This is the third time I've seen in recent history where Linux has the potential to provide an alternative to corporate and consumer use.
And how many people are using Android devices now? Linux might have fumbled on the Desk/laptop, but it's flourishing on mobile/tablet. If there's even going to be a Linux on the desktop "moment", it will probably grow out of the increasing brand-awareness of Android. Linux will stop being the "weird computer geek thing" and start being "the Android OS". That, possibly combined with a Microsoft miss-step,might be enough for them to give it a try on their desktop. Then it's all up Linux's actual performance.
I don't think you've answered the real question. If his real fear is extradition to the U.S., why is the risk higher in Sweden than in the U.K., where he has voluntarily remained for quite some time? I (and apparently others) would have expected the opposite. But if that's the case, Assange needs a new explanation for fighting extradition to Sweden, doesn't he?
It's not so much "being in Sweden", it's "being in the hands of Swedish authorities". He's also worked quite hard to stay out of the hands of U.K. authorities. I think it's safe to say he doesn't want to be the corpus in the habeas of any US ally.
Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.
...and other experts disagress. Even if that is true, it still doesn't explain why they're not willing to guarantee not to extradite him to the US.
If the US really weren't out to get him, why were it's elected officials suggesting he be executed and charged with treason? Why won't they give a diplomatic guarantee that they will not extradite him?
The entire "America can do no wrong" propaganda is a bunch of patriotic BS, propounded by a country with an extensive history of human rights violations.
Google is big. It's also a way to find ways the left hand is intentionally violating privacy, that the right hand doesn't know about. In big companies, decisions that could potentially impact privacy are made by people who don't necessarily have the awareness of legislation that lets them know they're opening the company to liability by doing what they're doing - they're just trying to get their project off the ground. The potential privacy violation doesn't percolate up to the top where people who know the sort of poo the company could get into by doing it actually hear of it.
It's a formal and serious allegation which he is avoiding answering to by hiding.
Yes, he's avoiding answering them by asking Swedish prosecutors if it was ok to leave the country before he did, and then inviting them to interview him either remotely, or in person in the Ecuadorian embassy. All opportunities were declined. It's obvious that it's not his testimony they want, it's his physical presence. He even volunteered to go to Sweden, as long as guarantees were offered that he would not be extradited to the US. They guarantees were never given.
Read up on the extradition laws and you'll find it's *harder* to be extradited from Sweden than the UK, and that if he gets extradited to Sweden then *both* Sweden and the UK have to consent to extradition to the US on charges that haven't even been brought yet.
Just like it's illegal for the US to hold you without trial. Doesn't particularly seem to have stopped them. The underlying assumption to your statement is that the people/countries involved care about the law, or think it applies to them. From previous experience, they know they can pretty much do whatever they want, and they're not going to be called on it by anyone that matters.
If by "sells" you mean "gives away for free to subscribers of its major game". I don't know how many copies of D3 were given away as part of the WoW 1-year subscription deal, but I do know that they include them in all their sales figures, including their "record-breaking" pre-sales.
Why is it any more wrong than the unsupported assertion of the GGP that the child doesn't exist for the first few months of its life? (ignoring the inherent contradiction in the use of the phrase "its life" there)
Why do we have to use your preconceptions as the baseline for the development of our criminal law? I think that your "mental image" is precisely the problem exactly because it defines out of existence all but the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses
Uh, no, it categorizes them. In fact, the GP suggested some categories: "exploitation, assault, even sexual assault". As to why it's important to do that, it's so that all degrees aren't conflated with, in your words, "the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses".
The Greens aren't really a major party (at least in Australia). They're probably the strongest of the minorities, but they're nowhere near being able to hold government in their own right - and if they ever do get to that point, expect them to change their tune.
I had the same reaction when I read the first few lines of the headline, but no, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a bad thing. It's the latest attempt by the US at legislative colonisation of sovereign countries' IP laws.
ll me this - what would happen if the Swedes show up at the Ecuadorian embassy, conduct their interview, and then say, "Yes, that is what we thought, you don't really have a good explanation for those events. This matter needs to go to trial. Please come with use."
