If you really want to know, here's the press releases from TEPCO which runs the plants. It's far more informative and far less alarmist than most of the reports going around. Yes, they are evacuating. Yes, there has been some unknown level of radiation leakage, but we don't know how bad it is just yet.

Those who want to review how the safety mechanisms of a BWR work should read this.

No kidding. They even plan to subpoena Slashdot (not to mention Twitter). I don't know what they'll get out of that except for a lot of "in soviet Russia" jokes, but I guess their lawyers like wasting their client's billable hours on fishing expeditions?

I suggest they try Googling that key. I don't know how many results they'll find, but I'm guessing there will be thousands, if not more. It's kind of futile to tell the judge that you need expedited discovery and such when the cat is not merely out of the bag, but halfway across the galaxy, isn't it? But hey, I guess you guys might see it differently. You could go send a million nastygrams to everyone who reads the news and rack up $200/hr. Fact is, I just hate Sony. I don't have a PS3 because I've been boycotting Sony since the time they infected people with that rootkit, so this hexadecimal number you're trying to censor is utterly worthless to me. I can't very well circumvent the protections on a device I'll never own, now, can I?

Google & Apple are C-Corps, which don't allow this tax loophole at all, so Steve Jobs can't save any money by pulling this trick. The comparison is not accurate.

He used his S-Corp to reclassify wages as investment income to avoid FICA taxes, paying himself $24,000 per year (i.e. factory worker wages) instead of a reasonable wage for a CPA. You can't do that in a C-Corp, because you'll have to pay the corporate taxes that S-Corps get to avoid.

He would have been fine if he'd paid himself even somewhat reasonable wages, but Google & Apple can't pull this particular trick at all. C-Corps use completely different tax loopholes.

> No, I did-- and assange isnt "this sort of thing", as he wasnt selling nuclear secrets

Also, the spy swap meant that we got something for letting them off the hook. Who, exactly, would Assange get swapped with?

You've never even tried to rebut the fact that it's an offense for which one can be executed, you've merely pointed out that they don't usually seek it.

Don't get me wrong, though. If they have to take it off the table to have him extradited, they will. But not before then.

> None of them citizens, not once their citizenship has been established.

You mean because they made one of them renounce his citizenship?

The fact that you know all this and are arguing anyhow doesn't exactly repair your credibility, you know. I'd say it's a bit worse than grabbing the wrong link out of a set.

Interestingly, there are wikileaks connections even there.

> Political support....from someone who isnt holding any office whatsoever right now? One or two people dont "much political support" make.

Would you prefer the quotes from the justice department mentioning that they have a task force working on this? Or how about the fact that there's an active investigation, as evidenced by the subpoenas to Twitter?

No, that doesn't mean they will execute him, but it does mean that there are people who'd like to. You won't find many out-and-out calls for assassination, but you will find plenty who wouldn't mind trying him in a death penalty case.

> If you are saying that crazy people will do crazy things, then I agree; but I dont get what that has to do with Assange, especially as he is in custody at the moment. Hes not likely to be randomly shot by some crazy person.

Right now? Probably not. If he's let free? That changes things.

> Are you SERIOUSLY defending the Rosenbergs? Or shoving honest-to-goodness Cold War spies in the same camp as Assange, who has been more of an embarrassment than a grave asset to an enemy?

I'm saying that this sort of thing can lead to executions. Did you not read my link text at all?

> Your second link, citizens in Gitmo, appears to be just plain wrong (unless wikipedia is incorrect)-- James Yee doesnt appear to have ever been held in Gitmo, but rather a brig in North Carolina, as he was in the armed forces at the time.

My bad. I copied quite a few links and should have given you the link to the US's own report on how many people don't actually belong in Gitmo.

> With your third link, you seem to be trying to make the point that, because a potential-not-even-yet-announced candidate for president has announced in a not-official-in-any-capacity that she thinks we should hunt obama, that this should therefore be treated as if it is official policy.

I was pointing out how much political support there was for something like that. They've already got a task force hunting for something to charge him with and I've already made the point that it's an executable offense (see point one, which you managed to completely miss).

> Your last link is REALLY classy-- youre buying into this whole "the gunman must have been following someone's rhetoric", even though there is NO indication that he was doing so.

I don't need to prove that the crazy guy was following anyone's rhetoric.

I just need to prove that there are a lot of crazy, angry people out there right now and we can all see that you can't say that no one would do such a thing.

Also, you obviously didn't read what his lawyers wrote: they cited that exact example. So maybe you disagree, but it's already part of the case.

> Nobody knows whether or not he listened to any particular radio shows, was a fan of Palin or even saw the map.

It's not unreasonable given that Rep. Giffords herself called Palin out on that very advertisement and reported harassment due to it.

Maybe this guy wasn't, but when there are so many crazy people who are talking about skipping right over the soap, ballot & jury boxes, well....

For the record, I consider myself neither Democrat nor Republican. Although I have voted for both, I generally try to vote for the least crazy individuals.

That's getting fairly difficult these days. At some point, I'm going to have to resort to writing in my own name or something.

> This is so much hyperbole it is not even funny.

Right, because we've never executed people for this sort of thing before. And, even though we'd put innocent US citizens in Gitmo, there's no way we'd do that to someone who isn't even a US national, neatly sidestepping all that "fair trial" nonsense by labeling him as some kind of "enemy combatant" or whatever.

And, even though we have politicians calling for Julian Assange to be assassinated, there's no way that anyone would ever even think of taking them seriously. Ever.

That's total hyperbole, right? Nobody here is that crazy... right?

That... doesn't mesh with what we know of Clouthier's opinions.

> If his *own* government wants to give him up and ship him here that really sounds like an issue for him, his countrymen, and *his* government.

His own government is the Australian government, not Sweden or the UK. And Australia is in no position to hand him over to anyone right now.

> "prominent figures have implied... that he should be executed" Uh huh... Since when did Palin start making policy decisions again?

One of the people Palin put under the cross-hairs in a political ad, Rep. Giffords, just got shot in Arizona. And I honestly don't think Palin intended that as a physical threat of violence, but she has tons of crazies as followers and was warned by Rep. Giffords that doing stuff like that is a bad idea for a person with as many crazy followers as her.

And you don't seriously think that someone, somewhere is crazy enough that they would shoot him when they pretty much have the support of the Republican party? Heck, they have the support of half the Democrats, too, it seems.

Yeah, on Groklaw, all "anons" are lumped together and frequently used as part of conspiracy theories because, hey, nobody knows who they are.

It's weird, because she appears to invent people to argue with instead of addressing their ideas.

No wonder she doesn't want a community site: she only wants silent partners. All the ones that became too well-known have had differences with her and been forced to move on. She's definitely not the type who can run a community, I will say that.

> You're entitled to your own freedom. You're not entitled to the freedom to post whatever you want on someone else's site.

Right. Nobody is claiming otherwise. They *are* saying that they're going to continue to complain about it until the people doing it stop.

They're free to do it. They're even free to delete it on their own site. But we're going to keep pestering you forever and ever and ever unless you stop.

> The difference between censoring your own venue and censoring everyone's venue is profound.

True, but we don't like either one. There's a big difference in how much I would hate eating tripe and how much I would hate eating dog poop. But I should expect people to complain about anyone serving either one to their guests. You can say, "I'm the host. It's my house/website/country and I can feed you tripe or dog crap if I want to," but that kind of misses the point. Nobody where they are, they don't want someone trying to feed them crap.