Snowden released a bunch of random documents. He didn't limit himself to documents on domestic surveillance, but compromised US intelligence operations abroad. If he had, I'd be whole-hearted about wanting him pardoned.
Alternately, angels could descend from Heaven and testify that the rape allegations were false. I don't think my counterfactual is any less likely than yours.
Assange was a political problem once. He's mostly irrelevant now. The US didn't try any extraordinary rendition or extradition while he was a problem, and Assange acted as if he didn't fear such a thing until he was facing extradition to Sweden for an unrelated criminal charge.
You seem to have confused surveillance and action. You also seem to have confused a foreign national who may possibly have committed a crime with a US national who definitely did and is a fugitive from the US justice system.
You seem awfully sure of what Assange did in Sweden, and it doesn't agree with the statements from the women that I read.
In the US, a rape charge is considered a criminal matter, and is brought by the government rather than the victim. Nor did the Swedish prosecutor charge him as a fugitive. The prosecutor filed an extradition request to bring Assange back to be tried, which is reasonable. Allowing someone to leave a jurisdiction is consistent with wanting them back later.for trial. Assange had the opportunity to legally challenge the extradition request, and the UK courts found it was valid. When Assange not only didn't report as required but took steps to evade UK custody, he was a fugitive from UK law, which is true regardless of what happened in Sweden.
I've seen it claimed, but not acknowledged. There is evidence that Assange is guilty of rape, and the UK courts determined that the UK would consider the alleged action to be a crime, and the extradition request valid. The evidence I've seen isn't conclusive, but it's certainly enough to start a prosecution.
What Swedish laws have the prosecutors allegedly broken?
If Assange aided or encouraged Manning, he might be guilty of espionage. An illegal act against a country doesn't have to be committed in that country.
There is no question about Snowden violating the law, and so the court would only confirm what we already know. The question is whether Snowden should be pardoned, and I have mixed feelings about that, given that he revealed both domestic operations (which I respect him for) and international (which I don't).
I have seen no actual evidence that supports Assange's claimed fear of US extradition or extraordinary rendition. He traveled freely to Sweden and the UK after releasing Manning's leaks, and the UK is not the place to go if you fear US extradition. The US has some individuals who want him punished, but no part of the US government has made any movement in that direction.
The whole thing about fearing the US came up because Assange didn't want to face rape charges that Interpol and the UK found legitimate.
You are not required to be considerate of anyone's feelings. Nor is anyone required to be considerate of your feelings. I'm not going to make you use any particular pronouns, but I will consider you to be a jerk under some circumstances, such as deliberately referring to someone in a manner they don't want to be referred to as.
I live in a large metro area in the United States, like at least half the US population. What culture do you live in? Mine doesn't believe in checking people's genitals before casual conversation.
The extreme left has redefined neither gender nor sex. There have been people who assume social roles of a gender different from their biological sex for a long time. It's currently technologically possible to go further in helping people into social roles (specifically gender) they're more comfortable with, and so language needs to evolve to deal with that. Unless you can show that pronouns have always been used according to biological sex regardless of gender presentation, you don't have a case that there has been any redefinition.
I doubt many people with gender dysphoria are actually in denial of the physical state of their genitals, so they're not deluded. Biological sex is not social gender, although they're correlated, and you appear to have the a mistaken belief about reality that it is.
Three are surprisingly few people I know such that I've verified the presence or absence of a penis myself. If one of my female-appearing friends (besides my wife) did have a penis, I wouldn't know. I'm content to use the pronouns that they prefer.
There are laws around "just contractors", and Uber seems to ride fairly close to the edge. The problem with getting their point properly through the courts is the law, not any problem with the court system. The fact that they often clearly defy the law means that courts are less likely to cut them any slack.
Also, I don't think there's any problem with contractors forming a union and bargaining collectively. There's plenty of unions and professional organizations that represent people who aren't typically normal employees.
First, the technical problems need to be solved. Nobody seems to have an adequately self-driving car yet. Let's assume there's one available in a couple of years. Then, we get to the other problems. Self-driving cars have to be made legal on the public roadways, and that's going to take time. Once they are, I'm sure there will be problems with self-driving cabs, just because there's no human to observe anything unusual happening. It may be worthwhile in the long run, but self-driving cabs aren't anything I'd count on in the short run.
Lots of software developers are somewhere on the autism spectrum, and are classified as high-functioning ASD. Personally, I also have dysthymic disorder (essentially chronic low-grade depression that's gone through two name changes since my diagnosis), and people seem to trust what I write.
You seem to be assuming we should all run our lives on the basis of ideological purity. In fact, if all/. readers stop buying Apple products and watching Star Wars and Star Trek movies, nobody else will notice, and it will have no effect on what Apple, Disney, or Paramount do - particularly if the boycott is not accompanied by some sort of statement. Richard Stallman thinks proprietary software to be immoral, but I'd suspect a very small percentage of/. readers do.
