* Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

4454 publicly visible posts • joined 11 Apr 2006

Oracle accused of stifling HP TPC benchmark

Ian Michael Gumby

Now if HP wanted to have some fun...

They should contact IBM and benchmark Informix on HP hardware...

Chicken Little report: Sat-nav dependency spells DISASTER!

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

Huh?

Ok Liam,

Lets look at this from least accurate to most accurate.

1) You run an NTP client and point to a government/university controlled NTP server.

(You don't care about network latency because its 'accurate enough and you don't have a highly accurate clock in your pc)

2) You sync to a local NTP server which either is accurate enough, or it has its own 'atomic clock'.

This NTP server is used to sync all of the local machines in your machine room/cluster/HPC environment. The NTP server can be a rack mountable appliance with a very accurate clock so that once you set it, you don't really have to worry about clock skew.

3) You put in an 'atomic clock' in to your own server. This is usually a CS clock and you have connections so you can run a cable to an external set of antennae for radio and GPS signal. This is the most accurate and its not *that* expensive for a business where time matters. (Under 10K)

Now most financial firms have their trading platforms housed in leased space near the exchange and these sites do one or more of the following:

1) Offer an NTP server that is slaved off the exchange.

2) Offer an NTP server that is slaved to a government controlled clock.

It doesn't matter what time it is as long as it matches what the exchange says the time is.

Now does that make sense?

You don't sync with a clock that is sitting in orbit. Now why is that?

Hint: Einstein could tell you but he's dead. Not to mention that its not as accurate as a radio signal from the standard clock sitting in Boulder, and for the same accuracy, you have other options. Like a radio receiver that gets the Boulder radio signal, and then you just plug in either your street address, or the geo-encoded x,y coordinates you got from going to the web...

Bottom line, you don't pull the time from the clock signal off of GPS and again Lewis made the comment that financial shops rely on GPS signals for their clocks.

OK?

You do realize that time is relative, right? :-)

Mine's the coat that has a small card deck sized atomic clock I got from military surplus.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Lewis are you confused?

I'm sorry but the line:

"These days a lot of hardware makes use of the GPS timing signals for purposes unrelated to navigation: for instance to synchronise the precise clocks often needed in digital communication systems, or to put exact time stamps on financial transactions. Using GPS is often cheaper than installing a highly accurate timepiece."

I think you're confused.

Large scale financial institutions as well as trading floors usually have their own 'atomic' clocks which they sync to a standard atomic clock, usually run by a university or a government organization. Now these stand alone clocks have a GPS antennae.

The clocks get their timing signal as a radio signal from the known source which is at a relatively precise GPS coordinate. If you know your own coordinates you can calculate and account for the time it takes for the radio wave to travel to your location. (Yeah, even though the radio waves travel at the speed of light, it still takes time for them to travel thousands of miles from their source to your location...)

Since we're talking about things traveling at the speed of light, if your coordinates are off by a couple of meters, it shouldn't matter too much, however, if you are a type A personality, I guess you could set up a base station, monitor your GPS position for 48 hours or so and get it accurate to within a couple of cm.

With respect to using the clock in the GPS signal to set your cell phone's clock... that's possible but more than likely it will be set by the connection to the local cell tower.

Anonymous probed for hack threat against WikiLeaker captors

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Ever spend time in an ICU?

"Doublethink..

They are making his life living hell in order to save him from risk of injury"

Spend time in an ICU of any major hospital. The noise goes on 24/7. So you have patients that are sleep deprived, and lack privacy. If you happen to get a 'moaner' in the bed next to you, its even worse.

The point is that its a living hell for the patients and yes the doctors are making the patient's life a living hell in order to save them.

Google guilty of copyright wrong

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@LPF

That doesn't work.

Someone sees your work, copies it and Google snarfs it up.

Who's guilty?

Yup, that's why there are courts.

Hackers find Google's music cloud

Ian Michael Gumby
Pirate

It kind of makes sense...

How many copies of a song does Google actually have to hold? Only one.

Assuming that you have a paid for copy of a song, when you send it to the cloud, if you do a hash on it, it will match a copy uploaded by another person who paid for the song in the same format. If the hash doesn't match... then the other copy is stored and you end up with two 'similar' songs with two different access lists.

