Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NYTimes On Dealings With Assange

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-thought-he-was-a-mastermind dept.

The Media 221

kaapstorm found an NYT story on Assange saying "Assange slouched into The Guardian office, a day late. Schmitt took his first measure of the man who would be a large presence in our lives. 'He's tall — probably 6-foot-2 or 6-3 — and lanky, with pale skin, gray eyes and a shock of white hair that seizes your attention,' Schmitt wrote to me later. 'He was alert but disheveled, like a bag lady walking in off the street, wearing a dingy, light-colored sport coat and cargo pants, dirty white shirt, beat-up sneakers and filthy white socks that collapsed around his ankles. He smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days.'"

cancel ×

221 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Based on the Cover..... (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020550)

You see? Assange is dirty and smelly; he can't be trusted! Real heroes look and smell fantastic!

Re:Based on the Cover..... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020582)

Real heroes also don't rape women!

Re:Based on the Cover..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020636)

Women (or should i say a normal) wouldn't consent for casual sex and claim weeks later she was rapped in a threesome with a friend.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020786)

Men or women, heroes or cowards all should not forcefully complete a sex act when consent has been withdrawn. This should be universally accepted but is apparently not.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021010)

Didn't at least one of them have positive remarks posted online about their meeting between that night and when she met the other woman?

You see, here's where I have trouble (and it's something I see as an innate issue with the sex crime laws in a lot of places). Prove to me that she withdrew consent during the act, and not that she withdrew consent a few days later when she met the other woman. There is no evidence that the former is true over the latter aside from her own testimony and the words of a woman who could quite possibly be having "buyer's remorse" cannot be grounds on which to punish someone in and of themselves.

A law that in practice says "If you ever sleep with a woman, you have opened yourself up to legal punishment for the rest of your life because she might one day in the future change her mind and decide she didn't consent and her stating so is enough proof to damn you" is itself ridiculous.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (2)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021232)

It's not for life

http://www.rainn.org/public-policy/sexual-assault-issues/state-statutes-of-limitations [rainn.org]

But you better hope you can keep them from changing their minds for 5-10 years, in the US at least. I don't know about Sweden, couldn't find anything with a quick search.

Re:Prove (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021558)

"Introducing the Realtime Consent Monitor!

This is a personal device worn on the body that manages one's personal space. If the user desires intimate contact, the setting would be set to 0-distance tolerated. However, if during the act she decides she no longer consents, she can toggle the setting so that further close proximity creates a warning."

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020914)

Women (or should i say a normal) wouldn't consent for casual sex and claim weeks later she was rapped in a threesome with a friend.

I don't think that's how it all happened, though I originally misread the report of his misdeeds the way you did. Apparently there was a gap in the time between his doing of the nasty with the two women; i.e. they weren't done simultaneously/in a threesome.

Threesome? (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021456)

I've heard this "threesome" rumor before, but as far as I know, there was no threesome. There were two women, and Assange, but the two women did not know about each other. There was no threesome. This is just a rumor meant to paint the women as slutty opportunists. I don't know whether they are telling the truth, but I know you aren't.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020638)

Real heroes also don't rape women!

You mean like the troops [alternet.org] we're supposed to be supporting in flag-humping fervor?

Re:Based on the Cover..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020670)

How does a couple of soldiers mean all soldiers are rapists?

That's like saying Assange is a rapist so all of Wikileaks must be rapists

Re:Based on the Cover..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020716)

Ugh...woosh.... read grand parent.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021516)

Actually the grand parent says "Real heroes also don't rape women!" He said this in response to a comment about Assange being a rapist. He didn't say that all wikileaks contributors rape women. You however said "You mean like the troops we're supposed to be supporting in a flag-humping fervor?" Your post implies all troops are rapists, the grand parent only implies Julian Assange is a rapist.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020728)

>some guys commit crime; immediately question credibility of entire organization
>some guy commits crime; those guys are still cool

Re:Based on the Cover..... (5, Insightful)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020758)

Last I checked, rape victims don't throw their attackers a party after they are raped.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (-1, Flamebait)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021064)

Are you speaking from experience, or is there a reference material on this sort of thing?

