Making a ridiculous statement that anyone knows is patently false is the reason I'm calling bullshit.
Again, anyone with any smart phone can test this theory that logging into Gmail on your computer and mobile device at the same time does not lock your account.
I'm pretty sure hundreds of millions of users are logged into Gmail on a web interface while also using their Android phones, and they don't have all their email accounts locked.
I smell a bullshit astroturfer.
The issue is that Microsoft's privacy track record is worse.
When George W. Bush demanded all search engines hand over search data tied to IP addresses for all users, Google was the only search engine to refuse. Microsoft handed that data right over.
Microsoft has ad campaigns suggesting Google employees are actively reading your email, even though they know that is an outright lie, the very definition of FUD.
Even worse, Microsoft is a hypocrite because they scan your email to serve up contextual ads as well.
Microsoft also has a patent on selling your private data to the highest bidder.
Google isn't giving your private data to anyone. They just serve you ads. Microsoft outright sells your data to people without your knowledge. And when they know they can't compete with Google on price, their only response is FUD.
1. Sweden extraditing Assange would be extremely difficult because they'd have to sign off on it, and so would the UK. Neither have suggested they would.
2. Manning was in solitary, not tortured.
3. The UCMJ places more restrictions on you. Members of the military are basically held to a higher standard and have FEWER rights than others. For example, you can face a court martial and a separate criminal trial and double-jeopardy does not apply. This was explained to me that I was effectively waiving some of my rights when I joined the Marine Corps. Bradley Manning voluntarily made that choice.
4. You're suggesting that the UK and Sweden have both been duped and Ecuador has proof of this. But said proof hasn't been revealed publicly. If Assange had any proof he was framed, why wouldn't he reveal it?
5. Agiza was an Egyptian wanted in Egypt that Sweden handed back to Egypt. Sweden had negotiated promises from Egypt that he would not be tortured, and Egypt lied. Sweden had also labeled Agiza a terrorist, which it has not done to Assange. Sweden ruled that letting Agiza in the country was a security risk because they labeled him a terrorist, and thusly deported him to his home country, while at the same time demanding that Egypt not torture him. Sweden had zero qualms letting Assange in the country. Saying this situation is the same is nothing short of ridiculous. They are completely different.
6. This is by far the most important point. Conspiracy theorists assume that anyone who speaks negatively of the US government is rounded up and punished for it, but all evidence speaks to the contrary. Plenty of Americans speak out negatively about the government every single day with nothing happening to them.
Again, there is zero documented evidence that he was framed. There is zero documented evidence that Sweden would be able to or willing to extradite to the US for someone they haven't gone after themselves.
If Assange faced rape charges in Sweden, how would that lead to extradition to the US?
Again, Assange hasn't been charged with anything in the US and there is no extradition request. Nor does Sweden have a record that would indicate they would extradite him.
You're saying there is some conspiracy that the CIA framed him for something fairly trivial in Sweden (rather than just apprehend him) to get him extradited, when the whole thing is a long shot. You're talking about odds, and those are some long odds.
If Assange truly supported his supposed ideals of transparency and accountability, wouldn't he be willing to stand trial and defend his name?
The initial intent of the subreddit was to find anyone who was seen at the scene with a backpack and pass all of those photos on to the FBI. That intent was noble, and the work could have been useful.
Then someone out of the blue called two people suspects with no evidence (other than the color of their skin) and people accepted it without asking for any reason why they were suspects. That was the clear failure.
The mods of the subreddit failed to direct people back to the original purpose of just finding everyone with a backpack.
The term rape is probably not applicable, but that's the problem with redefining terms.
However, the principle that he is calling for total transparency and accountability of others, while acting like a hypocrite still applies.
His accuser hates Castro? That must mean she works for the CIA!
Everyone who opposes Castro definitively works for the CIA! She worked with a group, who is connected to one member who hates Castro, and thusly was backed by the CIA! It's all proof!
Obama had fundraiser meetings with Bill Ayer, which clearly proves that Obama is secretly working for a terrorist organization!
Drawing a lose connection between two lines to support confirmation bias is the tool of a conspiracy theorist. It doesn't represent reality.
But Assange insists the only reason he can't defend himself against the rape accusation is that Sweden would immediately send him off to the US. There are three problems with that statement.
1. The US hasn't charged him with a crime or filed an extradition request for him.
2. Before the rape accusation, he felt Sweden was a safe location. Now magically it isn't.
3. Sweden doesn't have a history of extraditing people to the US.
Where is this track record of the Swedish justice system as subservient to US interests? You do realize that Sweden gladly turned a blind eye to The Pirate Bay and US copyright concerns until The Pirate Bay until the founders hacked Swedish systems. And they weren't charged for any copyright infringement.
http://rt.com/news/pirate-bay-hacking-fraud-003/
I didn't accuse Assange of threating to kill someone. I stated that his former partner made that accusation. I stated a fact. I didn't claim to have direct knowledge if it was accurate. But it came from his former partner and supposed best friend. It should be noted that several people close to Assange left Wikileaks to start a forked project because they supported the ideal, but not him.
The third accusation isn't bullshit. It was widely reported.
You state that Wikileaks was very useful for mankind, but he refused to release tons of leaks given to him. His partner outlined how the entire purpose of Wikileaks was to funnel money to Assange, and that the ideals of transparency and whistleblowing were secondary.
You may also be interested in this link:
When Lee Iacocca built Chrysler into a powerhouse, he said he didn't know anything about how to build a car.
You may be shocked to discover that CEOs specialize in running companies. They don't have to be expert engineers. And given Schmidt's previous statements (that people with nothing to hide shouldn't be so worried about privacy) I can understand why he'd never have an interest in TOR.
Assange has fled from the law enforcement over rape accusations. Like it or not, that is a factual statement. I think people support him out of blind partisanship ("he called out the US government, so I have to be on his side for life regardless of anything else!") which is foolish.
If you support the actual ideals of transparency and accountability, then it should apply to Assange as well. He shouldn't flee law enforcement over rape accusations. (Even though it isn't rape by American standards, he seems to believe he is above the law) His organization should be more transparent.
We also know that Assange's former partner accused Assange of threating to kill him once, and said Assange is purely financially motivated.
We know that when Assange released a bunch of civilian volunteer names unredacted, some of them received death threats. Amnesty International called out Assange for being irresponsible, to which Assange responded that if people wanted civilian volunteer names redacted in the future, they need to give him $200,000.
Amnesty International calls out human rights violation and government corruption as a transparent charity that operates within the law. They protect people rather than putting them in danger.
Honestly, I'm not sure how people can look at this track record and honestly consider him a hero or saint.
You can buy the controller separately for $50 (which is also roughly the price of a comparable PS3/360 controller as well). HTC doesn't sell 4G radios, touch screens and the like separately. And the SOC is not $20. Nor is the OUYA simply a SOC. It includes a case, cords, power supply, etc.
Not to mention the design cost. People often simply look at the part cost for an item, and assume that is what it costs to make a product. Phone companies get to re-use designs from one model to the next, where as the the initial design cost for a new product is pretty hefty.
I'm willing to bet that the OUYA is sold very close to margin, if not at a slight loss.
The benchmark results show the OUYA (basically a $50 console bundled with a $50 controller) was faster than the HTC One S, which sells for $450 outside of a contract.
Software developers wanted to be paid to write software?
Those scoundrels!
E = MC ** 2 +- 3db
