hammersend
Yeah, I'm sure the fact that you can download the source code to it, make any changes you want, and redistribute that source code or that you can install any app you want on an Android handset whether it's in the blessed market or not has nothing to do with it being open. Nothing at all.
What the f is this shit? This guy:https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UxbxdEwXL7Y/AAAAAAAAAAI/A...
is the counterpart to Jony Ive. And that goes for the rest of your head-in-your-ass bigotry.
It is and the funny thing is this guy has a funny definition of "now" considering Max Planck discovered light travels in discrete quanta. In 1900. Around the time of Einstein submitting his first paper and before his paper on Special Relativity. I would imagine whoever signed off on the PR copy is aware of this as well as other inconsistencies. Makes you wonder.
I think this is overwhelmingly the toughest problem to solve here for any mainstream rag. Take the Sydney newspaper mentioned in the article for example. If their competitors publish the more dramatic version of the story replete with the sensationalist headline while the Sydney Morning Herald in an attempt to maintain some semblance of journalistic integrity don't, guess which papers the public are going to buy. It's obvious where the incentive lies.
Unfortunately the reality is the public isn't going to change as it is in human nature to pay attention to the more "surprising" news (Tiger! in caveman days). So if the public isn't going to change and the market rewards yellow journalism what's left? Regulation? I don't know.
That's the entire issue with this. If Assange was getting his due process, the interview would have taken place via video conference as has been enshrined in Swedish judicial practice via this (https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337) ruling from the Swedish supreme court. The man probably knows more about his situation than you do and if he thinks going to Sweden is a bad idea for him then, unless you can come up with a really good reason why not, his opinion on the matter carries a lot more weight than yours.
Your cynicism here is way overboard and borders on intellectual laziness. There have been many instances in the past of details coming out and changing public perception of a sexual assault case. The supposed Duke rape case a few years back is a prime example. Initially everybody and their dog just "knew" those boys were guilty of raping that stripper. But as details began to trickle out and she changed her story multiple times, the whole thing ultimately culminated in the disbarment of the prosecuting attorney Mike Nifong and subsequent jail time (albeit 1 day). Obviously that was a judicial decision but to pretend that the "minor details" didn't adjust public perception is absolutely untrue.
Then what's the point of having them witness in a trial? They've already gave "their side of the story" right? Wrong.
This is so ridiculously absurd and easily rebutted by there just being one account of him not being a "scumbag" that I wonder why you would even bother typing such a transparent ad hominem in the first place.
I find these facts irrelevant (to the issue at hand) because these facts are irrelevant. There isn't a country under the sun that hasn't done something somebody would find objectionable. What would you have Assange do? Shop your definition of more "enlightened" soveriegnties until one of them decides to grant him asylum? What would you do in his shoes?
If that was you camped out in the Ecuadorean embassy with cops standing out in the lobby you wouldn't be saying that. I'll also note that if you were in Bradley Manning's shoes sitting in a supermax somewhere with 23 hours a day to do nothing but stare at the walls you wouldn't be saying that either. Principles don't mean shit without people standing behind them and putting everything on the line. And contrary to your naive view, less dedicated people will rally around a "comrade" in need long before they will even begin to give credence to anybody sitting behind their computer lecturing them on principles coughDanielBMarkhamcough.
By definition, only the arbiters of the legal system itself, i.e., the government can deprive someone of due process. The fact that Sweden and the UK are making a sincere effort to extradite Assange is, at this point, all the "due process" the women are entitled to. Assange's actions have nothing to do with it.
"He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two."
Buying the argument that the charges are politically motivated, the fact that they are attacking Assange due to his association with wikileaks mean that wikileaks is under attack. If this sets a precedent that high profile persons leading the push for the release of extremely sensitive information can be rubbed out so easily puts a chilling effect on whoever steps into Assange's place. And that's assuming anyone really can just step up as Assange didn't just start with wikileaks. He's been involved in uncovering suppressed information since he was a kid growing up in Australia and even co-wrote the Rubberhose deniable encryption program.
It's telling that someone like Assange who is undergoing such a massive level of scrutiny that these rape allegations are the best they can do. The guy must practically be a saint.
How does stupid bullshit like this actually make it to this website?