Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Violates Human Rights in China
gexen writes "According to this article in The Guardian, 'Amnesty believes Microsoft is in violation of a new United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'. The article basically states that 'Gate's firm supplied technology used to trap Chinese dissidents'."
It's not Microsoft doing the violating, it's the people using their software.
Is open source software never used for anything bad?
Who is Gate?
Oh, I get it. You just don't know how to use an apostrophe. Gotcha.
This isn't really a surprise... this basically says that Microsoft is guilty because people use their software to violate human rights..
How MS is responsible for that, I can't figure out...
Prosecute the criminals, not those who make a product and have that product abused by criminals..
Do corporations have to follow international law? IANAL, but I thought international law as it is applies to governments; I'm not sure how it applies to corporations as such. This is actually an interesting issue; do Corporations have to follow international laws?
Companies like Nestle and Nike have been abusing human rights for years and nothing's happened.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
congratulations, you're part of the problem.
Of course, the article doesn't really pin down what control M$ is offering China that they didn't already have. No specifics to tell us where M$ stopped developing regular software and started aiding in HR violations.
Standing on the shoulders of giants.
It's hard to see how Microsoft can win. If they make software that can be used to censor internet access and sell it to China, then they're aiding in human rights violations. If they make it and don't sell it to China, then they get accused of discrimination. If their software can't censor internet access, then the majority of public schools and libraries can't use it.
They are against Nixonian engagement (trade with China), against embargos/sanctions (Cuba), and against military intervention to overthrow murderous dictators (Iraq).
Too bad Amnesty just likes to whine and doesn't have any solutions.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Do'nt you just hate it when people cant' use punctuation? It's not difficult or time consuming to learn the difference between " Gate's " and " Gates' ".
foo mane padme hum
If slash is read in china, then it's business is also in violation. ./ bias
more
I wouldnt blame microsoft unless it was found they were helping in a more direct way other than simply supplying software I do really dislike china though and i wish people would stop supporting them untill they clean up their act more..
Somehow, unless Microsoft developed this software under the auspices of Chinese command, I think it will be hard to prove Microsoft is helping China abuse human rights.
Unless China asked Microsoft to specifically come up with software so that they could hunt down the political opposition, I would say that Microsoft has done little wrong in this case. The unnamed software/hardware could be nothing more than MS Windows. So if the China decides to use Windows for bad things, what is Gates supposed to do about it?
This is right up there with blaming gun makers for deaths by guns. China is a bastion of human rights violations, and they chose to whine and moan about censorship by software? Why don't they worry about having a free economy where the government doesn't take your pension money and use it to fund government projects that are always failures before they worry about having the right to complain about those failures? Even having MS stop the software is a band-aid on the problem, which will solve nothing. Start with the big issues, you can worry about the little crap later.
This article is not from the Guardian (a UK daily paper), it's from it's sister paper the Observer, which is published weekly on Sundays.
The Observer has a record of stupid and ill-informed articles such as this. In one famous case it published the photo of the boss of Demon Internet, calling him a 'child pornographer', since child porn could be found in nntp feeds that Demon carried. Demon, like Microsoft, countered that it couldn't be held responsible for the actions of it's users.
HH
--
ANY chance to bash Micro$oft is welcomed.
I mean come on. Yes yes, evil monopoly out to make money and their products are being used by people to violate human rights. Well, given China's iffy record on copyright enforcement, are is anyone even sure MS got paid for those products?
MS may have a lot of problems, but I don't know how they are supposed to know a priori that certain software they sell is going to be used for human rights violations. And frankly, I think the software would be pirated even if they refused to sell it.
Sorry, but this is just picking on MS, what about Yahoo, Cisco et al? The US as a whole does a LOT of trade with China, does this also mean the US is violating human rights? Yes, certain companies are carrying out business with a bad regime, but that business is also helping to *change* the regime as it becomes more and more reliant on external business, so in the end isnt it good?
Also this headline violates the "too many pointless capitals in a sentance" rule, me thinks.
But you gotta consider the source. Amnesty International is a wacko organization. In a wierd way it reminds me of some way out Far Right Christian Fundamentalist political groups.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Amnesty say all kinds of things. And most of them are complete rubbish.
Sig is taking a break!
The Chinese could have easily done the same thing with UNIX-based or Linux-based systems.
Indeed, that's why I have concerns with Red Flag Linux and the locally-developed Dragon CPU chip; the Chinese government might have access to back doors via software and/or hardware that could make tracking of Internet surfers even easier than many people think. (wagging fingers)
IANAL, but the first thing that caught my eye was this line:
"...United Nations Human Rights code for multinationals which says businesses should 'seek to ensure..."
The UNHR code says businesses SHOULD seek to ensure their products will not abuse human rights. It doesn't say is they HAVE TO.
I also have to agree with Microsoft when they say that they shouldn't be held liable for the way people use their software. It is like suing a golf club manufacturer because china uses their specifi c model to beat dissidents.
---------------
and others who have contributed technical consultation and hardware to help the PRC oppress its people should be taken to the Hague, tried, and hanged for crimes against humanity.
Nobody can demiss the right to anybody to use free software, but Microsoft can control it sales. I guess it's two very different thinks to let a country develop a repressive politic or to sell them software that help them to do it - and make profit with it.
All you need to know is in the summary. The article doesn't tell what products or services of Microsoft are being used to abuse human rights and what changes in software or business practices MS should make to avoid being a tool of the oppressor.
