensational way of doing things.
It contains a charge of conspiracy for whoever speaks the password, and various charges of illegal handling of classified information for anyone who has touched the file.
Which brings up an interesting point. If in Sweden it doesn't take probable cause to arrest someone (it does in the U.S., though the meaning of "probable cause" here is "the cop thinks you can be convicted"), then the U.S. wouldn't have to cook up probable cause to have him taken into custody so they could start extradition proceedings.
So they wouldn't bother to do something sleazy to create probable cause, so they wouldn't do this.
The fact that his "work" is a criminal act committed in full knowledge that there are legal ways to accomplish the same goal is what invalidates it. The fact that his "work" results in bad people taking more lives is what invalidates it.
The fact that he's also a rapist just makes some of us shake our heads at others.
Um...testimony is evidence in every jurisdiction I know of. If the person making the accusation says she was raped, that gives the police probable cause to believe Assange did it, and having probable cause allows them to arrest him.
Proving it happened to get a conviction is a higher standard than developing probable cause to arrest someone, but again, in the case of rape, the woman's testimony is generally sufficient, and the defense has to impeach her testimony in some way to make it insufficient. Just denying it won't be enough, unless the jury is made up of Assange fanboys.
Slashdot Mirror
The sadder thing is I thought it was rot13, and mentally translated it, and still understood it.
Full connectivity is cheap compared with the rest of the cost of the trip and of the expected-value cost of getting stuck:
http://www.iridium.com/
Anything with a one-button rescue beacon service informs the purchaser that rescue isn't free. But for a few bucks a year you can buy what is essentially insurance that will cover most incidents:
http://www.findmespot.com/en/index.php?cid=110
There are solutions to the cell-phone problem.
The GPS problem is the GPS mapmakers' fault. And don't get /. started on GPS route-selection algorithms.
Actually, I spotted a bit of apocryphal in the story.
It's generally not free to push the rescue button on those satellite locators. It's generally thousands of dollars per incident. The cost isn't paid when you buy the device, either, it's billed after you use it that way.
So I wonder why that wasn't mentioned.
If the AI can pass the Turing Test, then we won't know we found an AI, will we?
So just keep looking for aliens.
Cost of moving: lots
Cost of complying: little
ROI of either: negative
The only logical result will be that the bloggers will either stop trying to earn money from blogging, or will stop reporting it.
Which is revenue-neutral to the city compared with the day before the city stated sending out license forms.
Once the fusion plants come on-line, we won't know what to do with all the helium we make.
We're earning top-dollar now for something that we'll have to pay to get rid of in the future.
So I went and looked up the criminal codes in Australia, and it declares a criminal anyone who "advocates or encourages ... the overthrow by force or violence of the established government of the Commonwealth or of a State or of ..."
any other civilized country or of organized government
Now, while he's hardly advocating violent overthrow of the U.S. government, he is encouraging the Taliban to overthrow the elected governments of Afghanistan and its provinces, by handing them reams of intelligence material collected by their enemy.
There are also sections about inciting "members of the Queen's forces" to treasonous or mutinous acts. Since Assange isn't solely focussed on American soldiers, but in fact advertises for spies in all forces, he is also violating that law.
It includes a long section about exceptions for acts done "in good faith", but "in good faith" is not a synonym for "the ends justify the means". There are legal means to expose the crimes Assange claims he was exposing, means that would preserve the safety of individuals named in the information he obtained, but he ignored those means in favor of means that maximized publicity. His faith was anything but good, his intent was to embarass and destabilize the coalition forces while aggrandizing himself and his organization.
I know of no laws in Sweden, Australia or anywhere else that Assange has broken.
Australia has laws against releasing secrets, and it has treaties and information-sharing agreements with the U.S.
The rape charge appears legit. The woman bringing it clearly doesn't want to be part of Assange's circus, didn't anticipate being likened to a CIA plant any more than she anticipated being date-raped by Assange, and has asked the police to protect her from all of it by dropping the charges and refusing to give any more evidence.
Assange is not "just the messenger". He is recruiting and running spies. He doesn't just leak, he edits the material he collects for political impact. He has more concern for publicity than for the safety of people named in the documents. He uses his fame to get women and then treats them like appliances. His organization is the one "smearing the messenger", calling the paper that broke the rape story "just a tabloid" and claiming the charge is a CIA fabrication. The U.S. has nothing to gain by merely smearing Assange. They have everything to gain by silencing him outright; and if they could get a woman into his bedroom that easily she could have slit his throat and ended the threat he poses. It's more parsimonious to believe that Assange himself cooked up this rape-charge-and-recant plot to make himself out to be a victim of such a nonsense slander.
