Found on http://joostiz.tumblr.com/: "Can we please keep the crazy out of this forum?" That's you they're talking about, Mr. Hughes. (Or is it "Johnson" this week? How many sets of ID do you carry around, anyway?)

In other words, "DON'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ AND LEARN FROM INDEPENDENT SOUNDS. ONLY THE 'FACTS' AS PRESENTED BY THIS 'ANONYMOUS COWARD' — JASON CHRISTOPHER HUGHES, aka RAYMOND JOHNSON, aka MICHAEL RUDRA NATH, aka LUIS MANUEL ARSUPIAL, SOMEONE WHO CLEARLY HAS SOME SORT OF PSYCHOTIC RAGE GOING TOWARD RACHEL HAYWIRE — SHOULD BE GIVEN CONSIDERATION." Seriously, Mr. Hughes: if you hope to be at all persuasive, you really need to put a little more effort into writing as though you were something other than an utter lunatic, spraying spittle all over the keyboard as you pound in your screeds.

NOBODY ACTUALLY CARES, JASON CHRISTOPHER HUGHES (aka MICHAEL RUDRA NATH, aka RAYMOND JOHNSON, aka LUIS ARSUPIAL).

"SHE BURNED DOWN SOME GUY'S HOUSE AND CAR!" No, she didn't. That's a lie. You claimed that I burned down your house and your car, too. Sadly for you, no one's ever been charged — "too many potential suspects" is what I heard — the cops think you're a complete lunatic, and it seems just as likely that you torched it yourself in the hopes of blaming one of your imaginary "enemies" for it. Poor sad, crazy, stupid, addled Extinct Marsupial. (Watch him drag out his heavily-edited and out-of-context set of cherry-picked quotes from some ten-year-old flame war now.)

Oh, look: it's Jason Christopher Hughes again, the longest-running stalker on the Internet. All of these "rumors" are just nonsense you made up. You're hoping to _create_ rumors. Silly troll.

Heh. Linus has already weighed in on how much regard he gives to the opinions and viewpoints that get expressed on this site: "the pinheads on slashdot".

This is wonderful. If the Green Party candidate got elected President of the United States, and the first thing she did was turn around and lob a hydrogen bomb at Ottawa, you'd all be here coming up with rationales as to why it was a good thing. All of a sudden, the collective wisdom-holders of Slashdot have had the scales fall from their eyes: the sense and justice of ad-supported content models is unquestionable, copyright law must be strictly observed, and terms of service should _always_ be not only respected, but followed to the letter.

Um, no. The $150,000 is the maximum award for willful infringement — and as noted, Alan isn't out any actual income in this situation which would make a maximum judgment unlikely —but that assumes a court's finding that infringement actually occurred. In spite of the FSF's and Alan Cox's saber-rattling, I don't believe they've actually got a case. The FSF regularly conflates a "derivative work" with a "combined work", and they're not at all the same thing.

I suspect it must the Free Software Foundation's "Imaginary Court of Making Stuff Up" that "decided" this.

Intelligently, Samsung's lawyers didn't try to pull that one.

He wasn't "granted diplomatic asylum", he was simply allowed to live in the US Embassy. If he'd been "granted diplomatic asylum", that would imply that China was obliged to give him safe conduct to leave the country, and that's clearly not the case.

No, the US does not recognize the notion of diplomatic asylum, nor does Britain.

The US has granted political asylum to people, but only when they were on US soil.

Julian didn't run.

You two are on a first-name basis...?

In fact, Assange did run: he had an interview with the police and prosecutors scheduled in Sweden for September 28th. He left the country on September 27th. When the authorities informed his lawyer that they planned to file a warrant for his arrest, they were told Assange would be back in Sweden by October 8th, and he'd be willing to meet with them then. He never showed up, at which point Sweden ordered him "arrested in absentia" and began the extradition process.

In fact, Assange's lawyer Hurtig was accused by the British High Court of deliberately trying to mislead the court over this sequence of events.

Second is that all available evidence points to him not having committed sexual assault (as any anglo-saxon would understand it).

Funny that every court in Britain, up to and including the High Court, found that the acts of which he'd been accused would constitute "rape" in the UK, huh...?

Thanks for having the patience to provide so much sense here. It's like King Canute ordering back the tide, though, I'm afraid. People believe what they want to believe, and facts don't seem to be enough to persuade 'em...