I agree with Yann that our current crop of languages aren't well suited to deep learning, but I'm not sure it's a Python specific problem. I don't think whitespace, threading, syntax etc are the barrier.
It's much more that Python is fundamentally an imperative language, and deep learning doesn't fit into either the imperative or functional category, I really think DL deserves its own category, designed from the ground up for manipulating tensor data structures of unknown shapes.
I haven't come across any language that encapsulate strong typing for tensor shapes, so you end up tracking shapes with pen and paper while debugging your code (and not everything is caught at compile time). Named tensors would be a good start (more information here http://nlp.seas.harvard.edu/Na...) but that wouldn't solve everything. People can't agree on computation graph vs a forward/back functional approach - PyTorch prefers the latter, TensorFlow originally preferred the former (but now seems to be migrating to the latter).
Julia does seem to be the most promising, but that may just be "the grass is always greener" speaking. I haven't played with it myself.
It's a "gated" version of podcasting in the same sense that Medium is the gated version of blogging, yes.
BigCo (Spotify/Amazon/Patreon/etc) have only just twigged about the huge untapped potential for podcasting. I guess YouTube/Twitch caught fire in the video sphere, but podcasts were kind of overlooked as a second-rate citizen.
It definitely feels like a huge number of people listen to podcasts while travelling/doing housework/exercising - i.e. when you're not directly in front of a screen. If Amazon offers a "gated" (and profitable) distribution channel for podcasters in the same way that YouTube/Twitch did for streamers, that's not inherently bad.
Access to listeners is the biggest obstacle for content creators - I'm sure Amazon would be more than happy to boost the market and skim off the top. I assume they will eventually push into audio ads, too - coming full circle to reinvent the radio. There's a natural profit alignment there between Amazon and the creators, so it makes a lot of business sense to do this.
If there's one lesson I've learned about large organizations, it's Hanlon's Razor - never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I lived in China for a number of years, and this has been going on for a long time now (at least, with my ISP China Unicom).
Absolute PITA, but that pretty much describes most online experiences in China (with the exception of Taobao, which is head and shoulders above Ebay).
Slashdot has turned into an incredibly angry, toxic environment over the past 5 years (which is pretty visible in this thread and, IMO, part of the reason why the site was/is suffering), so I dug up my old account and logged in just to give you some positive feedback. It looks like your heads and hearts are in the right place and it would be great to see Slashdot restored to its former glory. SourceForge could definitely become a major competitor to GitHub (for one, I think GH is too expensive) so that's one avenue to go down.
I'm already returning to Slashdot more regularly and it's only been a week since you took the reins - so keep it up.
I disagree - in my opinion, the calorific content of food as measured a calorimeter is not the same as the calorific content that your body "sees" when you ingest food. The digestive process is affected by the type of food you eat, the hormonal response it produces, and so on. If your body can't break down food, it can't utilitise any of the energy stored in it.
In other words, 100 kcal of sugar is not the same as 100 kcal of red-meat protein. Compare two people on a 2000kcal diet (both taking multivitamins to take general nutritional deficiencies out of the equation). Put one on a icecream, soft drink, doughnut and cookie diet. Put the other on meat, fish, chicken and vegetable diet. There will most likely be a noticeable difference in physique after 3 months.
The other thing about HFCS is that it offers no nutritional benefits. At least with other sugars, your body can use them to replenish its glucose stores. HFCS just gets converted to fat.
True, but this is why modern bodybuilders also concurrently take anti-oestregens (aromatase inhibitors).
It's not just a case of banging up some testosterone and away you go. There is a finely balanced stack of supplements all working in conjunction with one another.
Could you please provide a reference for this? I'm not challenging you, I'm a bit of a gym junkie and have read a great many articles on the role of insulin in protein synthesis and weight gain.
I think I'd find this information very interesting.
This is really just a pseudoscientific musing. Somehow it has been ascribed a great deal more importance than it should. Same with the Drake "Equation" - unfounded conjecture which should at most be considered an interesting sidenote.
Weight training will build muscle but doesn't burn a lot of calories. Things like running, swimming, and biking are the kinds of things that burn calories.