Google then stores only one copy of the song and retains two references to it. One to you, one to the other guy. As more people upload the song, the same copy is kept, and the additional references are added to the song's 'user' list.

When you delete a song from the cloud, all you are doing is deleting your reference to the song.

Google will probably keep the song in their cloud even after the last digital rights holder has deleted their reference.

Now Google will probably keep tabs on the songs.

They will know the most popular song based on the number of uploads.

If they want to sell you a song, they can sell you the rights to the song that someone uploaded, and then they can pay the royalties for the song. Can Google scam the record companies?

You bet.

So yeah, this makes sense for Google. It makes sense for the customer who purchased their music too. For the Freetard? Not so much. Although it would be difficult for the MPAA to show that the copy you uploaded was an 'illegal' copy. And of course a good hack would be to grant yourself access to all of the songs in the Google cloud. ;-)

But hey! What do I know?

Microsoft 'paid Nokia $1bn' for WinPho 7 deal

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@AC

Clearly you didn't read the article.

Or rather if you had read the article you wouldn't understand the significance of the deal.

Its more than just an OS deal.

Also, while Win7 takes the front seat, what makes you think that Meego is dead? ;

New 'supercritical' generators to boost nuclear output by 50%

Ian Michael Gumby
Paris Hilton

Ok.. I have questions...

This does sound interesting.

So I have a closed loop system that drives a turbine to generate electricity. So all I need is a really hot side and a really cold side to the loop, right?

So how hot? How cold does it have to be to get it to work?

A solar oven? And then using the earth as a heat sink?

Sounds like a winner to me...

Ex-UK spy boss says WikiLeaks sparked Egyptian revolution

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Phud

Just exactly how much of Libya's oil goes to the US?

Run the numbers junior. You'll then start to see that its really the Europeans who should be worried...

But its not about the actual loss of oil, but that there's an over abundance of speculation in the oil market by people who'd have no intention on actually collecting the underlying commodity. So US companies are raising their prices on the fear and movement within the oil market. Its that which has the US Government freaking out a bit.

(Yet calmer heads didn't want to touch the US Oil reserves until a *real* emergency.)

As to your other remarks, its the uncertainty and unknown which worries not just the US government, but the other western governments. You would know this if you actually paid attention to what is going on around you instead of painting the US as the 'boogie man'. In truth the US is a paper tiger until you actually cause it harm. Then you start to see the resolve of the US population.

(Yeah, its a scary thing when you see both those from the left and right join together to fight a common enemy.)

Manning won't get the death penalty. So please don't be a twit. It would take a confession by Manning that he intentionally pulled a Benedict Arnold to warrant it.

And as to 'Western Arms' ... I wonder who's selling AK-47s these days? ;-)

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Huh?

First, Assange is being sent back to Sweden to face charges of Rape. While you may disagree with the Swedes on what is and is not rape, its still their law and Assange allegedly broke their law and needs to go back and stand trial.

Second, the comments if taken at face value are absurd.

Call me silly but I seem to recall a certain street vendor in Tunisia who started their country's revolt...

North Africa had always been a hot bed for unrest going back to the British and French continued occupation since post WW II. (Oh but that's 'ancient' history and you really don't want to let facts get in the way of your argument.)

The point is that there are other incidents and facts throughout the region over the past 30 years that have more of a direct tie to the current wave of revolutions in these countries than Wikileaks.

(Of course there's one unknown... did Wikileaks provide the Palestinian documents to Al Jezeera? No one is talking and that would have more of an impact on this region...)

You also seem to have a bit of a wild imagination.

The US Government isn't one to dictate change in a geo politcal region. In fact the US wants stability. But you'd know that if you actually read your history books instead of copying off someone else's paper.

HP uncloaks wristwatch 'aggregation point'

Ian Michael Gumby
Joke

So I guess its true what they say...

BTW... I'm standing over here....

Ian Michael Gumby
Go

Interesting, but still some design flaws.