Re:Based on the Cover..... (4, Informative)

MoldySpore (1280634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021256)

Experience. A close friend of mine was raped. She didn't throw a party for her attacker. The only thing she did was report it to police, who were immediately able to administer a rape kit, get samples, including semen, photos of forced entry bruising and tearing, and testified in court against him. She did not throw him a party nor did she let him stay at her place for a week after the attack.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021636)

Yeah, except that's not what we're talking about here is it? We're talking about a weird Swedish law regarding sexual impropriety and you're talking about a violent rape. Intentionally muddying the waters by making disingenuous comparisons and then feigning surprise at the differing outcome isn't contributing to the discussion in any meaningful way. It is, in fact, trolling. It's a shame some of our mods can't see that.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (2, Insightful)

Draek (916851) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021864)

No, we're talking about an AC's accussations stating Assange had committed rape. He didn't, end of argument.

If you or the AC want to discuss sexual impropiety, *then* we'd look at the weird Swedish laws and the even weirder accussations leveled against Assange, but that's another subject altogether.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021264)

It's called battered woman's syndrome and it has nothing to do with deep frying

not saying it applies here, just saying

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021492)

You aren't saying? I'll say it flat out: this has nothing to do with battered woman's syndrome, which involves a woman in a relationship with an abuser. You do not get battered woman's syndrome from a casual sexual fling or a single instance of rape. For there to be battered woman's syndrome, there also must be battering, and NOTHING in any of the reports indicates violence on Assange's part.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were playing devil's advocate or trying to inform, rather than attempting a nasty slander of Assange.

you (2)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020782)

successfully trolled me. im a moron who is not able to know about what rape is, in general legalese, and learn about what it is in swedish legalese, and make a distinction from common sense in between.

please, troll me again.

Re:you (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021080)

the iraqi invasion is completely justified

Re:you (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021228)

keep on trolling me.

Re:you (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021546)

George W. Bush is a military genius.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020734)

Think of it as nerd street-cred.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

Seekerofknowledge (134616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021778)

Totally unrelated to what you are saying... but here's some more nerd street-cred in the article:

"They had run into a puzzling incongruity: Assange said the data included dispatches from the beginning of 2004 through the end of 2009, but the material on the spreadsheet ended abruptly in April 2009. A considerable amount of material was missing. Assange, slipping naturally into the role of office geek, explained that they had hit the limits of Excel. Open a second spreadsheet, he instructed. They did, and the rest of the data materialized — a total of 92,000 reports from the battlefields of Afghanistan. "

Who else but a nerd would know exactly about excel's row limit. I am amused.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

piripiri (1476949) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020812)

Ad hominem, eh?

Re: to the max! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021872)

To the MAX!

I read the 9 pages of that articles yesterday and was immediately attacked by a severe case of smug-itis.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (2)

uberjack (1311219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021076)

I think if he was a servant of the enemy, he'd look fairer and feel fouler.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (0)

yoyoq (1056216) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021466)

mod up, nice reference

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021220)

Meanwhile the NY Times is launching their own leaking site...

Re:Based on the Cover..... (4, Interesting)

poity (465672) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021242)

I figured you were making a snide quip which was cool, but now that your post has been modded "+5 Insightful" I feel the need to respond, not to your comment (I have no problems with it) but to the general attitude here that would see a joke not as a joke but as an elucidation of some conspiracy by the NYT author to smear Assange.

In an article about personal dealings with Assange and not about Wikileaks, describing the man through someone's eyes helps to ground the scene of the story, making it more vivid and engaging. Did he not appear disheveled, did he not look tired? If indeed, then it's a vivid way of describing a man who had prioritized his work above even his own hygiene and upkeep, which gives you a sense of how involved and single-minded Assange was in pursuing his ideals -- it gives you the sense that he truly believes Wikileaks is important, more so perhaps than even himself. The short description can say all that without being tiresomely explicit. This kind of story-telling is what makes an article a captivating read, a veiled attempt to make Assange look bad is really the last thing it could be.

Just throwing some sense out hoping to dilute the deep cynicism and paranoia I see here.
I kindly ask everyone to read the entire article first before judging it as an attempt to discredit. I think it's a captivating story worth reading.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021326)

I'm guessing you didn't read the whole article? The reason they made mention of his appearance was made clear several pages in when the dirty, disheveled malcontent suddenly dyed and cut his hair and started wearing expensive suits and ties.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021362)

The reason they made mention of his appearance was made clear several pages in when the dirty, disheveled malcontent suddenly dyed and cut his hair and started wearing expensive suits and ties.

and to you, that carries what meaning?