Here's an article at the Amnesty International website (dated 28 Jan 04) if you want more. This is the only mention of MS on that link:
***************
Amnesty International remains concerned that in their pursuit of new and lucrative markets, foreign corporations may be indirectly contributing to human rights violations or at the very least failing to give adequate consideration to the human rights implications of their investments. In its first report on State Control of the Internet in China, Amnesty International cited several foreign companies (Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and Sun Microsystems), which had reportedly provided technology which has been used to censor and control the use of the Internet in China.(29) [...]
(29) Amnesty International: People's Republic of China: State Control of the Internet in China, ASA 17/007/2002, November 2002.
***********
Well now I'm really confused. That report is over a year old, and there doesn't seem to be anything newer than the link I gave on this topic. It sounds like the Guardian picked up the story because it mentioned Microsoft (but not Intel - hmmm, what is the software running on?), even though the source for the MS reference is old.
they're completely innocent of any wrongdoing here. Significant claims require significant evidence of dirty deeds , and I see none at all.
It's a pity that AA (who despite the badmouthing above) are a well-meaning organisation, have tried for the sensationalist argument here. A real pity - it'll reduce the effectiveness of their statements in the future.
The other point is that it's in the (spit!) Observer, not the Guardian. The observer is the best advert for not cutting down trees that I ever did see, and that includes the argument that trees make Oxygen for us to breath!
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
Is open source software exempt from this sort of criticism?
As a coder, one of the things that makes me feel a little squeamish about the GPL is giving up the right to tell people they can't use my software for certain purposes. I'd rather my code not be used by the military to blow people up or by the KKK to serve racist webpages.
I mean, did the conversation go like this or something?
China: Hello? We need OS package for five hundred government computer!
Microsoft: Alright, would you like Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional?
China: Whichever one better for trapping dissidents!
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
was shpping mainframes to Germany to track Jews during WWII, and Ford was a raving anti-semite.
Neither seems to have had any impression on the company over the long haul, unforutnately.
Actually, it's "Gates's."
c-hack.com |
There are times when the responsibilities of companies should be at a higher standard than is the legal standard. (i.e., Haliburton, GE, & others legally skirting the prohibitions of investing in Rogue states). One could say remember IBM? http://www.guerrillanews.com/ibm. But the article does not exactly say how MS actually knew its software was going to be used. Either way, one could go after ANY company for human rights violations - gun manufacturers, car battery makers, toy manufacturers. But the goal is laudable.
I wonder how specific the "Microsoft Human Rights Abuser 2003" software and the Cisco stuff mentioned really is. It doesn't really take esoteric tools to keyword search sites, monitor net usage, and filter them out with proxies and firewalls.
After all, companies have been doing this for years on their internal networks, is this just a scaled up version?
From the article:
Does this imply that a free OS, for example, must try to make sure their software can't be used to keep lists of people targeted for oppression?
From An earlier version of The Open Source Definition
Do you read that interesting ( sometimes informative), usually paranoid and crazy, stuff at Amnesty International? They most certainly do hold MS partially responcible for what the Chinese Government does with their software.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Evil tyrannical governments kill people.
This is totally stupid, remove that article.
If Microsoft is guilty, how about any other company that makes any software (I'm sure IBM's AIX, Sun's Solaris, even GNU/Linux is used by the communistst's spy agencies)
I'm surprised that such stupid article can get published here.
From Amnesty directly;
http://news.amnesty.org/mav/index/ENGASA170052004
"In its report, the organization also refers to several companies, including Cisco Systems, Microsoft, Nortel Networks, Websense and Sun Microsystems, which have reportedly provided technology which has been used to censor and control the use of the Internet in China. Amnesty International fears that by selling such technology the companies did not give adequate consideration to the human rights implications of their investments."
Things to note:
1. There are many other companies mentioned here too.
2. If they did not buy the technology from these companies they would have gotten it from OpenSource for free.
3. Its not about profits. Its about using technology for "evil", which OpenSource stuff can do.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Shouldn't it be Chinese Government and authorities that's to be blamed for violating human rights, before blaming world's richest man? Maybe MS should pull their business from the chinese region so that they won't be blamed. Market share won't fall thanks to piracy in China.
yes we're slashdot, yes we all hate microsoft, c'mon, give us some credit.
Unsubstantiated bullshit.
--- any post that takes longer than 20 seconds to write, isn't worth writing
...And in fact, it could be worse in terms of tracking Internet usage!
Does anyone here know about Red Flag Linux and the locally-developed Dragon RISC CPU? Given that both are sanctioned by the Chinese government, you have to really openly wonder does the Chinese government have access to back doors via software and/or hardware that will allow them to quickly track Internet usage with Red Flag Linux and the Dragon CPU-based hardware.
Amnesty International does have a very good web site. It is an excellent cross reference ( for a different point of view) when reading the news. But they are definitely some paranoid folks. Like many paranoids, they often have some great insights.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
What should the USA do? Ban the sale of any product which could be used to violate human rights? Or change the software so it opperates differently? I think this is a problem for the Chinese people, not USA companys.
If we were selling guns, then the solution would be to stop selling them. But software is not the same. The end user has to decide how to use the software. There are choices.
I also think soverign countries have a right to decide their own values. For change to occur, those who want change must vocalize it in the open, not wisper it in the dark. Then the rest of the country has a right to decide if they want change. Who are we to decide that for them, and treat them like a child? If the people of China want change bad enough, they will fight for it.
Or maybe we can just get Miscrosoft to tweak the EULA. ;)
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
This article was misleading.
