Cap'n Refsmmat

Unfortunately not. Fortunately the list of notifications stays, even if they're read.

The Guardian, in their blog of the reactions to the leaks, says they actually declined to publish that one, but the New York Times went for it anyway. The New York Times: out to destroy the world?

[math]\log 10 = 1[/math], but [math]\log_{10}(5) \approx 0.7[/math]. [math]\log_{10}[/math] denotes a base 10 logarithm, not the logarithm of 10. So if you wanted to compute [math]\log_{10}(5)[/math] using a table, you'd need to do: [math]\log_{10}(5) = \log_{10}(10 \times 0.5) = \log_{10}(10) + \log_{10}(0.5) = 1 + \log_{10}(0.5)[/math] Then just look up [math]\log_{10}(0.5)[/math] in your table.

The Mirror claims that Assange hasn't been arrested because the Swedes provided a faulty warrant yet again, this time because a prosecutor was on vacation and couldn't sign it: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/12/05/wikileaks-chief-julian-assange-free-as-holiday-halts-arrest-for-rape-115875-22763514/ Assange's lawyer now says they fight extradition because it may end up with him being extradited to the US, where many have called for his execution: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/assange-will-fight-return-to-sweden-says-lawyer-2152170.html

Some sources I've read indicate that the two women in fact met afterwards and decided together to go to police, several days after their encounters with Assange. I do not know how reliable these reports are. Some searching dug up this: http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/sex-by-surprise-at-heart-of-julian-assange-criminal-probe/19741444

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Ewanchuk

Members can only post in Philosophy, Religion and Politics after having made 30 posts in other sections.

Looks like today's articles are all about how Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states are huge sources of terrorist funding, but are often resisting when US officials ask their governments to crack down on the money sources. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/06/world/middleeast/06wikileaks-financing.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Even if the documents are real and the harm is caused by the revelation of something true? Certainly if you release fraudulent documents, or misleading documents, you could be sued for the damage you cause. But revealing the truth doesn't seem like something the company can sue you for, unless it's their trade secrets.

The US government spends trillions of dollars each year by borrowing money, rather than spending out of a bank account. There's no money to put in a bank account -- we're in debt. Large stores like Wal-Mart make only a few percent profits on each purchase, but local and state governments make 6-10% sales tax. I'd say they're doing better than the stores. If money has no value, how would you use it to acquire things of value?

This would require governments to vastly reduce their spending. They already have bank accounts, though. How do you propose the military protect a bank account? Stand guard over the debit card? This would raise prices. The government, without competition, would have no incentives to operate the supermarkets efficiently and cheaply. Food costs would rise. This is why we have sales taxes instead. We already have this, since our currency is a fiat currency. It has no intrinsic value. http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Fiat_money

I dunno; I thought there were specific legal rules about information classified by the government. I don't know if there are similar rules about corporate secrets. I'm sure you could sue the person who divulges the documents for violating a non-disclosure agreement or something, but what could you do against the people spreading the documents? The Guardian's podcast on the leaks states that there's another full week of releases to come, and then they'll just be chasing down follow-up stories and investigations for however long that takes. Looks like the media will be going bananas for a week longer.

In the video, his lawyer states that Assange made repeated offers to meet with the prosecutors in Sweden, at a Swedish embassy, and by video link. Each time he was rebuffed. Now the Swedes issue a warrant to have him detained for questioning, allegedly without serving him with documents stating what he is accused of, which is apparently against European rules. Assange fights the claims by denying that they are true, but offers to meet the Swedes for questioning. I think Assange is of the view that leaking already-stolen secrets is protected under the First Amendment, as in New York Times v. United States. I wonder if US lawyers will reach the same conclusion, or if we'll see a warrant out for his arrest soon.