You'd be surprised. Not only does resistance training burn kilojoules at a sufficient rate to lose weight (depending on your eating habits), but also the increase in metabolism (due to increased muscle mass) means that your BMR will be higher than if you only engaged in aerobic training. In other words, you'll burn more kilojoules at rest.
I think some people are misunderstanding TFA a little.
The Court issued an interim injunction to take down the website - this means that the guy in question was sued for defamation, and the Court said "Hey, we don't know whether this is defamatory or not, so in the interests of fairness, you need to take down the site until the issue is resolved. If it's not defamatory, you can stick it back up. If it is, you have to keep it down".
This is common practice in defamation cases, and the guy is a bit of an idiot for not complying.
Admittedly, the fact that the injunction was issued three years ago and the matter doesn't appear to have reached trial yet is a little unfair. The fact remains, however, that he never took the site down at any time (at least that's what TFA indicates). So the length of time is pretty much irrelevant
I am talking about Australian law. To be fair, the defence used to require a discernible "public benefit" in some states only. Even then, this was only a statutory modification - at common law, truth was always an absolute defence.
Nowadays, in all Australian states, truth is an absolute defence.
E.g. Section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) - "It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true."
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill
"[t]he defence of justification is made out by proof of truth of the defamatory imputations. Public benefit is no longer an element of the defence."
The other uniform Defamation Acts have the same provision.
I don't know where you got your law degree from, but I suggest you return it along with the cereal box in which it came.
(aside: slander/libel have been subsumed into the one tort of defamation. A criminal offence of defamation does exist, but is very, very rarely invoked or pursued)
1) Yes, I acknowledge intellectual property as a legitimate construct. More specifically, I acknowledge the exclusive right to the creator or sponsor of intangible content to derive income for a limited period of time.
2) As many people have said (and I am sure will continue to say), time-limits need to be shortened. Simple enough to make that statement without a discrete number of years, I know, but I don't have one as yet.
Usage rights need to be effectively unlimited - i.e. treat the purchaser of a "licence" to access/use intellectual property the same as a sole purchaser of tangible property. I can copy, backup, sell, modify, install on multiple machines, change hardware, do whatever I like. If the copyright holder grants/sells to me a right to use that intellectual property, he forfeits all other "rights" with respect to me.
This is talking primarily in the personal/domestic setting. I realise that in the commercial world, licences which are limited (both in duration and use) are commonplace and useful. These generally, however, arise from *signed* contracts. Don't try and BS us with this click-through, shrink wrap EULA business.
Outlaw any technology which impinges on a purchaser's right to access his purchase. DRM, TPM, etc, throw it out the window.
Establish *reasonable* penalties for infringement. Million dollar file for downloading a movie from Channel BT? Disproportionate penalties tend to encourage flouting of the law, IMO. If I were slugged $100 for a movie I downloaded illegitimately, I would probably say "fair cop". Set up an IP tribunal to stop the combative litigation style of the MAFIAA.
In the same vein, do not allow IP holders to act as police (a la DMCA takedown notices). Do not tolerate any conflicts of interest by letting ISPs and content producers to get into bed together. Ban any so-called "TOS" which permit your ISP to boot you off your service if they think you are serving copyrighted material. Provide safe-harbour protection to ISPs so they can ignore threats from IP holders. Packet filtering/inspection is and should be treated as a gross invasion of privacy.
This is just a start. I'm sure there are a good deal of other great ideas.
Sure it does. It means I pay more to get stuff from Amazon's music service than from iTunes. No, it doesn't actually change the speed or priority with which that data is delivered. You are not forced to pay more to access certain data - the monthly service cost for your internet connection is fixed.
I'm not saying that it doesn't treat certain business more favourably than others - it quite clearly does. But this is no different from the vouchers I get on the back of my movie tickets or supermarket receipts. The ISP is effectively adding value by offering such unmetered date (given that the alternative would be that *no* data is unmetered).