The title made me skip a heartbeat and prepared me to grab a gun and start screaming, but all it actualy said was that Micro$oft $oftware was used to abuse rights in China.
Duh, someone wanted an article about nothing and he got it!
If Microsoft abuses human rights because its product abuse human rights, then what does H&K and other weapon producers do? What about Nike which pays 14 cents an hour for shoe manufacturing in Malaysia, without giving a shyte about enviromental damage.
Dont misunderstand me, im generally as anti-Micro$oft as it gets, but this is absurd.
I think the problem with all these large companies is their choice to hide behind the almighty buck. Capitalism reigns supreme. `Hey, what is it any of my business if you use my product to harm or kill people? Just as long as you pay up.'
I'm not implying that companies are responsible for finding out every last detail of how their product will be used when they sell it to a customer. However, I do think that turning a blind-eye to how their product will be used when it's fairly obvious that it will be employed in unethical ends is wrong.
Racist web pages are a issue of free speech, in effect preserving rights, not violating them.
Same story with the military, for our military at least.. they protect us, not violate.
Oh, and if you dont like it, dont publish under a 'free use' license... pretty simple.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Wow, if this isn't one of the largest trolls I've seen. Most slashdotters, at least most vocal slashdotters, really despise Microsoft and think their software is low-quality, expensive, insecure, and, some argue, just plain evil. Just look at the Gates-as-Borg icon... :-)
If the Chinese violate human rights using MS software, well, it's not MS's fault. The Chinese are said to be heavy proponents of Linux and are developing their own distro. What happens in China is not Linus' fault either! Slashdot folk wisdom is right on this one: blame the person, not the tool. I can barely imagine the next article... "China uses gloves to slap dissidents; glove manufacturers blamed"
I know human rights abuse is a very serious issue and people die over such things. I think it's irresponsible to trivialize it by blaming a software manufacturer, even if it's MS.
OK, rant done. Go ahead, mod me down
No
and once a tool is created the user assumes the responsibility for how it is used. Any tool can be turned into a weapon if the user is so inclined. A hammer to can be used to build a house or bash someones head in. Explosives can be used to create a sculpture (Mt. Rushmore) or used to destroy a building. A packet sniffer can be used to solve a network problem or steal user IDs and passwords.
It's unfortunate that the Chinese government chooses to use Microsoft's product to track down and punish people who don't think like they do. But, never thought I'd say this, it is NOT Microsoft's fault that the Chinese government has chosen to use their products in this fashion. Just remember that they could have chosen to use OSS instead.
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
This logic is preposterous. Gun makers are not liable when criminals do bad things with their guns (except in certain negligence cases and whatnot). Does this amount to negligence or recklessness? Not that it matters what I think, but it doesn't sound like it.
That simply sounds like irresponsibility (I ate McDonald's and got fat; it must be McDonald's fault) and scapegoating. One of these days, people are going to have to take responsibility for themselves and we're going to have to stop pointing fingers at the parents/companies/producers/etc. and start going after the real enemy - SCO.
As it turns out, the center of the earth is the limit. Even slashdot should know better than this. I understand you hate MS for whatever reason, but calm down. Report real stories with titles that aren't misleading. If you can do that, in exchange I will no longer be concerned about spelling and grammar.
According to the prevailing attitute on /., I'm surprised that noone mentioned that Microsoft is actually saving lives - if it crashes as frequently as everyone says, then UNIX and Linux are true killers while Microsoft is saving lives!
Using Microsoft products IS a human rights violation.
That "troll" rating was obviously some knee-jerk lefty abusing his moderator privileges. Hopefully someone will meta-mod his intellectually dishonest arse.
In other news, the Montana Evergreen Forst Council was fined $50 mil for providing the wood that was used to make the paper that was used to advertise the sporting goods store that sold the gun that was used to shoot and kill a man. Says the spokestree, Great Pine, "it's really not our fault -- the blame lies with God for making us the way we are." Attempts to subpoena this "God" have been largely unsuccessful, due to his unproven existence.
Man, I like to blame by burnt breakfast on MS, but I think they can count on support from even the Slashdot community on this one.
Unless of course they're talking about their new suite of office products, "TeraRist XP," which comes complete with a searchable database on the best ways to torture someone, and 3 bonus pdfs, "1001 More Uses for a Chinese Peasant," "Rice: The Only Food They'll Ever Need," and "14 Ways to Keep the Little Bastards from Revolting."
c-hack.com |
It looks like you're trying to oppress Falun Gong, would you like me to help?
The Earth's hydrogen cycle has been blamed for violating United Nations Human Rights codes by supplying fresh drinking water that help keep Chinese goverment officals alive while they seek dissidents.
Rocket science is easy. Neurosurgery, now *that's* difficult.
it's the Karma Police.
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
companies like de beers etc violate human rights. They are worse off than microsoft.
What servers and firewalls are used for censorship? It can't be windows. Some of it has to be unix, linux too..
that means you're going to demonize ibm, sun, hp, apache, red hat etc??
nothing sensational, move on.
...GImme a fucking break.
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
"guns don't kill, people do"
:)
It's fine regular folks get their AND?OR logic confused. Computer people never should. It ain't an OR. Guns AND people kill people.
Have a Nice Day!!!
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Hmm... does amnesty international regularly make "-1, troll" statements in order to further its causes? I know that PETA does. Certain environmental organizations also come to mind. Michael Crichton's "Environmentalism as religion" is highly recommended reading.