How is he doing that? He's wanted for questioning, and he's offered himself for questioning to the Swedish prosecutors numerous times. (See the video I posted above.) Now British authorities say they know where he is and they're waiting for Sweden to file the appropriate paperwork. His lawyer is fighting the claims because he believes they are procedurally invalid (i.e. filed improperly), not because Assange is above the rules. We will see, once the Swedish have him for questioning, whether there is sufficient evidence or not. It may be a he said/she said issue (or might not be), but until they get to talk to him, they won't know what he says, so... I think we can all agree that we don't know whether he is guilty or not, that there isn't much information available about the allegations, and that the investigation should continue under the rules. If he is interviewed and insufficient evidence is found to determine he's committed a crime, he should be released. If he is interviewed and evidence is found, he should be prosecuted in the normal way. So, we wait for the Swedes to file the right paperwork and see what happens. Right? Moving on... Would this same controversy occur if Wikileaks released, say, internal bank documents, like they've promised to? Since they're not classified by the government, it's doubtful whether it's considered illegal -- but it could have harmful effects on the bank in question if the documents cause investors to lose confidence in that bank. What would happen?

Then what is the value of knocking people unconscious for years? The health consequences of that (atrophy, bedsores, whatever) are probably also considered cruel and unusual.

We're the Internet. It's our job to judge people from our armchairs. Video about the issue: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180434/WikiLeaks-founder-facing-arrest-bid.html Anyway, the latest leaks are about Yemen allowing the US to pursue Al-Qaeda, while publicly claiming it was their own work and they weren't letting the US intrude: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-yemen-us-attack-al-qaida

Indeed. Your if() has two lines after it, but no braces, so only the first line is considered to be inside the if(). Then, a couple of lines later, the parser sees an else, but the if() has already ended. You need to do this: { var num1:Number = 0.5; if(num < num1) { mc_enemy.y += 20 num = Math.random() } else { mc_enemy.y -= 20 num = Math.random() } }

One could argue that this is why an open Internet is so important: it gives everyone the opportunity to be heard.

He seems to think so. His lawyer says the case has been pursued improperly from the start. I'm not in a position to judge. I suspect we will find out soon enough. If they are serious, they should have him in a few days. I thought he was about transparency, in which case showing his Johnson to as many people as possible is considered advancing his mission. ...just kidding. But where does Assange say integrity is the thing missing from government? It certainly seems to be a left issue in the blowing-Assange's-head-off part of the debate. But no matter who says it, I'm still very disturbed. I agree. An opinion poll should shed light on intricacies of Swedish law in the case of allegations that have not yet been fully explained or explored. Also, I thought you had said way back on page 1 that you'd drop the sexual assault discussion because it's poisoning the well? Well, you said it was only doing what he does, but you don't have to descend to his perceived level. (Although the leaks have now advanced from mere gossip to more interesting things.)

Is this a popularity contest or a legal question?

I'm not sure any part of his espoused belief system involves how people should be treated when accused of a crime. It'd be a distraction from what he believes, if anything, but if the Swedish really want him, they know where to get him. I wouldn't be surprised if that happens within a few days. I mean, if I were Julian Assange, I'd be hiding from all the rabid conservative commentators that have demanded he be shot...

Murder is defined as unlawful killing in US law: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001111----000-.html So execution is not, by definition, murder. Being unconscious for a long period of time has serious health effects, and it's not a deterrent anyway. If you're unconscious, you have no sense of time, so you just wake up, leave "prison," and go off doing whatever you were doing before. Also, what about criminals who don't want kids anyway?

As mentioned earlier in the topic, it was a plane. The Air Force also has the capability to detect missile launches, anywhere in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Support_Program

http://www.nytimes.c.../19assange.html And as I've said, his lawyers say they'll fight extradition because the warrant is invalid and improperly filed. What's wrong with that? (Not that I know if they're right, since I'm not a Swedish lawyer.) Threatening to release the data was my speculation, not Assange's statement; I do not know how he intends to deal with his own arrest. Also, he's not on the lam. Recent news indicates he's in the UK and has given his contact information to authorities when he entered the country. The police have said they know exactly where he is but have not yet received orders to act. Also, no matter how much you capitalize it, RAPE is still irrelevant. And repeating the same allegations after I've pointed out they're wrong (being on the lam, fighting extradition for no reason, etc.) is annoying.

Top right of each page. Like this: That's with the menu open. The drop-down is opened by clicking the number in the box, which represents how many unread notifications you have.