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021532)

To anyone thinking it through, it implies that Assange is in fact a weirdo who does not bathe, and a dishonest manipulator who will clean himself up to make himself look better before the court. They are saying "He is not one of us. He is different, in a bad way. If he is different in this bad way, just imagine all the other bad ways he is different from us. For instance, RAPE!"

Or another way of looking at it ... (0)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021380)

... is that people who can't be bothered to look after themselves and even wash are generally lazy and not really interested in details. Which arn't attributes you want in someone who has a load of confidential potentially life threatening documents in his possession.

Cue toll mods from wikileaks fanbois...

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

BitHive (578094) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021386)

B...but knowing what we think about something without even reading about it is how we show how smart we are here on slashdot!

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

Candid88 (1292486) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021652)

It's sensationalism, and personally I can't stand it. There's no need to exaggerate every attribute when describing a person or event.

The art of journalism is meant to revolve around giving a truthful depiction, not whichever depiction is likely to sell the most newspapers.

Re:Based on the Cover..... (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021766)

it gives you the sense that he truly believes Wikileaks is important, more so perhaps than even himself.

Although some other stories--like the one about him having two one-night-stands in a night--make you wonder about his priorities. And of course the extra hygiene angle, that two-bang night sounds all the more randy. Or funky. Or something.

His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... (3, Insightful)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020590)

Thanks for sticking to the important stuff!

Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... (3, Interesting)

inpher (1788434) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020690)

NYT spent less than 0.5% of the text detailing Assange's transformation from the regular hacker attire to someone wearing formal clothes (thus making him also a human, a person, not just a source) on that and you think NYT considers that part the most important? The other 99.5% detailing the leak and relationship between NYT, Other Newspapers, Assange and The US Government are not considered important to you?

Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... (1)

irockash (1265506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020808)

Exactly... http://www.nytimes.com/opensecrets [nytimes.com] should be at least mentioned...

Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... (2)

Americano (920576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020886)

No, because out of 9 pages detailing the relationship and story behind how they came to be working with Wikileaks, a couple sentences describing someone's first impression of Mr. Assange is clearly the most important. I can see why the submitter would zero in on that single paragraph, rather than the other content across the other 9 pages.

Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020770)

The article talks about more than Assange's clothes - but thanks for focusing on the important stuff.

Re:His socks, shoes, coat, hair.... (1)

Fibe-Piper (1879824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021262)

Thanks for sticking to the important stuff!

I don't know, if you read the article with the voice of J. Peterman (Elaine's boss from Seinfeld) it sounds vitally important!

Who wants some hot... (5, Funny)

Vernes (720223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020672)

...character assassination!? Piping hot character assassination? Get em while they're hot! You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?

Re:Who wants some hot... (2)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020912)

...character assassination!?
Piping hot character assassination?
Get em while they're hot!
You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?

And so the propaganda continues. We have people portraying Assange as a "saint" and a "digital Scarlet Pimpernel", ushering in a new age of truth and transparency. But anything remotely critical of this angel of the digital age is conspiracy and character assassination. Of course, then we have those who believe Assange is demon and conspirator, worthy of political assassination - or at least ignoring a few choice laws to warrent arrest. So there's more than enough noise to go around. Thanks for contributing to the din.

Who wants some cool... (1)

Vernes (720223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021682)

...counter opinions?
Smooth liquid cool counter opinions?
Soo nice and cool to go with your piping hot character assassination?
No propaganda is complete without some counter opinions to go with your character assassination!
It's got META particles to keep the propaganda going 50% longer than normal propaganda!

Re:Who wants some hot... (1)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021720)

Do you even know what The Scarlet Pimpernel was about? Your literary reference-fu is weak.

Re:Who wants some hot... (4, Funny)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021160)

"...character assassination!? Piping hot character assassination? Get em while they're hot! You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?"

No thanks, I'm all full from that piping hot uncritical hero worship fanaticism I had for breakfast.

Re:Who wants some hot... (4, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021582)

Personally, I'm full up on all the black and white thinking.

Guess what? There is a middle ground where Assange is not a hero, he is a human being, who does good and bad things. We can decry the rush to smear Assange without assuming he is a hero. Nothing in the post you respond to indicates hero worship, and so it really appears as though you are trying to smear all of Assange's defenders as mere unthinking "hero worshipers." Is that your intention?

Re:Who wants some hot... (1)

Vernes (720223) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021814)

He's right you know. I'm a hero worshiper and as such my opinion is moot. Although I can't for the love of me see how Jason of the Wheel warriors is related here.

