Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Note: You can take 10% off all Slashdot Deals with coupon code "slashdot10off." ×

Comment Re:What did he expect? (Score 1) 131

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.

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 1) 131

If you were the father or brother of those two girls your opinion on the matter would probably be different.

If you read the details of the charges, your opinion would probably be different...

Not likely. Raping someone while they're asleep and unable to resist tends to be frowned upon in civil society.

Comment Re:What is UNUSUAL (Score 1) 131

They both say that what started as consensual sex became non-consensual

That's a gross misstatement of the facts. In one case, the woman was asleep at the time sex started. She had previously told Assange no to sex, and then went to sleep. She woke up with him inside her.

... which is rape in Swedish law.

Penetrating someone who is unconscious is rape in most countries.

Assange has not been charged with a crime as yet.

That's also grossly misleading - in Swedish law, the charging comes at the very last stage, prior to trial, which has to commence within one week of the charging. The fact that he hasn't been charged yet is simply because he's hiding out.

Frankly it looks like a case where two women discovered that they were both having sex with Assange and decided (together) to come up with a way to get back at him - there's no way to prove that sex becomes non-consenual while it is in progress. It's a classic "he said, she said" situation.

Not at all. Assange admitted during his extradition appeal to the UK High Court that he had sex with the sleeping woman, knowing that he didn't have consent. There's no "he said, she said," because everyone agrees on the facts - he penetrated her, knowing that she was unable to give consent and unable to resist. As the court said, "it is difficult to see how a person could reasonably have believed in consent if the complainant alleges a state of sleep or half-sleep."

Comment Re:All bullshit (Score 5, Informative) 255

He was 17, she was 15 when the sex occurred. He didn't rape her. She regretted it afterwards, and either cried rape or was forced to cry rape by her parents.

18, not 17. It's in the article:

But at its core, the case was about an intimate encounter last year between a 15-year-old girl and an 18-year-old acquaintance, and whether she consented as it escalated.

And he was convicted because his story wasn't credible. He (now) claims he suddenly saw the light, seconds before penetrating her. And yet, for days afterwards she was texting him to ask whether he used a condom, and she went to a pharmacist for emergency contraception. Are those the actions of someone who wasn't penetrated? Add to that the fact that he repeatedly changed his story, and it's very easy to see why a jury didn't believe him.

And yet, despite all that, they didn't convict of rape. So you're right on that count, Anon. So why all your crying and attacking the victim?

Comment Re:The Sad Puppies won. (Score 1) 1034

The Sad Puppies won. Yes, they didn't win a single award -- in fact, some really good works lost to No Award, seemingly just to spite them.

But that was the point.

Their stated goal was to prove that there was a group of people out there voting for political reasons and fixing the Hugos... They proved the Sad Puppies point -- that the Hugos are fixed by a group of gatekeepers.

Did they? Or did they prove that the Hugos could be fixed by a group of gatekeepers?
Specifically, we can certainly both agree with the latter - the SPs acted as a group of gatekeepers to fix the nomination slate, proving it was possible. But the fact that they did so easily and completely implies that there was no opposing force. If there already was a group of SJW gatekeepers blocking unapproved nominations, then we would have heard about a nomination battle, no? Each side of gatekeepers would rally supporters trying to control the slate, and this would become more and more public as their forces grow. Most likely, the resulting slate would have some extremist SP nominations and some extremist SJW nominations, no?

Instead, without even a breath of resistance, the SPs controlled the slate. That shows it was possible, but also shows no one was trying to do it before them. The SPs actually proved that there wasn't a group of people fixing the Hugos until they came along.

Comment Re:Fines should be like banks (Score 3, Interesting) 144

When a big Bank breaks the law, they are fined a tiny percentage of the money they made breaking the law. If a Bank makes $500 million illegally, their fine comes out to something like $20 million.

If corporations are people, it should work the other way as well. Therefore, if someone downloads a movie they would have otherwise paid $14 to see in a theater, the fine should be about 2 bucks.