I don't know - I can't read the future. How about they do it - it is, after all, the logical step in the pursuit of justice they claim to be behind their actions. Then we can actually see what Assange would do, instead of guessing. It would also be, you know, logical and lawful.
it shouldn't be hard to find someone else to hand out the secret rituals of college sororities.
Yes, because that's all wikileaks ever published. That's why there've been calls to execute him by US politicians - sonority rituals.
Yes, I do think it's quite extraordinary. Quite extraordinary that national governments are making threats about violating the embassies of other nations over extraditing a guy who kept going after the condom broke, especially when murderers and war criminals have been in the same position. It's almost like there's more to it than the official reasons isn't it?
Should the US have to extend similar statements before any other alleged rapist or other criminal in Europe will surrender to police, or just Assange?
Any others who have been accused of espionage, and threatened with the death penalty by the US' elected representatives, yes.
We are deep into the theatre of the absurd when this farce is claimed to show respect for the rule of law.
This is quite obviously not about the law any more. That was obvious from the time Swedish authorities declined to interview Assange over the phone, or in person at the embassy. They have his testimony for the asking, which is what they say they want. But what they are demanding is his person.
Since nobody is perfect all the time, nobody is an expert. Therefore the "definition" is useless.
Ok, now come up with an actual definition for "expert" that reflects reality and has actual practical applications. That's the one everyone else is using, not the definition you pulled out of your arse to make a nonsensical point about on an internet forum.
What Assange should do is try to travel to the US and if he gets arrested, take his case all the way up to the SCOTUS. Groups like the ACLU would have a field day with the case and it would bring some legal clarity for future whistle blowers. Assange would actually be respected for his backbone, instead of sounding like a nutcase.
...and totally wouldn't end up locked up for years without trial like Bradley Manning. I'm sure he's willing to risk years of imprisonment and not-torture-because-its-legal to convince kenorland on slashdot that he has backbone.
Well, in that case, the US should have no trouble providing the assurances that Assange requires, yes? All the US has to do is clearly and unambiguously state that they will not seek to prosecute WikiLeaks staff or supporters. I mean, if as you say, they have no intention of persecuting these people, there's no downside to making those promises is there? Of course, if they do intend on doing so, they won't issue those statements.
In other words, your exactly the sort of person who is easily manipulated through smear campaigns. Assange resigning won't accomplish anything, you'll just make the same complaints about the next spokesman when claims of paedophilia, or nazism or corruption are laid against them. Trying to appease people like you is pointless, and just shouldn't be attempted; it's a waste of resources.
If Sweden was really interested in investigating those charges, they'd have interviewed him before he left their country, remotely while he was on bail, or in person in the Ecuadoran embassy, all of which Assange has offered to make himself available for.
This entire farce just goes to show how important true transparency in government is, as well as how absent it is.
I really just don't get why. My wife had a contraceptive implant. One needle in the arm, bam, protected for 3 years. Because it introduces the drug into the bloodstream in a slow continuous way, rather than in one big hit each day with the tablets, side-effects are generally much milder. When we wanted to have kids, we took it out - just one needle. When we want to permanently not have any more kids, I'll have a vasectomy.
I mean, I understand some women have reactions to the pill, even in the implant-form. But there's already such a wide variety of contraceptive methods, for both men and women, that you're sure to find one you can deal with. Why such effort to produce an oral one for men? At the very least, you can know if a man's wearing a condom. Who knows if he's actually taken the drug, even if he says he has?
No, I'm thinking of copyrights, although I may not have used "assert' in the technical, legal sense. But by explicitly placing the works into the public domain, he has deliberately declined to assert his copyright.
And artists are compensated by their own work (selling their own music), or the contracts they write with the music industry.
And the music industry has stated that without copyright enforcement, those sales would not happen, and those contracts would not be written. This guy has demonstrated that that claim is false.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the third time I've seen in recent history where Linux has the potential to provide an alternative to corporate and consumer use.
And how many people are using Android devices now? Linux might have fumbled on the Desk/laptop, but it's flourishing on mobile/tablet. If there's even going to be a Linux on the desktop "moment", it will probably grow out of the increasing brand-awareness of Android. Linux will stop being the "weird computer geek thing" and start being "the Android OS". That, possibly combined with a Microsoft miss-step,might be enough for them to give it a try on their desktop. Then it's all up Linux's actual performance.
