The vast majority of paid software development hours is in-house tools that are not distributed, and can be written under moral and ethical practices. It is exactly this sort of false-dichotomy nonsense that drives him (and me) nuts.
Guess what, software developers don't have to "monitize" their software, or literally, turn it into a thing whose function is to make money. They might instead engage in a standard human behavior that creates revenue, and write or use software that respects their freedom while doing so. Notice, there is no lack of understanding about commerce in this view. There is just a lack of interest in software that exists not to assist a separate human endeavor, but just to make money.
It is like claiming that the restaurant industry will come crashing down if chefs refuse to work at fast food. Or that people who don't want to talk about fast food, because they do something else, must not care about jobs.
I disagree. The form of the word implies that you're converting something into a new form that is based primarily on making money. And indeed, the word is used exactly in the way the form implies.
Just shouting "strawman" for no reason is an even worse form of fallacy than a straw-man; it is name-calling from ignorance.
If you can't get standard modern software running after two days, that probably means you're not an expert and shouldn't talk about that thing.
I've been maintaining systems since the 90s, and it is something new, yes. I have to look things up in the manual again, yes. But Sys V was always crap. We always knew it was crap. But the other stuff was worse. Until systemd. So now people that understand these things, and get to make important decisions about them like what to run in a distro, are switching to systemd. Because something finally had the correct architecture.
We know you hate, we're just not worried about that.
Newsflash: Obama is so popular, he's President. And was re-elected.
Waving your hands can't steal my vote, and thankfully it can't take RMS away either.
As somebody actually creating hardware, the age of open hardware is just beginning. It is just insane what is out of patent now, and what is available in free hardware licenses.
Maybe you're buying consumer hardware that doesn't respect your freedom, but that only tells us what you're willing to tolerate. Those of us who follow RMS's lead and don't tolerate loss of freedom are living in a wonderland where everything is just exploding. You can not only get open CPUs, you can buy a whole hardware dev toolchain with eval boards for each motherboard subsystem, all GPL. Chinese factories will sell you the complete toolchain; buy 1 copy of the dev board, you get the gerber files with it; they give you what you need to go to another factory! They know if your product is a success, you probably already like them.
If it is not clear, and hasn't been applied to anybody else, the courts aren't going to discriminate against him over it. It would need to be clear in order to have meaning. Not being clear doesn't mean it is more likely it would exclude him, it means it is not enforceable until you find a clear application.
If it doesn't distinguish, then it doesn't require it. It doesn't say "continuous recent" or anything, so it simply doesn't mean that. Even if many readers want it to.
That only matters where you're not actually living overseas. You're allowed to change citizenship for tax reasons as long as you already changed your (physical) residency.
The whole thing is pretty crazy. We knew he had had WMDs... because we had the receipts! Gosh, he sure must be an awful guy if he was willing to buy chemical weapons from us. D'oh! Of course, after the Persian Gulf War we verified that they were destroyed and buried in the sand. Then in 2003 they had aides running around leaking that we had evidence of him having bought them, without mentioning the seller, or the destruction, and then other aides leaking that we had evidence that he had "buried WMDs in the sand... to hide them." When actually, we had mandated that disposal method, and none of the buried stuff would still even be potent.
And right wingers are still spewing the nonsense, because so many of them have given up on even differentiating between talking points and facts. They can't perceive of the public being aware that a claim was already fact-checked and is known horse shit.
It is wrong, though, because criminal jobs aren't even counted. Outside of Nevada, prostitutes aren't considered employed. And other than pharmacists, coke dealers aren't counted as employed either. Fluffer is a legitimate specialty in the makeup arts industry, but nobody has ever claimed that Obama invented the internet so I have no idea why that one is in there. The other ones I can just pass off as racist nonsense that people say about Obama. But fluffers?! What kind of pervert is still against porn in this age?
