do you have the wikileaks "insurance" file

[VirusType2]

and you think Assange is bigger/worse than jesus/Hitler

Is this a question? I can't tell since there isn't any punctuation. Are you even talking to me?

This is the part where you assume I've been out to get Assange all along again?

I have been close to indifferent, for the most part. But this strikes a nerve for me.

I guess you haven't come up with anything on how to cover for him for publishing infrastructure targets? How does that fit transparency? That's what I thought, dickriders.

 

[Krynn72]

Not at all. In a few years, we'll have Exascale computers, 1000 times faster than Petascale supercomputers, (which I still strongly believe are perfectly capable of decrypting AES 256 bit encryption. This is just standard everyday office encryption for the US government).

Dude, its not going to be cracked until well beyond the point when nobody gives a shit anymore.

AES permits the use of 256-bit keys. Breaking a symmetric 256-bit key by brute force requires 2128 times more computational power than a 128-bit key. A device that could check a billion billion (1018) AES keys per second would in theory require about 3×1051 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_force_attack

Now that we know that the distributed attacks will only shave off a few bits, what about Moore’s law which historically meant that computers roughly doubled in speed every 18 months? That means in 48 years we can shave another 32 bits off the encryption armor which means 5 trillion future computers might get lucky in 5 years to find the key for RC5 128-bit encryption. But with 256-bit AES encryption, that moves the date out another 192 years before computers are predicted to be fast enough to even attempt a massively distributed attack.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/is-encryption-really-crackable/204

 

[No Limit]

What? Why would Wikileaks spread this kind of information?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/12/201012681418198508.html
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...fai=CofAXjib9TJzHPJ7SyQT7ycCdAwAAAKoEBU_Q34pH

Why would they invent false rape charges against him in order to smear him? You don't think he should fight back?

As far as the AES encryption goes. Unless you have some way other than brute force to hack that file I don't see how you think that this can be done. If they put some of the most expensive super computers they have to do this it would take decades and would cost probably billions of dollars. This for a file that might just be a spoof on the part of wikileaks.

It's not crackable, unless the key they used was Assange's first pet's name.

It's just a combination of all of our previous disagreements. Nothing really anything specific here. Assanage is probably going to get put away on nothing really concrete because he pissed off all the wrong people. It's like if you piss off the mob you'll prolly end up dead. The only thing this guy has going for him right now is the fact that he's in the spot light. If he fades away even just a little... we'll probably just see a blip on how he was "killed by a fanatic" or imprisoned on some near unrelated charge.

You got any specifics? The other day you were saying that Assange has that evil look whenever you see him. Yet you couldn't name any specifics. Now you are sitting here comparing me to a 9/11 truther and again you fail to provide me with any specifics. I'm guessing you were probably joking, but I honestly don't find it all that funny.

 

[VirusType2]

Dude, its not going to be cracked until well beyond the point when nobody gives a shit anymore.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_force_attack


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/ou/is-encryption-really-crackable/204

I've been considering this for a while but never really came across a definitive answer. Thanks. But I dispute the accuracy of some of that.

A device that could check a billion billion (1018) AES keys per second would in theory require about 3×1051 years to exhaust the 256-bit key space.

I don't believe this has anything to do with what we are looking for. It depends on the length and difficulty of the password. We don't need to "exhaust the key space" (I think that means guess every single possible combination that could be enclosed in a 256 bit key), that's misleading to even mention that.

Let's assume there are 101 keys on Assange's keyboard. If his password was 50 characters long, then we'd have a real problem. But if it's 1 character, it would be solved in 101 tries or less (instantly)*.

*(assuming the supercomputer starts brute force attack with 1 digit, and attempts every character on the keyboard).

A 2nd supercomputer can attempt, for example, every word that Assange has ever written down anywhere, combined with alphanumerical digits.

A TWO PRONGED ATTACK

EDIT:

Why would they invent false rape charges against him in order to smear him? You don't think he should fight back?

So he released it? He released the key?

I confuse. I was reading something else.

I was saying, if he is trying to help the world be a better place, why release something like that, it doesn't even make any sense to me. If he released all the documents because he has been arrested, then it makes more sense!

 

[CptStern]

Is this a question? I can't tell since there isn't any punctuation. Are you even talking to me?

fixed:

and you think Assange is bigger/worse than jesus/Hitler!

