"Bro. I know I caused WWIII and wiped out 90% of humanity but it was an honest error. If you fire me I'll sue for wrongful dismissal. Also I'm not going to cooperate with no damn kangaroo court inquiry. I demand I be allowed to show up for work but not actually do anything for the next thirty years until I retire".
Uh yeah, it kind of is. I've known people get fired for deploying stuff to a production system by mistake when they thought they were deploying to a test system because they didn't know what the hell they were doing and causing chaos. But then again they were contractors who were actually accountable for fuckups. Permanent employees usually get moved. The whole contractor thing is that you get paid more than the permies if you're any good and unceremoniously fired if you're not. There is much to be said for this for both the employer and the contractor.
And if it really were "a horribly designed user interface" where clicking one button is the equivalent of falsely crying fire in a crowded theatre it sounds like something it would be good to bring up and the investigation. The one the employee in question has refused to cooperate with despite being asked to. That's another sign the employee has too much power in this relationship.
If people know they can't be fired for fuckups of this magnitude and don't even need to cooperate with an inquiry, those fuckups will happen more frequently.
Richard Rapoza, spokesman for the Hawaii Emergency Management System, confirmed that the employee was temporarily moved to a new role, NBC News reports. However, he declined to say what the worker's new tasks are.
"All we will say is that the individual has been temporarily reassigned within our Emergency Operations Center pending the outcome of our internal investigation, and it is currently in a role that does not provide access to the warning system," Rapoza said.
People across Hawaii received an emergency alert on Saturday warning them to seek immediate shelter for a ballistic missile threat coming to the state. "This is not a drill," the alert said, causing immediate terror.
And they've refused to co-operate with an FCC inquiry into what went wrong, even though the Hawaii EMA said it was hoping they would cooperate and was encouraging them to do so.
The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency said Thursday it hoped its employee-who has already been reassigned-would decide to cooperate with the investigation.
"We share FCC Public Safety Bureau Chief Lisa Fowlkes's disappointment. The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency has encouraged its employees to cooperate in all ongoing investigations, and while each individual makes a personal choice, we hope anyone who is not cooperating will reconsider and help to bring these matters to a satisfactory conclusion," Richard Rapoza, the agency's public information officer, said in a statement.
Despite the employee's lack of cooperation, Fowlkes said the FCC's investigation has made progress. She told to the Senate committee that officials in Hawaii have begun to change their procedures to ensure a similar mistake does not happen again.
"The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency tells us that is working with its vendor to integrate additional technical safeguards into its alert origination software, and has changed its protocols to require two individuals to sign off on the transmission of tests and live alerts," she told the committee.
You have to wonder what it would take to get fired if you work for a government agency in Hawaii.
Chilling thing about that article was that, given both the Nazis and the Communists used gas vans to exterminate groups of people, at some point in the 1930s when it was clear either the Nazis or the Commies would win the use of gas vans in Germany was inevitable.
Back when I used to write a lot of Windows and embedded code I'd have laughed at the suggestion that the first and second commercially most important OS would be based on FreeBSD and Linux.
And yet it's happened. iOS and Android and number 1 and number 2. iOS is based on a FreeBSD kernel and Android is based on a Linux.
That's a good summary and the information about OPUS is new to me but it's wasted on "LOL TL;DR" merchants like the Pope Ratzo who'll just whine it is longer than the original summary which they couldn't read.
Virtual reality is the future. Soon it will surpass real life in every aspect. When that day comes, you can fully expect nobody to be outside anymore except to do work that needs to be done outside.
Assange is one of those rate people that, the more you find out about him the more loathsome he becomes.
Just read the court documents, the Guardian and New Statesman articles about him and watch the documentary I linked to. Literally everyone he convinced to trust him has turned against him.
The recent limited financial disclosure from the Wau Holland Foundation has revealed that no European donor funds have been spent in the provision of a legal team for PFC Manning; in detention for passing documents to WIKILEAKS.
