The advertisements were for the thinnest phone in the world. The perception that thin=weak was why they felt the need to make those demonstration videos.
He presented himself multiple times in person in Sweden. He was told he could travel, and did.
He agreed to do an interview from the embassy to an Ecuadorian intermediary, but not to present himself.
You are twisting the words "present himself" to imply "surrender". He did not surrender, but he offered many times to a phone, videoconference and in-person interview. Sweden has done all of those with other people, but refused for Assange. Why?
But if he presents himself, the charges can be brought forward,
If he's suspected of being in a jurisdiction with extradition, the charges will be brought forward without him presenting himself. Then he'll be arrested.
he will have a chance to defend himself and actually answer the questions given.
Ah, presumed guilty until proven innocent. At least that's one thing the us got right, at least in theory.
I don't know if that's real. But the first hit on Google shows a treaty in place, since the '60s.
If this would have been a honey pot operation then Assange would have been woke by armed police with the woman in bed screaming "rape, rape!" and not like how it was now that a few days later the women goes to the police, the police questions Assange, lets him go, lets him travel to the UK and then a new prosecutor decides to open the investigation again.
Julian Assange is arrested. He is questioned. Some agency thinks "great, he'll be in trial for months, and we can work out a diplomatic solution to the extradition. Charges dismissed. Assange goes to the UK. Oh,fuck. They don't ever try anyone for rape there? CIA calls someone,and the prosecutor on the case is replaced with someone who will prosecute, even if for a loss, to get Assange back in Swedish custody. Too late, he's hiding in Equador.
How does that sounds unreasonable. The dismissal and travel was too quick for any diplomatic channels to work.
And to be honest, if the USA wanted him that bad they would have grabbed him of the streets in the middle of the night like they did with all the other people that they grabbed in Germany and Italy which they sent to gitmo.
The conspiracy theory is that was the plan, only they wanted to do it in Sweden, not England. They missed their chance the first time, and put pressure on Sweden to give then another.
The modern smartphones are designed to be water resistant (yes, even the ones that don't pursue certification). Almost all smartphones these days will survive a toilet drop, something that the non-smartphones don't do as well on, unless you pay extra for a rated one.
Sweden can (but rarely does) try him in absentia. Sweden has been granted access to Julian Assange by phone, video conference, and in person. Sweden refused. Those means are commonly used.
Sweden has chosen to not pursue a legal conviction since before Assange "escaped" to Ecuador. Sweden has only acted to get him back in custody. It's inconsistent and suspicious.
Proof of his innocence is calls from the "victims" to drop the case.
A crime that isn't a crime almost anywhere else. Essentially Sexual Fraud, where he lied to gain consent "Yes baby, you are the only one for me". Lying to a sexual partner is "rape" in Sweden.
If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately, says Marianne Ny.
The answer is a lie. So the "drop charges" is a lie as well. The moment he's outside the embassy, he'll be arrested, and the charges will be re-instated.
The proof of this is that Sweden has traveled to foreign countries to interview someone, and has conducted interviews over phone and videoconference. That Sweden refuses to follow their own standards in this case is proof they aren't following the regular process.
Julian Assange has *always* "been available". Sweden has not followed their own policies, and refused to make themselves available.
Much like the charge of "Rape (lesser degree)" is always mistranslated to "rape (with or without a degree listed)". It is "sexual misconduct" in English. But has always been deliberately mistranslated to further vilify Julian Assange. Why?
The deliberate misconduct on the part of Sweden can only be explained by them not actually wanting to catch and convict for the charge given.
Yeah, and how about the Oppo, Xiaomi, or Huawei with spyware? No-name phones from anywhere are not reliable. The cheap chinese phones are cheaper and better than many of the other brands.
You have the responsibility to keep the email up 105% of the time. You have to use Office 365 in Azure on a single instance without failover, with authentication/DNS being done over a VPN done with the free tools in Azure and the 400 year old Firewall that came with the office building when they moved in.
You don't have a budget to improve the VPN (which dies daily, causing user auth issues). You have no control over the AD environment which has 10% of the users in the wrong groups, causing mailing list and other problems. You don't have the authority to increase the Azure cost to deploy the service across multiple datacenters.