This is the part where you assume I've been out to get Assange all along again?

I have been close to indifferent, for the most part. But this strikes a nerve for me.

you have a funny definition of indifferent

I guess you haven't come up with anything on how to cover for him for publishing infrastructure targets? How does that fit transparency? That's what I thought, dickriders.

yes because it's all black and white in your little world and for some reason I should explain away whatever he releases becauase hey I'm on his side. the side that sides with treasonous traitors and dickriders. Benedict Arnold, Pamela Anderson, Hl2.net liberals and Richard Simmons. what do these people have in common?


they're all dickriders

 

[No Limit]

I've been considering this for a while but never really came across a definitive answer. Thanks. But I dispute the accuracy of some of that.

I don't believe this has anything to do with what we are looking for. It depends on the length and difficulty of the password. We don't need to "exhaust the key space" (I think that means guess every single possible combination that could be enclosed in a 256 bit key), that's misleading to even mention that.

Let's assume there are 101 keys on Assange's keyboard. If his password was 50 characters long, then we'd have a real problem. But if it's 1 character, it would be solved in 101 tries or less (instantly)*.

*(assuming the supercomputer starts brute force attack with 1 digit, and attempts every character on the keyboard).

We can probably safely assume that Assange isn't an idiot, he has a background in computer science. So if the key isn't a large number of random characters I would be shocked. So going back the probability that this file can be cracked is almost none. You can keep saying "but, but, but...". I believe they knew what they were doing, considering the file has been out since June and not cracked yet I think my assumption is correct.

A 2nd supercomputer can attempt, for example, every word that Assange has ever written down anywhere, combined with alphanumerical digits.

Yup, and then you just need a huge cluser of additional computers to use as memory for the keys you already tried. How many keys do you think a super computer can do in a second?

So he released it? He released the key?

I confuse. I was reading something else.

He hasn't released it yet. But he has said if he is arrested he will.

 

[VirusType2]

yes because it's all black and white in your little world

In mine? You want to pin "I have it out for Assange" every time his name comes up. You defend him religiously, even when he does something questionable. So really, it's all black in white in your world. And I'm the evil white one, right?

and for some reason I should explain away whatever he releases becauase hey I'm on his side.

You just defended him when it was unreasonable to do so. Your faith in his religion is complete.

I'm being objective and you attacked what I said (as usual). "Hitler", etc.

Up until now, I've only been portrayed by you (and your friends) as saying something bad about him. That's the snookiism part about it. I've never actually done so.

I'm objective about everything (yes I have things I don't like and distrust but I am still objective). I question things. I question you. You believed he is innocent without knowing a damn thing, for example. I was objective and only looked at the facts and tried to figure out what case they had against him. Just for analytical purposes.

Then you even lied to cover for him.

How can I argue with people putting words in my mouth and doing character assassinations? I'm objective. In fact, objective is a good word, because I object to a list of vulnerable infrastructure released to the world (including our enemies that will stop at nothing to kill us). It's stranger than fiction.

 

[No Limit]

Virus, the fact that you expect us to believe you are indifferent is ****ing laughable. In the rape charges thread we had on this you kept making every possible excuse for the women as you could. It was the same "but, but, but..." game you are playing here.

Now he releases a file that is totally uncrackable unless he has the key released and you keep insisting that it can infact be cracked. No. It can't.

What in these releases do you not object to?

 

[CptStern]

In mine? You want to pin "I have it out for Assange" every time his name comes up. You defend him religiously, even when he does something questionable. So really, it's all black in white in your world. And I'm the evil white one, right?

man wtf are you talking about? evil white one? I thought you were brown. anyways that was in response to this statement:

I guess you haven't come up with anything on how to cover for him for publishing infrastructure targets?

You just defended him when it was unreasonable to do so. Your faith in his religion is complete.

ok you wanna post were I "defended him when it was unreasonable to do so" ...the condom thing?

I'm being objective and you attacked what I said (as usual). "Hitler", etc.