First, I love the clarification. Its HP collaboration with Fossil and Fossil is trying to make itself relevant in today's society. Unless you are older, and you have a collection of nice, expensive watches, you probably use your cell phone to also tell time. (Its accurate and should sync with the local carrier's clocks automatically)

Second, automatics, those watches that use the normal routine movements of your arm to power the watch, are not powerful enough to charge an electrical device.

Looking at the concept, it kind of does make sense.

You can provide a 'wi-fi' hot spot where the antenna is away from your head. If we see a convergence of data and voice, it would mean that you'll have more voip via the data channel. So yeah, a personal hot spot makes a lot of sense.

Just one small problem. Think about the size of your battery and the form factor of the watch. Not to mention the issue of heat being generated from the radio and battery.

For a concept I'd give it an 'A'. Implementation? I don't think it gets a passing mark.

I rate this a 'go' because they are thinking about the future and are trying to make themselves relevant.

Cobalt-barrel machine guns could fire full auto Hollywood style

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@Danny 14

"M16A4 dont have fully auto because the yanks cant shoot for shit therefore cant be trusted with fully auto."

Now why would you need any full auto when the mantra is 'one shot, one kill?'

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

A .22 semi auto barrel hot?

Try a 7mm Rem Magnum after sending down a couple of bullets 'slowly' down range.

Shoot fast enough and long enough, you end up not only with a bruised shoulder, but you can also do permanent damage to the barrel.

Mine's the shooting jacket with .300WM and Rem7 used brass in the pockets.

New charge against alleged WikiLeaker carries death penalty

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

@AC Re War Crimes...

Now I know why you posted that as an AC. Basically you're ashamed of your views.

You clearly don't know what is and is not a war crime. Concepts of collateral damage or civilian casualties are beyond your grasp.

You also clearly don't know what it means to have a congressional vote to go to war.

Right or wrong, based on the evidence presented to them, it was a lopsided vote in favor of going after Saddam.

Clearly you don't understand the threat WMD ie biologicals and nukes present to the rest of the world.

Saddam hinted that he had WMDs and before his fellow countrymen hung him by a rope, he admitted that he created that myth to keep the Iranians at bay. He was surprised that it was the Americans who fell for it.

But don't let facts get in the way of your posts.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

@Dibbley did you happen to read the articles written in the NYT?

While I'm not Jim, nor am I trying to answer for him...

"But in its zeal to make the video a work of antiwar propaganda, WikiLeaks also released a version that didn’t call attention to an Iraqi who was toting a rocket-propelled grenade and packaged the manipulated version under the tendentious rubric “Collateral Murder.” (See the edited and non-edited videos here.)"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/magazine/30Wikileaks-t.html

So much for 'journalistic integrity' shown by Assange.

If you watch the unedited version and understand what's meant by RoE (Rules of Engagement)

The US military were acting within their RoE. No war crimes and yes, you run around in a 'war zone' with someone carrying an RPG and firing on US forces, you can bet you will receive return fire from the US and their allies.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Huh?

We never declared war in Iraq?

Tell that to Dennis 'former boy Mayor of Cleveland' Kucinich. You might remember him from his latest crazy issue of suing the Congressional Cafeteria for a pitted olive.

Hint: We declared War and it was a very one sided vote.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

Huh? They do...

"Such a pity that the American government and military don't actually live up to their own standards then."

Clearly you need to extract your head from your rectum. You're actually one of the few documented cases of self inflicted 'brown neck'.

I'm sorry, but do you realize that there was no illegal war in Iraq?

Yes, the US government actually voted and went to war. (It was legal)

Was the intelligence faulty? Yes. Yet what you don't seem to recall is that Saddam admitted to creating that facade in part to keep the Iranians at bay. You do remember the long and deadly Iran/Iraq war? (Or was that before your time?) You remember where both sides committed war crimes and use children to clear land mines ahead of their forces? So please don't let the facts get in the way of your diatribe.

As to war crimes, the US has an excellent record of bringing to trial any war crimes that their troops may have committed. But that's not Manning nor Wikileaks. No offense but Assange's first video was edited to hide the fact that there was no deviation from the RoE and that the soldiers acted in accordance to the RoE. (Helicopters have been shot down by RPGs and the troops were being harassed by RPG fire in the area. So when a guy toting an RPG was spotted, he's fair game.)

