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!

Julian Assange To Host Talk Show

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the doktor-oz's-ten-secrets-of-world-domination dept.

Television 164

An anonymous reader writes "Julian Assange has announced he will host a talk show: 'Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it,' Assange said in his announcement late Monday. 'Are we heading towards utopia or dystopia, and how we can set our paths? This is an exciting opportunity to discuss the vision of my guests in a new style of show that examines their philosophies and struggles in a deeper and clearer way than has been done before.'"

cancel ×

164 comments

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

Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (2, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812367)

Assange seems to know lots about kinky Nordic sex!

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (2)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812567)

Well its either that or talking about the astrophilogical physics of quantum nutri.....zzzzzzzz....

"I'd Like to Introduce Tonight's Guests..." (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812763)

"Dr. Noam Chomsky, Clay Shirky, Stephen Fry and Mr. David Bowie."

Now, for something completely different!

Julain Assange, (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812827)

Max Keiser, and Bill Maher walk into a bar...

Waste of airtime! (0, Troll)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812795)

What we really need is "The Assange Monologue Hour" - wherein the audience is drawn into the mind of Julian the rebel, the 'outsider', the shining knight fighting the 'black ops' and 'cigarette smoking men' of the world, who spend their every waking hour hiding the truth from us, the voting public. This is the show I want to see. The producers could just film the show with a single head shot, zoomed into Julians' perfectly symmetrical face and hypnotic greyish eyes. The face of truth!

Re:Waste of airtime! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813041)

I don't think so...
.
If any earnings - from this job - were deemed to be related to what may be deemed "criminal" activities, those earnings will be taken away from him

If he works - on air - but NOT talking about his "unlawful" activities, he won't lose any earnings.

Re:Waste of airtime! (0, Flamebait)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813953)

"the shining knight " I have yet to see any reason Assange is accorded any level of respect from certain quarters of the international community. Assange acquired the data from someone else not from any of his own actions. He then proceeded to shake down the main stream media organizations and demanding payment for the information he possessed. The first release of video footage from the helicopter attack in Iraq was "produced" to make it appear that a helicopter was just flying across the street and decided to shoot people. The produced music video edited out anything that might throw doubt on their interpretation of the situation. It edited the communications between the helicopter pilots and their head quarters when they explained the situation and asked for approval to engage. And it also left out that there were ground troops in the middle of fighting a few blocks behind them. The helicopter was there to support of the ground troops. A "true" fighter of justice would have released all of the information unedited upfront without trying to profit from limiting access or offering up any opinions they might have concerning the data released. A "true" fighter would have assumed a neutral role in the release of data so the opinions of others would not prejudiced one way or another. Real information does not need an editorial line included with the release of the data. It did not require any unique Wiki leaks services to release the information online. That information would have went viral shortly after the first uploads to any file sharing or torrent service. Plus it's obvious he could care less if some of the released data put citizens and professional agents engaged in counter terrorism efforts in danger. The release of the Afghanistan after action reports also provided information that could be used to pattern the military actions and re-actions in formulating their tactical plans. Compare it to a football team using videos of their upcoming opponent to pinpoint any weaknesses or patterns that could be exploited when they meet. Of course the major difference is that no one is using AK-47's and RPGS to kill their opponents. He is shown himself to be a very egocentric person who revels in the spotlight and attention he has received. Personally I never really gave a shit about the release of this information. I think there were certain things they should not have released but it happened so people will just have to deal with any fallout and continue on. After all the information released was not classified at the top secret levels which is where the really secret information lives.

Re:Waste of airtime! (3, Funny)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815251)

I have yet to see any reason Assange is accorded any level of respect from certain quarters of the international community.

Because he knows how to create paragraph breaks?

Re:Waste of airtime! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38816203)

To be fair, slashdot is crap for formatting text. I mean wtf it doesnt see the carriage return character in a free text box? Last time I tried it didn't take html tags either. There's probably some standard from bbs defined in the 90s, but I can't be bothered - I have a job and kids.