Here in Oregon most of our civil engineers received a Liberal Arts education along with their science degrees at high quality public institutions, and they were designing awesome solutions to traffic problems from the Oregon Trail all the way to modern times. Even in the 1950s. Making sure that neighborhoods are well served by changes is part of the planning process, it is a technical specialty. I have heard these stories of cities where the people doing that part of the job did fall-on-their-faces-bad jobs. But don't blame engineering generally.
That is nonsense, liberal arts is alive and well in the US, even if most of the people in this thread don't understand the term. Most of the people engaging in a liberal arts education don't understand the term either, and that is nothing to be concerned about because the term doesn't have direct utility for students outside of Education majors.
And if you think liberal arts majors aren't trained to think logically, I don't know what to tell you. A decent liberal arts program most certainly covers that
Not based on the curriculum I've seen and the individuals I've met. Thinking, perhaps, thinking logically, not so much.
LOL don't expect real people to live up to your stereotypes if you ever make it to the surface.
I'll give you a challenge, Mr Logical: What sort of degree does an expert in "thinking logically" have? What department of the University are they found in? And if your curriculum is heavy on Logic, what is your most likely major?
The part you're missing is that programming is not like math. It involves languages, expressing human needs in computer languages. That is hard for the same reasons that writing an awesome novel is hard. Mathematicians generally make horrible programmers from the perspective of somebody trying to hire programmers; though they might write some important library or famous tool. They generally don't understand human context, and can't operate outside of a backend programming environment where they have complete control and can keep NIH-level control of their toolchain.
The hard part is finding a programmer that can achieve arbitrary needs of other humans, translate these needs into computer languages in a way that makes sense for the problem domain. Most developers are horrible at that, because they want their technical opinions, hangups, and religions determine how they code, instead of the needs of the user and the context that the tool is used in taking center stage.
Most developers are mediocre thinkers who are nevertheless good at math. It is almost impossible to test for this condition. It is easy to say that the schools are failing us, but how do you test for this crap? Measure their neck hair? Fail them if they don't know anything about Bertrand Russell?
As an aside, if the abstraction is even difficult, it might not be worthwhile to try to fight it and "digest the information." That is a WTF being born. A person who is better at math than is serving them well; perhaps if they were a little less willing to try to abstract things, they'd keep from building suck giant piles of crap. They'd be forced to stop typing, and figure out WTF they're supposed to build before diving in and churning through a few sprints and a dozen releases.
What do you expect, most of the people commenting don't even know what a "liberal arts education" means, who gets one, if they might be receiving a technical degree, or what the English language is.
I doubt most of these schmucks actually received a lofty enough degree to warrant their snobbery. I mean, if they don't value a liberal arts education, it seems like that would put them more in the "not for me" category than the "I know about this subject, and have some sort of expert opinion."
They should just take people's word for it that learning about humanity has value to humaans.
One thing about us FOSS "zealots" (aka "users") is that we're perfectly happy to promote what we do with our slashdot names, our real names, whatever name is normal for the place we're in. We don't need to hide and call names from the shadows and pretend we didn't really say it.
We believe in how we want to be treated by software. And we've been living in that world, lets see, well, for the most part since emacs and gcc! And linux of course was a giant step forwards overall. But it wouldn't have happened without the GNU environment, at least not as a mainstream thing.
We may be chirping away, but it is the happy chirps of us little birdies successfully using the tools we wanted, the tools we believe in, the tools that respect us and that we've been using for decades now.
Do you want to know why you didn't provide a link? Because you don't know the answer, and just assumed that since you believed the hollywoodism, it must be true. It is "common sense," right? Everybody knows it, right?
Had you checked, because you don't know, or attempted to provide a link to substantiate your claim, you would have discovered the truth. But you didn't. Because you were born yesterday, and don't know any better.
Educate yourself at the library, get off the lawn!
Here is a great Yahoo! Answers where one person gives a correct answer, and a dozen spew horse crap. https://answers.yahoo.com/ques... Knowledge isn't unheard of, just rare.