Like I said, don't let the facts get in the way of your beautiful ignorant statements.

What your ignorance shows is that you don't understand that only the US and its allies which are professional soldiers are following RoEs. Insurgents, terrorists, etc? They have no rules.

Why don't you comment on the fact that these terrorists are bombing innocent civilians where there are no military personnel? (They are so common in Iraq, the hardly make the news, at least not the front page which it appears is all that you read.) Why don't you talk about the fact that insurgents are bombing Iraqi civilians who are attempting to join their own police force so that there is stability in their country? Nah. You'd probably agree with Assange is that they got what they deserved for trying to rebuild their own country.

Like you say, never let the facts get in the way of a good vendetta.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

He has no one to blame...

But himself.

Unless of course Assange coerced him to do it and only Assange and Manning know and neither have talked openly about it.

As to knowing the truth, what truth exactly?

No offense but what exactly did Manning expose? No war crimes.

Did he let the world know that War is a dirty business? <MockSarcasm>SHOCKING!</MockSarcasm>

No real secret there.

Now thanks to Assange, Wikileaks published *UNREDACTED* material. (Other real ethical news services did redact and restrict what they printed.) Even the recent books quoted Assange as pretty much saying those who collaborated with the US get what they deserved.

With respect to Manning getting the death penalty, while its possible, its a stretch. I'm not up on Military law, but I suspect that in order to get the death penalty, Mens rea has to be a factor. Meaning that he had to know that Assange would act with total disregard and ethics that real journalists are bound by.

So now lets watch the followers of St. Julian of ASSange cry foul.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

You must be part of Assange's defense team...

Look,

I hate to break it to you but Manning is in deep shite.

They have more than enough forensic evidence to nail him to the proverbial cross.

(Its easier to back track and find evidence against Manning once they knew it was Manning.)

The defense would have an easier time claiming temporary insanity than what you suggest.

Hint. Bradley takes them off the system for what reason again? And then they get stolen? Hint: By admission he's just as guilty of the charges. Doh!

Life lesson learned. Fan meet shit.

WikiLeaks movie screen rights secured by DreamWorks

Ian Michael Gumby
Joke

@Robot

Sorry Cusack not thin enough, or pasty enough.

I was thinking Anderson Cooper if he let his hair grow out.

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

Try this...

There are some things man was not meant to know...

(Fade to black)

C'mon do you really think that the secrecy laws that were put in to place were put there on a whim?

As to Manning dying?

They won't seek the death penalty on him and the burden is on Manning's prosecution to show that he had a 'dirty mind' that he *knew* that Wikileaks would act with recklessness and endanger US and others by supplying information to the enemy.

Manning is a dumb shite who didn't think of the consequences. I do suspect that Assange did in fact have direct communication with Manning and 'seduced' him in to providing the leaked information. And its up to the reader to interpret what I mean by 'seduced'.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

Now we know why Julian wants to trademark himself.

Here he is, created all of this fodder for a movie.

He won't get a time because he's not the author of the work, nor did he endear himself to the reporters who wrote the book.

He won't be portrayed in a positive light, at least not as the hero in his own mind.

Reality sucks don't it? :-)

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

LOL...

Yeah right.

Guess again.

Maybe you should petition the Pope to make Julian a Saint. The odd are better.

Council busts breast milk ice cream parlour

Ian Michael Gumby
FAIL

Its actually a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Hep A/B/C are all real threats. Add on to this other drugs that could be in the system.

You'd also have to have mandatory drug testing and random drug testing of the potential donors.

Can you imagine a 'crack flavored' ice cream?

Sorry but this is a bad idea from the get go.

British Airways IT worker found guilty of plotting terror attack

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

How many GPU enabled machines in a high end cluster could break an encrypted...

password protected file?

If you think about it... you're not going to have to go through every potential combination.

Amazon confirms the terms of its declaration of war on Netflix

Ian Michael Gumby
Headmaster

Huh?

Try parsing what you wrote.

You must be an Amazon Prime customer to get it free. To be an Amazon Prime customer, you have to pay an annual fee.