We all remember the recent emails requesting $50,000 in donations in order to hire, and fly a legal team out to Kuwait. As we speak no legal team has been provided, and no attorney provided by Wikileaks has made contact with the JAG office in Kuwait.
In addition to this, the Wau Holland financial release confirmed that there were sufficient funds available to provide immediate assistance to PFC Manning, and that they would have no objection in disbursing the funding such an initiative.
Immediately following Bradley's arrest in late June 2010, the whistle-blower website Wikileaks publicly solicited donations specifically for Bradley's legal defense expenses. In July 2010, Wikileaks pledged to contribute a "substantial amount" towards Bradley's legal defense costs. Since Bradley's selection of David Coombs as his civilian defense attorney in August 2010, the Bradley Manning Support Network has unsuccessfully attempted to facilitate the pledged Wikileaks contribution.
"We understand the difficult situation Wikileaks currently faces as the world's governments conspire to extinguish the whistle-blower website," explained Jeff Paterson, Bradley Manning Support Network steering committee member and project director of Courage to Resist (couragetoresist.org). "However, in order to meet Bradley Manning's legal defense needs, we're forced to clarify that Wikileaks has not yet made a contribution towards this effort. We certainly welcome any contribution from Wikileaks, but we need to inform our supporters that it may not be forthcoming and that their continued contributions and support are crucial."
WikiLeaks has finally made good on a months-old pledge to contribute financially to the defense of 23-year-old Bradley Manning, according to a group raising money for the imprisoned Army private suspected of providing WikiLeaks its most important U.S. releases.
But the sum, $15,100, is less than half the $50,000 WikiLeaks originally promised. It's also less than the group pledged in December, when WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said WikiLeaks would immediately transfer $20,000 to Manning's defense fund.
...
WikiLeaks highlighted Manning's plight after his arrest, writing on Twitter, "We do not know if Mr. Manning is our source, but the U.S. military is claiming he is so we will defend [him]." In a fundraising e-mail last June, the organization said it needed more donations in part because it was "flying a legal team to Kuwait," where Manning was being held. "Any financial contributions will be of IMMEDIATE assistance." The group subsequently promised to send $50,000 to the Bradley Manning Support Network.
But while salaries were paid out to founder Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks members, the promised support to Manning failed to materialize. Assange recently received about $88,000 in retroactive salary for his work with WikiLeaks in 2010. He also recently signed a $1.5 million book deal to publish his memoir.
Saying he was 'allowed to leave Sweden' is overstating things. He skipped the country on an unknown date with dozens of missed calls from the prosecutor saying they wanted to haul him in for arrest
13. I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source,that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21st - 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) thatMr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable.
14. I am sure that constant attempts were made by the prosecuting authorities to arrange interrogation in the period 21 st - 30 th September, but those attempts failed. It appears likely(transcript p.107) that enquiries were made by the authorities independent of his lawyer. The authorities believed Mr Assange would be in Sweden to give a lecture in early October. They asked Mr Hurtig to be available on the evening of 6 th October. It appears that either the rumours were false, or Mr Assange changed his mind. In any event he was not apprehended or interrogated then.
15. Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97).However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. Ido not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.
The fact that know one knows what date he left means he didn't go through a passport check at immigration - because if he had have done that he'd almost certainly been arrested given that the police had a warrant out for him. I.e. he used ignored all the calls telling him was wanted and left the country in such a way that he didn't talk to any immigration people.
He got away with it because of the rather lackadaisical approach the Swedes have towards the criminal justice system. In a normal country if the police want to arrest you they don't leave messages on your voicemail for 8 days saying "Umm it's the cops here. Please come in to be arrested", they kick your door down at 3am and haul you off to the clink.
But the Swedes don't realise that the genteel system they have won't work if they let in mad dog immigrants like Assange who don't respect it and follow its rules.