I was being sarcastic. funny how you didnt mention Jesus, no one ever mentions jesus it's alwasy freakin' hitler never JESUS! GOD FORBID THEY MENTION JESUS! BUUUUT HITLER! NO QUALMS ABOUT MENTIONING HITLER! HE"S BOUND TO BE MENTIONED CUZ ..HE'S ..HE'S WORSE THAN HITLER!!!! ........you just cant tell when I'm having fun with you

Up until now, I've only been portrayed by you (and your friends) as saying something bad about him. That's the snookiism part about it. I've never actually done so.

lol my friends

lol snookiism. I dont watch that shitty show so have no idea what the context is

I'm objective about everything (yes I have things I don't like and distrust but I am still objective).

ya like having government secrets secret instead of out in open even if they undermine our freedoms, we just dont want to open that can of worms

I question things. I question you. You believed he is innocent without knowing a damn thing, for example.

no, you think I think he is innocent even though I have never stated he's innocent of what the hell are you saying he's not innocent of?

I was objective and only looked at the facts and tried to figure out what case they had against him. Just for analytical purposes.

who are you trying to kid? no one but the lawyers have the facts. you're far more critical of him and tyend to believe any charges laid at his feet because you disagree with what he stands for. you're not being objective. an objective person would remain neutral, you're not neutral



for what it's worth you should probably read this article:

http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-long-haul/

Then you even lied to cover for him.

ok you're starting to sound like a lunatic. I lied to cover for him?

How can I argue with people putting words in my mouth and doing character assassinations?

like calling you a liar and a dickrider!!! those fiends!!!

I'm objective.

starting to sound like you're trying to convince yourself

In fact, objective is a good word, because I object to a list of vulnerable infrastructure released to the world (including our enemies that will stop at nothing to kill us). It's stranger than fiction.

ya what was it you objected to the other day because you were just as vehement that he was guilty of something before the infrastructure release

 

[VirusType2]

Virus, the fact that you expect us to believe you are indifferent is ****ing laughable. In the rape charges thread we had on this you kept making every possible excuse for the women as you could. It was the same "but, but, but..." game you are playing here.

Now he releases a file that is totally uncrackable unless he has the key released and you keep insisting that it can infact be cracked. No. It can't.

You're lying as usual.


I thought AES 256 is weak. I use 2 times that much encryption just for stupid mp3s. That's what I learned from the TrueCrypt encryption instructions/help guide. "It's what the US uses for the desk jobs, it is not suitable military grade encryption." I thought that's what they said.

Anyway, I've already proved that it is potentially weak as hell. The only thing the 256 bit "as many atoms in the world" hyperbole means: if you were to try every single password possible and guess it on the last try.

This AES discussion is completely ****ing irrelevant to the topic, It's just interesting to me. I'm learning. So discussing it means I'm biased, to you. See? You are irrationally defensive of him for no reason!

You're more critical of him

I'm more critical than you! That doesn't mean I want him to be executed and shit. I have yet to see any benefit to his work. That's all.

The helicopter shooting. That was a positive. After that, what? Just release every ****ing document with no discretion? AT WHAT COST

I mean come on, you can't defend a list of vulnerable civilian water supplies, etc., or even military ones for that matter.

 

[CptStern]

You're lying as usual.

 

[No Limit]

You're lying as usual.


I thought AES 256 is weak. I use 2 times that much encryption just for stupid mp3s. That's what I learned from the TrueCrypt encryption instructions/help guide. "It's what the US uses for the desk jobs, it is not suitable military grade encryption." I thought that's what they said.

You thought wrong. What form of encryption do you use for MP3 files?

Anyway, I've already proved that it is potentially weak as hell. I can be brute force cracked in under a second. The only thing the 256 bit "as many atoms in the world" hyperbole protects from is defeating the encryption itself.

You haven't proved shit. You are again making shit up as you go along to try and discredit Assange. Yeah, the guy was able to start a computer network that used strong encryption to protect it's sources, he has a background in computer science, but he doesn't know how to properly set up a encryption key. Which is why eventhough this file has been available to anyone on the internet since June it has not yet been cracked.

But yeah, I'm sure he used a 1 character, or hell a 10 character key as you said could be the case above. Because the guy is clearly a ****ing retard in your belief, if only he could be as smart as you are.

This AES discussion is completely ****ing irrelevant to the topic, It's just interesting to me. I'm learning. So discussing it means I'm biased, to you. See? You are irrationally defensive of him for no reason!