Now I'm an Amazon customer, but not an Amazon Prime customer therefore its not *free*.

Ian Michael Gumby
Pirate

Free?

"Amazon has finally confirmed what was Hollywood‘s worst kept secret: that its Amazon Prime customers will be able to get some online video for free, just like the DVD rental customers of Netflix can get online video for free."

Call me old fashion, but paying an annual subscription fee to get 'free' material, isn't really free, now is it?

I have nothing against Amazon offering its members free access to material, but they should say *free for members only.

Julian Assange™ applies to trademark himself

Ian Michael Gumby
Thumb Up

Cheekey

"here is always some chance that it might be disallowed on the grounds that with this application the word "assange" has become a verb: To assange, to disappear suddenly up one's own arse or ass eg "Before the Swedish police could apply their handcuffs, Julian assanged with a loud plopping sound, reappearing moments later in London."

Court OK's Assange Sweden extradition, given 7 days to appeal

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

@GilbertFilbert

The self deprecating message was to re-enforce the fact that it doesn't take a lawyer to understand the courts and matters of law.

In a trial, there is a presumption of innocence and that the burden is on the prosecution to make their case of guilt. So that when Assange gets back to trial in Sweden, he is innocent until the prosecution can present enough evidence of his alleged guilt.

But we're not at the trial stage, are we? (That was rhetorical...)

No, were at the stage where Assange fled the country and the Swedes want him back.

So they issued the EAW which under treaty, the UK courts are obliged to honor.

Assanage is given the chance to appeal the EAW. So the *burden* *of* *proof* is on Assange to show that the EAW is defective. Is that such a hard concept to comprehend?

So please stop this 'Innocence until proven guilty' crap. It doesn't wash.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

@Mad Mike Re Whatever...

Ok...

Lets try and take this slowly...

A. is accused of raping not one but two girls.

There is an ongoing investigation. Early on in the investigation, he is questioned and the matter dropped. The lawyers for the girls objects and the case is picked up by Ny.

Initially, does Ny have enough evidence to hold Assange and restrict him from leaving the country? No. So Assange goes on his way. Ny starts her investigation. Wants to bring Assange in for questioning.

Now Assange's defense attorney earlier in the case said that Ny hadn't communicated that she had wanted to have Assange come in for questioning. Yet under cross, he recants his earlier testimony saying that it was a mistake. He then admits that Ny wanted to question Assange yet his lawyer wasn't able to communicate with him.

Yeah. Right.

And of course the judge didn't buy it either.

Not to mention if it were a normal person, they'd have contacted their lawyer to see if it was ok to leave the country before they left the country. That would have meant that there is a reasonable expectation that Assange should have been in some contact with his attorney before leaving.

Now your counter...

You do realize that the arrest warrant was issued after he had gone missing for the 6 days and he was leaving the country as the arrest warrant was being issued.

So no their story makes a lot of sense.

The Judge saw through the defense's lie.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

For those who are too lazy to read the judge's remarks...

"15.

Mr Hurtig said in his statement that it was astonishing that Ms Ny made no effort to interview his client. In fact this is untrue. He says he realised the mistake the night before giving evidence. He did correct the statement in his evidence in chief (transcript p.83 and p.97). However, this was very low key and not done in a way that I, at least, immediately grasped as significant. It was only in cross-examination that the extent of the mistake became clear. Mr Hurtig must have realised the significance of paragraph 13 of his proof when he submitted it. I do not accept that this was a genuine mistake. It cannot have slipped his mind. For over a week he was attempting (he says without success) to contact a very important client about a very important matter. The statement was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. It did in fact mislead Ms Brita Sundberg-Weitman and Mr Alhem . Had they been given the true facts then that would have changed their opinion on a key fact in a material way."

-=-

This goes directly to the case in point. Here the judge believes that Hurtig intentionally mislead the court.

Do I really have to spell out the significance of this bullet point?

Ian Michael Gumby
Troll

Dan Google?

Naw spelling his name right... now that would be too polite.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

@Mad Mike ??? WTF?

More and more preposterous?