But you have the responsibility to keep a 105% uptime.
That's the source of the stress in my job. Being given sub-standard tools to do a job, then being required to use those tools, and no others.
Usually the problem lays in inefficient middle management. They are so busy trying to make their bosses see how much they do with so little, they don't appreciate what those below them do to make it work.
I managed to get an MBA (with no student debt), and when I tell people that I have 20 years of very technical experience, and an MBA (in addition to a CS), they assume I'm an idiot that went into IT because I was chasing money. So the degrees doen't seem to help, and most "real" iniversities don't have a good IT program, but have CS, which, when I got it was about building CPUs and programming OSs for them, which is 100% irrelevant to IT (yes, we built CPUs, as the CS degree was conferred by the College of Electrical Engineering).
But why do you assume that dozens of "appropriate updates" must be applied every month "in a timely manner"?
Why do you assume that no updates should ever be applied?
Sounds more like you are forming a false dichotomy, and asserting blame to Windows. The general policy of "patch fast" or "patch after testing" is the same across all OSs, even if the amount of patches and tests would be different across different OSs.
That's why everyone hit was big. Anyone with a default Windows install (newer than XP)was 100% safe. The attack only worked against organizations large enough to have delayed patches (usually sold as being needed to ensure a patch didn't break something). So the patches are months behind, waiting for testing and such, and so when a 0-day gets patched, the bad guys can look at the exploit, the patch, and design a way through unpatched systems, then attack them, knowing there are millions of them out there.
And many of those are air-gapped. I worked at a place where a multi-million-dollar system was run on unpatched Win95. They didn't update the PC because when they did, it broke the software. They had two machines in the company with floppy drives. That one and the one next to it. When they needed to use it, they copied the files to the partner PC, then carried a floppy from the partner PC to the legacy PC, to run the un-replaceable and un-upgradeable PC. But, unless someone walks a virus over the air gap on a 3.5 in floppy, it's secure.
Such setups are more common than the purists here seem to think.
Taking away admin from users doesn't help. That's a red herring.
Many vulnerabilities don't bother with privilege elevation.The users must be able to open files in write mode to be able to do work. So just target the user, at user permissions, and most ransomware will still be crippling.
That's about the enforcement being lax, not inconsistent. The 14th Amendment covers inconsistent, where if they always investigate Democrats, and never investigate Republicans, that would be unconstitutional.
Worked for Hillary. Crying "emails", "Benghazi", and "pants suit" up to election day with nothing incriminating ever found seems to have helped cost her the election.
Is the real problem that the Democrats are taking one from the Republican playbook? Investigate someone enough, and people will start to believe.
The government should start a non-profit corporation not unlike the FDIC. "owned" by the federal government (FCC) and run by a joint government/private cooperative. All standards should be carrier independent. Towers, spectrum and connections to POPs should be 100% owned by the FSMC (Federal Spectrum Management Corp). The carriers can buy calls from the FSMC. All connections will be equal, and the competition will be for the best customer service and other things separate from the technical details.
Selling a shared resource for a private corporation to profit off of is a bad idea, and rarely works out well.
+7 funny, -2 overrated = +5 comment, -2 karma. Funny is punished. Also the funny leave or get cynical. So you are left with some constructive comments, but fewer "entertaining" ones.
I'd prefer to approach it from the perspective of a counterexample. What if the google was cut into competing pieces.
I'd not do that. Seems like a bad idea. Instead, require FRAND. Adwords has an API interface, but Google doesn't allow 3rd party ads.If Google started a separate Ad service that was non-preferential (or, more likely was preferential, but openly so, such that any ad service that was appropriately configured could meet or beat Google Ads for Google ad space), then there'd be no "natural monopoly". Similar functions could be FRANDed into competition as well.
Is that a limit on generation, or a limit on sell-back? If a limit on sell-back, you just get one (or more) batteries, and you push the power into batteries for use.
The utilities don't want a grid with 100% of the population having 50% of their needs met with solar. At noon, the grid would be over-generating, but the utility would still be buying the wasted power. Then at night, when generation drops to zero, they have to make a baseline generation.