You are the one that brought up the AES discussion to try and show everyone how talented you were when it came to encryption. Except instead of using facts you spewed a bunch of unfounded bullshit.

The helicopter shooting. That was a positive. After that, what? Just release every ****ing document with no discretion? AT WHAT COST

I mean come on, you can't defend a list of vulnerable civilian water supplies, etc., or even military ones for that matter.

So aside from the helicopter video you don't think any thing else they released should have been leaked?

 

[VirusType2]

That's cool as shit looking.

who are you trying to kid? no one but the lawyers have the facts. you're far more critical of him and tend to believe any charges laid at his feet because you disagree with what he stands for. you're not being objective. an objective person would remain neutral, you're n

Maybe it doesn't seem like it, but I'm not so far from neutral as to be pigeon holed. The truth is, I'm afraid of what the documents might contain, and I'm afraid what impact that has on foreign relations!

I didn... JESUS CHRIST all I did was try to figure out how A CONDOM BREAKING can be considered RAPE and I got ****ing mugged for it and you know it.


I've admitted that I am somewhat skeptical of this guy's intentions, and I have already stated that I believe confidential documents and classified documents should NOT be made public unless the government makes them public. I believe the government has just as much right to privacy as any person. And that opinion isn't likely to change.

If it's a tragic scandal, then yes I want people accountable for it. But if it's drinking water, and other vulnerable infrastructure being released I don't see the good intention in that. That's ****ed up, in my opinion, and I can't see it any other way. Whether that information will be helpful to enemies or not is irrelevant. (I can't see how it wouldn't be though)

The helicopter shooting was a good thing to expose. By exposing it, maybe it won't happen again.

tyend to believe any charges laid at his feet

I don't tend to believe it. I even stated it's sounds like bullishit,

I had heard this story previously, but haven't followed up on it, because it sounds like something made up. If you want my opinion, maybe there is some super spy shit between the US and Sweden to tie this guy up. Maybe the women want attention or maybe he just ****ing raped her.

Maybe it is some US 'spy shit', but Assange himself denied that he thought it was US related, although he didn't rule out the possibility, and neither did I.

Because the guy is clearly a ****ing retard in your belief, if only he could be as smart as you are.

I told you, I thought it was much weaker than it apparently is. OK? Krynn posted some knowledge.

Also, I edited that post and fixed some errors.

You are the one that brought up the AES discussion to try and show everyone how talented you were when it came to encryption.

I use 256 bit AES, so I thought I was one of the few that actually knew.

Like I said, I use stronger encryption myself since I was under the impression it wasn't as strong as it apparently is. I don't want to get sued for a million dollars for an MP3, just in case I have something on my HDD with a rights dispute.

Stop trying to be at odds with me all the time. Some time, read through my posts in the thread and explain to me how you get to the conclusion that I am arguing about AES because I am "trying to discredit" Assange. If anything you are trying to discredit me right now by saying that. Seriously, start at page 1 and see the topic transgress. Clearly, I was only slightly worried that it could be cracked. Then I was like who cares about this topic - let's talk about encryption, something I've often worried about. I was arguing that I WAS RIGHT... I like being right. But I conceded the point that it is strong enough.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Holy shit, this thread. Did someone say something about a smear campaign? I mean goddamn, guys.

I like how not a single person has addressed Virus' main concern, instead it's just accusations and sarcasm. Real nice. I've generally seen the leaks as a good thing up until now, but I'd like to know how releasing information on confidential locations that could compromise security is helpful, too. And please keep the bullshit to a minimum. I mean, maybe instead of saying smarmy shit like "WELL EVERYTHING'S JUST BLACK AND WHITE TO YOU," you could actually admit that this move might be questionable like a ****ing adult. Or maybe instead of redirecting the argument to the notion that the military/government is just being paranoid and seeing every perceived threat as a "risk to national security," you could allow yourself to see that perhaps some of their concerns are valid (though the majority may not be).

Just sayin': chill, bros.

 

[MorganFreeman911]

Downloaded.

 

[dfc05]

I just briefly looked through the list of Canadian sites. Frankly, most of them seem pretty obvious, like "A dam. This is important because it provides power." So it probably won't benefit terrorists much because presumably if they had half a brain they could figure that out themselves.

