Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Sweden's case won't really matter (Score 1) 59 59

There is one thing where the UK would have had a role even if he hadn't fled bail, in that the UK would have been the EAW "sending state". Under an EAW surrender, the sending state has certain rights and responsibilities - for example, if a request comes for extradition to a third party, it has to not only go through the receiving state's judiciary system, but also the sending state's judiciary system; the receiving state can't just hand off someone that they received under an EAW at will. Which is one of the things that makes the whole thing even more ridiculous - Assange had so much faith in Sweden's independence against the UK (such as their ban on extradition for intelligence crimes and 2006 Swedish special forces raids to shut down the US's rendition flights secretly moving through their territory) that he called it his "shield" and was applying for a residence permit there. But suddenly, practically overnight, Sweden transformed into Evil US Lackeys(TM) when he was accused of rape. So then he went to the UK where he talked about his great respect for their independence and impartiality and promised to abide by whatever rulings their judicial system made. Until he ran out of appeals, wherein the UK also turned into Evil US Lackeys(TM). Funny how he felt just fine walking around freely in both of these countries all this time, having only one of the two countries as barriers against US extradition, but adamantly fought the situation that would make them both be barriers to extradition.

Comment: Re:Competent Authorities (Score 1) 59 59

Which is, of course, false. AA has accused Assange of lesser sexual crimes, and SW has accused him of rape. There are no counts of rape against Assange concerning AA on the EAW, only three lesser counts (2x molestation and 1x unlawful sexual coersion). There is one count of rape on the EAW (count #4) concerning SW, in line with what the women have accused him of and also in line with what the Svea Court of Appeals has found probable cause for. Both women sought and retained legal representatives who have pushed the case forward for them (initially, both of them retained Claes Borgström, who was the one whose appeal got the closed portion of the investigation re-opened. More recently AA fired Claes because she thought he wasn't doing a good enough of a job with the case and was more focused on self aggrandizement; her new legal representative since started a new push to get Assange handed over to Sweden).

There's a lot more detail on these topics and more here.

The Assange-echo-chamber meme "Neither of the women involved have ever accused Assange of rape" is based on a simple distortion of a key element. SW (the one who the rape charge is concerned) didn't want to have to file charges - she only wanted to force Assange to take a STD test. She didn't want the thing to turn into a giant media circus that basically ruined her life and forced her into hiding from angry Assange fans. But there's a difference between not wanting to file charges and not accusing Assange of rape. She did accuse Assange of rape - first in conversations with her friends while coming to grips with what happened, and then went to the police station, where they told the officer on duty that they wanted advice on how to report a rape (see the statement by Linda Wassgren, the on-duty officer on the 20th). They were then interviewed separately where she described being raped, and after the interview she took a rape kit and sought a legal advocate (getting, ultimately, Claes). Since the leak of the Memoria file (a scummy act on Assange's side, I should add, as it's full of identifying personal details about his accusers and their families that have been used to harrass them - and we know it came from Assange's side because the cover page has a note to Assange's attorney telling him that it's confidential and must not be released), there have been a number of other followup interviews and investigations, and at no point have any objections from AA or SW been recorded. There is absolutely nothing in the record supporting a claim "Neither of the women involved have ever accused Assange of rape". SW has pretty much had to disappear after the event; AA went into hiding for a while but has since resumed taking part in some of the old forums that she used to; last fall she mentioned the case for the first time since the one brief statement she had given to the press after going to the police, mentioning offhand in an unrelated thread that a couple years ago she was the victim of a sex crime and that the perpetrator still hasn't been brought to justice, but rather she's still attacked by his fans for daring to report it. She didn't mention Assange by name, but it's obvious who she was referring to.

Most people who are raped don't want to file charges. They don't want the viscious attacks that come with it and want to shove the event in the past and not have to keep reliving it. A hundred times over when the accused is someone famous who has a lot of loyal fans. But claiming "not wanting to file charges" means "wasn't raped" is a massive distortion.

Comment: Re:Competent Authorities (Score 2) 59 59

It's not an "IF" as to whether Assange cherry picks things for political reasons. He does. There are lots of things he's deliberately kept back with threats to release if certain things happen that he doesn't want (unredacted cables, files against NewsCorp, etc). The most famous was his "insurance file" which was to be released "should anything happen to him", which was left vague enough that it wasn't clear whether he was talking about "being killed" or simply "being sent to Sweden" (the statement being made during his fight to avoid surrender to Sweden). The scummiest blackmail on his part, IMHO, was his threatening to release unredacted documents that could get various aid/human rights organizations' employees killed if said organizations didn't provide him money (most famously his $700k shakedown of Amnesty International).

He refers to the leaks in Wikileaks' possession as his "property", and made all Wikileaks staffers sign an onerous NDA imposing ridiculous fines if they do anything to reduce the monetary value of said property, such as by leaking it.

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 1) 313 313

I do not know. I think this could be original. Note the fact that they failed to accept their moderation (for better or worse, I will leave that up to you to determine as it is entirely subjective) and have decided that they will not stand idle. Instead they have not only been willing to repost their comment, they have been willing to post it a total of three times. That, in and of itself, does make it original in some regards... Well, not truly original, there is no original anything any more as it has all been said and done somewhere. It is, however, unique enough to qualify as original given the circumstances.