The same document also accuses his lawyer Bjorn Hurtig of misleading the court. Which caused Hurtig to be investigated in Sweden
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, March 2 (UPI) -- The Swedish Bar Association said it was investigating WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's lawyer after a British judge said the attorney misled the court.
In his ruling last week that Assange should be extradited to Sweden, District Judge Howard Riddle accused attorney Bjorn Hurtig of deliberately misleading the court,
There's no evidence the US is even going to seek to extradite him. If they were going to they'd have done it in the seven years they've had since the rape accusations were made against him.
The whole 'US seeking extradition' thing is just a conspiracy theory Assange has come up with as an excuse to avoid having to face his accusers.
If the answer is yes you should be able to do a one liner bash script that plays the files in sequence fullscreen in a video player.
Actually come to think of it you could make a.m3u playlist and then load it into VLC.
The problem is, kids being kids, assuming they're smart enough they'll inevitably work out some way to turn the TV back onto broadcast and watch Bill Nye and the like.
Thus any sufficiently smart kids must also fall prey to the degeneracy of modern pop culture.
Another aphorism occured to me. The reasonable man changes his home to deal with the degeneracy of modern pop culture. The unreasonable man changes the degeneracy of modern pop culture in order to protect his home. Therefore all progress depends on the later.
The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
He knew she didn't want sex without a condom and yet he woke her up by having sex with her without a condom. Which the UK courts ruled would be rape had he done it in the UK and was hence an extraditable offence.
I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source, that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21stâ" 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable
Four: "The Swedes should interview Assange in London"
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange's many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or "indictment"). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.
Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor's position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:
140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:
"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.
"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.
"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.
"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not "disproportionate" as submitted by Assange's lawyers:
We say "X allegedly committed the offense" if X is on trial because of the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. I see no reason to say when X is a fugitive from justice.
Back in the old days Windows had a style WS_THICKFRAME. That both made the resizeable and gave them a frame a few pixels wider. The wide frame was cue to the user they could resize and also made it bit easier to grab the frame to resize. Now of course designers have decided thick borders are aesthetically ugly, even though for less dexterous users that must make the UI harder to use.
It's like accelerators. In the original Windows accelerators were always visible. So for example the F in the File menu was underlined as cue that Alt+F would open that menu. So to save a file you'd type Alt+F, S.
Then in WIndows 2000 designers got involved and decided this was ugly so they're hidden until you hit the Alt key
I.e. there seems to have been a move to flatter UIs on aesthetic grounds even though this makes them less discoverable to noobies. Modern Android, macOS and Windows take this to absurd levels.
No, not really. If he'd fled the country instead of to the embassy. (which in many respects is the same thing), then he'd simply be beyond the reach of arrest unless and until he came back. This is pretty elementary; thousands of people have outstanding warrants who have fled the country; and unless the crime rises to a level where its worth pursuing international warrants; and he happens to hide in an extradition treaty country -- then fleeing a country and living in exile has always been something one can get away with for small crimes. The police don't normally spend a lot of time worrying about it.
He fled Sweden and the Swedes issued an european arrest warrant. I'm sure if he'd fled the UK they'd have issued one for him. And if he was outside Europe they could issue an Interpol notice.
And actually Interpol have confirmed the existing Interpol red notice is still outstanding, so all the paperwork is in place.
LYON, France - INTERPOL confirms that its Red Notice, or international wanted persons alert, issued for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at Sweden's request in November 2010 remains valid.
Confirmation that Mr Assange's Red Notice status remains in force follows Thursday's decision by authorities in Ecuador to grant asylum to Mr Assange, two months after he took refuge in its London embassy while fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden where authorities want to question him in connection with alleged sexual offences.
A Red Notice status is a request for any country to identify or locate an individual with a view to their provisional arrest and extradition in accordance with the country's national laws.
Many of INTERPOL's member countries consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty. In cases where arrests are made based on a Red Notice, these are made by national police officials in INTERPOL member countries.