Re:Waste of airtime! (4, Informative)

metacell (523607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38816213)

Assange acquired the data from someone else not from any of his own actions.

And even that was enough for the US government to try to find ways to prosecute him and bring him under their jurisdiction, and for leading American politicians to advocate murdering him. Regardless of whether we think his work was good or bad, it obviously wasn't an easy job.

He then proceeded to shake down the main stream media organizations and demanding payment for the information he possessed.

Are you referring to the clause in the confidentiality agreement where the newspaper is liable for damages to Wikileaks if they reveal certain details in the documents? That was just to protect the leak.

The first release of video footage from the helicopter attack in Iraq was "produced" to make it appear that a helicopter was just flying across the street and decided to shoot people. [...]

And yet, Wikileaks also put up the unedited version of the footage, so everyone could judge for themselves. That's more than you get from a conventional newspaper or newscast.

Ironically, Wikileaks was criticised for putting up the unedited material too, by people who claimed a "real" news outlet provided reporting, not source material, and therefore Wikileaks should not enjoy the same legal protection as a news outlet.

I'll grant you that Wikileaks made mistakes, such as realising too late how much redacting the documents needed before they were released. If they had done their work better, a lot of names of individual agents and informants could have been left out. But they did try to do it right.

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812807)

>Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex!
>Assange seems to know lots about kinky Nordic sex!

how much do you get paid for posting shit like this?

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812845)

1st shown on hbo and later edited for content on cable :)

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812947)

After reading the "I woke up after the night of sex with him inside me yet again", I think he knows lots about vanilla Nordic sex at best.

Can't speak for kinky Aussie sex though. Nothing in police reports about that.

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815415)

Questions.....

1) You state that fucking a chick, falling asleep, and fucking her again in the morning while she is still asleep is vanilla Nordic sex at best.

What is kinky Nordic sex? Please be detailed with your answer. I saw a picture of a couple hundred Nordic blondes in hot water pool or something. My penis has a vested interest in the answer.

2) Kinky Aussie Sex and lack of police reports.

Does this mean that all instances of Kinky Aussie sex involve police reports?

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815889)

Err, I'm a finn myself, so I may be perverted in some puritan point of view, but yes, it's vanilla sex in my book. It's straight up vaginal penetration from front/back with a person who has accepted to have sex with you.

What exactly is vanilla sex in your book if not that?

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38816025)

Err, I'm a finn myself, so I may be perverted in some puritan point of view, but yes, it's vanilla sex in my book. It's straight up vaginal penetration from front/back with a person who has accepted to have sex with you.

Accepted? As opposed to....?

Sounds like you might be reaching back to the ol' Viking roots there.

What exactly is vanilla sex in your book if not that?

Well I guess your description might be considered vanilla sex. Everybody's threshold is different apparently. I prefer French vanilla sex with cherries and copious amounts of chocolate sauce. Like I said, YMMV.

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (1)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815937)

You state that fucking a chick, falling asleep, and fucking her again in the morning while she is still asleep is vanilla Nordic sex at best.

Well my wife and I have woken up during sex, ie: we started while we were both asleep. Enjoyable but not particularly kinky.

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38816205)

Can't speak for kinky Aussie sex though. Nothing in police reports about that.

Well, I'm a kinky Aussie, and can testify that working off a nice morning glory with my gf while we're both still half asleep is pretty much all the way over at the wholesome end of the spectrum.

Re:Woo-hoo! I hope there's lots of sex! (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814671)

Regardless of whether the charges against him were true, I think they were brought with political intent to hunt him down. That said, making light of rape charges as "kinky" or the classic "surprise sex" is demeaning. If someone told you they were using protection, lied, and you had to worry about STD's, you wouldn't be laughing. The charges are serious, even if they were brought by assholes looking to stop Julian. If someone accused him of shooting someone, you wouldn't make fun of it as "kinky Nordic gunplay". (Or maybe you would, this is the slashdot).

