Sigh - Rei, you're doing it again. Projecting your own experiences onto another. As I imagine you're aware, as a matter of public record:

1. - SW (the more serious "rape" alleg) has since stated she was "half asleep" after making love with Assange a couple of hours previously (for 3rd time). As opposed to your description that makes sound like some kind of bedroom invader.
2. - Immediately after penetration while they were cuddling in bed, asked if Assange was wearing a condom, then agreed continue when he answered no. They'd also only half used a condom the previous time they made love.
3. - SW was the aggressor in initiating the relationship according to her own statement and witnesses in police report, seeking Assange out, paying for his train ticket & becoming upset when he didn't want to have sex. They spent all day together courting, kissing in cinema etc, before going back hers.
4. - Police report witness statements say they initially had no interest in reporting the issue to the police, but instead wanted to force an STD test. Second complainant AA said to a friend she filed hers "as support" for SWs, as police said it would present a stronger case.
5. - The interviews were carried out by an active Rad Fem officer personal friend of AA's who breached virtually every rule in book while taking statements. Including allowing AA in the interview room during SW's interview, not tape recording either interview, amending the interviews later (on instruction of her superiors) and pressuring SW to continue. SW was so distraught when she heard the police had issued an arrest warrant that she didn't finish or sign the interview.
6. - The original Chief Prosecutor in the case Eva Finné, acting in the spotlight of frenzied media reports of "double rape" after Assange's name was leaked and after reviewing the evidence in detail, channelled the arrest warrant in Aug 2010 and gave statement to press that "I don’t think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape". She also stated he was no longer wanted by police (thus free to leave Sweden), but she would continue to investigate lesser charges.
7. - Whilst SW has arguably legitimate cause for complaint (lack of condom), AA's self described "support" charges are simply nonsense. Her statement clearly identifies consent at all times and her only allegation of any seriousness - alleged sabotaging of a condom - appears heavily dubious as the "evidence" she presented of it contains ZERO Assange DNA. AA also famously threw a party for Assange the evening after the supposed incidents, posted tweets about how much she was enjoying his company, allowed him share her room for week after, deleted evidence online after the event, etc etc.
8. - After outrage grew in the US over the famous Wikileaks diplomatic cables release at that time, a second Prosecutor Ny & RF lawyer Borgström were parachuted in, who both just happened to have active political careers in pushing Radical Feminist legislation in Sweden - e.g., support for a proposed tax on all males to counteract their sins. The original prosecutor Finné lodged a filing demanding an explanation for this unusual change and asking on what grounds the Gov were overruling her earlier findings.
9. - The EAW that the UK courts based their findings on *demonstrably* exaggerates the accusations far beyond those in the official SW & AA statements. E.g., they suggest violence/force (no mention in statements), they fail to mention the complainants both acknowledge the encounters were consensual, they suggest lack of condom use with AA when one was used but split, they describe SW as asleep etc - see the J4A Allegations page for a direct comparison between the EAW and what actually reported.

Now even given all of the above evidence that this sort of case would NEVER normally warrant an Interpol Red Notice and EAW - hell, most times not even cut and dried rape cases do - most Assange supporters, and arguably Assange himself WANT him to face trial. It's got to the point where there's so much smearing from US, UK, Swedish and Australian Gov sources (along with jump-to-conclusion RFs and survivors) that there would be lasting damage to his credibility if he doesn't. I'd even go as far as accepting he could be found guilty of a minor "sex by surprise" charge or whatever under Sweden's notoriously lax sexual assault laws, because of the lack of condom use with SW.

However, everyone is familiar with the obstacles to a hearing in Sweden - the Swedish Gov despise him after the embarassment the case has (rightfully - leaks, failed police protocol, known politically driven prosecutors, misleading EAW) caused them, so are highly unlikely to defends him against a US extradition request. The UK have demonstrated they're prepared to violate the fsking Vienna convention and risk war with Ecuador, so they certainly won't be opposing his onward extradition.

The obvious initial solution is for Swedish to interview Assange at the embassy, preferably face to face, under EU Mutual Legal Assistance provisions. Prosecutor Ny has already travelled to London to watch the appeal trial, so travelling for the interview shouldn't be a hardship. The prosecution have never bothered to interviewed Assange about the SW (more serious) allegations, despite pretending the investigation is at an advanced enough stage to warrant extradition. That clearly needs to happen before the next step is decided.

All of the above is fully sourced - comment if need specific refs. The most important is probably the original accuser & witness police statements - even after the dubious pressured circumstances under which they were collected, they pretty remove question of "rape" or similar:

Assange Swedish Police reports, translated to English

At the rate cyberwarfare is turning from a prophecy into day to day reality, I question why a nation would want to dissuade its emerging hacking talent? In the not too distant future, a nation's security will depend on an ample supply of greyhats. Less wealthy nations already arguably have a head start: more disenfranchised youths = larger hacking community.

I set up @NetFreeUK a month or so ago and built up a following by retweeting and commenting on stories related to freedom of speech, individual privacy, dangerous Big Media legislation like ACTA etc. I've been meticulous in sticking to the rules - not spamming, replying politely to those with contradictory views etc .. but my account is currently suspended, as of several days ago.

I've appealed to Twitter, asking them to verify from my history that I've not broken any rules, heard nothing back after nearly a week. I'm assuming someone took a dislike to my views (e.g., defending Assange) and reported my account to silence it. If it's happened to me in this manner, I can't be the first.

So much for Twitter being an effective medium of free speech. Dissenters using it to share knowledge within repressive regimes like Syria can be easily silenced simply by officials reporting their account for "trolling" or similar - Twitter don't seem to bother verifying complaints. That could have disastrous IRL consequences. In my case it's just been a very effective method of putting me off advocating some important causes.