I don't think you've answered the real question. If his real fear is extradition to the U.S., why is the risk higher in Sweden than in the U.K., where he has voluntarily remained for quite some time? I (and apparently others) would have expected the opposite. But if that's the case, Assange needs a new explanation for fighting extradition to Sweden, doesn't he?
It's not so much "being in Sweden", it's "being in the hands of Swedish authorities". He's also worked quite hard to stay out of the hands of U.K. authorities. I think it's safe to say he doesn't want to be the corpus in the habeas of any US ally.
Meanwhile, Sweden has always had a policy of not interviewing suspects outside the country. It is apparently controversial among Swedish legal experts whether doing otherwise would be legal under Swedish law.
...and other experts disagress. Even if that is true, it still doesn't explain why they're not willing to guarantee not to extradite him to the US.
If the US really weren't out to get him, why were it's elected officials suggesting he be executed and charged with treason? Why won't they give a diplomatic guarantee that they will not extradite him?
The entire "America can do no wrong" propaganda is a bunch of patriotic BS, propounded by a country with an extensive history of human rights violations.
Google is big. It's also a way to find ways the left hand is intentionally violating privacy, that the right hand doesn't know about. In big companies, decisions that could potentially impact privacy are made by people who don't necessarily have the awareness of legislation that lets them know they're opening the company to liability by doing what they're doing - they're just trying to get their project off the ground. The potential privacy violation doesn't percolate up to the top where people who know the sort of poo the company could get into by doing it actually hear of it.
It's a formal and serious allegation which he is avoiding answering to by hiding.
Yes, he's avoiding answering them by asking Swedish prosecutors if it was ok to leave the country before he did, and then inviting them to interview him either remotely, or in person in the Ecuadorian embassy. All opportunities were declined. It's obvious that it's not his testimony they want, it's his physical presence. He even volunteered to go to Sweden, as long as guarantees were offered that he would not be extradited to the US. They guarantees were never given.
Read up on the extradition laws and you'll find it's *harder* to be extradited from Sweden than the UK, and that if he gets extradited to Sweden then *both* Sweden and the UK have to consent to extradition to the US on charges that haven't even been brought yet.
Just like it's illegal for the US to hold you without trial. Doesn't particularly seem to have stopped them. The underlying assumption to your statement is that the people/countries involved care about the law, or think it applies to them. From previous experience, they know they can pretty much do whatever they want, and they're not going to be called on it by anyone that matters.
If by "sells" you mean "gives away for free to subscribers of its major game". I don't know how many copies of D3 were given away as part of the WoW 1-year subscription deal, but I do know that they include them in all their sales figures, including their "record-breaking" pre-sales.
Funny. I'd say the same thing about seeing the similarity.
A 1 month baby is also a collection of cells
Why is it any more wrong than the unsupported assertion of the GGP that the child doesn't exist for the first few months of its life? (ignoring the inherent contradiction in the use of the phrase "its life" there)
Why do we have to use your preconceptions as the baseline for the development of our criminal law? I think that your "mental image" is precisely the problem exactly because it defines out of existence all but the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses
Uh, no, it categorizes them. In fact, the GP suggested some categories: "exploitation, assault, even sexual assault". As to why it's important to do that, it's so that all degrees aren't conflated with, in your words, "the most heinous (and, I might add, rare) offenses".
The Greens aren't really a major party (at least in Australia). They're probably the strongest of the minorities, but they're nowhere near being able to hold government in their own right - and if they ever do get to that point, expect them to change their tune.
I had the same reaction when I read the first few lines of the headline, but no, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is a bad thing. It's the latest attempt by the US at legislative colonisation of sovereign countries' IP laws.
If you're trying to search for a package, on the other hand, you need an interface that makes search easier.
Like apt-cache search ?
No, I miss-spelt existent (or rather, used the French spelling)
ll me this - what would happen if the Swedes show up at the Ecuadorian embassy, conduct their interview, and then say, "Yes, that is what we thought, you don't really have a good explanation for those events. This matter needs to go to trial. Please come with use."