...by an easter egg in Windows that prompts you to violenty throw down your oppressors.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
If you use the OR logic, your program will contain persistent bugs.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
since nobody in open source is responsible for anything (whether the product works, what it is used for) the chinese government loves open source
they are responsible because they CUSTOM MODIFY THEIR PRODUCTS AND SERVICES AT THE REQUEST OF THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT. fucking twit. thats like saying ford just happened to sell hitler a bunch of factories and technicians, and hitler was just an innocent shopper like everyone else (nevermind hitler praises ford by name in mein kampf)
How do we know that free software isn't being used to violate human rights somewhere? I suspect you'll find that Linux, Apache, Sendmail, and other "free" tools have been used by drug dealers, slave merchants, religious fundamentalists, and totalitarian governments.
I don't see any prohibition in the GPL that prevents the use of "free" software for "immoral" purposes -- and such a clause (like many existing clauses of the GPL) would be completely unenforcable.
I dislike Microsoft for many reasons -- but this sort of posting on Slashdot smacks of sensationalism, ala Matt Drudge. Shame on you for spreading FUD.
All about me
Suppling oil used in tanks and military vehicles! Human rights violation! Thats what that more or less sounds like, however tempting it is to further demonize Microsoft I don't think - based on the article - they did anything that directly wrong.
Having said that, I'm sick and tired of this "guns don't kill, people do" logic that's used to justify opposition to controls on the sale of dangerous technology. Sure, if you sell a golf club to someone and it gets used to bash someone's brains in, it would be silly to blame the club manufacturer... But when Cisco writes custom software, specifically to allow the Chinese government to snoop and censor the flow of information, it is aiding a crime against the Chinese people. In that case, the "uuuh, I had no idea it was gonna be used for that purpose" defense is just cynical denial.
I cringe whenever the political right uses that argument, anyway. If they really believed in it, they would vote to abolish all laws banning recreational drug use, and acknowledge that drugs don't kill, reckless users do.
China is controlled by a repressive regime that we shouldn't do business with. The only reason our governments are telling us that it's OK to do business with them, is that China is such a huge, juicy market. The kickbacks are too big to ignore. It's all about $$$$, and principles are only invoked when we're pissed off at small countries.
Go Amnesty International!
They have acheived the impossible: their article has generated the most posts defending Microsoft ever seen on Slashdot!
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
...if you give someone the tools to commit a crime, in full knowledge of their intentions.
It's like the US govt giving weapons to Saddam Hussein when he was murdering the Kurds, or IBM when they sold and provided maintenance for punch-card machines in Nazi Germany death camps.
Of more immediate concern to me is the IRS' use of Microsoft software while violating my right to own property. Will Amnesty International and the U.N. be addressing this issue any time in the near future?
slashdot broke my sig
Yes, just like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says all these great things but then at the bottom adds this disclaimer:
Its refreshing to see that the overwhelming majority of Anti-MS (including me) slashdotters called bullshit on this one.
Note that CALEA is about making the technology capable of snooping rather than authorizing that snooping to be done. In the US, it takes further bad legislation like the Patriot act to authorize the snooping. CALEA just makes it (too) easy.
They have the power of US$40 billion cash in the bank.
Always remember the 'Golden Rule', he who had the gold, makes the rules, and they certainly have the gold.
So pretty much Gates an MicroSoft are evil because they made Windows and people use it to go on the internet sometimes, and some of those people commit crimes on the internet.
Yes!
haven't you watched how the anti-gun nuts use that same stance to sue gun manufacturers and make it extremely difficult for legitimate gun buyers to buy guns?
how about the stigma assigned by the anti-gun-nuts to us gun owners because of this? If we are instantly guilty for the actions of a few idiots and morons then Microsoft is instantly guilty.
You cant have it both ways.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Someone should email Bill Gates a link to this discussion...the Slashdot croud is on _his_ side on an issue.
Guess I'd better sharpen my skates, hell is freezing over.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
Microsoft Violates Human Rights in China
So they've started doing it over there now, have they?
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
(Won't somebody please think of the Chinese?)
This is a lame article about Microsoft, and I am no Microsoft lover for sure but we need to keep perspective on the Redmond Borg.
If Microsoft software was merely used - Microsoft isn't guiltly. But if Microsoft provided the Chinese government with a back door into monitoring it's people - then they are guilts.
But such things are very hard to prove or disprove with closed source.
Any company which supplies equipment or software to China in order to promote Internet use will have its software/equipment used to jail dissidents. That comes as a direct result of the fact that with the Internet, more dissent is possible. In a way, the only reason China is able to use the Internet (and software from US vendors) to jail dissidents is that the Internet and that software provide a means more powerful than any previously in existence to spread dissent.
I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
I consider it a human rights abuse that I've got to work all weekend because Microsoft VB makes it so easy for crummy hackers think they're software designers.
Really, the only thing that keeps me working with Windows is that I'm fond of making computer music and that the software is still better on Windows (on the PC platform, that is). Also, it was a pain to get Linux to be a nice audio platform with 2.4 kernels. Pre-emptiveness and low-latency had to be patched into the kernel.
Now that it's available out-of-the-box, I hope to see a real increase in interest regarding audio software on linux. Linux is really a solid audio platform once it's up and running. Now we just need some solid software:-)
Ardour is one of the most exciting and promising projects.