One thing to note about the treaty protecting diplomatic missions is that there is strict context to the restrictions:
... are immune from any exercise of jurisdiction by the receiving state [i.e., the nation in which the embassy is located] that would interfere with their official use
Is harboring international fugitives really the official use of the embassy? This isn't a political thing, either; there is a valid interpol warrant. If you're part of the interpol system, then it is a matter of basic rule of law. And in the UK, they have a specific system whereby if a diplomatic mission is facilitating an activity other than its official use, they suspend its status. But that isn't strictly necessary under the Treaty; that is just the local system. Under the treaty, only entering to arrest somebody involved in an official use of the embassy is protected. Assange is not a member of the diplomatic staff, and is not a legitimate visitor. Since it is literally and legally UK territory, even inside the embassy, there is no way around the legal status of "fugitive from justice inside the UK." Ecuador might like to grant him status in their country, and they're free to issue him paperwork. But he is not actually in Ecuador.
Reality is that he is hiding in a closet, and will be arrested when he leaves. Even if he makes it another 5 years and escapes he Swedish warrant, he'll still be facing having skipped bail in the UK. There is no time limit in the UK while you're wanted for something and hiding.
No, he's facing PROSECUTION for RAPE. There's a big difference.
No, he's facing QUESTIONING for RAPE. There's a big difference.
No, he's facing a final round of questioning prior to being CHARGED for RAPE, which occurs right before being TRIED for RAPE. Sweden's legal system has been discussed here often enough.
That "Sweden's legal system has been discussed here" does not somehow turn into, "there is no investigative process in Sweden and 100% of people questioned are tried." That is just absurd.
If after questioning him they determine to proceed with charges, that is their job. It doesn't violate your rights to be charged with a local crime when you visit a place. It would seem to violate the rights of the people of Sweden to claim that if you're popular enough then their laws don't apply to you, even while you're visiting their country.
If he's charged and there are some problems claimed with the charges, that is an appropriate issue for his Swedish lawyer to take up during or in parallel to the eventual trial.
Skipping bail in the UK might turn out to have been a bigger deal, though.
There isn't really a decent philosophical argument to be made against facing charges in court. Claiming that Sweden doesn't have basic rule of law is absurd. Claiming the US doesn't have basic rule of law, or legal protections for journalists, is absurd. People are trying excessively hard because they're upset their hero is hiding in a closet. I get it, nobody likes to see their heros reduced like that. But it doesn't automatically make anything you think of to say in his support into a viable or rational argument.
No country can make a blanket promise not to extradite a person.
It would be insane.
If you're willing to handwave that away, you're not going to contribute anything useful.
NO COUNTRY WILL MAKE AN IMPOSSIBLE PROMISE. NONE. You're not even going to get a promise like that from a banana republic. It is like asking for superpowers. Totally nuts.
And of course it is alleged. That is the whole point of him being wanted for questioning regarding the matter. Yes, they could call him. No, they're not willing to do that. For reasons. That are up to them. You not liking their reasons, doesn't change the nature of the situation.
It could be that if he answers the questions wrong, they'll arrest on him on the charges they're investigating. That would be a sensible reason for police to refuse to do the questioning over the telephone. I'll bet in your country if there is an arrest warrant already issued for you, nobody is going to care that they could have done other things. Was the warrant issued by the people whose job it is to issue warrants? Yes? OK, you get to go into their custody now. If you think there is a problem with the charges, you hire a lawyer, and show up to fight the charges. Running away and being a fugitive has serious consequences, and invites inferences of guilt.
He's not charged with anything in the US. "Spare us" the blahblah about politicians, who can't arrest anybody, having made hyperbolic anti-Asshat statements. What he did is legally protected in the US. The leakers commit crimes, and the people who publish them are protected. That is our system. No, that doesn't stop the US government from scaring people easily frightened. If they can get him to hide in a closet for 10 years just by saying ambiguous words, and they find him a nuisance, why wouldn't they? I don't see how it violates his rights in any way. There is no basic right to be a fugitive; there is no right for politicians not to talk about you, or not to have mean opinions.
