The GP had it right: he's been accused. The US government has filed a (sealed) complaint for theft of government property, and two offences under the Espionage Act. He has not even been accused of treason in any legally-meaningful way.
Lots of things are completely acceptable. According to almost half of the population of the US, widespread surveillance on citizens is completely acceptable.
Blackface had its day, and then its day went. It appears that the same is true of booth babes. I don't weep for the loss of either job. We technologists are, after all, in the business of making old jobs obsolete. I certainly hope that former booth babes find decent jobs in a new environment; perhaps something in green energy?
Actually, quantum-tunnelling semiconductors are being developed as useful products right now.
One that I know of is a type of strain gauge which exhibits no mechanical hysteresis. Imagine conductive nanoparticles suspended in a stretchy insulator. The material is a semiconductor, and it conducts by quantum tunnelling. The more you stretch the material, the further apart the nanoparticles, and so the higher the electrical resistance.
What should an individual do when they've been attacked like Georgia claims, but do not have clear enough evidence to prove it?
I think that's the wrong question. There's nothing that an individual "should" do. Georgia has no responsibility to anyone but herself.
Assuming that silence is not an option for you (and do recall, silence is one of the greatest weapons a hypothetical abuser has at their disposal), and you feel that you need to warn people, what to do? Wat she did was that she told her story in as much detail as she could without naming any names. She only named names after he threatened to sue. Since he was threatening to make it public anyway, there was no point in keeping that information private any more.
She did pretty much everything she could without making a public accusation, right up to the point where it was moot. I find it remarkable that someone who has apparently undergone such a traumatic experience managed to stay so level-headed throughout the whole aftermath.
You are deluded if you think Russia vs United States, Russia is the 'good guys'.
I'm pretty sure that the AC didn't say that.
One plausible alternative to the US being the "good guys", and it's entirely consistent with the AC's comment, is that it's dawning on people that there is no such thing as "good guys".
If the system doesn't let you get your day in court, that's one way to force the issue.
Once again, I must point out the consistently overlooked fact that she did not name any names until after he threatened to sue her (by which time it was moot). If the point was to ruin his reputation, she chose a bizarre and counter-productive way to do it.
You don't know that it's been found to be baseless. All you know is that the police determined it to be not worth pursuing.
But hey I didn't get my own way... so I'll run to the internet, post it on my blog and then enlist my hordes of twitter/tumblr thugs to screech and ruin another person's reputation with no evidence.
You could arrange things such that you almost have to do that, by using a custom character mapping and ship the font with the message.
Yes, I'm aware that simple substitution ciphers are no challenge under normal circumstances, but presumably you'd use the entire whole Unicode code space, and have a many-to-one mapping, and possibly map individual code points to parts of a character. That should make the unicity distance long enough for any modest-sized message.
Notice how i got labeled troll for DARING to say she should have let the cops do their job?
I thought you got modded troll because you didn't RTFA. She did go to the police first, then the conference organisers, then told her story on her blog without naming any names. Only after he threatened to sue her for libel did she mention his name.
What the hell should she have done that would have satisfied your exacting standards?
I can't speak for the person you responded to, but for my part...
She has presented her testimony. She has presented evidence which substantiates her story (though of course doesn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt; that is irrelevant since I am not a juror). He has (I have just discovered) presented his side of the story on his blog. I have weighed them both up and decided which of the two witnesses I find more credible.
I know this is Slashdot, and RTFA is a big ask, but TFA does explain exactly why she's doing this and, more to the point, exactly what she did. Importantly, she did not "name and shame" until after he threatened to sue her. Until that point, all she was trying to do was document the incident, and make it serve as information for future victims and future attackers (i.e. you can't hide something like this). After that point, there wasn't really any reason not to name, since he was probably going to make it public anyway.
Moreover, she only posted to her blog after the authorities (i.e. the Polish police) had finished with the case and declined to press charges.
FInally, I don't know why you think she's "comfortable" with this. Is it actually that she made you feel uncomfortable?
There's no shame in not understanding. In case you're curious, the claim comes from decades of research that criminologists have done working with rapists.
Yes, criminologists are well aware that rapists who get caught and convicted are not necessarily an unbiassed sample of all rapists. That's a general problem in criminology, and they do try their best to control for this.
According to the DOJ figures, 99% of the perpetrators are men, but only 91% of the victims are. That's not taking into account the 75-95% under-reporting rate, and it is known that men are disproportionately less likely to report being a victim of rape.
Nonetheless, how is this relevant to the point that rape is primarily about power?
Slashdot Mirror
He's been indicted? When did that happen?
The GP had it right: he's been accused. The US government has filed a (sealed) complaint for theft of government property, and two offences under the Espionage Act. He has not even been accused of treason in any legally-meaningful way.
No, nothing is free. It's not free to pay your employees, but those costs are part of the cost of doing business.