The rest of your post makes me wonder. I have been trying to understand and have been observing the various "facts" concerning this. I may not but if I understand this correctly then...

1. Group A has their panties in a knot.
2. Group B has their panties in a knot and dox, troll, and are generally biased about Group A due to gender, race, etc...
3. Group A expressed that they have their panties in a knot.
4. Group B says, "I want my freedoms!" and continues the activities towards Group A, calls Group A SJWs, race-baiters, etc...
5. Group A starts acting like Group B.
6. Cat herders try to stop this by censorship (not a wise choice I imagine).
7. Group B says, "I want my freedoms!" (Ignoring that they are on private property.)
8. Group A says, "We want freedoms too but you are drowning out our speech!" - Oddly supporting censorship that they claim they do not like?
9. Group B says, "I want my freedoms!" Only they are louder, more vulgar,and now take the title of Being Oppressed!®
10. Group A says, "We want to discuss uncomfortable things rationally." They support censorship of those unwilling to discuss things politely/rationally.
11. Group B says, "Umm... Dudes, that is wrong." And censors things by increasing the SNR.
12. Group A acts more like Group B but claims to have the moral high ground.
13. Cat herders enact more stringent censorship but are biased towards keeping the grounds clear for open communication.
13b. Groups A & B do not get their way (even with censorship) and SNR is increased via different channels.
14. Group B has their panties in a knot.
15. Group A has their panties in a knot.
16. Groups A & B go elsewhere for more attention to their cause in hopes that they gain support from outside parties.
17. Groups A & B both try to yell down the opposing sides.
18. Yay! Snowball effect!
19. Cat herders keep trying to herd cats.
20. Groups A & B continue to hurl crap at each other, neither getting their way, and none are interested in compromise or solving the problems.

So, there are issues of free speech, egos, mistreatment, and people are investing a great deal of emotional and physical energy for something that equates with e-peen. They have a lot invested in their ability to put pixels on a screen at one specific site and in one specific manner. They, both groups, are able to have an echo chamber that supports this emotional investment. At this point none of them seem to be interested in actually doing anything to resolve this and someone has lost their job so their ego-induced (both sides) pixel placement has, seemingly, resulted in real-world harm.

I am sure I am missing something. I am sure it is more nuanced than this. I have an account over there, I have had it for ages, but I do not make use of it and have only used it a few times. So, I think I am being objective and I am trying to be unbiased. I do not have enough information to form an opinion about either side or an opinion about the third party that is hosting and moderating the site. It seems to me that both sides have been reduced to screaming hordes (or started that way) who have been culturally conditioned to believe that they have a right to do as they damned well please which, for better or worse, may be a valid point. My contention, and my only one that I do have enough information to opine on, is that this is being done on property not belonging to the parties who are complaining and that the solution is simple (and the time is ripe). If you do not like the way you are being treated the solution is to simply go somewhere else and make your own platform where you and others can express whatever it is that you decide is acceptable.

To top it off, with all this mayhem, this would be an excellent opportunity to create a new site. Making your own site, at this point, would potentially be an excellent idea as you can attract the disenfranchised to your new site. If someone were to want to create an alternative for financial or idyllic reasons then the churn this has caused may be a good driver for traffic. If they can then maintain their idealism they can retain that user base. The most important problem that I anticipate is that those new sites would end up in the same mess that this community is in.

Comment: Mozilla Foundation now works for Microsoft? (Score 1) 123 123

"remember back when Google used to be behind Firefox?"

Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year.

Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation now gets most of its money from Microsoft. Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) the default search engine in Firefox. Most people don't have the technical knowledge to know how they've been manipulated, or how to restore the default search engine to Google search.

The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged, apparently deliberately. Every time you do a file save, the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed. Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?

Comment: Re:Indeed (Score 1) 313 313

As an outsider and, I think, unbiased let me say this...

The whole thing is a cesspool. It is leaking out onto the rest of the 'net. Let them do what they will and build a community of your own if you do not like it - that goes for any/all sides. While it is done on private property you have no control. If one is being censored on one platform your recourse is not to whinge but to do something constructive about it. Make your own site, make it popular, and maybe make some money on the side. Keep it open (or closed) as you see fit.

Now, about it leaking to the rest of the internet. Let me also point out that I am not helping prevent this. I am giving my eyeballs and my random pixels to the cause. I am aware of this. However... Really? Hang your dirty laundry up in the house. Have you no shame? The rest of us are proverbial perverts (and real perverts) so we will watch (and speculate) much like we would watch the results of a spectacular car wreck.

Comment: Re:Terrifying. (Score 1) 51 51

This is the most terrifying and ridiculous thing I've seen in my entire life.

No, the most terrifying and ridiculous thing would be if it was rewritten in JavaScript which outputted Java source that piped C# source that then, when compiled and executed, outputted as an x86 ASM program that produced a PHP script.

Comment: my most unusual hack was.. (Score 1) 123 123

when i got sick of my cable modem getting so hot it would shut down i put it, my Ethernet router, inside a mini soda fridge. after that the modem could handle playing warcraft III The frozen throne 12 hours a day and spend the entire night providing a local mirror of files that were important at the time via bit torrent.

Unix: Some say the learning curve is steep, but you only have to climb it once. -- Karl Lehenbauer