If you think journalists are charged with crimes in the US for reporting leaks, my advice is to find access to a public library with newspapers.
They can "legally" go after him at any time. The stuff about embassies being the territory of the country they represent is a hollywood fiction. There is not a legal restriction preventing them from entering the embassy and arresting somebody. What is keeping them out is a sense of polite diplomacy. 24/7 surveillance is cheap compared to creating an "incident" that gets newspapers in a tizzy for weeks. If he was more important, they would just go in after him. As it is, he's basically under self-imposed house arrest and his nuisance factor is reduced. They might be getting more win than people realize. If he ever is convicted of something, he won't get any "time served" for time being a fugitive.
Forcing an embassy to move would be a bigger incident than just arresting him where he is. Embassies are bought and run by the country they represent. A move would cost real money that is not already budgeted. And just for a pretext?! That would be a major scandal.
Yeah, the government mind control satellite radio turns on whenever slashdot posts about Asshat.
OR, some people just have a different position than you. Gosh, wow, impossible right? Everybody agrees with Ramdom Asshat Supporter #1234567. You must just be so shocked. Usually everybody agrees with you, right? Turn on the TV, everybody agrees. Radio, everybody agrees. Coffee shop, everybody agrees. You're so used to everybody agreeing with your anti-establishment position, that the mere existence of people defending the status quo could only have resulted from a conspiracy!
Slashdot Mirror
The vast majority of paid software development hours is in-house tools that are not distributed, and can be written under moral and ethical practices. It is exactly this sort of false-dichotomy nonsense that drives him (and me) nuts.
Guess what, software developers don't have to "monitize" their software, or literally, turn it into a thing whose function is to make money. They might instead engage in a standard human behavior that creates revenue, and write or use software that respects their freedom while doing so. Notice, there is no lack of understanding about commerce in this view. There is just a lack of interest in software that exists not to assist a separate human endeavor, but just to make money.
It is like claiming that the restaurant industry will come crashing down if chefs refuse to work at fast food. Or that people who don't want to talk about fast food, because they do something else, must not care about jobs.
I disagree. The form of the word implies that you're converting something into a new form that is based primarily on making money. And indeed, the word is used exactly in the way the form implies.
Just shouting "strawman" for no reason is an even worse form of fallacy than a straw-man; it is name-calling from ignorance.
If you can't get standard modern software running after two days, that probably means you're not an expert and shouldn't talk about that thing.
I've been maintaining systems since the 90s, and it is something new, yes. I have to look things up in the manual again, yes. But Sys V was always crap. We always knew it was crap. But the other stuff was worse. Until systemd. So now people that understand these things, and get to make important decisions about them like what to run in a distro, are switching to systemd. Because something finally had the correct architecture.
We know you hate, we're just not worried about that.
Newsflash: Obama is so popular, he's President. And was re-elected.
Waving your hands can't steal my vote, and thankfully it can't take RMS away either.
As somebody actually creating hardware, the age of open hardware is just beginning. It is just insane what is out of patent now, and what is available in free hardware licenses.
Maybe you're buying consumer hardware that doesn't respect your freedom, but that only tells us what you're willing to tolerate. Those of us who follow RMS's lead and don't tolerate loss of freedom are living in a wonderland where everything is just exploding. You can not only get open CPUs, you can buy a whole hardware dev toolchain with eval boards for each motherboard subsystem, all GPL. Chinese factories will sell you the complete toolchain; buy 1 copy of the dev board, you get the gerber files with it; they give you what you need to go to another factory! They know if your product is a success, you probably already like them.
You're just being a basement curmudgeon.
I'm pretty sure you can only pardon yourself for US crimes, not overseas ones.
If it is not clear, and hasn't been applied to anybody else, the courts aren't going to discriminate against him over it. It would need to be clear in order to have meaning. Not being clear doesn't mean it is more likely it would exclude him, it means it is not enforceable until you find a clear application.