This is partly a variation of the Tragedy of the Commons, and partly because most people don't care about copyright length or privacy. I prefer to pick my political fights, and figure donating to the EFF and going to Star Wars movies is better than doing neither.
There are advantages and disadvantages in being traceable. My phone will work pretty much everywhere I go, and for that to happen it has to report its location constantly. My car and associated systems will notify the authorities if I'm in an accident and incapacitated, which is a nice safety feature, but means the car is constantly reporting in. I figure that, if I want to drop off the surveillance for a time, I can't use my phone and need to get another vehicle. I also need to use cash rather than a credit or debit card. My phone is an iPhone, which has advantages and disadvantages, but that's not my only computing device., and it works well for what I want a phone to do.
"AI" has never been a well-defined term. It may or may not include expert systems and/or neural nets. The general trend has been that something is hard for computers to do and relatively easy to do, somebody comes up with a way for computers to do it better as part of AI, and it sort of moves out of AI space.
Exactly what's wrong with putting coins into a casino slot machine (aside from the fact that it's a losing bet)? I can't tell if the thing is defective. All I can do is feed money and press buttons (or whatever it is I do). The casino is responsible for keeping the slot machine working. In other words, I'm using the machine exactly as intended and I'm not cheating. I'm fairly sure that, if I feed money into a defective slot machine that's going to pay off less than it should, I'm not going to get a refund. However, if it's defective, the casino won't just let me keep the money and take the machine out of service.
I fail to see where a "tails I lose, heads I don't win" policy prevents any wrongs.
Gamblers are often superstitious. If everyone in a casino calculated the expected value of their bets rationally, the casinos would get a lot less business. It's worth it for the casinos to indulge such superstitions.
Yeah, but those machines belong to the casino, and unless there's actual cheating on the part of the gambler (and I've read of one case of that) you'd think they should pay off and take that machine out of service. There's no recourse if the machine malfunctions and doesn't pay enough. The machines have the crap regulated out of them, so the casino's going to be caught and penalized for such a machine, but that doesn't help the gambler.
Slashdot Mirror
Snowden released a bunch of random documents. He didn't limit himself to documents on domestic surveillance, but compromised US intelligence operations abroad. If he had, I'd be whole-hearted about wanting him pardoned.
Alternately, angels could descend from Heaven and testify that the rape allegations were false. I don't think my counterfactual is any less likely than yours.
Assange was a political problem once. He's mostly irrelevant now. The US didn't try any extraordinary rendition or extradition while he was a problem, and Assange acted as if he didn't fear such a thing until he was facing extradition to Sweden for an unrelated criminal charge.
You seem to have confused surveillance and action. You also seem to have confused a foreign national who may possibly have committed a crime with a US national who definitely did and is a fugitive from the US justice system.
You seem awfully sure of what Assange did in Sweden, and it doesn't agree with the statements from the women that I read.
In the US, a rape charge is considered a criminal matter, and is brought by the government rather than the victim. Nor did the Swedish prosecutor charge him as a fugitive. The prosecutor filed an extradition request to bring Assange back to be tried, which is reasonable. Allowing someone to leave a jurisdiction is consistent with wanting them back later.for trial. Assange had the opportunity to legally challenge the extradition request, and the UK courts found it was valid. When Assange not only didn't report as required but took steps to evade UK custody, he was a fugitive from UK law, which is true regardless of what happened in Sweden.
I've seen it claimed, but not acknowledged. There is evidence that Assange is guilty of rape, and the UK courts determined that the UK would consider the alleged action to be a crime, and the extradition request valid. The evidence I've seen isn't conclusive, but it's certainly enough to start a prosecution.
What Swedish laws have the prosecutors allegedly broken?
If Assange aided or encouraged Manning, he might be guilty of espionage. An illegal act against a country doesn't have to be committed in that country.
Doesn't that depend on the state she winds up living in?
There is no question about Snowden violating the law, and so the court would only confirm what we already know. The question is whether Snowden should be pardoned, and I have mixed feelings about that, given that he revealed both domestic operations (which I respect him for) and international (which I don't).
I have seen no actual evidence that supports Assange's claimed fear of US extradition or extraordinary rendition. He traveled freely to Sweden and the UK after releasing Manning's leaks, and the UK is not the place to go if you fear US extradition. The US has some individuals who want him punished, but no part of the US government has made any movement in that direction.
The whole thing about fearing the US came up because Assange didn't want to face rape charges that Interpol and the UK found legitimate.
That came out of left field.
