Should be pretty easy for his to work it out. After all, there were two police officers present the entire time he spoke with the reporter. He called them himself for this very reason. I'm sure they're clarify what they heard him say. Of course, I doubt he'll sue like that as my money is on the fact that they'll back up what the reporter says. Personally, I'm pretty certain that he IS the creator of bitcoin and that he just isn't as smart at in-the-moment personal interaction as he is at crypto-currency design. He, almost certainly, just f'd up when talking to the reporter; admitted defeat too early; and is now trying to "close the barn door after the horses have bolted".
At the least, he would be referring to Nakamoto if he chose to sue the reporter. Supposedly, his relatives (including his children, clearly identified him as being a strong believer in libertarian-ism to the point of playing some, frankly, nutty children's games with his daughter where he taught her to be afraid of "the man".)
He admitted to who he was in front of, not just the reporter, but two police officers as well. Frankly, this just reeks of backtracking once he realized he screwed up by admitting the game too early.
Of course, maybe I'm wrong. It, obviously, must be some other misanthropic, privacy obsessed, extremist libertarian, genius, Japanese engineer named Satoshi Nakamoto who is the real inventor of bitcoin... (/s just in case you missed the sarcasm in that statement (/s in case you missed the sarcasm within these parentheses) )
You mean tenuous evidence like admitting to the journalist that he's the bitcoin fiounder in front of while also being witnessed by two police officers. This can all be dealt with pretty easily. He called the cops for a reason, why not put them to use. All he'd need to do is sue the reporter for libel. The cops should be able to back him up on what he really said...assuming he's not just full of shit and backtracking now because he has buyers remorse over admitting that he really is the bitcoin founder...
It's wrong to judge people by their race, creed, or any other similar trait that you have no control over. It it NOT wrong to judge someone by their actions or their words. Your right not to be judged goes away when you "stand up and remove all doubt", as the saying goes. The founder of bitcoin stopped having a right to be left alone by the media when he chose to design, release, and cultivate a digital currency. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too, there are consequences for actions.
You should have been getting ready for that for a while before this if being recorded in a bar was a potential issue for you. We've had more than enough video recording technology (both on the part of the business owners and your fellow patrons) to have made that level of "post privacy future" you are so terrified of a reality for decades now. There has NEVER been a right to privacy from other private citizens while making use of a public place like a restaurant or bar. Any privacy you do or don't enjoy (with the specific exception of places like bathrooms) is entirely at the discretion of the business owner. You've always had the right not to be recorded in such situations as no one is forcing you to go to those businesses in the first place.
Personally, instead of getting hysterical about individual people getting a slightly easier way to record each other in public places. I'd rather spend my pro-privacy energy focusing on things that make a little more sense such as ending the right of government and large corporations to aggregate the video feed of large numbers of cameras into "big data" that they can use to track an individual person's movements over time in ever greater detail without needing an individual warrant (issued by a normal, non-secret, court) for every person they want to track this way and only being able to begin recording AFTER that warrant is earned with a clear legal requirement to destroy such recording a short time after the issue date of the warrant unless they actually file charges against the person being investigated.
The "process" you are advocating is exceedingly stupid on your part. While IANAL, as far as I know throwing ANYTHING (yes, even a bar rag) at someone can be considered real assault (no air quotes needed here) in most places in the US. So, now, in response to an "assault" you're advocating committing assault (note, again, no air quotes here) on someone who you believe is actively in the process of recording you as you commit the act? I'm sure not everyone would take it so far as to call the police and have you arrested/charged, but it doesn't sound that smart to me to give the guy/girl you're pissed off at direct video footage of you committing a crime against them...
I've been on since around 1997 (if I remember correctly) and I don't remember any such time either. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that was OP's subtle attempt at sarcasm.
We're discussing why the beta suck, not why Slashdotters don't have girlfriends. Try to stay on topic.
"Delete the beta source code and fire the devs/managers responsible for designing it" (which is, effectively, what is being said when people post "BETA IS TEH SUKZ" in the numbers that they are IS constructive criticism. The problem is that Dice and/or the Slashdot managers don't want to hear it...
...does it eliminate the Slashdot Beta?
Once they are finished with their nerd cleansing, they can build a new Slashdot. A sexier Slashdot. A Slashdot the kids can dance to.
They aren't ignoring you. They are exterminating you."
Have you even seen an elephant penis? Because I have, and the colors align to Slashdot. The beta is so bad, Roland Piquepaille is surrendering his account (as the French do). The GNAA has reorganized to post fake job offerings on Dice.com with an emphasis on affirmative action. Profane Motherfucker has come out of retirement simply to say: "fuck this shit.""
And the Slashdot Beta, don't forget the Slashdot Beta.