INTERPOL cannot compel any of its 190 member countries to arrest the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I.e. even if he left the EU he'd still be wanted man. Basically he'd need to flee to a country which would ignore the Interpol notice and refuse to extradite.
"Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk
God save Martin Bormann and Nazis on the run They wasn't being wicked God that was their idea of fun God save Myra Hindley God save Ian Brady Even though he's horrible and she ain't what you call a lady"
However collaborating on a good song doesn't buy you immunity from judicial process.
Brazil eventually signed an extradition treaty with the UK but refused to extradite Biggs
Brazil had no extradition treaty with the UK before the late 1990s, allowing Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs - who had escaped from Wandsworth Prison in 1965 - to enjoy the sun and sand of Rio for decades. Even if there had been a reciprocal treaty, Brazilian law prohibits the father of a Brazilian child from being extradited. In 1981, Biggs was kidnapped in Rio by a group of former British soldiers working for a security firm and ended up in the Bahamas, where it was hoped the government would extradite him to the UK. The country's high court, however, sent him back to Brazil. In 1997, Brazil and the UK signed a treaty, but Brazil still reject
Slashdot Mirror
"Bro. I know I caused WWIII and wiped out 90% of humanity but it was an honest error. If you fire me I'll sue for wrongful dismissal. Also I'm not going to cooperate with no damn kangaroo court inquiry. I demand I be allowed to show up for work but not actually do anything for the next thirty years until I retire".
OK dude. You upload yourself to the cloud. I'll stay outside with access to the controls.
Black Mirror has quite a few memorably nasty examples of people ruthlessly torturing conscious entities inside a simulation they control.
Uh yeah, it kind of is. I've known people get fired for deploying stuff to a production system by mistake when they thought they were deploying to a test system because they didn't know what the hell they were doing and causing chaos. But then again they were contractors who were actually accountable for fuckups. Permanent employees usually get moved. The whole contractor thing is that you get paid more than the permies if you're any good and unceremoniously fired if you're not. There is much to be said for this for both the employer and the contractor.
And if it really were "a horribly designed user interface" where clicking one button is the equivalent of falsely crying fire in a crowded theatre it sounds like something it would be good to bring up and the investigation. The one the employee in question has refused to cooperate with despite being asked to. That's another sign the employee has too much power in this relationship.
If people know they can't be fired for fuckups of this magnitude and don't even need to cooperate with an inquiry, those fuckups will happen more frequently.
The employee who did that didn't even get fired either, just assigned to another job pending an investigation.
http://time.com/5103320/hawaii...
Richard Rapoza, spokesman for the Hawaii Emergency Management System, confirmed that the employee was temporarily moved to a new role, NBC News reports. However, he declined to say what the worker's new tasks are.
"All we will say is that the individual has been temporarily reassigned within our Emergency Operations Center pending the outcome of our internal investigation, and it is currently in a role that does not provide access to the warning system," Rapoza said.
People across Hawaii received an emergency alert on Saturday warning them to seek immediate shelter for a ballistic missile threat coming to the state. "This is not a drill," the alert said, causing immediate terror.
And they've refused to co-operate with an FCC inquiry into what went wrong, even though the Hawaii EMA said it was hoping they would cooperate and was encouraging them to do so.
http://time.com/5119618/hawaii...
The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency said Thursday it hoped its employee-who has already been reassigned-would decide to cooperate with the investigation.
"We share FCC Public Safety Bureau Chief Lisa Fowlkes's disappointment. The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency has encouraged its employees to cooperate in all ongoing investigations, and while each individual makes a personal choice, we hope anyone who is not cooperating will reconsider and help to bring these matters to a satisfactory conclusion," Richard Rapoza, the agency's public information officer, said in a statement.
Despite the employee's lack of cooperation, Fowlkes said the FCC's investigation has made progress. She told to the Senate committee that officials in Hawaii have begun to change their procedures to ensure a similar mistake does not happen again.