But does it help anyone else?
WikiLeaks - Not really, aside from the "Look we have information and we can wave it around!" aspect, which is a moot point by now.
The public - No, it's not exactly eye-opening or conspiratorial. Our government made a list of important infrastructure we should protect. Umm, duh.

Ultimately, why even bother releasing this. It's dumb.

*caveat -- I haven't bothered looking at the list of US sites, so maybe those are actually more important.

 

[Qonfused]

A+, Stern... A+

 

[Unfocused]

So apparently he turned himself in. To have a chat with the authorities or something.

 

[15357]

I'm gonna agree with Virus, because he seems to have put a lot of thought into my original comment, and is fighting with Stern, Public Enemy #1.

 

[No Limit]

Releasing a target list for terrorists probably isn't a very good idea. But you don't think the bigger problem is the fact that these places exist without the security required? Apparently there is only one antivenom production facility in the entire world. Our government knew this and didn't do anything about it? I think that's much worse.

The other things on the list were things like the panama canal. You think the terrorists aren't aware of the panama canal?

 

[Solaris]

Come on Virustype2, you've been butchering this thread with your Glen Beck styled "I'm just asking questions!!!". Time to pick a side.

 

[CptStern]

Assange Arrested

The founder of the whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has told a court he will fight extradition to Sweden.

Bail was refused and the Australian, who denies sexually assaulted two women in Sweden, was remanded in custody pending a full hearing next week.

Mr Assange told a judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court he would contest extradition.

A Wikileaks spokesman said Mr Assange's arrest was an attack on media freedom.

Kristinn Hrafnsson said it would not stop release of more secret files and told Reuters on Tuesday: "Wikileaks is operational. We are continuing on the same track as laid out before.

"Any development with regards to Julian Assange will not change the plans we have with regards to the releases today and in the coming days."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

 

[No Limit]

Looks like these are the charges:

* Unlawful coercion - used his body weight to hold down Miss A in a sexual manner.
* Sexual molestation - had unprotected sex with Miss A when she had insisted on him using a condom
* Deliberate molestation - molested Miss A "in a way designed to violate her sexual integrity".
* Had unprotected sex with Miss W while she was asleep

What a bunch of bullshit. How do you molest someone you just had consensual sex with?

What actual evidance do they have that the second women was asleep since she too agreed to consensual sex beforehand? And why in the world would a judge deny bail in this case? He isn't even charged with anything, they just want him for questioning.

You could hate the guy all you want, but if you think these charges are in anyway valid you need to get your head out of your ass.

 

[Remus]

It's the US government, valid charges are not required.

 

[VirusType2]

Come on Virustype2, you've been butchering this thread with your Glen Beck styled "I'm just asking questions!!!". Time to pick a side.

Pick a side? Don't worry about me. Ask questions, sheeple. I could have made a new thread about the list of targets leak, and about encryption, I guess. But what's done is done.

It's the US government, valid charges are not required.

It's not the US government who arraigned him.

The founder of whistle-blowing website Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has been refused bail by a court in London but vowed to fight extradition to Sweden.

 

[No Limit]

Pick a side? Don't worry about me. Ask questions, sheeple. I could have made a new thread about the list of targets leak, and about encryption, I guess. But what's done is done.

Just like the birthers "ask questions"? Or how the people that think Bush did 9/11 are just asking questions?

 

[Tagaziel]

Hmm, the entire "code-locked file" reminds me vaguely of Uplink. And since Uplink developers are all British and Assange was arrested in Britain...

Oh my M'Atra, it just hit me.

INTROVERSION.

They're behind it all!

 

[MorganFreeman911]

:O A CONSPIRACY?!

 

[VirusType2]

Just like the birthers "ask questions"? Or how the people that think Bush did 9/11 are just asking questions?

Birthers? I see the "smear campaign" you have the nerve to accuse me of is... actually all you know how to do?

Question everything you don't believe. Ultimately, you have to decide who and what you believe, using the best of your knowledge and the facts available. When faced with overwhelming evidence, and you refuse to believe it, then you are just a conspiracy theorist or a nut-job.


Did we land on the moon? Is Barrack Obama a US citizen? To me, these are obviously "yes", but if you are in doubt, seek the truth. Don't be a sheep.