Good. But... (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812371)

Will he really be able to ask the REAL tough questions, and expect these to be broadcast over the mass media ?

i really don think they would just allow that. maybe over the internet.

Re:Good. But... (-1, Flamebait)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812531)

Will he really be able to ask the REAL tough questions, and expect these to be broadcast over the mass media ?

Questions like: When does No really mean No? Or: Is it ok to lie in order to have sex? Or: Do I feel guilty about manipulating Bradley Manning?

There are soooo many tough questions to be asked......I can't wait.

Re:Good. But... (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812581)

or "if the scariest of all three letter organizations want my blood, is it the best idea to stick my dick in anything that moves?"

Re:Good. But... (2, Insightful)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812601)

And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks that fit your particular political agenda while spicing them up with biased and false editorial comments? Wouldn't it be better to shut up and let the leaks speak for themselves?

Re:Good. But... (5, Insightful)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812709)

People keep making those allegations about the selective releases, but the reality is that it's irresponsible to leak things that are completely unredacted and they didn't have the resources to process all the materials. They had even less resources after the bankers decided to not process the payments.

Perhaps people should stop spreading this sort of FUD and character assassination and focus on things that actually matter.

Lol, did you read the parents sig? (2)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812811)

You expect people with that kind of dogma to be sensible and focus on the facts?

You must be new here.

Re:Good. But... (0, Offtopic)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812977)

did you look at his sig before you replied to him ? he lives in 1950.

Re:Good. But... (0, Offtopic)

cold fjord (826450) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815735)

did you look at his sig before you replied to him ? he lives in 1950.

Don't worry, a fuller accounting has developed since the 1950s.

In the last 100 years, Communism killed about 100,000,000 people [harvard.edu] .

Re:Good. But... (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814863)

And you think people like Assange and his supporters have the insight and capacity to make the wisest and most responsible call on how much to redact and what to release. Or even the moral authority.

Read some comments here on Slashdot, again. If they don't make you throw up in your mouth a little, then you can't answer that question legitimately.

Re:Good. But... (2)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#38816227)

Well, that's the perennial human problem.

Nobody's that good. We're all deeply flawed, but we're all we've got.

So some people just go ahead and do it anyway, because any honest action is better than accepting the lies and deceit.

Re:Good. But... (4, Insightful)

metacell (523607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38816261)

Do you think the military, the government, banks, and multinational corporations have the wisdom and altruism to release material that reveals their own mistakes and wrongdoings?

If not, we need organisations like Wikileaks.

Re:Good. But... (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813565)

And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks [...]

Just as hypocritical as it would be for a superhero protector of innocents with an agenda to end oppression and violence to punch a supervillain.

In other words: Maybe.

But sometimes you can't bring milk and cookies to an information-battle against global power elites, maybe.

Re:Good. But... (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813711)

And also, it is a battle for the eyeballs. Leaks released more dramaturgically get more eyeballs. Not trying to play the media at all would be detrimental to the cause of openness.

Re:Good. But... (1)

Phil06 (877749) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815687)

There is nothing worse than an opportunist with an agenda

Re:Good. But... (2)

metacell (523607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38816249)

And: Isn't it hypocritical to be advocating for complete openness and then go ahead and selectively release leaks that fit your particular political agenda while spicing them up with biased and false editorial comments? Wouldn't it be better to shut up and let the leaks speak for themselves?

If Wikileaks edits their releases, they're criticised for being hypocritical and not practicing the openness they advocate. If they don't edit their releases, they're criticised for being irresponsible and releasing information that could hurt individuals. If they add their own commentary, they're criticised for promoting their own agenda. If they don't add commentary, they're criticised for not being a real news service and shouldn't enjoy the same legal protection that journalists enjoy.

And if they release both their own edited version with commentary, and the complete version without commentary (redacted to protect individuals), which they actually did, they're still criticised by people who haven't done their homework.