Umm.... Before we start castigating M$ for human rights violations, perhaps we Linux aficianados should look a little closer to home... Does anyone *really* think that the Communist Chinese government isn't at least going to *try* putting hooks into their own Linux distro to keep track of their citizens political habits?
Perhaps this is an opportunity for Open Source-as a community, we should press for independent review of government distros of free software to do a free speech/privacy check on it.
Microsoft's liability in this situation is minute when compared to the heartless and evil tact the worlds paper companies have taken in selling their paper products in countries where they will be used to contain the endless bureaucracy that fuels human rights abuses. Just think, if ruthless dictatorships could not keep detailed paper records of the atrocities they inflict on their people...well...i don't have to draw you a picture.
And don't get me started on the rubber glove and jumper cable industries!
That will really give the MS bashers something to shout about.
This headline is totally irrisponsible.
For the record, Amnesty International is a pressure group. It's not one I support, but I acknowledge its right to exist. And, contrary to the belief of the posters who think they have no solutions and simply whine about everything, they have a belief and a method. The belief is that the world can be made to be a better place by putting gentle pressure on unpleasant governments to treat their people better, especially the ones who dare not to toe the government line. The method is by writing to individuals and corporations encouraging them to behave better, and by publicising what they see as abuses. You may not like this, but they are free to hold this view and to propagate it.
In an earlier age, before Mammon bought the rights to mainstream Christianity, priests used to preach sermons attacking bad rulers. They tried to shame them into behaving better, or make them think that the long terms consequences could be personally unpleasant (Hell.) Alongside them we had philosophers and teachers trying to propose ways of improving society. This probably takes some of the credit for why nowadays we rarely kill people for minor crimes, why you can criticise the government without being tortured to death, and why on the whole you can get through life in most Western countries without ever carrying a gun or a knife and without ever being seriously attacked. Even in the US, a substantial proportion of the population do not possess guns, and I do not believe they only stay alive and healthy because our friendly local NRA members are standing on the street corners protecting us.
Amnesty International tries to bring about change by a similar approach. They may feel that there is an inconsistency between William Gates III giving away large amounts of money to charitable causes - which he does - and Microsoft doing business with the Chinese government. They may feel that, if the Chinese government wishes to oppress its people, attack the people of Tibet, and threaten the successful and rather more democratic government of Taiwan, it would be nice if the rest of the world did not encourage them in this for the sake fo a few dollars. As I say, you may not like it, I may think they are impractical, but they are entitled to their views.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
how about the stigma assigned by the anti-gun-nuts to us gun owners because of this? If we are instantly guilty for the actions of a few idiots and morons then Microsoft is instantly guilty.
The actions of "gun-nuts" usually involve trying to decrease the possibility of dangerous weapons making it into the hands of those idiots and morons you mention. For some reason, most gun owners automatically think they are being targetted by those activities. Does that say something about your self-image?
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Ten years ago I was working on a multimedia project in Tokyo, with a multinational staff.
We had ten people building screens from templates, and the deliverables had to work on Windows.
I had the honor of teaching them how to use a Windows computer, and part of that included restart after restart as a result of the OS's propensity to crash. This led them to become familiar with the Windows splash screen. I took the opportunity to show them the keystroke that would bypass this screen so they could save a bit of time and go directly back to the desktop.
One of the staffers was a Chinese gentleman, who had taught college in China. He asked me what the purpose of the splashscreen was...I tried to explain it was like a commercial on TV, promoting the software, but other than that it had no use.
"Oh..." he replied... "brainwashing!"
I figured if anyone knew what this meant, he was to be believed. I smiled and he shook his head an went back to work.
water is wet.
CB
free ipod and free gmail!
It could be that Linux was not a reasonable alternative when computers started to infiltrate China, or that Linux didn't/doesn't offer enough Chinese character support. Chinese consumers would probably have loved Instant Messenger and Phone over Internet which were probably proprietarily tied to other Windows platforms around the world a few years ago, and may still be to some degree, and which initially have allowed many middle class Chinese to circumvent State spying and censorship.
Given that these factors are no longer as strongly in effect, should we encourage China to keep its addiction to Microsoft products because it keep China dependant and Western technology, and brings money into American coffers (which I am not saying is a bad thing). Whether China should go open source to me is rather moot, but one has to wonder what deals are made under the table, and what moneys are transferred directly to the pockets of corrupt politicians to keep China snorting Microsoft products. Of course the same questions could be asked here in America.
As a final note, Amnesty International makes pretty much unfounded claims against Microsoft, Nortel, and Cisco. But given the past human rights abuses of the Chinese government, and given that they tend to be tough trading partners -- one has to wonder if these companies have given any technical aid or assistance for filtering-banning-monitoring in order to keep these contracts. To what degree are Microsoft and other companies required to disclose the terms of their contracts with foreign governments and how do we know the terms of these deals are being honestly adhered to? This last question is not rhetorical, maybe some slashdotter out there knows.
Letter To Iran
no staff, but plenty of staph!
Slashdotters are associated with being anti-Microsoft, but when some bs like this comes up, for the most part, we recognize it as bs.
And this is the only way our criticisms of Microsoft's stagnant software ever gets taken seriously... I think they do listen to us sortof...
Its easier turn a blind eye to personal accountability when there's a highly visible (evil) corporation to blame.
(No, I don't intend this as flame-bait, and I don't know Bill Gates personally.)
Guns/knives/WinNt/burgers don't kill people, people kill people.
...that people have been using about P2P software. Just because a product can be used for illegal activity, doesn't necessarily make it illegal. (BitTorrent, Baseball Bats, Kitchen Knives ...)