I've already done the research when arguing with a friend, so I just happen to have a canned response to the question, "Is Barrack Obama a US citizen?"

Yes, he was born in the US. It's all here if you read through to the bottom.

Factcheck.org is a neutral and respected organization:
http://www.factcheck.org/about/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factcheck.org


Let's try and stay on topic this time, you pompous ****.

 

[CptStern]

Birthers? I see the "smear campaign" you have the nerve to accuse me of is... actually all you know how to do?

Question everything you don't believe. Ultimately, you have to decide who and what you believe, using the best of your knowledge and the facts available. When faced with overwhelming evidence, and you refuse to believe it, then you are just a conspiracy theorist or a nut-job.


Did we land on the moon? Is Barrack Obama a US citizen? To me, these are obviously "yes", but if you are in doubt, seek the truth. Don't be a sheep.


I've already done the research when arguing with a friend, so I just happen to have a canned response to the question, "Is Barrack Obama a US citizen?"

Yes, he was born in the US. It's all here if you read through to the bottom.

Factcheck.org is a neutral and respected organization:
http://www.factcheck.org/about/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factcheck.org


Let's try and stay on topic this time, you pompous ****.

you're ridiculous and I'm convinced you dont understand half of what you read

Birthers? I see the "smear campaign"

how is that a smear campaign? ffs he's saying the birthers were only asking questions in the same vein as the german soldiers were only following nazi orders

jesus **** man stop thinking everything is a "smear campaign" or that we're all a bunch of liars. it's infantile

 

[No Limit]

Yes, those are obvious "yes" answers. You know what else is a obvious "yes" answer? That you shouldn't be charged with rape because a condom broke. That the charges agaisnt Assange are fraudulent. That you can probably trust Assange to encrypt a file properly. And that some information in this world that our government is keeping secret should be made available to everyone.

Yet at one point all those questions weren't so obvious to you, were they? You had to "ask questions" in the terms of "but what if...".

On edit, I should add: I don't want to make it seem like I have a personal issue with you, I don't. But sometimes you really do bug the shit out of me. Just in this thread you said that Krynn gave you some additional information that changed your mind. Long after he gave you that infromation you were still grapsing at straws with this "but what if" game. If you had simply said "oh ok, from what I read I thought it was different, thanks for posting that" or something along those lines I would totally respect that. But that's not what you did. What you said was "well okay, that is technically true but...he only has 101 keys on his keyboard...but...his password might just be 1 character...but it doesn't really take as many tries as there are atoms in the universe (which literally nobody here suggested)...but...but...but. I also didn't appreciate you calling me a liar for the second time in a matter of days.

 

[VirusType2]

you're ridiculous and I'm convinced you dont understand half of what you read

How is that a smear campaign? ffs he's saying the birthers were only asking questions in the same vein as the german soldiers were only following nazi orders

jesus **** man stop thinking everything is a "smear campaign" or that we're all a bunch of liars. it's infantile

You're right, I don't understand half of what you write. A little punctuation and coherency might help. Do I have to explain everything to you? Jesus Christ, I dropped out of school and you make me look brilliant.

And that's the second time you brought Nazi Germany into this discussion. Pathetic.

 

[CptStern]

You're right, I don't understand half of what you write.

ya too bad you were replying to No Limit. I guess he also has a problem with punctuation

A little punctuation and coherency might help. Do I have to explain everything to you?

no but it seem,s everything has to explained to you because it all looks like a "smear campaign" to you. who are we smearing your reputation to? other hl2.net members who most likely dont give a shit?

Jesus Christ, I dropped out of school and you make me look brilliant.

that certainly explains the not understanding part

And that's the second time you brought Nazi Germany into this discussion. Pathetic.

lol ..there's that not understanding part again

 

[VirusType2]

Yes, those are obvious "yes" answers. You know what else is a obvious "yes" answer? That you shouldn't be charged with rape because a condom broke.

Is that what he was really charged with? Do you have any credible source of information regarding said broken condom? You took that broken condom idea and ran with it in the last thread, opening up the topic off with it.

And why in the world would a judge deny bail in this case?

A judge at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court refused bail because of the risk of the 39-year-old fleeing.

Judge Riddle said he believed Mr Assange might flee and he also feared he "may be at risk from unstable persons".