If it doesn't distinguish, then it doesn't require it. It doesn't say "continuous recent" or anything, so it simply doesn't mean that. Even if many readers want it to.
That only matters where you're not actually living overseas. You're allowed to change citizenship for tax reasons as long as you already changed your (physical) residency.
That is the whole point of rich guys going to Belize and getting citizenship; so they can renounce their US citizenship and not pay US taxes.
The whole thing is pretty crazy. We knew he had had WMDs... because we had the receipts! Gosh, he sure must be an awful guy if he was willing to buy chemical weapons from us. D'oh! Of course, after the Persian Gulf War we verified that they were destroyed and buried in the sand. Then in 2003 they had aides running around leaking that we had evidence of him having bought them, without mentioning the seller, or the destruction, and then other aides leaking that we had evidence that he had "buried WMDs in the sand... to hide them." When actually, we had mandated that disposal method, and none of the buried stuff would still even be potent.
And right wingers are still spewing the nonsense, because so many of them have given up on even differentiating between talking points and facts. They can't perceive of the public being aware that a claim was already fact-checked and is known horse shit.
It is wrong, though, because criminal jobs aren't even counted. Outside of Nevada, prostitutes aren't considered employed. And other than pharmacists, coke dealers aren't counted as employed either. Fluffer is a legitimate specialty in the makeup arts industry, but nobody has ever claimed that Obama invented the internet so I have no idea why that one is in there. The other ones I can just pass off as racist nonsense that people say about Obama. But fluffers?! What kind of pervert is still against porn in this age?
Here in Oregon most of our civil engineers received a Liberal Arts education along with their science degrees at high quality public institutions, and they were designing awesome solutions to traffic problems from the Oregon Trail all the way to modern times. Even in the 1950s. Making sure that neighborhoods are well served by changes is part of the planning process, it is a technical specialty. I have heard these stories of cities where the people doing that part of the job did fall-on-their-faces-bad jobs. But don't blame engineering generally.
That is nonsense, liberal arts is alive and well in the US, even if most of the people in this thread don't understand the term. Most of the people engaging in a liberal arts education don't understand the term either, and that is nothing to be concerned about because the term doesn't have direct utility for students outside of Education majors.
And if you think liberal arts majors aren't trained to think logically, I don't know what to tell you. A decent liberal arts program most certainly covers that
Not based on the curriculum I've seen and the individuals I've met. Thinking, perhaps, thinking logically, not so much.
LOL don't expect real people to live up to your stereotypes if you ever make it to the surface.
I'll give you a challenge, Mr Logical: What sort of degree does an expert in "thinking logically" have? What department of the University are they found in? And if your curriculum is heavy on Logic, what is your most likely major?
The part you're missing is that programming is not like math. It involves languages, expressing human needs in computer languages. That is hard for the same reasons that writing an awesome novel is hard. Mathematicians generally make horrible programmers from the perspective of somebody trying to hire programmers; though they might write some important library or famous tool. They generally don't understand human context, and can't operate outside of a backend programming environment where they have complete control and can keep NIH-level control of their toolchain.
The hard part is finding a programmer that can achieve arbitrary needs of other humans, translate these needs into computer languages in a way that makes sense for the problem domain. Most developers are horrible at that, because they want their technical opinions, hangups, and religions determine how they code, instead of the needs of the user and the context that the tool is used in taking center stage.
Most developers are mediocre thinkers who are nevertheless good at math. It is almost impossible to test for this condition. It is easy to say that the schools are failing us, but how do you test for this crap? Measure their neck hair? Fail them if they don't know anything about Bertrand Russell?
As an aside, if the abstraction is even difficult, it might not be worthwhile to try to fight it and "digest the information." That is a WTF being born. A person who is better at math than is serving them well; perhaps if they were a little less willing to try to abstract things, they'd keep from building suck giant piles of crap. They'd be forced to stop typing, and figure out WTF they're supposed to build before diving in and churning through a few sprints and a dozen releases.