Re:Good. But... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812793)

Anybody else thinks that he kinda looks like Bill Maher? I'd love to see a Bill Maher-style discussion between Assange and Ron Paul. Plenty of good points would be made, and the brain-dead American majority public will slam it regardless or merit.

In fact, watching most Americans talking politics is like watching a bunch of middle-school kids talk. All the pretty, cool kids will be laughing talking about dumb shit, then a smart kid will say something profound, and if he's not cut off, the cool kids will just stay silent until one of them dumb ones talks again and then they all start laughing.

Man, this country is fucking disgraceful.

Blah Blah Blah (4, Funny)

humphrm (18130) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812389)

'Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it. Are we heading towards utopia, or dystopia and how we can set our paths? This is an exciting opportunity to discuss the vision of my guests in a new style of show that examines their philosophies and struggles in a deeper and clearer way than has been done before.'

Woah, woah, woah. Way too many words. I was like "What?" and then I was like "Huh?" and then, uh, I got a little bored.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (2)

idontgno (624372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812469)

I was waiting for "Touch my monkey." But it never happened.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813297)

'Through this series I will explore the possibilities for our future in conversations with those who are shaping it.

He means the prosecutor, and the attorney general ;-)

Re:Blah Blah Blah (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813755)

all he needs to do now is the children's books, fashion shoots and a fucking pop single, and his mission to be 100% full of himself will be complete.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814541)

Sounds pretentious already. And boring. Like a hypothetical Oprah miniseries on politics.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (1)

GreyWolf3000 (468618) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815677)

Sounds like he's, you know, like, talking all faggy and shit.

Re:Blah Blah Blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815767)

I'd like to punch your face! You're close, but far. Punches incoming!

for the money? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812397)

It's sad, but my first thought about this was whether he's doing it for the money, to pay for his legal expenses.

Yes, I do absolutely consider a talkshow to be "selling out". I still consider his manifesto [thecommentfactory.com] that lead to the creation of Wikileaks extremely interesting and insightful.

Re:for the money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812535)

I find it really tough to work out why so many smart people pay out for third party legal expenses. I have a LLB which I studied part-time for my interest, though I'm not a lawyer, and the skills are TBH not that hard to attain. And where I come from, at least, you learn pretty much all the core legal skills in the first year of your studies.

What you pay for when you get routine legal advice is people who know stuff already and can answer questions quickly, but if you don't have a bottomless pit of money then legal research is not beyond the wits of any intelligent man. A group of intelligent men with moderate legal knowledge could easily outflank the average and greater-than-average lawyers. In particular, there's nothing Assange has done which is so uniquely complex that he needs to pay out hundreds of thousands. This ain't no complex fraud case. Criminal law is fairly simple in the common law jurisdictions.

Re:for the money? (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812729)

A man who serves as his own attorney has a fool for a client. I think that old saying has a lot of merit to it. Just because one has a legal education does not mean that one is qualified to try a case in court and it certainly does not mean that it's a good idea to try a case in which one is otherwise involved.

I'm quite sharp and good with logic, but there's absolutely no way in hell that I would be going to court pro se unless there were no other options.

Re:for the money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812887)

Last I researched, that saying first appeared preceded by, "A lawyer once said..." It expresses not the stupidity of representing oneself but an obvious conflict of interest in empowering laymen in the legal process.

You're quite right that there's a leap between good understanding of the foundations of legal knowledge and knowing court procedures and that some jurisdictions are more sympathetic than others to laymen erring here. But what do you think Assange has gone through so far which requires such complex legal knowledge or procedure that it requires expensive specialist lawyers and which fails (in the UK case) the interest of justice tests granting legal aid?

It's the Assange case not shoplifiting (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813715)

Have you been paying attention? It's a brand new Swedish law applied on a doubtful edge case and being used for extradition when nothing similar has while looking a hell of a lot like it's just a pretext to get him somewhere so something different can be done. That looks complex to me, and if I were him I'd be looking for people that can handle such complexity.