Granted, that doesn't, hasn't, and never will happen, but that's the kind of doomsday scenarios the lying utilities give to the lawmakers letting them abuse customers to protect profits.
Natural Monopoly is a term for when two equal-sized companies doing the same thing would have near double the cost of a single company doing the same thing, and costs drop as market share increases. A Telephone company is a natural monopoly because if every person was a customer of ATT and Verizon both, then both companies would roll out infrastructure to all of the customers, duplicating costs. If ATT had 100% of the people as a customer, then Verizon would have an insane incremental cost for the first customer.
Also, in the Telephone example, but not explicitly required for a natural monopoly (because government regulations usually prevent it), is that network effects make the company with more people stronger. Telephone companies predate exchanges. So if you were on ATT, you couldn't call someone on Verizon. So if everyone you knew was on ATT, the value to you for a Verizon connection that wouldn't let you call anyone you know, would be worthless. And would cost Verizon more than an ATT connection would.
So the market would naturally drift to a monopoly.
Google can have a startup take over tomorrow. They aren't doing anything in search that some guy in a garage can't do. They scrape sites, give results.
Google is more a benevolent abusive monopoly. But because that doesn't exist, it sounds more like people are abusing well-defined words, rather than using the right words. Google's browser feeds their search results. Google's ads feed and are fed by browser and search results. That's not a "natural monopoly", that's an abusive monopoly. That they don't "require" people use their services, like MS/IE, but people still choose to do it, because they are the only option. That warrants a new term, I dub it "benevolent abusive monopoly".
Slashdot Mirror
The advertisements were for the thinnest phone in the world. The perception that thin=weak was why they felt the need to make those demonstration videos.
No, he did not.
He presented himself multiple times in person in Sweden. He was told he could travel, and did.
He agreed to do an interview from the embassy to an Ecuadorian intermediary, but not to present himself.
You are twisting the words "present himself" to imply "surrender". He did not surrender, but he offered many times to a phone, videoconference and in-person interview. Sweden has done all of those with other people, but refused for Assange. Why?
But if he presents himself, the charges can be brought forward,
If he's suspected of being in a jurisdiction with extradition, the charges will be brought forward without him presenting himself. Then he'll be arrested.
he will have a chance to defend himself and actually answer the questions given.
Ah, presumed guilty until proven innocent. At least that's one thing the us got right, at least in theory.
First of all there are no extradition agreement between USA and Sweden
https://internationalextraditionblog.com/2011/06/15/sweden-extradition-treaty-with-the-united-states/
I don't know if that's real. But the first hit on Google shows a treaty in place, since the '60s.
If this would have been a honey pot operation then Assange would have been woke by armed police with the woman in bed screaming "rape, rape!" and not like how it was now that a few days later the women goes to the police, the police questions Assange, lets him go, lets him travel to the UK and then a new prosecutor decides to open the investigation again.
Julian Assange is arrested. He is questioned. Some agency thinks "great, he'll be in trial for months, and we can work out a diplomatic solution to the extradition. Charges dismissed. Assange goes to the UK. Oh,fuck. They don't ever try anyone for rape there? CIA calls someone ,and the prosecutor on the case is replaced with someone who will prosecute, even if for a loss, to get Assange back in Swedish custody. Too late, he's hiding in Equador.
How does that sounds unreasonable. The dismissal and travel was too quick for any diplomatic channels to work.
And to be honest, if the USA wanted him that bad they would have grabbed him of the streets in the middle of the night like they did with all the other people that they grabbed in Germany and Italy which they sent to gitmo.
The conspiracy theory is that was the plan, only they wanted to do it in Sweden, not England. They missed their chance the first time, and put pressure on Sweden to give then another.
The modern smartphones are designed to be water resistant (yes, even the ones that don't pursue certification). Almost all smartphones these days will survive a toilet drop, something that the non-smartphones don't do as well on, unless you pay extra for a rated one.
Smartphones are more durable than the dumbphones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Go on, tell me how weak and designed to break that smartphone is.
He did present himself to Sweden, and Sweden refused. This was highly unusual on the part of Sweden. This makes the whole thing quite suspicious.
Sweden can (but rarely does) try him in absentia. Sweden has been granted access to Julian Assange by phone, video conference, and in person. Sweden refused. Those means are commonly used.