Re:Who wants some hot... (1)

ToasterMonkey (467067) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021796)

...character assassination!? Piping hot character assassination? Get em while they're hot! You Sir? Some nice hot character assassination for the little lady?

Hey, it's the truth, and the truth is ugly. Wikileaks fans should know this. *cough*Collateral Murder*cough*

So, cry me a river.

with a review THAT off-topic (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020700)

it really makes you wonder what "incentive" he was given, and by WHO.

Re:with a review THAT off-topic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020874)

it really makes you wonder what "incentive" he was given, and by WHO.

What has the World Health Organization got to do with it?
Also, I think you meant "whom".

Re:with a review THAT off-topic (0)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020984)

What has the World Health Organization got to do with it?
Also, I think you meant "whom".

What does the Weird Hippie Organization, Man got to do with it?

Re:with a review THAT off-topic (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021470)

I know this is Slashdot, but we don't have to bring the FSF into everything...

Re:with a review THAT off-topic (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020946)

The NYTimes article is of course very well written and despite painting Assange as fairly unstable and paranoid, the events do seem believable. They aren't exactly unbiased in the matter though, so who knows who is right anymore. It doesn't really matter. This only serves to distract from what really matters: the leaked info, not the leak itself!

wikileaks of course tweeted about it [twitter.com] :

NYTimes does another self-serving smear.Facts wrong, top to bottom.Dark day for US journalism.

Re:with a review THAT off-topic (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021166)

"Assange as fairly unstable and paranoid, the events do seem believable. "

He IS unstable and paranoid. That doesn't necessarily mean he's not doing something worthwhile, or he has no value as a human being, but let's be honest here, he has mental issues.

Re:with a review THAT off-topic (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021708)

If I knew the US government was gunning for me, and that at least a few of its politicians wanted me lined up in front of a firing squad, I'm sure "fairly unstable and paranoid" would be among several applicable adjectives that would be applicable.

Re:with a review THAT off-topic (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021288)

that deaf, dumb and blind media sure play a mean hardball! /sorry

Howard Hughes (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020736)

He sounds like a regular Howard Hughes...a man to be respected for his accomplishments.

Seems a rational description... (4, Insightful)

bjk002 (757977) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020740)

for a man essentially in hiding, trying to avoid being extradited to an unfriendly (to him) country, which happens to have one of the most robust intelligence arms in the world.

Can't read TFA as a NYTimes account is required to access (where are the link tags? They're too helpful to exclude in the new layout/design).

Despite your politics I think you can appreciate the gravity of such a situation and how the attributable paranoia and personal apprehension may manifest itself within an individual.

NY Times is useless. A Government shill. (0)

fatbuckel (1714764) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020830)

The FOXNEWS of print.

Re:NY Times is useless. A Government shill. (1)

alva_edison (630431) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021548)

No, that's the NY Post, the NY Times is the MSNBC of print.
Alternately, The Washington Times:FoxNews::Washington Post:MSNBC

That pretty much describes me at times (often) (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020846)

with the exception of white hair, and rolled down socks. i hate rolled down socks. and my hair is not that white yet. im sure the description fits a lot of you here much more than you want to confess.

admit it. we are becoming a new species, new generations are. even some of the old generations are among us. thats why we dont fit in with the crap of this world, watching american idol and eating grease.

Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020944)

admit it. we are becoming a new species, new generations are.

You do not understand the meaning of the word 'species'. Do not use words you do not understand. Thank you.

Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021094)

"species". im becoming a new species. SPECIES !

Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021278)

Well, if you accept the "won't interbreed" definition of species then there's some truth to it.

Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021488)

You do not understand the meaning of the word 'species'.

Well, it's rather likely he'll never be able to mate with anyone to produce viable offspring so it's probably a close enough description.

Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021186)

with the exception of white hair, and rolled down socks. i hate rolled down socks. and my hair is not that white yet. im sure the description fits a lot of you here much more than you want to confess. admit it. we are becoming a new species, new generations are. even some of the old generations are among us. thats why we dont fit in with the crap of this world, watching american idol and eating grease.

Go fuck yourself.

Re:That pretty much describes me at times (often) (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021202)

okay.

Fuck 'em (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35020922)

Funny that, the New York Times and The Guardian pissing on the guy doing the job they failed to do.

fuck you both. fuck you both very hard.