For some reason, most gun owners automatically think they are being targetted by those activities.
As gun owners, we are. I haven't heard of a piece of gun legislation yet that didn't at least indirectly target owners of firearms who intend to use them only for legitimate purposes. I don't know what this has to do with my "self-image." I think you must be trying to suggest that because gun laws are intended to restrict criminal activity, I only react because I see myself as some kind of criminial. This reminds me of a similar statement made by those in support of govt attempts to restrict privacy: Why should you be concerned about your privacy if you haven't done anything wrong?
Yes, because most of those actions treat EVERYONE as if they're idiots and morons because "idiocy" is a very subjective thing. To many an anti-gun nut, an idiot is anyone who wants a gun and isn't a policeman or (if they're feeling generous) a strictly hunting-only shooter. You can't legislate away the effects of idiocy.
Does that say something about your self-image?
It says we don't like to be treated like idiots and morons?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
I think you must be trying to suggest ... I see myself as some kind of criminial.
No, he is suggesting that gun-nuts are fuelled by paranoia.
time for some bird flu to get to killin
yeah, and american strongman general mills manufactures count chocula, favorite breakfast treat of the chinese oppressor.
I bet they were also drinking Coke while commiting those human rights abuses. Let's go after Coke too.
i like it when leftists complain about MS voilating human rights in china and not the Chinese communist gov. I think people are ignoring the main thing here becasue it looks bad for their side. Simply put a leftist gov in china is voilating human rights.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Here's an analogy you might understand.
Let's say you're a plumbing supply company. You have many customers, some homeowners, but many plumbers, and one very militant customer who you have seen beating people on television before. He comes in and asks for 5 lead pipes of differing sizes, but when asked their purpose, he shrugs. You sell them anyway.
You then here that he used those pipes to beat people in the head.
Do you:
A. Sell him more pipes?
B. Do no more business with him.
Ever since Tianamen Square, the whole world knows what kind of brutal leadership resides in China. China visits brutality not just on political protesters, but also against the Falen Gong and Tibetian Buddhists - who are doing nothing but trying to practice religion.
To ignore that China is a brutal totalitarian regime - just because they have DVD players and the trappings of modern society - doesn't change the fact that it is an evil government.
Here's a more realistic example. You are an electrical supply company. You manufacture a number of electrical devices. A client comes in and asks for a variable voltage low current transformer, that attach to EKG style electrodes. This client doesn't actually say what they are used for, but you sell them anyway.
Later, people who used to live in your client's country claim that he used these devices for torture.
Do you:
A. Keep selling - hell, you're making money here
B. Stop selling
C. Send in technicians to "upgrade" the equipment, actually rendering it harmless.
Well, this is a choice that many Western firms had to choose. They chose A.
Now, please explain to me, why any slashdot reader, on a forum that values freedom of expression above all else, and holds it as an unalienable human right, would get behind and support a country that is for lack of a better word, evil. You're argument is as simplistic as they come. You have no moral compass, and no ethics. If you were an ammunition shop, would you sell more bullets to a man that ran in with an empty revolver who was being chased by cops? According to this you would, and claim you had no idea what he was going to use them for.
Scene from the movie "Casablanca":
Inspector: "I am shocked... SHOCKED to find there is gambling going on in this establishment!! I'm afraid we'll have to shut this place down."
Waiter: "Your winnings, sir." (hands the Inspector a wad of money)
Inspector: (brusquely) "Oh, Thank you very much."
There must be something seriously wrong with you!
What, like Clippy?
You must think in Russian.
So now a manufacturer is responsible for what is done with the product they legally sold to a buyer ?!? Granted I am not a big M$ fan but how are they responsible for what China does with the technology ??? Any more than Colt is responsible for what the legal purchaser of a firearm does after taking possesion according to the laws.
The UN sets out to combat what ?? their own lack of funds and whatever other perks the members at large can get their hands on...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
... if there is any truth at all to this then it makes them one of the first American companies to have worked out how to get the Chinese to actually PAY for something, rather than just ripping it off.
Micro$oft is a big evil corporation, period.
China is in the process of getting away from MS. What influence could they have when the government itself is building a competing product?!
Or so the numerous Slashdot topics would lead me to believe.
Does that mean Open Source (or atleast Linux) tramples human rights also?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Expecting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to come riding down at any moment.
Slashdot has basically been rational concerning Microsoft. I expected the typical bandwagon jumping on. The end is truly near.
businesses should 'seek to ensure that the goods and services they provide will not be used to abuse human rights'. The article basically states that 'Gate's firm supplied technology used to trap Chinese dissidents'."
In other words, if Microsoft cared more about profits than what people and governments did/do with their technology, then they are breaking the code of conduct
Before you laugh too hard about the idea of Microsoft vs a code of conduct, consider Microsoft's legal twist that nobody ever owns the software they buy, that all people and companies ever do is license it from Microsoft.
Since Microsoft retains ownership rights on all software they "sell", then shouldn't they retain liability? Or is the Chinese EULA significantly different?
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Ahh the *great* firewall of China, doncha just love it. :D
IP goes in SPAM comes out.
Heck.
There's probably only *ONE* licensed copy of Windows(tm) in the whole of China.