Re:for the money? (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813985)

Yeah I think it depends on the complexity of the case. I have an LLB (Hons.) too but I wouldn't be relying on myself for something serious. But if I was just going to court to challenge a parking fine or something, I reckon I'd give it a go ;)

Re:for the money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815305)

"Yes, I do absolutely consider a talkshow to be "selling out""

Considering all the man has risked and been through, you need money to fund an organization/organizations like wikileaks. I could care less what he does allowing corporations free reign has been a disaster thus far. In war you often have to do whatever it takes to keep yourself going. This naive view you have of 'selling out' is nonsense. In the real world money is power, those without money are beholden to those who have it. The more money assange can get the more freedom he will have to defend his ideals.

topic #1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812411)

Is change better effected through union or through cult of personality?

Re:topic #1 (0)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812603)

this needs modpoints.

dunno if I'm feeling that (1)

slashmydots (2189826) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812453)

While I think it's somewhat of a good idea, he sort of has the same energy and excitement level as if they instead just placed a marshmallow in front of the cameras. There would be very little difference actually. Aren't talk show hosts supposed to be outgoing and energetic and all that?

Re:dunno if I'm feeling that (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812617)

and no doubt he'd have a hissy fit on camera if anyone dared hold a different view to him. he'd accuse them of repression, blahblah.

this guy honestly doesn't have the people skills to do justice to the idea.

Re:dunno if I'm feeling that (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812745)

He represents the organization because he's good at keeping himself in the spotlight. Considering how many folks have been gunning for him, he's done a damn good job of largely avoiding being disappeared.

The charges are bunk, I think most people realize that, and unlike people conducting themselves in a discrete fashion, he hasn't just disappeared to some black site.

The monologue should kick ass. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812479)

Budweiser bikini team and lots of techie jokes. and J-walking.

Re:The monologue should kick ass. (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812751)

Animatronic skeleton with glowing blue eyes for a sidekick.

Color me unsurprised (1, Interesting)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812501)

Anyone with half a brain knew Julie was doing this for the publicity.

Re:Color me unsurprised (2)

microbee (682094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812999)

Yes, unlike everyone else. I am shocked, SHOCKED!

Re:Color me unsurprised (5, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813039)

Ever since his arrest, he's pretty much had to. Unless he manages to keep some form of media focus on him, such that a significant number of people will care about what happens to him, he'll vanish overseas.

Publicity is life to him, at the moment. Given his life prior to the Bradley leaks, I'm pretty sure he's not a publicity hound.

Re:Color me unsurprised (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814843)

Bullshit, anything he's done, he's done for his own benefit, not anyone elses.
The slavish devotion to him is pathetic.

Re:Color me unsurprised (3, Informative)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814871)

Almost as pathetic as the slavish devotion to assassinating his character on behalf of the US government.

Re:Color me unsurprised (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815539)

The easiest way to assassinate his "character" is to let him open his mouth, or unzip his fly.

"he'll vanish overseas" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815953)

Very much what we in the UK think of the US bias in the formation of the current extradition rules. Yes, I know "we" signed them without thinking how the US would manipulate them, but that was Tony "poodle" Blair doing what he does best. Never mind, the laws and legal process in Sweden are as fair as in any other Western Democracy. He's got nothing to fear if he's innocent, hasn't he?

Re:Color me unsurprised (5, Funny)

pgward (2086802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813375)

Anyone with half a brain knew Julie was doing this for the publicity.

You mean he leveraged a sensitive issue like honesty and transparency in order to gain a platform to talk about honesty and transparency? Scoundrel! Rapscallion!

John Pilger: Julian Assange Interview (5, Interesting)

lobiusmoop (305328) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812523)

I remember watching the interview with John Pilger [youtube.com] some time ago, Assagne is certainly a compelling speaker.

