What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion.
"What more can they say that will change what people will think; sure they can clarify details and what led up to events (what they would do as a witness at trial) but none of that really matters to the public. Their "side of the story" is: we were sexually assaulted by Julian Assange. minor details are of little consequence in public opinion."
Your cynicism here is way overboard and borders on intellectual laziness. There have been many instances in the past of details coming out and changing public perception of a sexual assault case. The supposed Duke rape case a few years back is a prime example. Initially everybody and their dog just "knew" those boys were guilty of raping that stripper. But as details began to trickle out and she changed her story multiple times, the whole thing ultimately culminated in the disbarment of the prosecuting attorney Mike Nifong and subsequent jail time (albeit 1 day). Obviously that was a judicial decision but to pretend that the "minor details" didn't adjust public perception is absolutely untrue.
This is so ridiculously absurd and easily rebutted by there just being one account of him not being a "scumbag" that I wonder why you would even bother typing such a transparent ad hominem in the first place.
"You'll find that these facts are now irrelevant because they are temporarily sheltering Assange!"
I find these facts irrelevant (to the issue at hand) because these facts are irrelevant. There isn't a country under the sun that hasn't done something somebody would find objectionable. What would you have Assange do? Shop your definition of more "enlightened" soveriegnties until one of them decides to grant him asylum? What would you do in his shoes?
That's the entire issue with this. If Assange was getting his due process, the interview would have taken place via video conference as has been enshrined in Swedish judicial practice via this (https://lagen.nu/dom/nja/2007s337) ruling from the Swedish supreme court. The man probably knows more about his situation than you do and if he thinks going to Sweden is a bad idea for him then, unless you can come up with a really good reason why not, his opinion on the matter carries a lot more weight than yours.
"This story continues to be more and more about Assange and less and less about principles. Assange goes out and makes great speeches about freedom and openness and all of that, but these ideas don't require him to carry them around. He's a little speck of dust somewhere."
If that was you camped out in the Ecuadorean embassy with cops standing out in the lobby you wouldn't be saying that. I'll also note that if you were in Bradley Manning's shoes sitting in a supermax somewhere with 23 hours a day to do nothing but stare at the walls you wouldn't be saying that either. Principles don't mean shit without people standing behind them and putting everything on the line. And contrary to your naive view, less dedicated people will rally around a "comrade" in need long before they will even begin to give credence to anybody sitting behind their computer lecturing them on principles coughDanielBMarkhamcough.
"and how he's depriving the women accusing him of seeing due process"
By definition, only the arbiters of the legal system itself, i.e., the government can deprive someone of due process. The fact that Sweden and the UK are making a sincere effort to extradite Assange is, at this point, all the "due process" the women are entitled to. Assange's actions have nothing to do with it.
"He said "Wikileaks stands under threat" - that's not true at all, at least not in the way he thinks. Wikileaks is not Assange. Assange is under threat. He is conflating the two."
Buying the argument that the charges are politically motivated, the fact that they are attacking Assange due to his association with wikileaks mean that wikileaks is under attack. If this sets a precedent that high profile persons leading the push for the release of extremely sensitive information can be rubbed out so easily puts a chilling effect on whoever steps into Assange's place. And that's assuming anyone really can just step up as Assange didn't just start with wikileaks. He's been involved in uncovering suppressed information since he was a kid growing up in Australia and even co-wrote the Rubberhose deniable encryption program.
It's telling that someone like Assange who is undergoing such a massive level of scrutiny that these rape allegations are the best they can do. The guy must practically be a saint.
Look, I generally buy into the theory that the simplest explanation is probably the most likely.
I am more than happy to concede that maybe these charges are politically motivated, and they are complete and utter trash: if that's the case, then clearly you could argue Assange is totally right to seek asylum. Good on him.
However, there is a chance these charges are genuine. I really hope nobody would try to argue otherwise. I don't pretend to know how large or small this chance is. As long as there is a chance I think Assange's actions do nobody any favors whatsoever.
That "terrible track pointy thing" keeps your fingers on the home row. It might not be for you but I for one like not having to constantly move from keyboard to trackpad while using my computer.
How many different ways do you need to be told what to use to develop Android apps on Android? AIDE and TerminalIDE can be used to develop Android apps from start to finish including signing and the whole ball of wax. You can even open up your Eclipse projects and just pick up from where you left off.
I assumed driving meant moving on land with a (most likely) combustion-powered platform that was connected to the land with wheels.
No wheels and no ground contact sounds like hovering to me.
I have an Android device so can you point me to a single non-trivial HTML5 app in Google Play that is comparable in performance and functionality to a typical well implemented native app?
Then what's the point of having them witness in a trial? They've already gave "their side of the story" right? Wrong.