If you're going to make your employees pay your costs, then be honest and pay them less.
S100 does everything.
Lots of things are completely acceptable. According to almost half of the population of the US, widespread surveillance on citizens is completely acceptable.
Blackface had its day, and then its day went. It appears that the same is true of booth babes. I don't weep for the loss of either job. We technologists are, after all, in the business of making old jobs obsolete. I certainly hope that former booth babes find decent jobs in a new environment; perhaps something in green energy?
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
Won't someone please think of the poor out-of-work blackface minstrels?
I think you meant John Pascoe Fawkner.
(Yes, I know, generations of Victorian schoolkids like the idea of living in a city founded by Bruce Wayne's alter ego.)
Actually, quantum-tunnelling semiconductors are being developed as useful products right now.
One that I know of is a type of strain gauge which exhibits no mechanical hysteresis. Imagine conductive nanoparticles suspended in a stretchy insulator. The material is a semiconductor, and it conducts by quantum tunnelling. The more you stretch the material, the further apart the nanoparticles, and so the higher the electrical resistance.
I think that's the wrong question. There's nothing that an individual "should" do. Georgia has no responsibility to anyone but herself.
Assuming that silence is not an option for you (and do recall, silence is one of the greatest weapons a hypothetical abuser has at their disposal), and you feel that you need to warn people, what to do? Wat she did was that she told her story in as much detail as she could without naming any names. She only named names after he threatened to sue. Since he was threatening to make it public anyway, there was no point in keeping that information private any more.
She did pretty much everything she could without making a public accusation, right up to the point where it was moot. I find it remarkable that someone who has apparently undergone such a traumatic experience managed to stay so level-headed throughout the whole aftermath.
I'm pretty sure that the AC didn't say that.
One plausible alternative to the US being the "good guys", and it's entirely consistent with the AC's comment, is that it's dawning on people that there is no such thing as "good guys".
At least I'm useful.
One more thought...
If the system doesn't let you get your day in court, that's one way to force the issue.
Once again, I must point out the consistently overlooked fact that she did not name any names until after he threatened to sue her (by which time it was moot). If the point was to ruin his reputation, she chose a bizarre and counter-productive way to do it.
You don't know that it's been found to be baseless. All you know is that the police determined it to be not worth pursuing.
That Edward Snowden is a bastard, isn't he.
You could arrange things such that you almost have to do that, by using a custom character mapping and ship the font with the message.
Yes, I'm aware that simple substitution ciphers are no challenge under normal circumstances, but presumably you'd use the entire whole Unicode code space, and have a many-to-one mapping, and possibly map individual code points to parts of a character. That should make the unicity distance long enough for any modest-sized message.
Now, now. Richard Dawkins never swears when he's spouting mysogynist nonsense.
It's also your right to tell the world that you were attacked, and the police didn't do anything about it.
Perhaps Last Thursdayism is true, and none of this ever happened.
I thought you got modded troll because you didn't RTFA. She did go to the police first, then the conference organisers, then told her story on her blog without naming any names. Only after he threatened to sue her for libel did she mention his name.
What the hell should she have done that would have satisfied your exacting standards?
I can't speak for the person you responded to, but for my part...
She has presented her testimony. She has presented evidence which substantiates her story (though of course doesn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt; that is irrelevant since I am not a juror). He has (I have just discovered) presented his side of the story on his blog. I have weighed them both up and decided which of the two witnesses I find more credible.
I know this is Slashdot, and RTFA is a big ask, but TFA does explain exactly why she's doing this and, more to the point, exactly what she did. Importantly, she did not "name and shame" until after he threatened to sue her. Until that point, all she was trying to do was document the incident, and make it serve as information for future victims and future attackers (i.e. you can't hide something like this). After that point, there wasn't really any reason not to name, since he was probably going to make it public anyway.
Moreover, she only posted to her blog after the authorities (i.e. the Polish police) had finished with the case and declined to press charges.
FInally, I don't know why you think she's "comfortable" with this. Is it actually that she made you feel uncomfortable?
Hell, you can see most of it here in this very thread. The troll "contributions" run the gamut from "her fault for inviting him in" to "she's ugly".
I know this is Slashdot, but this is a question that can easily be answered by RTFA.
There's no shame in not understanding. In case you're curious, the claim comes from decades of research that criminologists have done working with rapists.
Yes, criminologists are well aware that rapists who get caught and convicted are not necessarily an unbiassed sample of all rapists. That's a general problem in criminology, and they do try their best to control for this.
According to the DOJ figures, 99% of the perpetrators are men, but only 91% of the victims are. That's not taking into account the 75-95% under-reporting rate, and it is known that men are disproportionately less likely to report being a victim of rape.
Nonetheless, how is this relevant to the point that rape is primarily about power?
Even that doesn't go far enough. Abolish plea bargaining, grand juries, and elected prosecutors.
I can only repeat my point about region locking.