Anyone else run into the same problem with Twitter? Any advice on restoring a maliciously suspended AC?

Whilst the pushers (Home Secretary Theresa May and her cronies) claim this is about tackling serious organised crime, the actual legislation makes no such restriction.

Likely key benefactors are HMR&C tax collectors (e.g., eBay sales), high level smear campaign organisers (e.g., Assange, political opponents), and of course Big Media - our DCMS (Ed Vaizey et al) is a complete puppet for the copyright industry.

http://bit.ly/qIKLgo

"The UK’s extradition treaty does not have the temporary surrender (’conditional release’) clause. The UK’s judicial review process, while far from perfect, has a number of practical review mechanisms. The nearest equivalent case, of Gary McKinnon - a UK citizen who has been charged for hacking US military systems - has been opposed in the courts for 8 years.

Public opinion and the media (to a greater extent) are more sympathetic to Julian Assange in the UK than in Sweden. Public pressure could draw out the process of extradition to the United States in the UK. In Sweden the media climate is hostile (seeMedia climate in Sweden
) due to the sex allegations. Public outcry would be significantly weaker and therefore less likely to stand in the way of a strategically convenient extradition.

In the UK, Julian Assange is better able to defend himself, muster support and understand the legal procedures against him. In Sweden on the other hand, the language barrier prevents him from effectively challenging the actions against.

The UK is politically better positioned to withstand pressure from the United States than Sweden. Sweden is a small country of nine million people close to Russia. It has grown increasingly dependent on the United States. In recent years Sweden has complied with directives from the United States in a manner that has not been scrutinised by Parliament, as has been revealed by the disclosed diplomatic cables (seePolitical Interference
).

Quite. I'd also add note that the original Swedish Chief Prosecutor Eva Finné publicly announced: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

There are regular prosecutions for false, maliciously motivated rape claims here in the UK, not that this will sway Ms RT from her blinkered world view.

Yeah, coz PHP really *shines* for equality comparisons.

        switch("dog") {
                case 0 : echo("Won't see this, nosir."); break;
                case "dog" : echo("This will be shown, promise."); break;
        }
        if("123" == " 123") echo("Hmmm ... I expected string comparison, but whatever.");
        if("123" == "123 ") echo("You'll at least be consistent about trimming though, right?");

JavaScript gets loosely-typed comparison operations pretty spot on IMO - i.e., logical and intuitive results, including for "truthiness" evaluation. Of course, like any language it has its share of quirks - e.g.:

        if( parseInt("0123") != 123) alert("Eeek - are you *really* defaulting to Octal radix for zero-padded nums, parseInt?!");
        if(typeof null == "object") alert("Meh, Netscape!");
        if( myDate.month == 11 ) alert("December, ORLY?");

Utter FUD codswallop. MS bundled IE to the OS to get one over Netscape. Ironically, they had a better browser by the time they reached IE4, so the bundling was unnecessary- they could have won through offering the better product, but couldn't help themselves.

Now Android- Google doesn't utilise its search engine in any way to encourage uptake of Android. Users choose it because the software and ecosystem beats iOS and WM hands down. Google services like Maps are optionally bundled with Android- but the same goes for iOS et al.

So what are you arguing? That rich companies aren't allowed to enter new markets? Because that's what "off the back of search profits" sounds like. The rest of your arguments are nonsense, please stop that.

Nope - the Swedish prosecution is in the USG's back pocket, as demonstrated by the re-opening of the "assault" (cough, condom split .. open radical feminist .. threw party for him the next morning) cases, after being thrown out by the original prosecuter, as soon as the USG began applying pressure in response to the cable leaks. The slew of coffee-spluttering high-ranking US officials openly calling for the death penalty for Assange (!) would also be grounds for denying extradition under EU Human Rights treaties.

Oh please. Apple's own engineers warned Jobs of the issue right from the earliest design meetings, but were overruled. When users -shock- began complaining soon after launch, Jobs personally dismissed the "non-issue", telling them to "avoid holding it in that way."

Even when Apple *finally* accepted there was a problem at the 16 July press conference (only after a damning confirmation of the issue from Consumer Reports), there was no "mea cupla". They claimed the problem was common to all internal antenna phones, something which competitors and reviewers were quick to dispute, but they would begrudgingly issue free cases as a band-aid fix.

It never ceases to amaze me the infinite reserve of benefit-of-doubt that Apple commands from its fans! :]

"To the best of my knowledge Apple doesn't exploit, extort, or engage in dishonest business practices."

To the best of my knowedge, no Applezoid has ever accepted that Apple is a self preserving, spin marketing megacorp like any other. Are you seriously suggesting you are unaware of the iPhone 4 antenna debacle and subsequent denial by Apple?

Yes, I'd be inclined to agree that MS have demonstrated more underhand tendencies over the years than Apple. But Apple today very much practices the same self-preserving restrictive nonsense that got MS its reputation in the first place.

From the interview: "Microsoft’s philosophy is to get it out there and fix it later. Steve would never do that. He doesn’t get anything out there until it is perfected."

Riiiiight. {cough faulty IP4 antenna design, cracking screens}

< 50% my arse. This is headline grabbing from a stats company that fails to represent the corporate user market, IE's home turf.

RTFA: "Another Web measurement company, Net Applications, last week said its research shows Windows IE had a 59.7% share during September, though it did say IE's share is declining."

Same here - all searches today on Google.co.uk for me are using the new "real-time" search - results update as you type. Slightly unnerving for users to see their UI change completely where they're not expecting it? Useful though.