I've only been using PostgreSQL since `99, but yeah, it is sure hard to find good people when actually the world is full of people like you. ;)
Eventually he'll give up though, and turn to a contractor. Then he'll be stuck with some jerk like me.
What do you expect, most of the people commenting don't even know what a "liberal arts education" means, who gets one, if they might be receiving a technical degree, or what the English language is.
I doubt most of these schmucks actually received a lofty enough degree to warrant their snobbery. I mean, if they don't value a liberal arts education, it seems like that would put them more in the "not for me" category than the "I know about this subject, and have some sort of expert opinion."
They should just take people's word for it that learning about humanity has value to humaans.
O oo oo the most pedantic person in the room HIRE THEM!!!!!
Hardly, he used the wrong definition of "mass shooting" for the context! It was a false pedanticism.
English majors may shoot a lot of people, but at least they're less likely to commit this type of verbal horror.
You're trolling anonymously. Very telling.
One thing about us FOSS "zealots" (aka "users") is that we're perfectly happy to promote what we do with our slashdot names, our real names, whatever name is normal for the place we're in. We don't need to hide and call names from the shadows and pretend we didn't really say it.
We believe in how we want to be treated by software. And we've been living in that world, lets see, well, for the most part since emacs and gcc! And linux of course was a giant step forwards overall. But it wouldn't have happened without the GNU environment, at least not as a mainstream thing.
We may be chirping away, but it is the happy chirps of us little birdies successfully using the tools we wanted, the tools we believe in, the tools that respect us and that we've been using for decades now.
~\_@< ~~~ Peep peep! ~~~
You're just hand-waving from ignorance.
Do you want to know why you didn't provide a link? Because you don't know the answer, and just assumed that since you believed the hollywoodism, it must be true. It is "common sense," right? Everybody knows it, right?
Had you checked, because you don't know, or attempted to provide a link to substantiate your claim, you would have discovered the truth. But you didn't. Because you were born yesterday, and don't know any better.
Educate yourself at the library, get off the lawn!
Starting with The Guardian, because it is British:
http://www.theguardian.com/med...
Here is a great Yahoo! Answers where one person gives a correct answer, and a dozen spew horse crap.
https://answers.yahoo.com/ques...
Knowledge isn't unheard of, just rare.
This one has lots of citations:
http://www.aleksandreia.com/20...
It covers American issues mostly.
One thing to note about the treaty protecting diplomatic missions is that there is strict context to the restrictions:
Is harboring international fugitives really the official use of the embassy? This isn't a political thing, either; there is a valid interpol warrant. If you're part of the interpol system, then it is a matter of basic rule of law. And in the UK, they have a specific system whereby if a diplomatic mission is facilitating an activity other than its official use, they suspend its status. But that isn't strictly necessary under the Treaty; that is just the local system. Under the treaty, only entering to arrest somebody involved in an official use of the embassy is protected. Assange is not a member of the diplomatic staff, and is not a legitimate visitor. Since it is literally and legally UK territory, even inside the embassy, there is no way around the legal status of "fugitive from justice inside the UK." Ecuador might like to grant him status in their country, and they're free to issue him paperwork. But he is not actually in Ecuador.
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Reality is that he is hiding in a closet, and will be arrested when he leaves. Even if he makes it another 5 years and escapes he Swedish warrant, he'll still be facing having skipped bail in the UK. There is no time limit in the UK while you're wanted for something and hiding.
Reality doesn't mean, "your opinion."
Name-calling doesn't make right. Durrrrrrrrrrrr
No, he's facing PROSECUTION for RAPE.
There's a big difference.
No, he's facing QUESTIONING for RAPE.
There's a big difference.
No, he's facing a final round of questioning prior to being CHARGED for RAPE, which occurs right before being TRIED for RAPE. Sweden's legal system has been discussed here often enough.