Yes, I would. I would have a problem with an ISP mirroring Steam content but not mirroring WOW content or other content. It is a telecomm monopoly giving a competitive advantage to a specific company. If they offered an HTTP proxy that allowed anyone to have their content mirrored, then that would be fine. But this isn't just about local mirroring -- they are actually billing the customers differently. That's anti-competitive. Maybe this is where the difference lies. In Australia, the ISP I am referring to is definitely not a monopoly. It's reasonably large, yes, but it is in no way able to dictate the market. It has to compete with a variety of other ISPs, and one way it does this is by offering such unmetered content.
If the ISP was a monopoly, I would probably be more receptive to your argument (though still, then, I would strongly argue that it is *not* a lack of net neutrality).
This is not an issue of net neutrality. The actual delivery/speed of delivery of the content remains the same whether it is unmetered data or not. Simply exempting certain content from the cap restrictions doesn't change in any way the way you can access other data.
To put it another way - would you have a problem with the ISP mirroring, for example, Steam content (which my ISP in fact does). All the data is located closer to home on the ISP's servers, making it:
a) Cheaper for the ISP to deliver (particularly in Australia where international data rates are exhorbitant; and
b) Faster for me to download.
I have absolutely no problem with it. There is presumably some quid pro quo flowing to the ISP from the companies in question (i.e. Apple), which (in theory at least) should lead to reduced cost to the consumer. This is probably more likely that in the States, due to the effective monopoly that a handful of ISPs have over the market (as I understand it).
Gawd, some of this sounds like a plug for the iPhone:
"The iPhone drastically changes this situation for two reasons. First, the
iPhone stores tremendously more information thereby providing law
enforcement with access to information that the typical arrestee would never
carry in his pocket. In addition to the text messages, contacts, and call histories
found on conventional phones, iPhones also contain an iPhoto function that
holds far more pictures than could be stored on a conventional cell phone and
displays them in much clearer detail. The iPhone also contains an easily
accessible email application making it simple to access thousands of new, saved,
and sent email messages. The iPhone permits users to store thousands of audio
and video files. Music, books, and videos ranging from Beethoven to potentially
obscene pornographic videos can be accessed with the touch of a few buttons.
Second, and perhaps more important than the data stored under these
functions is that the iPhone provides a mechanism for accessing information not
presently stored on the phone. The iPhone contains an internet browser just like
the one found on a standard computer. Thus, it can "dial out" and retrieve
information not presently stored within the confines of the device."
The title is (kind of) misleading - there's nothing legally specific to the iPhone that renders it subject to these laws (any mobile phone/PDA phone would potentially be under the same scrutiny). The author of TFA does, however, deal solely with the iPhone.
I don't know the full facts of the case, so I'm just going to throw this out there - perhaps this was because the smugglers mentioned in that article were two Pakistanis and an Iraqi? That is, not nationals of Thailand.
Furthermore, perhaps people all round lacked confidence in the incorruptability of the Thai judiciary. As a means to avoid bribes (or even death threats) from the smugglers' connection, they deemed it more appropriate that the three be tried in Australia.
I would also argue that the smuggling of people into Australia involves a greater and more direct effect on Australia as a country than the effect on the United States that "passively" making copyrighted material available on the internet would have.
This is horrendous. I don't condone what he has done, but I contend that this should fall squarely and solely within the sovereign boundaries of Australia. We have a perfectly acceptable method of pursuing him for the same offence - either s 132AC(1) or s 132AC(2) of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), which provide respectively:
(1) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright and the person is negligent as to that fact; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale and the person is negligent as to that fact.
Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. There is absolutely no reason to extradite him except for political convenience or expediency, which should NEVER be a basis for depriving someone so severely of their status as a citizen. As Justice Young noted, we should beware allowing (and effecting) foreign prosecutions where the conduct is almost entirely referential to Australia.
If equivalent offences were not in existence in Australia, then perhaps I might be more willing to accept it (although even then I would have drastic reservations). As it stands, I cannot accept this.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with Yann that our current crop of languages aren't well suited to deep learning, but I'm not sure it's a Python specific problem. I don't think whitespace, threading, syntax etc are the barrier.
It's much more that Python is fundamentally an imperative language, and deep learning doesn't fit into either the imperative or functional category, I really think DL deserves its own category, designed from the ground up for manipulating tensor data structures of unknown shapes.