You are not required to be considerate of anyone's feelings. Nor is anyone required to be considerate of your feelings. I'm not going to make you use any particular pronouns, but I will consider you to be a jerk under some circumstances, such as deliberately referring to someone in a manner they don't want to be referred to as.
I live in a large metro area in the United States, like at least half the US population. What culture do you live in? Mine doesn't believe in checking people's genitals before casual conversation.
The extreme left has redefined neither gender nor sex. There have been people who assume social roles of a gender different from their biological sex for a long time. It's currently technologically possible to go further in helping people into social roles (specifically gender) they're more comfortable with, and so language needs to evolve to deal with that. Unless you can show that pronouns have always been used according to biological sex regardless of gender presentation, you don't have a case that there has been any redefinition.
I doubt many people with gender dysphoria are actually in denial of the physical state of their genitals, so they're not deluded. Biological sex is not social gender, although they're correlated, and you appear to have the a mistaken belief about reality that it is.
There's a claim upstream that 1.7% of babies labeled female at birth are actually XY, so you're exaggerating.
Three are surprisingly few people I know such that I've verified the presence or absence of a penis myself. If one of my female-appearing friends (besides my wife) did have a penis, I wouldn't know. I'm content to use the pronouns that they prefer.
There are laws around "just contractors", and Uber seems to ride fairly close to the edge. The problem with getting their point properly through the courts is the law, not any problem with the court system. The fact that they often clearly defy the law means that courts are less likely to cut them any slack.
Also, I don't think there's any problem with contractors forming a union and bargaining collectively. There's plenty of unions and professional organizations that represent people who aren't typically normal employees.
First, the technical problems need to be solved. Nobody seems to have an adequately self-driving car yet. Let's assume there's one available in a couple of years. Then, we get to the other problems. Self-driving cars have to be made legal on the public roadways, and that's going to take time. Once they are, I'm sure there will be problems with self-driving cabs, just because there's no human to observe anything unusual happening. It may be worthwhile in the long run, but self-driving cabs aren't anything I'd count on in the short run.
Lots of software developers are somewhere on the autism spectrum, and are classified as high-functioning ASD. Personally, I also have dysthymic disorder (essentially chronic low-grade depression that's gone through two name changes since my diagnosis), and people seem to trust what I write.
You seem to be assuming we should all run our lives on the basis of ideological purity. In fact, if all /. readers stop buying Apple products and watching Star Wars and Star Trek movies, nobody else will notice, and it will have no effect on what Apple, Disney, or Paramount do - particularly if the boycott is not accompanied by some sort of statement. Richard Stallman thinks proprietary software to be immoral, but I'd suspect a very small percentage of /. readers do.
This is partly a variation of the Tragedy of the Commons, and partly because most people don't care about copyright length or privacy. I prefer to pick my political fights, and figure donating to the EFF and going to Star Wars movies is better than doing neither.
There are advantages and disadvantages in being traceable. My phone will work pretty much everywhere I go, and for that to happen it has to report its location constantly. My car and associated systems will notify the authorities if I'm in an accident and incapacitated, which is a nice safety feature, but means the car is constantly reporting in. I figure that, if I want to drop off the surveillance for a time, I can't use my phone and need to get another vehicle. I also need to use cash rather than a credit or debit card. My phone is an iPhone, which has advantages and disadvantages, but that's not my only computing device., and it works well for what I want a phone to do.
"AI" has never been a well-defined term. It may or may not include expert systems and/or neural nets. The general trend has been that something is hard for computers to do and relatively easy to do, somebody comes up with a way for computers to do it better as part of AI, and it sort of moves out of AI space.
Exactly what's wrong with putting coins into a casino slot machine (aside from the fact that it's a losing bet)? I can't tell if the thing is defective. All I can do is feed money and press buttons (or whatever it is I do). The casino is responsible for keeping the slot machine working. In other words, I'm using the machine exactly as intended and I'm not cheating. I'm fairly sure that, if I feed money into a defective slot machine that's going to pay off less than it should, I'm not going to get a refund. However, if it's defective, the casino won't just let me keep the money and take the machine out of service.
I fail to see where a "tails I lose, heads I don't win" policy prevents any wrongs.
Gamblers are often superstitious. If everyone in a casino calculated the expected value of their bets rationally, the casinos would get a lot less business. It's worth it for the casinos to indulge such superstitions.
Sometimes the state lotteries roll over enough prize money so that the expected value of the bet turns positive.
Yeah, but those machines belong to the casino, and unless there's actual cheating on the part of the gambler (and I've read of one case of that) you'd think they should pay off and take that machine out of service. There's no recourse if the machine malfunctions and doesn't pay enough. The machines have the crap regulated out of them, so the casino's going to be caught and penalized for such a machine, but that doesn't help the gambler.