"The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency tells us that is working with its vendor to integrate additional technical safeguards into its alert origination software, and has changed its protocols to require two individuals to sign off on the transmission of tests and live alerts," she told the committee.
You have to wonder what it would take to get fired if you work for a government agency in Hawaii.
Black Mirror:White Christmas shows there are a lot of ways for people outside the cloud to make life for people inside the cloud very unpleasant.
I imagine after not too long you and the below ground nudists will *wish* for a quick death.
Or they'll evolve into Morlocks and farm your Eloi ass.
Chilling thing about that article was that, given both the Nazis and the Communists used gas vans to exterminate groups of people, at some point in the 1930s when it was clear either the Nazis or the Commies would win the use of gas vans in Germany was inevitable.
Back when I used to write a lot of Windows and embedded code I'd have laughed at the suggestion that the first and second commercially most important OS would be based on FreeBSD and Linux.
And yet it's happened. iOS and Android and number 1 and number 2. iOS is based on a FreeBSD kernel and Android is based on a Linux.
That's a good summary and the information about OPUS is new to me but it's wasted on "LOL TL;DR" merchants like the Pope Ratzo who'll just whine it is longer than the original summary which they couldn't read.
One British Thermal Unit is the energy released when burning 1/114,000 of a gallon of gasoline. That's 1392 micro hogsheads
Virtual reality is the future. Soon it will surpass real life in every aspect. When that day comes, you can fully expect nobody to be outside anymore except to do work that needs to be done outside.
This sounds like one of the solutions to the Fermi paradox.
I do not know what you said. You did not summarize, plus you shat woods. I think I would agree, but, too much!
Maybe you'd be happier watching TV.
the tooth fairy
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/...
Assange is one of those rate people that, the more you find out about him the more loathsome he becomes.
Just read the court documents, the Guardian and New Statesman articles about him and watch the documentary I linked to. Literally everyone he convinced to trust him has turned against him.
He even shafted Manning
http://cryptome.org/0001/wikil...
A sends via PGPboard, 17 July 2010:
The recent limited financial disclosure from the Wau Holland Foundation has revealed that no European donor funds have been spent in the provision of a legal team for PFC Manning; in detention for passing documents to WIKILEAKS.
We all remember the recent emails requesting $50,000 in donations in order to hire, and fly a legal team out to Kuwait. As we speak no legal team has been provided, and no attorney provided by Wikileaks has made contact with the JAG office in Kuwait.
In addition to this, the Wau Holland financial release confirmed that there were sufficient funds available to provide immediate assistance to PFC Manning, and that they would have no objection in disbursing the funding such an initiative.
http://cryptome.org/0003/wikil...
8 December 2010
Immediately following Bradley's arrest in late June 2010, the whistle-blower website Wikileaks publicly solicited donations specifically for Bradley's legal defense expenses. In July 2010, Wikileaks pledged to contribute a "substantial amount" towards Bradley's legal defense costs. Since Bradley's selection of David Coombs as his civilian defense attorney in August 2010, the Bradley Manning Support Network has unsuccessfully attempted to facilitate the pledged Wikileaks contribution.
"We understand the difficult situation Wikileaks currently faces as the world's governments conspire to extinguish the whistle-blower website," explained Jeff Paterson, Bradley Manning Support Network steering committee member and project director of Courage to Resist (couragetoresist.org). "However, in order to meet Bradley Manning's legal defense needs, we're forced to clarify that Wikileaks has not yet made a contribution towards this effort. We certainly welcome any contribution from Wikileaks, but we need to inform our supporters that it may not be forthcoming and that their continued contributions and support are crucial."
http://www.wired.com/threatlev...
WikiLeaks has finally made good on a months-old pledge to contribute financially to the defense of 23-year-old Bradley Manning, according to a group raising money for the imprisoned Army private suspected of providing WikiLeaks its most important U.S. releases.
But the sum, $15,100, is less than half the $50,000 WikiLeaks originally promised. It's also less than the group pledged in December, when WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said WikiLeaks would immediately transfer $20,000 to Manning's defense fund.