I haven't come across any language that encapsulate strong typing for tensor shapes, so you end up tracking shapes with pen and paper while debugging your code (and not everything is caught at compile time). Named tensors would be a good start (more information here http://nlp.seas.harvard.edu/Na...) but that wouldn't solve everything. People can't agree on computation graph vs a forward/back functional approach - PyTorch prefers the latter, TensorFlow originally preferred the former (but now seems to be migrating to the latter).
Julia does seem to be the most promising, but that may just be "the grass is always greener" speaking. I haven't played with it myself.
It's a "gated" version of podcasting in the same sense that Medium is the gated version of blogging, yes.
BigCo (Spotify/Amazon/Patreon/etc) have only just twigged about the huge untapped potential for podcasting. I guess YouTube/Twitch caught fire in the video sphere, but podcasts were kind of overlooked as a second-rate citizen.
It definitely feels like a huge number of people listen to podcasts while travelling/doing housework/exercising - i.e. when you're not directly in front of a screen. If Amazon offers a "gated" (and profitable) distribution channel for podcasters in the same way that YouTube/Twitch did for streamers, that's not inherently bad.
Access to listeners is the biggest obstacle for content creators - I'm sure Amazon would be more than happy to boost the market and skim off the top. I assume they will eventually push into audio ads, too - coming full circle to reinvent the radio. There's a natural profit alignment there between Amazon and the creators, so it makes a lot of business sense to do this.
If there's one lesson I've learned about large organizations, it's Hanlon's Razor - never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
I lived in China for a number of years, and this has been going on for a long time now (at least, with my ISP China Unicom). Absolute PITA, but that pretty much describes most online experiences in China (with the exception of Taobao, which is head and shoulders above Ebay).
Actually you're probably right - I "know" it's 2016 but it doesn't really feel like it's any different from 2010 for me. I'm getting old.
Slashdot has turned into an incredibly angry, toxic environment over the past 5 years (which is pretty visible in this thread and, IMO, part of the reason why the site was/is suffering), so I dug up my old account and logged in just to give you some positive feedback. It looks like your heads and hearts are in the right place and it would be great to see Slashdot restored to its former glory. SourceForge could definitely become a major competitor to GitHub (for one, I think GH is too expensive) so that's one avenue to go down.
I'm already returning to Slashdot more regularly and it's only been a week since you took the reins - so keep it up.
For some reason I originally read this as "Write them on boobs".
To be honest, I think that's a pretty surefire way of getting people to read about your idea!
I disagree - in my opinion, the calorific content of food as measured a calorimeter is not the same as the calorific content that your body "sees" when you ingest food. The digestive process is affected by the type of food you eat, the hormonal response it produces, and so on. If your body can't break down food, it can't utilitise any of the energy stored in it.
In other words, 100 kcal of sugar is not the same as 100 kcal of red-meat protein. Compare two people on a 2000kcal diet (both taking multivitamins to take general nutritional deficiencies out of the equation). Put one on a icecream, soft drink, doughnut and cookie diet. Put the other on meat, fish, chicken and vegetable diet. There will most likely be a noticeable difference in physique after 3 months.
The other thing about HFCS is that it offers no nutritional benefits. At least with other sugars, your body can use them to replenish its glucose stores. HFCS just gets converted to fat.
True, but this is why modern bodybuilders also concurrently take anti-oestregens (aromatase inhibitors).
It's not just a case of banging up some testosterone and away you go. There is a finely balanced stack of supplements all working in conjunction with one another.
Why did the teacher hit him on the head?
Many things I have read so far point towards insulin having a marked effect on protein uptake post-exercise.
e.g. http://www.jssm.org/vol3/n3/3/v3n3-3pdf.pdf
"Insulin increases muscle amino acid uptake and protein synthesis and reduces protein degradation."
Could you please provide a reference for this? I'm not challenging you, I'm a bit of a gym junkie and have read a great many articles on the role of insulin in protein synthesis and weight gain.
I think I'd find this information very interesting.
They have these already - they're called "consoles".
4) The published paper is laughably simplistic.
You mean like the Fermi "Paradox" itself?