He remains a sociopath, possibly also a psychopath. The data have not refuted that, ever.
Or they're afraid of the publicity and have told the police they no longer want to prosecute and are going to the US or Israel to avoid becoming part of the circus.
And the whole incident will result in a lot more women who suspect they were sexually abused not coming forward to find out if something illegal happened to them.
It's a win for douchebags everywhere. Assange 2, morality 0.
Success gives people excess confidence.
If a person has a good attitude towards women and sex, it can make the sex a lot better. (Cf. Capt. Sullenberger's comment about his relationship with his wife after he brought that plane down in the Hudson).
But if a person has a wrong attitude about women, even if he's hidden it with every woman he's been with before, that rock-star attitude can bring out his character flaw.
Owing to the plaudits he's received from a large number of people who, like him, don't understand right and wrong, he's got a big head right now, and it's not keeping him from acting on his other character flaws, as this story indicates.
If doing it sensationally means you're condemning someone to die, then "effective publicity" no longer has value, legally or morally.
Cute, but they've already said that the U.S. wasn't involved.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1761776&cid=33325400
The two women who went to the police have stated that the U.S. Government is not involved, only Assange's arrogance is involved:
http://www.stockholmnews.com/more.aspx?NID=5838
Like I said earlier, the CIA does some stupid stuff, but something like this would be too blatant.
The warrant wasn't withdrawn because they think he didn't molest the woman. They're still investigating that. If their investigation turns up the Swedish version of "probable cause", they'll likely reissue the warrant and wait for him to come to Sweden so they can serve it.
I don't think it's even popularity, just interest in a keyword.
I just googled linux mint, and it looks like they're a bit enamored of screen backgrounds and not too bright about feature prominence.
They've got a nifty sample screen for 5 different flavors of mint (see what I did there?) but then you have to click-through just to find out what feature each has that makes it different. The one with the KDE is the only one that hints at what its thing is. (And really, is anyone excited about KDE? I bet you really think the new Chrysler Catalog is a brag-tag, too, hunh...)
3. Sue in federal court. (Do it through a lawyer if you're afraid to show up yourself.)
It's against the law to classify something just to keep it from embarassing you or to hide a crime.
Dozens of people would be liable for jailtime when a judge rules they (a) classified the information illegally, and (b) obstructed declassifying it.
Instead, dozens of people are liable for jailtime because they (a) stole classified information, and (b) released the classified information while it was still classified. And there will be other charges once someone's death is linked to the leaked information.
Instead of begging a soldier for the documents, Assange should have begged the soldier to go to JAG officer and have the illegal classification investigated.
But Assange isn't about the legal way of doing things. He's about the sensational way of doing things.
It contains a charge of conspiracy for whoever speaks the password, and various charges of illegal handling of classified information for anyone who has touched the file.
Every time Rush Limbaugh says anything about a crime, his audience, consciously or subconsciously, asks themselves why he isn't in jail.
Which brings up an interesting point. If in Sweden it doesn't take probable cause to arrest someone (it does in the U.S., though the meaning of "probable cause" here is "the cop thinks you can be convicted"), then the U.S. wouldn't have to cook up probable cause to have him taken into custody so they could start extradition proceedings.
So they wouldn't bother to do something sleazy to create probable cause, so they wouldn't do this.
So they didn't.
The fact that his "work" is a criminal act committed in full knowledge that there are legal ways to accomplish the same goal is what invalidates it. The fact that his "work" results in bad people taking more lives is what invalidates it.
The fact that he's also a rapist just makes some of us shake our heads at others.
Um...testimony is evidence in every jurisdiction I know of. If the person making the accusation says she was raped, that gives the police probable cause to believe Assange did it, and having probable cause allows them to arrest him.
Proving it happened to get a conviction is a higher standard than developing probable cause to arrest someone, but again, in the case of rape, the woman's testimony is generally sufficient, and the defense has to impeach her testimony in some way to make it insufficient. Just denying it won't be enough, unless the jury is made up of Assange fanboys.
Maybe Julian is crazy, but he is not stupid.
Maybe. Maybe not.
It takes quite a heap of stupid to release thousands of pages of classified documents.
You have to remember, this is a guy who thinks that stealing and disseminating classified information is not a crime.
His sense of right and wrong is not in balance with the rest of the world's.
this is extremely suspicious timing for serious accusations.
An egomaniac lets his current feeling of success affect his judgment when sex becomes his immediate focus?
This is exactly when this sort of thing would occur.
What do you mean, "planting?"
I would bet if someone accused him of storing the stuff there, and the authorities searched, they'd find some.