...
WikiLeaks highlighted Manning's plight after his arrest, writing on Twitter, "We do not know if Mr. Manning is our source, but the U.S. military is claiming he is so we will defend [him]." In a fundraising e-mail last June, the organization said it needed more donations in part because it was "flying a legal team to Kuwait," where Manning was being held. "Any financial contributions will be of IMMEDIATE assistance." The group subsequently promised to send $50,000 to the Bradley Manning Support Network.
But while salaries were paid out to founder Julian Assange and other WikiLeaks members, the promised support to Manning failed to materialize. Assange recently received about $88,000 in retroactive salary for his work with WikiLeaks in 2010. He also recently signed a $1.5 million book deal to publish his memoir.
Loraine Reitman, a m
Saying he was 'allowed to leave Sweden' is overstating things. He skipped the country on an unknown date with dozens of missed calls from the prosecutor saying they wanted to haul him in for arrest
http://www.scribd.com/doc/4946...
13. I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source,that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21st - 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) thatMr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable.
14. I am sure that constant attempts were made by the prosecuting authorities to arrange interrogation in the period 21 st - 30 th September, but those attempts failed. It appears likely(transcript p.107) that enquiries were made by the authorities independent of his lawyer. The authorities believed Mr Assange would be in Sweden to give a lecture in early October. They asked Mr Hurtig to be available on the evening of 6 th October. It appears that either the rumours were false, or Mr Assange changed his mind. In any event he was not apprehended or interrogated then.
15. Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97).However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. Ido not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way.
The fact that know one knows what date he left means he didn't go through a passport check at immigration - because if he had have done that he'd almost certainly been arrested given that the police had a warrant out for him. I.e. he used ignored all the calls telling him was wanted and left the country in such a way that he didn't talk to any immigration people.
He got away with it because of the rather lackadaisical approach the Swedes have towards the criminal justice system. In a normal country if the police want to arrest you they don't leave messages on your voicemail for 8 days saying "Umm it's the cops here. Please come in to be arrested", they kick your door down at 3am and haul you off to the clink.
But the Swedes don't realise that the genteel system they have won't work if they let in mad dog immigrants like Assange who don't respect it and follow its rules.
The same document also accuses his lawyer Bjorn Hurtig of misleading the court. Which caused Hurtig to be investigated in Sweden
https://www.upi.com/Assanges-S...
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, March 2 (UPI) -- The Swedish Bar Association said it was investigating WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's lawyer after a British judge said the attorney misled the court.
In his ruling last week that Assange should be extradited to Sweden, District Judge Howard Riddle accused attorney Bjorn Hurtig of deliberately misleading the court,
There's no evidence the US is even going to seek to extradite him. If they were going to they'd have done it in the seven years they've had since the rape accusations were made against him.
The whole 'US seeking extradition' thing is just a conspiracy theory Assange has come up with as an excuse to avoid having to face his accusers.
If the answer is yes you should be able to do a one liner bash script that plays the files in sequence fullscreen in a video player.
Actually come to think of it you could make a .m3u playlist and then load it into VLC.
The problem is, kids being kids, assuming they're smart enough they'll inevitably work out some way to turn the TV back onto broadcast and watch Bill Nye and the like.
Thus any sufficiently smart kids must also fall prey to the degeneracy of modern pop culture.
Another aphorism occured to me. The reasonable man changes his home to deal with the degeneracy of modern pop culture. The unreasonable man changes the degeneracy of modern pop culture in order to protect his home. Therefore all progress depends on the later.
No, this is the rape
https://www.theguardian.com/me...
The following day, Miss W phoned Assange and arranged to meet him late in the evening, according to her statement. The pair went back to her flat in Enkoping, near Stockholm. Miss W told police that though they started to have sex, Assange had not wanted to wear a condom, and she had moved away because she had not wanted unprotected sex. Assange had then lost interest, she said, and fallen asleep. However, during the night, they had both woken up and had sex at least once when "he agreed unwillingly to use a condom".