Sweden has chosen to not pursue a legal conviction since before Assange "escaped" to Ecuador. Sweden has only acted to get him back in custody. It's inconsistent and suspicious.
Proof of his innocence is calls from the "victims" to drop the case.
A crime that isn't a crime almost anywhere else. Essentially Sexual Fraud, where he lied to gain consent "Yes baby, you are the only one for me". Lying to a sexual partner is "rape" in Sweden.
If he, at a later date, makes himself available, I will be able to decide to resume the investigation immediately, says Marianne Ny.
The answer is a lie. So the "drop charges" is a lie as well. The moment he's outside the embassy, he'll be arrested, and the charges will be re-instated.
The proof of this is that Sweden has traveled to foreign countries to interview someone, and has conducted interviews over phone and videoconference. That Sweden refuses to follow their own standards in this case is proof they aren't following the regular process.
Julian Assange has *always* "been available". Sweden has not followed their own policies, and refused to make themselves available.
Much like the charge of "Rape (lesser degree)" is always mistranslated to "rape (with or without a degree listed)". It is "sexual misconduct" in English. But has always been deliberately mistranslated to further vilify Julian Assange. Why?
The deliberate misconduct on the part of Sweden can only be explained by them not actually wanting to catch and convict for the charge given.
They don't take away reasons to meet, they help you meet up with others.
They are not designed to break.
They are not designed to be hard to fix, unless you are specifically talking about Apple or Samsung.
They cost under $200 for a full-featured phone with the specs of a $8
00 Apple or Samsung.
Yeah, and how about the Oppo, Xiaomi, or Huawei with spyware? No-name phones from anywhere are not reliable. The cheap chinese phones are cheaper and better than many of the other brands.
You have the responsibility to keep the email up 105% of the time. You have to use Office 365 in Azure on a single instance without failover, with authentication/DNS being done over a VPN done with the free tools in Azure and the 400 year old Firewall that came with the office building when they moved in.
You don't have a budget to improve the VPN (which dies daily, causing user auth issues). You have no control over the AD environment which has 10% of the users in the wrong groups, causing mailing list and other problems. You don't have the authority to increase the Azure cost to deploy the service across multiple datacenters.
But you have the responsibility to keep a 105% uptime.
That's the source of the stress in my job. Being given sub-standard tools to do a job, then being required to use those tools, and no others.
Usually the problem lays in inefficient middle management. They are so busy trying to make their bosses see how much they do with so little, they don't appreciate what those below them do to make it work.
I managed to get an MBA (with no student debt), and when I tell people that I have 20 years of very technical experience, and an MBA (in addition to a CS), they assume I'm an idiot that went into IT because I was chasing money. So the degrees doen't seem to help, and most "real" iniversities don't have a good IT program, but have CS, which, when I got it was about building CPUs and programming OSs for them, which is 100% irrelevant to IT (yes, we built CPUs, as the CS degree was conferred by the College of Electrical Engineering).
But why do you assume that dozens of "appropriate updates" must be applied every month "in a timely manner"?
Why do you assume that no updates should ever be applied?
Sounds more like you are forming a false dichotomy, and asserting blame to Windows. The general policy of "patch fast" or "patch after testing" is the same across all OSs, even if the amount of patches and tests would be different across different OSs.
That's why everyone hit was big. Anyone with a default Windows install (newer than XP)was 100% safe. The attack only worked against organizations large enough to have delayed patches (usually sold as being needed to ensure a patch didn't break something). So the patches are months behind, waiting for testing and such, and so when a 0-day gets patched, the bad guys can look at the exploit, the patch, and design a way through unpatched systems, then attack them, knowing there are millions of them out there.
And many of those are air-gapped. I worked at a place where a multi-million-dollar system was run on unpatched Win95. They didn't update the PC because when they did, it broke the software. They had two machines in the company with floppy drives. That one and the one next to it. When they needed to use it, they copied the files to the partner PC, then carried a floppy from the partner PC to the legacy PC, to run the un-replaceable and un-upgradeable PC. But, unless someone walks a virus over the air gap on a 3.5 in floppy, it's secure.