Re:John Pilger: Julian Assange Interview (1)

EnsilZah (575600) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815473)

I remember watching an interview of his with Anderson Cooper and thinking "My god, you ageless white haired vampires, you're breaking all the rules, people will start getting suspicious for sure when they see two of you at the same time!"

Don't expect it to be on Faux Nooz (-1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812525)

Fair an open discussion. They only place you can host that is on the internet ... until such a time as his site is locked up because some Big Media sponsored legislation alleged there was a reference to pirated Simpsons episodes on there, somewhere.

Re:Don't expect it to be on Faux Nooz (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812785)

Your home page looks like it was made by a fucking retard.

Phenomenal (5, Insightful)

ludomancer (921940) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812547)

Whoever let this man onto mainstream media made a huge mistake for themselves.

For the rest of us, potential win.

I would love for him to spread his perspective and morals to a larger audience, because, from what I know of him (and being under the impression of the fallacy of his alleged rape charges), he represents a truly free, government-agnostic (am I using that right?) way forward for human kind. Our governments should not do evil unto others, and that should be apparent from it's own historical evidence.

Re:Phenomenal (2)

mug funky (910186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812643)

his ideas are good, but can he reign in the jerk long enough to get them out?

consent or no consent, improper bedroom antics with highly political women at a time when a big chunk of the world's governments want you to "disappear" is very poor judgement.

i've a feeling his personality will get in the way again.

Re:Phenomenal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812765)

I guess you're not used to talking to Australians.

We don't put up with bullshit, we don't fear calling people out on their bullshit, and we can't be browbeaten or bullied. It makes us particularly vocal and fearless when facing dickheads.

There's also an Aussie phrase. "A root you don't have, is a root you don't get".

Re:Phenomenal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815201)

And we Japanese are strong when backed into a corner!

Re:Phenomenal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815489)

Christ, it's like a whole continent of blowhard Texans.

jerk ? (5, Insightful)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813991)

benjamin franklin had the habit of stripping naked, throwing a stool in the middle of the corridor that ran through his mansion in the upper floors, open all windows on both sides of the mansion and sit there naked in the wind.

he would get arrested for it today.

and yet, he is one of the people who gave us what we have today.

tesla hated fat people and even fired a fat assistant. he openly scolded fat people in public. for being fat or eating too much.

i can go on and on with examples from important and beneficial figures in history, who shaped this current times with their very important contributions to society. ..................

unfortunately, as of today, speaking against governments not doing stuff against their people behind their back, exposing them, has become a greater evil to face than inquisition. with inquisition at least, all the people knew that you were stirring up something that was wrong, and approved you silently. but look at this discussion now - the persons who are braving the perils of going against the very bastards doing stuff behind our back, are being villified, by LITERATE and intelligent people. ..............

i dont care about 'jerk'. what i care about is, what he is doing. something we needed, and nobody was doing it.

Re:jerk ? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814689)

benjamin franklin had the habit of stripping naked, throwing a stool in the middle of the corridor that ran through his mansion in the upper floors, open all windows on both sides of the mansion and sit there naked in the wind.

Well, no. It's inside his mansion, on an upper floor, not even in a room with a window (though I've no doubt he could be seen through one or two windows if you made an effort).

Hell, I walk around my upper floor naked from time to time, usually just out of the shower or bed. And occasionally the windows are open (not often - air-conditioning season is nine+ months long here (hell, I needed my AC on yesterday)). Haven't been arrested yet.

Re:jerk ? (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815003)

Well, no. It's inside his mansion, on an upper floor, not even in a room with a window (though I've no doubt he could be seen through one or two windows if you made an effort).

yes and that could get you arrested by someone reporting you to the police. would totally end someone's career.

Re:jerk ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815483)

And don't forget about Tycho Brahe's clairvoyant midget. And didn't he also have an unusual relationship with a pet goat?

Re:Phenomenal (2)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#38814255)

Man's gotta get laid. The current expectation that people in politics be severely sexually repressed means that there are a lot of creepy people in power.