What about our human rights for all the fecking SPAM that originates there?
siggy played guitar
What a waste of time reading what people posted or the article itself....instead I've posted myself: Guns don't kill people. People kill people Now replace Computers with Guns Folks - stop being a bunch of player-haters and concentrate on your code.If you coded as well as you bitch about Microsoft, Linux might atually be somewhere instead of our you little wet dreams MEP...BIP
I've seen so many posts where people are like "uhh, how is this trapping them?"
microsoft is tailoring their software to spy and track the location of any of its users so if they do anything "bad" (like saying "freedom is great, go democracy!") they'd be jailed tortured, then killed, and microsoft's doing this knowing the reprocussions it will have on its users.
at least if they make a linux system, it can be hacked to be invisible to the chinese govt.
This topic brings to mind a rather strong-opinioned movie/"documentary" that's been catching some people's attention: "The Corporation". I haven't personally seen it, but I understand the bottom line is that "the corporation", as an entity, is like a psychopat, the bottom-line is always the money, no matter what. The question is, I guess, whether companies CAN be held responsible for anything that they're not directly executing? There might be some important differences between a case like this where M$ sells software, NOT intended for ill-use, and a case where the responsibility is easier to assign, like the Exxon Veldez oil-spill of 1988.
oh wait, MS is always guilty until proven innocent.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
I don't really think that's a fair analogy given that there are legitimate uses for Microsoft products. I can't really say the same for guns, on the other hand, other than you are a farmer and you need to kill birds and rabbits. I doubt that you fall into that category, given that you are posting on slashdot.
Guns are illegal in most countries for the simple reason that they have little use other than killing things, and are lethal in the wrong hands. It's hard to say the same about operating systems.
As for gun nuts, I would say the people that own them are nuts, rather than the people that campaign to make them illegal. Here in the UK it's not generally acceptable to own a gun. I know the culture is different in the US, but the chances are that if you feel the need to own a gun and you're not a farmer, you're a pretty insecure person.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
Great statement!
But once again we seem to have too many people in this discussion simply turning it into a "Windows vs Linux" argument again. SO let me interject with a few additional points:
1) Microsoft treats "Open Source" as two very dirty words. However, as a Windows user, you have access to almost as much Open Source software as do Linux & BSD users - if you don't believe me, have a trawl around Sourceforge and look for yourselves.
2) As a Windows user, you do not have anywhere near the control over your operating system that a Linux user does. But that's absolutely fine, some people like ease of installation and use, others like optimisation and control, I'm not going to debate the differences here.
However, up until recently, as a Windows user, you enjoyed a relative free reign over your data and/or documents - e.g. you can copy documents between machines and OSes, burn MP3s from CD onto endless numbers of devices, etc.
Unfortunately, with DRM, that will all change. It won't affect Linux users (unless the take up of DRM'ed data formats is huge and starts restricting what types of data Linux can read and write) but it will mean that as a Windows user, you will lose control of your data because Microsoft see a huge amount of possible revenue by enforcing DRM licenses. To you, this will mean that you might not be able to transport your documents and data across devices or machines.
3) Your data is your responsibility, not Microsoft's. Therefore, if someone hacks your PC and gets hold of your data then, sure, Microsoft have a responsibility to fix the vulnerability that allowed intruder access but the data is your responsibility to protect.
As Homology said above, you can protect that data using open encryption methods with keys you control thus meaning that you maintain your ultimate control over your data.
4) Microsoft have virtually admitted that their OSes and applications are now so complex that they are impossible to fix completely. However, they have a need to show their user base that they are serious about security and it will be far less expensive for them to use hardware-based DRM to control applications and OSes, rather than put the man-power in to fix software bugs. Plus, as an added bonus, they get the ability to control your data and charge you money for the right to access it.
Please remember that Microsoft are a business like any other business and will implement anything that swells their profits as long as it doesn't affect the user base too much. While Windows Media Player may seem like an attractive piece of free software to use (and I'm not going to debate here what the "best" media player might or might not be), the ultimate reason for WMP is to make an attempt at getting DRM "in through the back door" and see what the response of the user base is.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Public service announcement: referring to Microsoft as Micro$oft has been lame for well over a decade.
My word, perhaps Microsoft is ultimately all about making money?! Yes, them and EVERY OTHER FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.
When you $hop at the $upermarket, the convenience $tore, the ga$ $tation, the fa$t food joint--these places don't all exist to make your life more pleasant, they exist so that they can make money. Linux and OSS supporters constantly have to fight to distance themselves from you and your ilk.
China: Herro? We need OS package fol five hundled govelment computel!
Microsoft: Alright, would you like Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional?
China: Whichevel one bettel fol tlapping dissidents!
There is nothing in the GPL that says it can't be used to violate humman rights. So the oss comunity could be jsut as guilty. Think about Red flag linux. Its used offically by the Chinese gov, who is guilty of numerous humman rights violations. So.. Is this a good law, or should a clause be added to the gpl?
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Well, let's see, a certain gentleman in the White House quits chit chatting about human rights, sends out some well armed folks, and kills, maims and imprisons some of Planet Earth's worst human rights violators (ie Evil Doers). Unfortunately, he makes some mistakes, but has more success than failure in smashing some of the worst abusers of human rights on Planet Earth.
Amnesty International ( not all good, not all bad), fails to recognize the good that is done, because it is imprisoned by it's ideology. Certainly, Amnesty International is in many ways a modern descendant of the Marxist world view (again a good and bad thing). No doubt there are many modern day Communists in Amnesty International.
As we speak, President Bush is attempting to ruthlessly halt some of the worst abuses that Amnesty International is always saying needs to be stopped.