That makes perfect sense. And by the same logic, if someone uploads or shares a movie that a distributor would have paid between $10-20 million for the rights to distribute, the fine should be about $50-150k.

It's important to remember that people aren't being sued for downloading, they're being sued for uploading. And distribution rights are expensive. Apple doesn't pay Warner Brothers $1, once, in exchange for being able to distribute some new song. AMC Theaters doesn't give New Line Cinemas a simple $14 for the rights to show Straight Outta Compton on a thousand screens for the next three months.

Remember back when Michael Jackson bought the distribution rights to the Beatles' catalog for several million? It worked out to around $20-30k per song... which happens to be right about the same amount Jammie Thomas and Joel Tenenbaum had to pay for their infringement.

Comment Re:...against a common enemy (Score 2) 147

Incidentally, peeking makes split-screen better for co-op than the alternative of buying two consoles and two copies of the game.

Better? For competitive split screen certainly not. For cooperative games it's tolerable...

Incidentally, reading the comment you're replying to makes Slashdot better for discussions.

Comment Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 226

But the UK does have a "special relationship" with the USA. It's not the kind of deep friendship that politicians like to suggest. (After all, the Americans did have to rebel against British rule; and in 1812 the British burned Washington - hardly the act of a best buddy). No, the British are Washington's most reliable stooges (or "poodles" if you prefer).

I think people tend to look at what has happened in the last 50 years rather than what happened over 200 years ago.

Comment Re:Yawn... (Score 1) 226

"I would also point out, that the fear of extradition to the US is a little baseless, he hasn't actually broken any US laws".

I do hope that was meant as a joke. Surely there isn't anyone left who believes the US government gives a flying fuck about laws? The salient fact is that they hate Assange because he disobliged them and annoyed them. They certainly could create a new law specifically to make him illegal, or retroactively reinterpret some old laws to do the same...

Then why didn't they grab him during the 18 months he was in the UK arguing his appeals before he went into hiding in the embassy? Hell, if the US really is all "fark you, laws," why haven't we sent a SEAL team to invade the embassy? I don't think we're terribly concerned about Ecuador's military might.

Comment Re:What a scumbag (Score 1) 226

do you know the story?

He is in charged of rape, because he didn't use a condom on a occasional sex. That is a crime in Sweden and is equivalent to rape.

Actually, it's that the girl told him "no", then went to sleep, and then, knowing that he didn't have consent, he had sex with her while she was asleep. As Assange's own lawyer, Ben Emmerson, told the UK's High Court:

Emmerson went on to provide accounts of the two encounters in question which granted — at least for the purposes of today’s hearing — the validity of Assange’s accusers’ central claims. He described Assange as penetrating one woman while she slept without a condom, in defiance of her previously expressed wishes, before arguing that because she subsequently “consented to continuation” of the act of intercourse, the incident as a whole must be taken as consensual.

That's also a crime under UK law as well as US law.

The girl don't even want any charge against him, but it is a public crime, so her opinion doesn't matter.

I have a question for you... Do you believe that, if a guy and girl have consensual sex, and a few days later, the girl has regrets, that travels back in time and it becomes rape? Or would you agree that the crime either occurs or doesn't occur at the moment the act of penetration occurs, and things that happen days later are irrelevant?

Comment Re:Why not start now..and take if further? (Score 1) 373

As a doctor I can say that the "glandular" excuse for being overweight is pure BS. You treat hypothyroid patients with levothyroxine, and they maintain normal weight if they adhere to treatment. Excess weight is 100% due to overeating, eating poor quality food and/or sedentarism.

So, as a doctor, you're saying that untreated hypothyroid patients gain weight, regardless of overeating? Wouldn't someone properly characterize that as a "glandular" issue?

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

Yeah I'm just going to leave this here for the world to see, along with the revolutionary omelette maker who responded below.

Or, they could just hit the link to "parent". You don't actually have to do anything to "leave this here", but you believe you do. Narcissism, delusions of grandeur... That fits with your earlier statement calling yourself the "voice of truth" that you believe everyone is trying to silence, as does your paranoia.