This is really just a pseudoscientific musing. Somehow it has been ascribed a great deal more importance than it should. Same with the Drake "Equation" - unfounded conjecture which should at most be considered an interesting sidenote.
Hammer time?
Weight training will build muscle but doesn't burn a lot of calories. Things like running, swimming, and biking are the kinds of things that burn calories.
You'd be surprised. Not only does resistance training burn kilojoules at a sufficient rate to lose weight (depending on your eating habits), but also the increase in metabolism (due to increased muscle mass) means that your BMR will be higher than if you only engaged in aerobic training. In other words, you'll burn more kilojoules at rest.
I think some people are misunderstanding TFA a little.
The Court issued an interim injunction to take down the website - this means that the guy in question was sued for defamation, and the Court said "Hey, we don't know whether this is defamatory or not, so in the interests of fairness, you need to take down the site until the issue is resolved. If it's not defamatory, you can stick it back up. If it is, you have to keep it down".
This is common practice in defamation cases, and the guy is a bit of an idiot for not complying.
Admittedly, the fact that the injunction was issued three years ago and the matter doesn't appear to have reached trial yet is a little unfair. The fact remains, however, that he never took the site down at any time (at least that's what TFA indicates). So the length of time is pretty much irrelevant
I am talking about Australian law. To be fair, the defence used to require a discernible "public benefit" in some states only. Even then, this was only a statutory modification - at common law, truth was always an absolute defence.
Nowadays, in all Australian states, truth is an absolute defence.
E.g. Section 25 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) - "It is a defence to the publication of defamatory matter if the defendant proves that the defamatory imputations carried by the matter of which the plaintiff complains are substantially true."
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill
"[t]he defence of justification is made out by proof of truth of the defamatory imputations. Public benefit is no longer an element of the defence."
The other uniform Defamation Acts have the same provision.
I don't know where you got your law degree from, but I suggest you return it along with the cereal box in which it came.
(aside: slander/libel have been subsumed into the one tort of defamation. A criminal offence of defamation does exist, but is very, very rarely invoked or pursued)
1) Yes, I acknowledge intellectual property as a legitimate construct. More specifically, I acknowledge the exclusive right to the creator or sponsor of intangible content to derive income for a limited period of time.
2) As many people have said (and I am sure will continue to say), time-limits need to be shortened. Simple enough to make that statement without a discrete number of years, I know, but I don't have one as yet.
Usage rights need to be effectively unlimited - i.e. treat the purchaser of a "licence" to access/use intellectual property the same as a sole purchaser of tangible property. I can copy, backup, sell, modify, install on multiple machines, change hardware, do whatever I like. If the copyright holder grants/sells to me a right to use that intellectual property, he forfeits all other "rights" with respect to me.
This is talking primarily in the personal/domestic setting. I realise that in the commercial world, licences which are limited (both in duration and use) are commonplace and useful. These generally, however, arise from *signed* contracts. Don't try and BS us with this click-through, shrink wrap EULA business.
Outlaw any technology which impinges on a purchaser's right to access his purchase. DRM, TPM, etc, throw it out the window.
Establish *reasonable* penalties for infringement. Million dollar file for downloading a movie from Channel BT? Disproportionate penalties tend to encourage flouting of the law, IMO. If I were slugged $100 for a movie I downloaded illegitimately, I would probably say "fair cop". Set up an IP tribunal to stop the combative litigation style of the MAFIAA.
In the same vein, do not allow IP holders to act as police (a la DMCA takedown notices). Do not tolerate any conflicts of interest by letting ISPs and content producers to get into bed together. Ban any so-called "TOS" which permit your ISP to boot you off your service if they think you are serving copyrighted material. Provide safe-harbour protection to ISPs so they can ignore threats from IP holders. Packet filtering/inspection is and should be treated as a gross invasion of privacy.
This is just a start. I'm sure there are a good deal of other great ideas.