I don't know about you, but when I've had to deal with lawyers in civil matters, I make sure that I'm always available. That is, they can always reach me and I will respond within 24 hours.

If for some reason I was involved in a criminal trial? You bet your sweet arse that I'd be easier to get a hold of.

And yes, during one civil issue, I was traveling and busy all over the US and Toronto. Much larger than Sweden and yes, there are places where cell phones don't work and Internet access was sketchy at best.

With respect to Assange... c'mon, really? 6 days with no ability to connect with his lawyer?

Text Messages? e-mail? Voice mail? Contacting known friends?

Oh yeah that's right... he was in a Ted K cabin and was pretending to be a Luddite.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

@Mad Mike

El Reg was kind enough to post a link to the actual decision which goes in to some detail of the appeal hearing...

Here's the cross of Assange's own Swedish defense lawyer:

-=-

In cross-examination the Swedish lawyer confirmed that paragraph 13 of his proof of evidence is wrong. The last five lines of paragraph 13 of his proof read: “in the following days [after 15th September] I telephoned [Ms Ny] a number of times to ask whether we could arrange a time for Mr Assange’s interview but was never given an answer, leaving me with the impression that they may close the rape case without even bothering to interview him. On 27th September 2010, Mr Assange left Sweden.” He agreed that this was wrong. Ms Ny did contact

7

him. A specific suggestion was put to him that on 22nd September he sent a text to the prosecutors saying “I have not talked to my client since I talked to you”. He checked his mobile phone and at first said he did not have the message as he does not keep them that far back. He was encouraged to check his inbox, and there was an adjournment for that purpose. He then confirmed that on 22nd September 2010 at 16.46 he has a message from Ms Ny saying: “Hello – it is possible to have an interview Tuesday”. Next there was a message saying: “Thanks for letting me know. We will pursue Tuesday 28th at 1700”. He then accepted that there must have been a text from him. “You can interpret these text messages as saying that we had a phone call, but I can’t say if it was on 21st or 22nd”. He conceded that it is possible that Ms Ny told him on the 21st that she wanted to interview his client. She requested a date as soon as possible. He agrees that the following day, 22nd, she contacted him at least twice.

Then he was then cross-examined about his attempts to contact his client. To have the full flavour it may be necessary to consider the transcript in full. In summary the lawyer was unable to tell me what attempts he made to contact his client, and whether he definitely left a message. It was put that he had a professional duty to tell his client of the risk of detention. He did not appear to accept that the risk was substantial or the need to contact his client was urgent. He said “I don’t think I left a message warning him” (about the possibility of arrest). He referred to receiving a text from Ms Ny at 09.11 on 27th September, the day his client left Sweden. He had earlier said he had seen a baggage ticket that Mr Assange had taken a plane that day, but was unable to help me with the time of the flight.

Mr Hurtig was asked why he told Brita Sundberg-Wietman that Ms Ny had made no effort to interview his client. He denied saying that and said he has never met her. He agrees that he gave information to Mr Alhem. He agrees that where he had said in his statement (paragraph 51) that “I found it astonishing that Ms Ny, having allowed five weeks to elapse before she sought out interview”, then that is wrong.

-=-

As you can see, there is some doubt to your recollection of the facts of the case.

Ian Michael Gumby
Grenade

Haven't you paid attention to the Appeals hearing?

Look,

I hate to break it to you but under cross, Assange's Swedish lawyer admitted that while he was in constant contact with the Swedish investigators/prosecutors, there was a 6 day period where he was out of contact with his client. He wasn't back in contact with his client until after Assange had left the country and the arrest warrant was issued.

These statements contradict his earlier testimony.

If you follow the time line laid out by the prosecution, you will clearly see that Assange obfuscated the legal process by fleeing the country.

Hence the arrest warrant. They did not 'change their minds' after he left, but that he was intentionally out of contact with his lawyer until after he left the country so that he could not be available for questioning and eventual charges being brought forth.

With Dan Gooding chiding me about getting my facts straight... one would hope that he would chide you for not doing the same.

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

Has the UK education process declined that much?

Look,

I realize I'm just a techie and my undergrad courses were all in Engineering and Science.

