Great. Rape is only natural, and the charge of waiting until someone was asleep to F' them in ways they wouldn't let you do while awake isn't rape anyway. Gotcha.

Great crowd we've got here on Slashdot these days.

Riiiiight. Because Abu Hamza has only one country which has to approve his extradition (instead of two in the case of Assange), has few fans (compared to Assange, who according to polls has on the order of hundreds of millions), was trying to *set up terrorist training camps inside the US* (instead of leaking videos and cables), has no "get out of extradition free" card from being charged with an intelligence-related crime (Swedish law bans extradition for intelligence matters), and on and on... and he's *still* in the UK. He was arrested in 2004, and he's *still* not extradited. And the US has already not only promised no death penalty, no abuse, no guantanamo, they even had to promise not to send him to a Supermax prison. And he's still not sent. And we're supposed to worry about Julian F'ing Assange and his paranoid fantasyland? Especially after this?

Anyway, hey, remember way back when Ghandi was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. Well, remember when Mandela was charged with raping someone, and he went and hid in an embassy? Oh, that's right, he went to f'ing jail for actual political charges. But no, Assange walks around like he's a hero, bragging about how much of a hero he is, when the actual felony he's facing is that he waited until a girl (SW) was asleep in order to F' her unprotected because she wouldn't let him do it while awake. And the crazy thing is he hardly even denies the charges. His legal team admits that she had been refusing unprotected sex the night before (it'd be hard not to, they have a condom with DNA matching the DNA sample from inside her, and she talked with friends that night talking about how he kept trying to F' her without protection and how she was getting really frustrated with it). Even the guy's own legal team was not challenging the fact that they "found Mr Assange's sexual behaviour in these encounters disreputable, discourteous, disturbing or even pushing towards the boundaries of what they were comfortable with" His team claims only that she woke up, was fully conscious, and then consented to sex. Which is just patently absurd, given that she had been just telling people about how upset she was about him trying to have unprotected sex with her, and she has a "paper trail" a mile long of being afraid of pregnancy and STDs, to the point where her previous boyfriend of 2 1/2 years testified that not only did she not once allow unprotected sex (it was "unthinkable" to her), but she even had him get STD tested before *protected* sex. So she woke up in the middle of the night, after complaining repeatedly about him trying to violate a lifelong principle, was fully conscious, and decided to change her views on unprotected sex? *Really*?

Assange has appealed the case in five separate courts and lost all of them: three in the UK, including the UK supreme court, and two in Sweden (the Svea court hearings), the latter two specifically focusing on the forensic evidence and interviews. But no, a random assange-fan echo chamber sourcing most of its info from Assange's admitted liar lawyer is justice, while five separate actual courts in first-world nations are railroading, right?

Just pathetic. Assange is dodging some serious F'ing charges here, and it's horrible to see so many people cheering on the majorly misogynist ego-driven teenager-stalker cat abuser with a fathering obsession for doing so.

22 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the issue of the District Court arrest warrant to Svea Court of Appeal.

24 November 2010
Svea Court of Appeal refuses the appeal and takes a decision that the arrest warrant is to remain in place, with probable cause, on suspicion of rape (less serious crime), unlawful coercion and two cases of sexual molestation.

The international request and the European Arrest Warrant are confirmed in accordance with the decision of the District Court.

30 November 2010
Julian Assange appeals the arrest warrant issued by Svea Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court.

2 December 2010
The Supreme Court takes a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. The decision of the Svea Court of Appeal stands.

Until you accept this and accept your ignorance on the topic, and agree to actually read primary sources instead of the echo chamber, I won't even address the rest of your post.

Messed up the link: here. Lower UK court link is here, I don't have time to dig up the rest for you.

Perhaps, mhenriday, you might want to do a smidgeon of research before claiming that someone else is wrong: straight from the Swedish Prosecution Authority website. The Svea court decisions are also cited in the UK trial transcripts, which you've also never read.

Since you've made it so blatantly obvious that you're just listening to an echo chamber and are so grossly ignorant on the case that you don't even know what trials there have been, why should I even bother going into the rest of your post? How about YOU inform yourself and then let me know when you're actually ready to have a serious discussion on the matter. Step 1: read that timeline. Step 2: read the three British court decisions. Step 3: read the police report: .

THEN we can have a serious talk.

3) Who's paying you, Rei? Is it the State Department? CIA?

Good to see we're in the world of reality here.

And since you're so curious, it's the Lizards who are paying me. But it's for a good cause, because if it wasn't the Lizards, it'd be The Grays, and you don't *want* to know what they'd do if they were in charge...

Since when is Polanski in the news lately? If he was you'd hear me complaining just as vigorously.

Because I've read the actual report. Unlike the author of that article.

Here's the relevant section, translated to English:

Conversation with SKL

Conversed with forensic analysist Anders Nilsson at SKL to get a clarification o
n the DNA samples.