I don't know - I can't read the future. How about they do it - it is, after all, the logical step in the pursuit of justice they claim to be behind their actions. Then we can actually see what Assange would do, instead of guessing. It would also be, you know, logical and lawful.
it shouldn't be hard to find someone else to hand out the secret rituals of college sororities.
Yes, because that's all wikileaks ever published. That's why there've been calls to execute him by US politicians - sonority rituals.
Don't you think this is all quite extraordinary?
Yes, I do think it's quite extraordinary. Quite extraordinary that national governments are making threats about violating the embassies of other nations over extraditing a guy who kept going after the condom broke, especially when murderers and war criminals have been in the same position. It's almost like there's more to it than the official reasons isn't it?
Should the US have to extend similar statements before any other alleged rapist or other criminal in Europe will surrender to police, or just Assange?
Any others who have been accused of espionage, and threatened with the death penalty by the US' elected representatives, yes.
We are deep into the theatre of the absurd when this farce is claimed to show respect for the rule of law.
This is quite obviously not about the law any more. That was obvious from the time Swedish authorities declined to interview Assange over the phone, or in person at the embassy. They have his testimony for the asking, which is what they say they want. But what they are demanding is his person.
Since nobody is perfect all the time, nobody is an expert. Therefore the "definition" is useless.
Ok, now come up with an actual definition for "expert" that reflects reality and has actual practical applications. That's the one everyone else is using, not the definition you pulled out of your arse to make a nonsensical point about on an internet forum.
What Assange should do is try to travel to the US and if he gets arrested, take his case all the way up to the SCOTUS. Groups like the ACLU would have a field day with the case and it would bring some legal clarity for future whistle blowers. Assange would actually be respected for his backbone, instead of sounding like a nutcase.
...and totally wouldn't end up locked up for years without trial like Bradley Manning. I'm sure he's willing to risk years of imprisonment and not-torture-because-its-legal to convince kenorland on slashdot that he has backbone.
Well, in that case, the US should have no trouble providing the assurances that Assange requires, yes? All the US has to do is clearly and unambiguously state that they will not seek to prosecute WikiLeaks staff or supporters. I mean, if as you say, they have no intention of persecuting these people, there's no downside to making those promises is there? Of course, if they do intend on doing so, they won't issue those statements.
How about we sit back and see what they do, hmm?
In other words, your exactly the sort of person who is easily manipulated through smear campaigns. Assange resigning won't accomplish anything, you'll just make the same complaints about the next spokesman when claims of paedophilia, or nazism or corruption are laid against them. Trying to appease people like you is pointless, and just shouldn't be attempted; it's a waste of resources.
If Sweden was really interested in investigating those charges, they'd have interviewed him before he left their country, remotely while he was on bail, or in person in the Ecuadoran embassy, all of which Assange has offered to make himself available for.
This entire farce just goes to show how important true transparency in government is, as well as how absent it is.
I really just don't get why. My wife had a contraceptive implant. One needle in the arm, bam, protected for 3 years. Because it introduces the drug into the bloodstream in a slow continuous way, rather than in one big hit each day with the tablets, side-effects are generally much milder. When we wanted to have kids, we took it out - just one needle. When we want to permanently not have any more kids, I'll have a vasectomy.
I mean, I understand some women have reactions to the pill, even in the implant-form. But there's already such a wide variety of contraceptive methods, for both men and women, that you're sure to find one you can deal with. Why such effort to produce an oral one for men? At the very least, you can know if a man's wearing a condom. Who knows if he's actually taken the drug, even if he says he has?
You do realize that the orchestral performers are still artists, right?
Yeah, but are you making six figures per hour? :P
No, I'm thinking of copyrights, although I may not have used "assert' in the technical, legal sense. But by explicitly placing the works into the public domain, he has deliberately declined to assert his copyright.
And artists are compensated by their own work (selling their own music), or the contracts they write with the music industry.
And the music industry has stated that without copyright enforcement, those sales would not happen, and those contracts would not be written. This guy has demonstrated that that claim is false.
Some people starve because they don't have enough food. Others because they're just stupid.