Re:Fuck 'em (4, Insightful)

Luke has no name (1423139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021356)

That's EXACTLY why they'd piss on him.

The lamestream media is angry that someone is uncovering the truth about our government.

missing link? (1)

arbitraryaardvark (845916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020950)

does anyone have a link to tfa? article link is broken (not just slashdotted)

Re:missing link? (1, Informative)

arbitraryaardvark (845916) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020974)

Re:missing link? (1)

Arker (91948) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021084)

That one is broken too.

Re:missing link? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021298)

still not readable

just quote the damned thing already. fair use - fuck that!

quote it or stop linking to the damned NYT.

As long as we're talking about his appearance... (2)

irockash (1265506) | more than 3 years ago | (#35020958)

The description in the summary is from his first meeting, before the cables were leaked.
From the article:

Assange was transformed by his outlaw celebrity. The derelict with the backpack and the sagging socks now wore his hair dyed and styled, and he favored fashionably skinny suits and ties. He became a kind of cult figure for the European young and leftish and was evidently a magnet for women.

Go Away.. (0)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021018)

What's with all the NYT articles getting through? Are we going to be syndicating Fox News articles as well soon?

difference between the nyt and real news (0)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021054)

instead of getting out and breaking stories the nyt spends all their time with stories of no consequence. And they wonder why people are dumping reading it.

They just like saying he's tall (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021132)

Because only tall people accomplish stuff, in the minds of Americans. This is an edge for him to appeal sexy.

Obama is in Deep WTF Over Pfc Manning (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021144)

The Wikileaks-Assanage-Manning debacle could prove to he Obama's Watergate.

The intent of the "suicide" watch on Pfc Manning is to obtain his suicide; Gates+Obama+DOJ have broken copious laws and need Manning to kill himself in order to get them off the hook.

We need to know the secret Executive Orders Obama has issued regarding Assanage and Wikilieaks.

The next 25 months will be as intersting as the Tet Offinsive + the Plumbers + Nixon Impeachment and Resignation.

Great stuff like this does not come often enough.

-308

PS. An independent investigation has discovered that Wikileaks broke no Laws (Iceland at least) and no rules of Mastercard!
This asks the question, "Should Mastercard be sued by Wikileaks for breach of contract and libel (Assanage et al.) and defamation?".

Oh Boy! Here we go!

Will Obama be called as witness to defend his executive orders?

Let us hope so!

From the paper that pushed the Iraq war! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021148)

Now trying to discredit Assange, stay classy NYT!

stop posting PAYWALL and can't_see articles (0)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021272)

no, I will NOT login to their stupid site.

either post a free-in-the-clear article or don't post NYT links at all. if they don't WANT to be linked to, fine.

but if they want a link, they have to cease the stupid games.

if you MUST link to nyt, at least quote enough of the text for us to get the point.

(still better to just assume NYT does not exist; that's what they basically think of us 'freeloaders')

Re:stop posting PAYWALL and can't_see articles (1)

datsa (1951424) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021398)

I really don't understand this attitude. Why are you assuming that everything on the web must be free? This is why your every move is tracked online, because users decided they weren't going to pay squat, so companies found other ways to make money on the net. i.e. selling your information to the highest bidder.

Re:stop posting PAYWALL and can't_see articles (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021586)

Firstly, it should be free because it was free from the start. It's greed and desire for control that has changed things.

Secondly, there is NO connection between whether or not something is free or not and whether or not the web and individuals are tracked in every way imaginable. If there was even some correlation, then we wouldn't see ads in magazines and we wouldn't see telecom and other businesses selling their customer databases to other companies at every opportunity. (Every time you see a "privacy agreement" that says anything about sharing with "their partners" you realize that is exactly what is happening and you are never allowed to know who these partners are because they change every time they get a new customer party interested in buying the information.)

There are simply no limits on human greed or its ability to overcome guilt, conscience, morality or even truth.

Re:stop posting PAYWALL and can't_see articles (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021716)

Why do you assume people should be able to make money on the Internet ?

The Internet has a history of free/Free, some of the people on this site are the people who've been responsible for this, they seem to tend towards liking to keep it that way, also to resent others making money from their work.

Pragmatically, it's proved hard to charge for Internet services as it's very likely someone worldwide can create a similar product and distribute it for less, or nothing. Sites which have succeeded in creating revenue often give a large proportion of their services for free but charge for 'pro' versions, or are advertising sponsored, or some combination.