Early the next morning, Miss W told police, she had gone to buy breakfast before getting back into bed and falling asleep beside Assange. She had awoken to find him having sex with her, she said, but when she asked whether he was wearing a condom he said no. "According to her statement, she said: 'You better not have HIV' and he answered: 'Of course not,' " but "she couldn't be bothered to tell him one more time because she had been going on about the condom all night. She had never had unprotected sex before."
He knew she didn't want sex without a condom and yet he woke her up by having sex with her without a condom. Which the UK courts ruled would be rape had he done it in the UK and was hence an extraditable offence.
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
I have not heard from Mr Assange and do not know whether he had been told, by any source, that he was wanted for interrogation before he left Sweden. I do not know whether he was uncontactable from 21stâ" 29th September and if that was the case I do not know why. It would have been a reasonable assumption from the facts (albeit not necessarily an accurate one) that Mr Assange was deliberately avoiding interrogation in the period before he left Sweden. Some witnesses suggest that there were other reasons why he was out of contact. I have heard no evidence that he was readily contactable
Because he's not merely wanted for interview. He's wanted for a final interrogation prior to arrest.
https://www.newstatesman.com/d...
Four: "The Swedes should interview Assange in London"
This is currently the most popular contention of Assange's many vocal supporters. But this too is based on a misunderstanding.
Assange is not wanted merely for questioning.
He is wanted for arrest.
This arrest is for an alleged crime in Sweden as the procedural stage before charging (or "indictment"). Indeed, to those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged, the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.
It is not for any person accused of rape and sexual assault to dictate the terms on which he is investigated, whether it be Assange or otherwise. The question is whether the Swedish investigators can now, at this stage of the process, arrest Assange.
Here the best guide is the High Court judgment. In paragraph 140, the Court sets out the prosecutor's position, and this should be read in full be anyone following this case:
140. Mr Assange contended prior to the hearing before the Senior District Judge that the warrant had been issued for the purpose of questioning Mr Assange rather than prosecuting him and that he was not accused of an offence. In response to that contention, shortly before that hearing, Mrs Ny provided a signed statement dated 11 February 2011 on behalf of the Prosecutor:
"6. A domestic warrant for [Julian Assange's] arrest was upheld [on] 24 November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW.
"7. According to Swedish law, a formal decision to indict may not be taken at the stage that the criminal process is currently at. Julian Assange's case is currently at the stage of "preliminary investigation". It will only be concluded when Julian Assange is surrendered to Sweden and has been interrogated.
"8. The purpose of a preliminary investigation is to investigate the crime, provide underlying material on which to base a decision concerning prosecution and prepare the case so that all evidence can be presented at trial. Once a decision to indict has been made, an indictment is filed with the court. In the case of a person in pre-trial detention, the trial must commence within 2 weeks. Once started, the trial may not be adjourned. It can, therefore be seen that the formal decision to indict is made at an advanced stage of the criminal proceedings. There is no easy analogy to be drawn with the English criminal procedure. I issued the EAW because I was satisfied that there was substantial and probable cause to accuse Julian Assange of the offences.
"9. It is submitted on Julian Assange's behalf that it would be possible for me to interview him by way of Mutual Legal Assistance. This is not an appropriate course in Assange's case. The preliminary investigation is at an advanced stage and I consider that is necessary to interrogate Assange, in person, regarding the evidence in respect of the serious allegations made against him.
"10. Once the interrogation is complete it may be that further questions need to be put to witnesses or the forensic scientists. Subject to any matters said by him, which undermine my present view that he should be indicted, an indictment will be lodged with the court thereafter. It can therefore be seen that Assange is sought for the purpose of conducting criminal proceedings and that he is not sought merely to assist with our enquiries."
And in paragraph 160 of the same judgment, the High Court explains why such a requirement is not "disproportionate" as submitted by Assange's lawyers:
160.