Re:Phenomenal (1)

dadioflex (854298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815711)

Yeah, creepy. So, not like Assange then?

I think I'd sooner watch a chat show hosted by a j-horror child-ghost than Julian Assange.

That could work, couldn't it? Close-up of guest, finishing of his question, pull back the shot and there's the host crawling across the ceiling... ready with the next question. Hehe. Oh, and that would work for the ghost-host too!

Re:Phenomenal (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812759)

Whoever let this man onto mainstream media made a huge mistake for themselves.

For the rest of us, potential win.

I would love for him to spread his perspective and morals to a larger audience, because, from what I know of him (and being under the impression of the fallacy of his alleged rape charges), he represents a truly free, government-agnostic (am I using that right?) way forward for human kind. Our governments should not do evil unto others, and that should be apparent from it's own historical evidence.

"In a moment, I'll have as my guest one of the network executives, whose personal records I released on my leaks website earlier so people can get a good idea where he stands on things."

Sure to be a winner.

Re:Phenomenal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813347)

phallacy of his alleged rape charges

Fixed that for you.

Re:Phenomenal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813447)

Julian, is that you?

Re:Phenomenal (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813631)

Whoever let this man onto mainstream media made a huge mistake for themselves.

Why? I assume he'd pull viewers, right? I'm sure the person who approved of this will regret it all the way to the bank.

Re:Phenomenal (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813769)

he also prints t-shirts with his face on it, gives regular (almost endless) interviews for Putin-backed RT, and talks a lot more about himself than any of the people uncovering things. It's possible to believe that gubbament should not do evil without being an irritating dick. I'm still waiting for him to start his own fashion label and market it with a pop single.

Re:Phenomenal (4, Insightful)

zAPPzAPP (1207370) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813973)

It is interesting that everything negative I read and hear about this man (and there is A LOT of that) is all, without exception, personal attacks on him.

I guess that means he is an asshole and does behave assholish a lot.

But the thing is: I really don't care about the character and integrity of some guy I don't even know personally.
Now if the there really is nothing else wrong about the things he proclaims, other than they are being brought to us by some smug asshole, count me in.

Re:Phenomenal (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815193)

Well said.....zapp

rosesandgifts.com

Dystopia (1)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812583)

Dystopia, and the best thing you can do is not be a party to the whole thing.

What's it called? (2)

gijoel (628142) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812705)

In Guantanamo tonight?

Re:What's it called? (2)

pgward (2086802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813353)

In Guantanamo tonight?

Lacks credibility. No one in Guantanamo knows they are in Guantanamo, let alone whether it is night or day.

Re:What's it called? (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813897)

Call it "That Was The Leak That Was."

Theme music Guantanamera.

Media whore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812733)

I'm still waiting on that Bank of America file dump

noplace does it say WHERE (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 2 years ago | (#38812847)

my guess is that he's on deep cable on Jupiter, top tier plus $20 a month.

Re:noplace does it say WHERE (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#38815503)

my guess is that he's on deep cable on Jupiter, top tier plus $20 a month.

Damn, that's still better than Keith Olbermann's new network.

Until he names the station he's NOT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38812983)

Really, until he says which station will be broadcasting it he's not hosting a chat show. Or does he believe that talking to people is all that it takes?

This could be bad. (2)

toddmbloom (1625689) | more than 2 years ago | (#38813049)

I don't know if his head will be able to fit in the camera shot.

Then again, maybe he can have a show with Bill O'Reilly to determine who the bigger arse is.

Julian Who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38813407)

Oh, is he still around?

What the heck? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814177)

Why isn't he in jail yet?

Or is he doing that "first week in prison" show ?

He needs the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38814353)

Wikileaks does not pay his personal legal bills. He needs the money, and yes he needs the publicity.

I doubt he has the skills to make this a winner, but at least he is approaching the problem with some kind of integrity.

Looking forward to it.

too bad (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815215)

Unfortunately, the script for each show will be leaked one week before the air date

mo3 uP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38815651)

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>