The site we are on is a good example.

Companies have no right to profit, or to a place to do business on the Internet. Individuals have a right to privacy.

Fantasist (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021276)

Assange sounds like a fantasist who got so caught up in his obsessions he lost contact with reality and his ability to identify with people. Beneath the flash exterior he sounds like a very sad and lonely man. No wonder he bought into his own hype and women made allegations that suggest he couldn't control his sexual drive. I get the feeling that Assange is picking on the great bogeyman, America, because he feels frustrated and insecure.

The fantasy of being a puppet master who created a new order and sense of togetherness in that endeavour was just that, a fantasy. And as his effort failed so he's being cast aside as just a source. Not a puppet master. Not even a partner. Just another big mouth with a keyboard who got lucky. Now the well is dry and his threats have landed with all the strength of a punch from an old woman he has nothing.

curiouser and curiouser. (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021428)

part of me wants my hero to be fresh as a lilly, defiant as a warrior monk and rigid as an arrow in the face of his accusers and the public at large; its what ive been taught makes a hero. This juxtaposition questions my definition of hero, moreso than my conviction to assanges purpose and cause. When i watched the film "Hancock" i had no problem suspending disbelief that a homeless wino could save the day and yet now, with the very same faculty as was present in the theatre i seem to doubt assange?

Thanks to the NYT for showing me "Assange." he isnt invincible, he isnt iron clad and he certainly isnt perfect. Assange is just a guy who decided truth was important, despite some very real dangers he would face. Seeing him, socks around his ankles and all, lets me conclude that i dont care much if he's incarcerated until the clothes rot from his body. WikiLeaks was my hero the entire time, i had just applied a face to it out of convenience.

Re:curiouser and curiouser. (4, Insightful)

gknoy (899301) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021596)

Heros are real people (with flaws) who choose to do something amazing, by choice or by accident, and often because they feel it's necessary or self-serving.

Re:curiouser and curiouser. (1)

chargersfan420 (1487195) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021768)

Firstly, give credit where credit is due. Your hero, Wikileaks, would not exist if it weren't for Assange. To say that you wouldn't care to see him rot in a cell somewhere is a very ingrateful attitude.

Secondly, heroes come in all shapes and sizes, colours, and even smells. Take the corny example of Frodo Baggins. He was neither defiant nor rigid, and he was still a hero.

Didn't know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021462)

He smelled as if he hadn't bathed in days.

...he was French. Seems they ARE leaking new information about Assanage.

Corny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021494)

That story sounds corny as hell. It sounds more like opinion than news, it's like I'm reading a fictional novel. What exactly is this doing in a newspaper?

Find a hole and bury him. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021530)

That's where the New York times belongs, along with this dirt bag.

Bradley Manning is the real hero (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35021628)

Everyone seems to forget that Julian Assange is just a credit-stealing con-man.

Bradley Manning put his career, and possibly his life (if convicted of treason) at risk to collect material to expose the treachery and hypocrisy he saw within US dealings with foreign powers - especially the recent wars. Whereas Julian Assange simply put the material on a webstie, then stole all the glory.
Assange even put up a website supposedly devoted to raising money for Manning's legal defense - then kept the money.
And it is looking like the rape charges against Assange may be real.
BUT - the /. crowd likes Assange better because he adopts the costume of an anti-authority web sophisticate, whereas Manning wore a uniform.
IMHO - Assange is a sleazy narcissistic con-man, and Bradley Manning is the unsung hero of this story.

Re:Bradley Manning is the real hero (2)

tunapez (1161697) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021816)

Assange, definitely a narcissist. Con-man? Meh, I think he may be under the influence of the spotlight twinkling in his eyes coupled with the fear of certain persecution.
Regardless of his motivation, the over-classification of all that is data to be hidden from consternation is good for nobody but the status quo.

Bradley, definitely the hero. No ifs, ands or buts.
Regardless of his motivation, the over-classification of all that is data to be hidden from consternation is good for nobody but the status quo.

If I had mod points I would give you 5, AC.

Ahh, character assassination (1)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 3 years ago | (#35021832)

That was what we were taught - the lower classes smell. And here, obviously, you are at an impassable barrier. For no feeling of like or dislike is quite so fundamentalas a physical feeling. Race hatred, religious hatred, differences of education, of temperament, of intellect, even differences of moral code, can be got over; but physical repulsion cannot.

Orwell, in The Road to Wigan Pier

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>