But I expect that those who post here have at least some level of University eduction.

If you have been following the case, you have to understand the following:

* Assange skipped out of Sweden before he could be questioned and then charged.

* A EAW was issued.

* Assange turned himself in and appealed the extradition.

Under the law, the burden of proof is on Assange to demonstrate that the EAW itself is flawed. The courts start with the presumption that the EAW is a lawful request.

Assange through his lawyers asserted a couple of key arguments:

* The person who issued the EAW didn't have the authority to issue the EAW

* Assange hadn't been charged and that you can't issue an EAW just for questioning.

* Assuming the accusations to be true, what he is accused of is not a crime in the UK

Were the defense able to win one of those arguments, Assange would probably not be extradited.

In the court case, the Swedish prosecution team refuted these claims by the following:

* Affirmed that the person who issued the EAW has the authority to issue an EAW.

* RAPE is one of the thirty odd crimes where you don't use the local standards of law.

* The EAW was issued for the intent of prosecuting Assange upon his return to Sweden.

(That this is just so that they can 'question him' is hogwash.)

The point is that for every issue raised by the defense, the prosecution was able to demonstrate their case.

Point by Point, anything raised by the defense was effectively countered. Including getting the Swedish counsel for Assange to admit that statements he made under oath were incorrect.

Assange's defense team did not make a strong enough argument to halt the extradition.

If you read the skeletons for both sides, you would understand this.

I am shocked that in spite of all of the evidence now in the public eye that people still ignore the basic facts argued in court.

Assange will go back, be interviewed and then charged. (Unless he can prove his innocence.)

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

@Ian

As the Swedish prosecutor pointed out... In the treaty, RAPE is actually #23 on the list (going from memory) of charges where you don't have to consider if it is a crime in the country he/she is being extradited from.

As to an extradition to the US...

If/when the US DoJ brings charges, he can and will be extradited. Whether that's in Sweden, the UK, or Australia. There is no issue of the Death Penalty because it will be off the table in order to get the extradition process started. Not to mention the fact that for any charge outside of the Espionage Act, the death penalty isn't allowed.

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Errr...yeah. Ok... think about it...

"Should we all be extraditable to face allegations? Doesn't feel right to me."

Until you are convicted of a crime, any crime, all you do is face allegations.

The Swedes feel that the women's evidence and accusations are credible enough for a trial.

So too did Assange because he intentionally left jurisdiction and denied these women their rights under Swedish law.

(You do remember where Assange's own Swedish Lawyer, under oath, admitted that while he was in contact with the Swedish investigators, he was not in contact with Assange for 6 days and recanted his earlier testimony.)

No means No!

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Huh?

Haven't you been paying attention?

He left the country so that they couldn't bring him in for questioning and then charging him. He fled jurisdiction.

The EAW was issued specifically so that they can prosecute him under Swedish law.

No means No! And when in Sweden, always wear a raincoat.

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

Nah

He's going to Sweden.

The US DoJ hasn't finished building their case against him yet.

If he was smart, he'd go to Sweden, either face trial, get a plea deal, and serve any time he may face. Then quietly go back to Australia which btw, he has recently said he wanted to return to....

You have to understand is that the whole thing about Sweden is that if he's convicted, he has zero chance of getting Swedish Citizenship. That's what he wants.

The simple truth is that if Julian went back to Sweden to face his accusers and profess his innocence. He wants the media storm. He wants the attention.

So please take this one step at a time.

WikiLeaks boss labels UK extradition order a 'rubber stamping process'

Ian Michael Gumby

@AC

Wasn't Rumpole an alcoholic?

(Yes thanks to PBS and the BBC we've seen him in action. :-) )

I guess one should be proud of the down thumbs one gets from the commentards.

WikiLeaks' Assange 'very likely' to lose extradition fight

Ian Michael Gumby
Black Helicopters

@Flybert

The US can extradite and charge Assange under a couple of different laws other than the Espionage Act.

There is a fine line between receiving, vetting, and then publishing the documents versus aiding and abetting the actual crime of stealing the information.

So if the US can show that Assange was more than just a 'conduit', they will have a case that goes beyond what the courts have already determined.