Such setups are more common than the purists here seem to think.
Taking away admin from users doesn't help. That's a red herring.
Many vulnerabilities don't bother with privilege elevation.The users must be able to open files in write mode to be able to do work. So just target the user, at user permissions, and most ransomware will still be crippling.
That's about the enforcement being lax, not inconsistent. The 14th Amendment covers inconsistent, where if they always investigate Democrats, and never investigate Republicans, that would be unconstitutional.
Worked for Hillary. Crying "emails", "Benghazi", and "pants suit" up to election day with nothing incriminating ever found seems to have helped cost her the election.
Is the real problem that the Democrats are taking one from the Republican playbook? Investigate someone enough, and people will start to believe.
The government should start a non-profit corporation not unlike the FDIC. "owned" by the federal government (FCC) and run by a joint government/private cooperative. All standards should be carrier independent. Towers, spectrum and connections to POPs should be 100% owned by the FSMC (Federal Spectrum Management Corp). The carriers can buy calls from the FSMC. All connections will be equal, and the competition will be for the best customer service and other things separate from the technical details.
Selling a shared resource for a private corporation to profit off of is a bad idea, and rarely works out well.
There are two peaks every day, one at noon and one at 6. Peak cooling and peak cooking. And AC demands are not high in CO in cooler months.
Where have all the wits gone?
+7 funny, -2 overrated = +5 comment, -2 karma. Funny is punished. Also the funny leave or get cynical. So you are left with some constructive comments, but fewer "entertaining" ones.
I'd prefer to approach it from the perspective of a counterexample. What if the google was cut into competing pieces.
I'd not do that. Seems like a bad idea. Instead, require FRAND. Adwords has an API interface, but Google doesn't allow 3rd party ads.If Google started a separate Ad service that was non-preferential (or, more likely was preferential, but openly so, such that any ad service that was appropriately configured could meet or beat Google Ads for Google ad space), then there'd be no "natural monopoly". Similar functions could be FRANDed into competition as well.
Is that a limit on generation, or a limit on sell-back? If a limit on sell-back, you just get one (or more) batteries, and you push the power into batteries for use.
The utilities don't want a grid with 100% of the population having 50% of their needs met with solar. At noon, the grid would be over-generating, but the utility would still be buying the wasted power. Then at night, when generation drops to zero, they have to make a baseline generation.
Granted, that doesn't, hasn't, and never will happen, but that's the kind of doomsday scenarios the lying utilities give to the lawmakers letting them abuse customers to protect profits.
$101k for my roof, without the tax credits, it has a 29 year ROI (according to Tesla, so likely optimistic). Go Solar Roof!
You could say the same about Yahoo when Google started, yet a couple yahoos in a garage managed to out-Yahoo Yahoo.
Reality proves you wrong, yet again. Doesn't that ever get tiring?
Natural Monopoly is a term for when two equal-sized companies doing the same thing would have near double the cost of a single company doing the same thing, and costs drop as market share increases. A Telephone company is a natural monopoly because if every person was a customer of ATT and Verizon both, then both companies would roll out infrastructure to all of the customers, duplicating costs. If ATT had 100% of the people as a customer, then Verizon would have an insane incremental cost for the first customer.
Also, in the Telephone example, but not explicitly required for a natural monopoly (because government regulations usually prevent it), is that network effects make the company with more people stronger. Telephone companies predate exchanges. So if you were on ATT, you couldn't call someone on Verizon. So if everyone you knew was on ATT, the value to you for a Verizon connection that wouldn't let you call anyone you know, would be worthless. And would cost Verizon more than an ATT connection would.
So the market would naturally drift to a monopoly.
Google can have a startup take over tomorrow. They aren't doing anything in search that some guy in a garage can't do. They scrape sites, give results.
Google is more a benevolent abusive monopoly. But because that doesn't exist, it sounds more like people are abusing well-defined words, rather than using the right words. Google's browser feeds their search results. Google's ads feed and are fed by browser and search results. That's not a "natural monopoly", that's an abusive monopoly. That they don't "require" people use their services, like MS/IE, but people still choose to do it, because they are the only option. That warrants a new term, I dub it "benevolent abusive monopoly".
They started it.