In the previous PM I have written that concerning the condom used by Anna Ardin,
  they had not found DNA. This is not correct according to Anders Nilsson. He sai
d that they see "something" but that it is impossible to figure out. It has been
  chosen to analyze the sample with a more refined method. This method takes abou
t two weeks. In the previous PM it was not Anders Nilsson that I spoke with.

Anders Nilsson explained that it is not the amount of DNA that always determines
  whether they can see DNA. There are many reasons why they can't get a clear pic
ture.

  - Something interfering with the analysis such as dirt, etc.
  - Small amounts of DNA
  - People emit different amounts of DNA
  - The study material has been affected by usage, for example, washed, dried off
,

These were some of the things that can affect the analysis of DNA, but there are
  more factors which can influence it.

The subsequent test referred to came back positive for mtDNA.

Because you'll drop it and break the fragile screen, rendering it useless before the malware could collect useful data? Because the battery will die too soon? Because you'll be getting rid of it to get the latest trendy model in short order?

Yeah, my phone is probably at an angle where it could get a good picture through its rear camera maybe 1-2% of the day - the rest of the time it's facing a desk, a pocket, a dresser, etc. Now, its front camera could probably get reasonable shots for ~70%, but a lot of phones still don't have those, and of those shots, 95% of the day it'll be pointing at only 2-4 things - ceiling in my bedroom, ceiling in my office, etc. And of the time when there's good data visible to either camera, 80% of the time I'm probably moving too much or in too low light conditions for a non-flash shot to be very useful. And then of the rest, if they're trying to model a specific indoor space instead of wherever I happen to randomly be at a given point in time...

Well, basically, I think they'd have to be doing an awful lot of monitoring of the camera to get those occasional good shots, at least with a dumb algorithm.

Now, *that said*, I think a smart algorithm could do a pretty good job. Don't just take pictures at intervals - use the accelerometers to tell when the camera is pointing in a potentially useful location and/or is being moved. Basically, take pictures when you think you're pointed at something you haven't seen before.

The use of battery life for GPS can be similarly handled. When you're plugged in, you really only need one good GPS reading and you're set. When you get unplugged, you need to monitor at regular intervals. The faster the person is moving, however, the faster you need to get updates, so you just tweak your update speed accordingly. This is, btw, one improvement I'd like to see in Backitude, which I use (I actually enjoy having Big Brother G monitor my life and wish he'd take more of my data - automatic pictures, audio recordings, even things like acceleration and magnetic fields from everywhere I go would suit me well ;) ).

Not to mention that they take Assange's paranoid fantasies about reextradition at face value (that would probably be the most complicated way to get Assange to the United states one could possibly devise, involving three first-world judicial sytems and two first-world national governments, all of which must agree to extradite him, all of which are bound by law not to extradite where there's a risk of human rights abuses or the death penalty, two of which also with the restriction of no extraditions for intelligence or military mattersm, and one (the ECHR) of which whose only purpose it is to prevent political prosecutions and human rights abuses, a task it embraces with what's often criticized as too much zeal) - and the "evidence" for the fantasy being leaks about something from two years ago, with no mention that last year another leak suggested that the case fell apart.

Typical garbage reporting about the Assange case. At least it's not as bad as the "no DNA" story, which was actually precisely the opposite of what the report they were claiming to cite said (that they did find something, that the initial test was inconclusive, that there was nothing suspicious about the initial test being inconclusive, that they're sending it in for more sensitive testing - and then after the report, the results were that they found mtDNA), as well as including some outright slander for good measure (that the victim said the sex was consensual).

I think he had a few 'trials', no?

Three to five, depending on whether you count a full hearing or just a review and then rejection - two in Sweden, three in the UK (the last in the UK being the supreme court). The ones in the UK were mainly about the extradition process, with the evidence only relatively minimally touched on. The ones in Sweden were specifically about the evidence, which stood up to review.

Also, from the sound of the article itself, its whole headline is hyperbole. They don't cite a single point in the FOI where they call Assange an enemy of state. They call an intelligence analysist attending a wikileaks rally and dealing with wikileaks supporters (of which we know Assange specifically was *not* there, since he was in the embassy) "communicating with the enemy, 104-D" because Wikileaks is ""anti-US and/or anti-military group" (which, all rhetoric aside, it most definitely is, and hardly even denies that anymore). However, the case was closed without laying charges, which could well mean that they don't think that claim would stand up in court. There's nothing at all in the article about "Assange being added to a list of enemies of state", despite the hyperbolic headline.

I was surprised that they didn't include a single scandinavian country in the study. Scandinavian countries are famous for beer-drinking. Also famous for high prices on beer but paying out the nose for it nonetheless.

Couldn't you apply that joke about anyone? It automatically gets a 100% success rate. If they don't say anything, they're not included in the sample, and if they do, they confirm the theory.

That's my question as well. And beyond that, if you *can* be energy positive using a subcritical reactor, why use a critical reactor at all? Oh, sure, free neutrons are nice and all, but if the cost of getting them is meltdown risk, an angry public, and a huge, ever-growing burden of protective measures and waste disposal costs...