We say "X allegedly committed the offense" if X is on trial because of the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty. I see no reason to say when X is a fugitive from justice.
Back in the old days Windows had a style WS_THICKFRAME. That both made the resizeable and gave them a frame a few pixels wider. The wide frame was cue to the user they could resize and also made it bit easier to grab the frame to resize. Now of course designers have decided thick borders are aesthetically ugly, even though for less dexterous users that must make the UI harder to use.
It's like accelerators. In the original Windows accelerators were always visible. So for example the F in the File menu was underlined as cue that Alt+F would open that menu. So to save a file you'd type Alt+F, S.
Then in WIndows 2000 designers got involved and decided this was ugly so they're hidden until you hit the Alt key
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.c...
I.e. there seems to have been a move to flatter UIs on aesthetic grounds even though this makes them less discoverable to noobies. Modern Android, macOS and Windows take this to absurd levels.
The 'people skills' line is funnier.
No, not really. If he'd fled the country instead of to the embassy. (which in many respects is the same thing), then he'd simply be beyond the reach of arrest unless and until he came back. This is pretty elementary; thousands of people have outstanding warrants who have fled the country; and unless the crime rises to a level where its worth pursuing international warrants; and he happens to hide in an extradition treaty country -- then fleeing a country and living in exile has always been something one can get away with for small crimes. The police don't normally spend a lot of time worrying about it.
He fled Sweden and the Swedes issued an european arrest warrant. I'm sure if he'd fled the UK they'd have issued one for him. And if he was outside Europe they could issue an Interpol notice.
And actually Interpol have confirmed the existing Interpol red notice is still outstanding, so all the paperwork is in place.
https://www.interpol.int/News-...
LYON, France - INTERPOL confirms that its Red Notice, or international wanted persons alert, issued for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange at Sweden's request in November 2010 remains valid.
Confirmation that Mr Assange's Red Notice status remains in force follows Thursday's decision by authorities in Ecuador to grant asylum to Mr Assange, two months after he took refuge in its London embassy while fighting extradition from the UK to Sweden where authorities want to question him in connection with alleged sexual offences.
A Red Notice status is a request for any country to identify or locate an individual with a view to their provisional arrest and extradition in accordance with the country's national laws.
Many of INTERPOL's member countries consider a Red Notice a valid request for provisional arrest, especially if they are linked to the requesting country via a bilateral extradition treaty. In cases where arrests are made based on a Red Notice, these are made by national police officials in INTERPOL member countries.
INTERPOL cannot compel any of its 190 member countries to arrest the subject of a Red Notice. Any individual wanted for arrest should be considered innocent until proven guilty.
I.e. even if he left the EU he'd still be wanted man. Basically he'd need to flee to a country which would ignore the Interpol notice and refuse to extradite.
Ronnie Biggs for example spent 36 years in Brazil which didn't have an extradition treaty where he made some rather likeable records with the Sex Pistols.
"Ronnie Biggs was doing time until he done a bunk
Now he says he's seen the light and he sold his soul to punk
God save Martin Bormann and Nazis on the run
They wasn't being wicked God that was their idea of fun
God save Myra Hindley God save Ian Brady
Even though he's horrible and she ain't what you call a lady"
However collaborating on a good song doesn't buy you immunity from judicial process.
Brazil eventually signed an extradition treaty with the UK but refused to extradite Biggs
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
Brazil had no extradition treaty with the UK before the late 1990s, allowing Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs - who had escaped from Wandsworth Prison in 1965 - to enjoy the sun and sand of Rio for decades. Even if there had been a reciprocal treaty, Brazilian law prohibits the father of a Brazilian child from being extradited. In 1981, Biggs was kidnapped in Rio by a group of former British soldiers working for a security firm and ended up in the Bahamas, where it was hoped the government would extradite him to the UK. The country's high court, however, sent him back to Brazil. In 1997, Brazil and the UK signed a treaty, but Brazil still reject