In short, you're a looney.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

Next, you're going to be outraged about Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal, right? I mean, clearly, you don't understand satire.

You have no idea who Valerie Solanis was, do you. Once again since your memory appears to be a bit flaky, she attempted to murder Andy Warhol and left him permanently mutilated, he was forced to wear a surgical corset for the rest of his life, for which she was diagnosed with chronic paranoid schizophrenia.

And Warhol is mentioned in the SCUM Manifesto? No? Maybe surgical corsets are? No? So what exactly does the attempted murder of Andy Warhol have to do with your insistence that the Ada Initiative should be responding to dead comment threads? Is this just an attempt to tie a schizophrenic who tried to kill someone she thought was stealing from her to feminism as a whole? Of course it is.

The conference organizer apparently is, since he disagrees with her characterization of what happened. Unless you're calling him a liar now. And you must be, or else you've just proved my accusation of you as a hypocrite to be true. So, come on - are you calling him a liar, or are you admitting you're a hypocrite?

I'd say he was trying to cover his own ass as much as possible after the whole thing went viral, for which he can hardly be blamed.

Ah, so you accuse me of calling her a liar, but the conference organizer was just "covering his ass" for saying the same thing? Do you have any idea how schizophrenic you sound?

I'm going with Violet's version of events, without a doubt.

Now then, at this point I have to wonder - why are you trying to drown out the facts?

There are three stories of an event, but you choose one that agrees with your prejudices and then say everyone else is "trying to drown out the facts". Got it - you're a paranoid schizophrenic, hence your obsession with Solanis. I'm glad I don't have a Factory for you to visit me at.

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

...based on any hope they might have that people would take them seriously? I mean do you know what the SCUM Manifesto actually is? It makes Mein Kampf look like a rational and reasonable body of writing by comparison.

Next, you're going to be outraged about Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal, right? I mean, clearly, you don't understand satire.

The bare notion that it would be recommended reading for anyone but students of psychiatry boggles the mind,

Unless, of course, it's recommended for the same reason Swift's essay is.

and yet there's a comment, unchallenged, not so much as an eyebrow raised, recommending it right on the Ada website.

A comment left in a dead thread with no replies. Gawrsh! Again, I ask whether you've ever browsed Slashdot at -1?

It's all right there in black and white buddy, direct from Violet herself. Unless you're calling her a liar now.

The conference organizer apparently is, since he disagrees with her characterization of what happened. Unless you're calling him a liar now. And you must be, or else you've just proved my accusation of you as a hypocrite to be true. So, come on - are you calling him a liar, or are you admitting you're a hypocrite?

Comment Re:Good (Score 1) 223

You think that a comment with no replies means that the organization isn't bothered by it? If you're not a hypocrite, go read Slashdot at -1, and make those same accusations about the crowd here.

Slashdot deliberately exercises very little editorial control, I would certainly expect a professional organisation to police the commentary on its website.

Based on what? Apparently, they aren't, but rather than facts get in the way of your rhetoric, you'll just go on your own expectations.

... who was going to give a talk about sex, rape, and the use of drugs to obviate consent, at a computer security conference. And it wasn't the Ada Initiative that "shut it down", but rather, the conference organizer decided to shut it down because 'the talk included "discussion of date rape drugs"'. In fact, contrary to your accusation, the Ada Initiative suggested ways that the speaker could still make the presentation, specifically doing a video of the talk or as an after-con talk. As the organizer states, "I have since reached out to Violet about recording her talk so we can put it up on our video site."

Trying to rewrite history doesn't work very well on the internet, you know.

You're right, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you think the conference organizer's statement is "rewriting history", though. Is it because, again, you would rather disregard facts when they disagree with your rhetoric?

Yeah your colours are showing

Yep. Anyone who disagrees with you or provides evidence that you're wrong must immediately be attacked as biased. As someone else noted, anyone who refers to themselves as the 'voice of truth' is indicating that they're nothing of the sort.

Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!