I'm not saying that it doesn't treat certain business more favourably than others - it quite clearly does. But this is no different from the vouchers I get on the back of my movie tickets or supermarket receipts. The ISP is effectively adding value by offering such unmetered date (given that the alternative would be that *no* data is unmetered). Yes, I would. I would have a problem with an ISP mirroring Steam content but not mirroring WOW content or other content. It is a telecomm monopoly giving a competitive advantage to a specific company. If they offered an HTTP proxy that allowed anyone to have their content mirrored, then that would be fine. But this isn't just about local mirroring -- they are actually billing the customers differently. That's anti-competitive. Maybe this is where the difference lies. In Australia, the ISP I am referring to is definitely not a monopoly. It's reasonably large, yes, but it is in no way able to dictate the market. It has to compete with a variety of other ISPs, and one way it does this is by offering such unmetered content.
If the ISP was a monopoly, I would probably be more receptive to your argument (though still, then, I would strongly argue that it is *not* a lack of net neutrality).
This is not an issue of net neutrality. The actual delivery/speed of delivery of the content remains the same whether it is unmetered data or not. Simply exempting certain content from the cap restrictions doesn't change in any way the way you can access other data.
To put it another way - would you have a problem with the ISP mirroring, for example, Steam content (which my ISP in fact does). All the data is located closer to home on the ISP's servers, making it:
a) Cheaper for the ISP to deliver (particularly in Australia where international data rates are exhorbitant; and
b) Faster for me to download.
I have absolutely no problem with it. There is presumably some quid pro quo flowing to the ISP from the companies in question (i.e. Apple), which (in theory at least) should lead to reduced cost to the consumer. This is probably more likely that in the States, due to the effective monopoly that a handful of ISPs have over the market (as I understand it).
Gawd, some of this sounds like a plug for the iPhone: "The iPhone drastically changes this situation for two reasons. First, the iPhone stores tremendously more information thereby providing law enforcement with access to information that the typical arrestee would never carry in his pocket. In addition to the text messages, contacts, and call histories found on conventional phones, iPhones also contain an iPhoto function that holds far more pictures than could be stored on a conventional cell phone and displays them in much clearer detail. The iPhone also contains an easily accessible email application making it simple to access thousands of new, saved, and sent email messages. The iPhone permits users to store thousands of audio and video files. Music, books, and videos ranging from Beethoven to potentially obscene pornographic videos can be accessed with the touch of a few buttons. Second, and perhaps more important than the data stored under these functions is that the iPhone provides a mechanism for accessing information not presently stored on the phone. The iPhone contains an internet browser just like the one found on a standard computer. Thus, it can "dial out" and retrieve information not presently stored within the confines of the device." The title is (kind of) misleading - there's nothing legally specific to the iPhone that renders it subject to these laws (any mobile phone/PDA phone would potentially be under the same scrutiny). The author of TFA does, however, deal solely with the iPhone.
I don't know the full facts of the case, so I'm just going to throw this out there - perhaps this was because the smugglers mentioned in that article were two Pakistanis and an Iraqi? That is, not nationals of Thailand. Furthermore, perhaps people all round lacked confidence in the incorruptability of the Thai judiciary. As a means to avoid bribes (or even death threats) from the smugglers' connection, they deemed it more appropriate that the three be tried in Australia. I would also argue that the smuggling of people into Australia involves a greater and more direct effect on Australia as a country than the effect on the United States that "passively" making copyrighted material available on the internet would have.
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale.
(2) An offence against subsection (1) is punishable on conviction by a fine of not more than 550 penalty units or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both.
(3) A person commits an offence if:
(a) the person engages in conduct; and
(b) the conduct results in one or more infringements of the copyright in a work or other subjectmatter; and
(c) the infringement or infringements have a substantial prejudicial impact on the owner of the copyright and the person is negligent as to that fact; and
(d) the infringement or infringements occur on a commercial scale and the person is negligent as to that fact.
Penalty: 120 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both. There is absolutely no reason to extradite him except for political convenience or expediency, which should NEVER be a basis for depriving someone so severely of their status as a citizen. As Justice Young noted, we should beware allowing (and effecting) foreign prosecutions where the conduct is almost entirely referential to Australia.
If equivalent offences were not in existence in Australia, then perhaps I might be more willing to accept it (although even then I would have drastic reservations). As it stands, I cannot accept this.