I feel like I'm spoon feeding you. The answer to your question was in the post you responded to. Here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11937110

He isn't even charged with anything, they just want him for questioning.

So is he charged with it or not? You can't get your story straight.

The Matter concerning Julian Assange has been detained in his absence charged with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion. Mr Assange had appealed the detention decision issued by Svea Court of Appeal.

Today the Supreme Court has taken a decision not to grant Julian Assange leave to appeal. If the Supreme Court is to hear an appeal, leave to appeal must first be granted. Leave to appeal is only granted if the case is assessed as being very important to the application of the law or if other extraordinary reasons apply.

The arrest warrant is based on the detention decision that has now been examined by all three legal instances. The additional information requested by the British Police concerns the penalties for the other crimes, in addition to rape, that Julian Assange was arrested for. This information will be supplied immediately. The previous arrest warrant stands.

http://www.aklagare.se/In-English/

Yet at one point all those questions weren't so obvious to you, were they? You had to "ask questions" in the terms of "but what if...".

You are a fanatical supporter of him, so you are more assuming than I.

That the charges agaisnt Assange are fraudulent.

Case in point.

Yes, of course I find them coincidental, seeing that he is disliked by several governments. I'm not stupid. However if you consider that: when you make enemies with nation states, you bring yourself under the magnifying glass and open yourself up to intense scrutiny.

I'm not convinced he is guilty of anything; I'm not convinced he is innocent either. How could you be, when we don't have a convincing argument either way yet?

And that some information in this world that our government is keeping secret should be made available to everyone.

I agree to some extent, and never argued otherwise. When it exposes something criminal in our government. With the right to free press, that's really the job of our news media, but we all know that American news media hasn't been doing their job.


If Assange really has the interests of human rights in his mind, I would expect him to release exclusively information that pertains to such.

You consider him a hero because he released every single document available to him, to the world, without regard?

And defending the indefensible: how does releasing a list of the worlds critical** and lightly or completely unguarded infrastructure help human rights? How is that "blowing the whistle"?

**critical for functioning, or functioning in a crisis - for example, a factory that manufactures 'medical treatment for nuclear radiation exposure' is just one example included in the leak.

At what cost is complete transparency?

Julian,

I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation. None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states. An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.

In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.

My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.

So, it can be helpful, but it can also be harmful. It's obvious.

If you had simply said "oh ok, from what I read I thought it was different, thanks for posting that" or something along those lines I would totally respect that.

I've already explained myself. I understand that information as "better than my own", yet I dispute the accuracy of some of it. I learned otherwise and wanted to prove that I was right. It's as simple as that. Never the less, I will need to do further research from other credible sources, some other time.

ya too bad you were replying to No Limit. I guess he also has a problem with punctuation

I quoted you and responded to what you said. That's quite a grasp to try to pull No Limit with you. Look at how No Limit writes, and compare it to yours.

no but it seem,s everything has to explained to you because it all looks like a "smear campaign" to you.

The other way around. I constantly am having to explain myself, over and over.

The problem is that the three of you have been completely and intentionally misinterpreting many things I say. The first or second time, I might rephrase it. But there's only so many times you can completely miss the point before I assume it's either intentional, or you are a moron.

"no but it seem,s "

It's like arguing with a retard. Just forget it.

Now everything I have to say is in this post, if you bother to read. I have work to do, guys. Discuss the topic at hand and stop giving me shit, before I get nasty.

 

[No Limit]

Too many quotes, I'll see if I feel like responding tomorrow.

 

[Bad^Hat]

Simple question: since when has skepticism been seen as a bad thing on hl2.net?

 

[Unfocused]

Too many quotes, I'll see if I feel like responding tomorrow.

I'm getting tired just by looking at them and scroll past. Unfortunately there's been a lot of scrolling past in this thread. Give it a rest already, fellas.

 

[No Limit]

Simple question: since when has skepticism been seen as a bad thing on hl2.net?

Skepticism toward what? Is skepticism toward the earth being flat a good thing?

 

[Krynn72]

Is skepticism toward the earth being flat a good thing?

uhh... yes?

 

[No Limit]

uhh... yes?

Uhh...no?

What is the basis of your skepticism? Is thousands of years of verifiable science and actual photographs that you are free to look up not good enough for you?