That "Sweden's legal system has been discussed here" does not somehow turn into, "there is no investigative process in Sweden and 100% of people questioned are tried." That is just absurd.
If after questioning him they determine to proceed with charges, that is their job. It doesn't violate your rights to be charged with a local crime when you visit a place. It would seem to violate the rights of the people of Sweden to claim that if you're popular enough then their laws don't apply to you, even while you're visiting their country.
If he's charged and there are some problems claimed with the charges, that is an appropriate issue for his Swedish lawyer to take up during or in parallel to the eventual trial.
Skipping bail in the UK might turn out to have been a bigger deal, though.
There isn't really a decent philosophical argument to be made against facing charges in court. Claiming that Sweden doesn't have basic rule of law is absurd. Claiming the US doesn't have basic rule of law, or legal protections for journalists, is absurd. People are trying excessively hard because they're upset their hero is hiding in a closet. I get it, nobody likes to see their heros reduced like that. But it doesn't automatically make anything you think of to say in his support into a viable or rational argument.
No country can make a blanket promise not to extradite a person.
It would be insane.
If you're willing to handwave that away, you're not going to contribute anything useful.
NO COUNTRY WILL MAKE AN IMPOSSIBLE PROMISE. NONE. You're not even going to get a promise like that from a banana republic. It is like asking for superpowers. Totally nuts.
And of course it is alleged. That is the whole point of him being wanted for questioning regarding the matter. Yes, they could call him. No, they're not willing to do that. For reasons. That are up to them. You not liking their reasons, doesn't change the nature of the situation.
It could be that if he answers the questions wrong, they'll arrest on him on the charges they're investigating. That would be a sensible reason for police to refuse to do the questioning over the telephone. I'll bet in your country if there is an arrest warrant already issued for you, nobody is going to care that they could have done other things. Was the warrant issued by the people whose job it is to issue warrants? Yes? OK, you get to go into their custody now. If you think there is a problem with the charges, you hire a lawyer, and show up to fight the charges. Running away and being a fugitive has serious consequences, and invites inferences of guilt.
He's not charged with anything in the US. "Spare us" the blahblah about politicians, who can't arrest anybody, having made hyperbolic anti-Asshat statements. What he did is legally protected in the US. The leakers commit crimes, and the people who publish them are protected. That is our system. No, that doesn't stop the US government from scaring people easily frightened. If they can get him to hide in a closet for 10 years just by saying ambiguous words, and they find him a nuisance, why wouldn't they? I don't see how it violates his rights in any way. There is no basic right to be a fugitive; there is no right for politicians not to talk about you, or not to have mean opinions.
If you think journalists are charged with crimes in the US for reporting leaks, my advice is to find access to a public library with newspapers.
They can "legally" go after him at any time. The stuff about embassies being the territory of the country they represent is a hollywood fiction. There is not a legal restriction preventing them from entering the embassy and arresting somebody. What is keeping them out is a sense of polite diplomacy. 24/7 surveillance is cheap compared to creating an "incident" that gets newspapers in a tizzy for weeks. If he was more important, they would just go in after him. As it is, he's basically under self-imposed house arrest and his nuisance factor is reduced. They might be getting more win than people realize. If he ever is convicted of something, he won't get any "time served" for time being a fugitive.
Forcing an embassy to move would be a bigger incident than just arresting him where he is. Embassies are bought and run by the country they represent. A move would cost real money that is not already budgeted. And just for a pretext?! That would be a major scandal.
Yeah, the government mind control satellite radio turns on whenever slashdot posts about Asshat.
OR, some people just have a different position than you. Gosh, wow, impossible right? Everybody agrees with Ramdom Asshat Supporter #1234567. You must just be so shocked. Usually everybody agrees with you, right? Turn on the TV, everybody agrees. Radio, everybody agrees. Coffee shop, everybody agrees. You're so used to everybody agreeing with your anti-establishment position, that the mere existence of people defending the status quo could only have resulted from a conspiracy!