If he is charged, he will be convicted. Think of the Guardian and NYT who have already worked with him. They could be called upon to give evidence and based on their books, what do you think they'll say?

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@blackworx No curiosity...

Look,

You have the documents on US Government system. Manning allegedly stole. They end up on Wikileaks.

How did that happen?

So the US DoJ is putting all of the pieces of the puzzle together and when they are ready, they will act.

Is Wikileaks and Assange pure as the driven snow?

Clearly not.

But whatever the US DoJ decides to do is in the future. Lets focus on the here and now.

Under Swedish law, Assange allegedly violated the rights of those women.

Rather than face questioning. He skipped town. Hence the EAW.

So he's going to go back to Sweden.

He can try to appeal this judge's decision, however he would have to show how the judge erred with respect to the law. IMHO that's doubtful.

Thats the issue here and now.

Ian Michael Gumby
Big Brother

@blackworx

"2) edited or not, it isn't fabricated."

Actually yes you could consider it a fabrication based on the amount of editing.

There are a couple of real life examples... One comes to mind where a government employee was fired because of an edited quote that was pushed out on the net and her boss jumped to the wrong conclusion.

After the entire quote was released to the media, even the President wanted to help her get her job back.

Ian Michael Gumby
Coat

There is no US charges...

Look,

Assange is a fscking twit.

The followers of St. Julian of ASSange don't seem to get it that Julian hasn't done any whistle blowing and the only thing he's done is promote Julian.

I've said this a couple of times already.

I'm all for real whistle blowing.

* Oracle over charging the US government millions on licensing.

* Chromium-6 in our water system(s).

* Unhealthy handling practices in our food supply chain.

(Chicken and Beef producers)

* Chicago Metra trains air pollution in and around Union Station

* Blago and other IL politicos being crooked. (So what else is new?)

Stuff like that.

Abu Ghraib and other military whistle blowers too.

But that's not Wikileaks nor Assange.

As to Wikileaks?

Look at what his 'whistle blowers' are facing. Jail Time.

IMHO Openleaks has a better model. They're just the drop box who then lets the real professionals vet the material and publish what they find to be true.

And that's another thing. Assange doesn't care who he hurts along the way. Don't take my word for it. Just check out excerpts from the books written about him.

So its midnight my time... lets see what the UK Judge has to say.

Mine's the coat with betting slips that say Julian is going to go buh-buy since day 1. ;-)

Apple brands Intel 'Light Peak' as Thunderbolt

Ian Michael Gumby
WTF?

Pin B in to Slot A?

Dude, seriously... if your mum was to even try to push a power connector into that slot, I'd say she probably has the IQ of a chimp. Or actually lower.

The shapes of the connectors don't match, so how can their be confusion?

Oracle: 'Eight Android files are decompiled Oracle code'

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

@ Version 1.0

You have this concept... your code is a 'work for hire'. That is, depending on the wording of the contract, your client owns the code. Depending on the client's contract, you may have to surrender your notes or any physical copy of the code at the end of the project.

But what the client doesn't own is what's in your head.

Yes, you're right, you could always go back and write a better version of the code, but you will have to do it from memory. Going back to your previous client's notes or copies of the code for 'hints'... thats a no no. And yes, if you get caught 'reusing' your code for a different client... you'll get sued. (I've seen it happen.)

But unless you have perfect recall, you won't recreate the same functional code using the same variables, like you would see if someone decompiled your code to reverse engineer it. This is why Oracle kind of has Google on this one.

Google's other tactic is trying to get the patents overturned. And that's a different story...

Ian Michael Gumby
Boffin

ahh. No.

G built Dalvik because they didn't want to pay Oracle for licensing Java ME.

Just follow the money and your questions will be answered.

Ian Michael Gumby

If it looks like a duck... smells like a duck... squacks like a duck...

must be a duck.

The point is that if you're looking at code that appears to be 'de-compiled' the odds are it is.

Apply Occam's Razor.

Coincidences like that aren't likely to occur by accident....

The other area in discovery is to see what the svn servers contain.

Soon Oracle will own Google. Either that, or we'll start to see Google charging $$$ for using its ad service.