To deny that Amnesty International has some Marxist roots is like denying that there are Hard Core, Bible toting Fundamntalist roots in the American Republican Party.
Senator Zell Miller Admirer out...
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Microsoft does have a point: They cannot be blamed for what their customers decide to do with a product. But they do have influence, which on occasion could be used for good. I doubt any of the listed companies would do so if it risked even a slight diminution of that influence, but hopefully that's just cynicism talking.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
The anti-gun nuts? Yeah, all those psychos alarmed by the widespread, practically unregulated availability of fire-arms, they really scare me. They're nutty, just plain nutty. There oughta be a law.
Okaaay. I presume you mean the proposed law to prevent men convicted of violent assault against their wifes from obtaining semi-automatics? Do you feel that law might inconvenience you in some way?I thought that GNU/Linux was the choice of the communists
"International Law" is a fiction.
Laws get passed by legislatures & monarchs. We don't have an international legislature or an international monarch, now do we? So, we can't really have international laws.
Maybe someday we'll have a world government but not now.
What we have in the real world are Treaties. A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries. In reality the treaties are almost NEVER symmetrical. As an example, the US/UK pass a tax treaty. Well at the negotiating table, the treaty said W, X & Y. Put when parliament passed it they didn't like W. So, the UK law passed by parliament says V, X & Y. Same type of silliness in the US Congress. They don't like what the negotiators did and pass the US law with W, X, & Z. So, now we have "treaty" but they don't match.
The most important thing to notice here, is that no international law was passed, only 2 national laws. One for the UK. One for the US. I can't go into a US court and sue over the fact that the UK law lets me have rights to V, X & Y, because this is the US and our law says you have rights to W, X, & Z. Vice versa for the UK. I can't go into NZ and sue on either the treaty, the US law, or the UK law. Why? Because the treaty was never a law, it was merely and agreement "in principle" made by bureaucrats. The US law is a US law and therefore unenforceable in NZ. Same with the UK law.
So, you see, the "international law" really isn't very international at all. It is merely a group of inconsistent laws cobbled together from a bunch of countries.
It gets worse, since this "international law" is merely a group of national laws that have no effect outside the jurisdictions of those nation states, any country that doesn't pass a similar law isn't bound by that "international law." And nothing stops a nation from changing its laws. So, if the UK doesn't find the tax treaty to its advantage, it can easily pass a new law revoking the old V, X & Y law. Laws based on treaties aren't any more important than laws NOT based on treaties. If the US doesn't like that the UK revoked the law it really only has two options: change the US law, or suck eggs.
There is no International body that forces a nation to have a particular law. We have a few administrative courts that can "suggest" the types on retaliatory laws passed by the offended country, but no real involuntary enforcement mechanism on an international scale. This is really why armed conflict (one nation imposing its will on another) is still a part of international relations.
So, if the US (or any other country) is "violating an international law," the quickest and LEGAL solution to the "problem" is to just repeal the US law enacting the treaty.
"International Law" is a nice short hand phrase, but so is "treaty." And treaty is closer to what actually happens in the real world. At least a document called a "treaty" was put tighter at some point. No one with any power ever actually wrote something entitled "international law." When someone talks to me of "international laws," I know they either (a) don't know what they are talking about, or (b) have an agenda and are selecting the phrase as part of a rhetorical device and not based on facts.
that anyone who supplied vehicles, handcuffs, guns, shoes and clothes are slandered like this as well.
There are many, many things MS does that deserve our scrutiny, scorn and seeking of alternatives. Even I as someone that generally speaking doesn't have a huge problem with MS certainly has issues with them.
But this is just nuts. Let me think this through...
Now we WANT MS to track people, to investigate them and to make sure they aren't doing anything wrong with their products? And who should determine what is the right thing and what is the wrong thing? MS?
And if they add DRM to all their products, is it OK that you can't activate a product unless you certify that you won't kill anyone, spy on them or otherwise abuse their civil liberties?
Man, talk about a no-win scenario for a big corporation. We hate'em if they intrude on us too much, we hate them if they don't intrude ENOUGH apparantly.
Sorry, MS didn't do a damned thing wrong here, and saying otherwise in this one instance is just plain nuts.
If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
"you're a pretty insecure person."
.. why would you want a cop to have one then ?
Now you fell better don't you ?
"have little use other than killing things"
Hmm
" Do you feel that law might inconvenience you in some way?"
... ..
No, he was talking things like complete handguns prohibition in Chicago etc
So called Asault Weapons ban etc
Does anyone really think China would be honest?
MS: Will you use this software to censor and control the Internet in your country?
Communist China: Of course. We mean to track, imprison, torture and kill the counter-revolutionary elements here.
MS: Oh, well, we can't sell to you then.
> Hmm .. why would you want a cop to have one then ?
Personally, I wouldn't want police to carry guns, and in the UK the majority of them don't. I guess they carry them in the US as a deterent and to kill or injure criminals who also have guns. I still don't see a legitimate reason for members of the public to own guns. Just because the consititution says it's a given right doesn't necessarily legitimise it. Far be it for me to judge, but the constitution seems a tad outdated, dating from the days when wolves and red indians were a threat to colonists.
In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
No. Most believe the only way to make it safe is to eliminate guns completely by getting rid of the 2nd amendment altogether and hunting down those who own guns and imprisoning them. Gun-control is only the first step. Once they ban some guns, they'll ban others, than others then when there's very few guns left and people have been desensitized to the prospect of losing the second amendment due to not having any guns anymore anyway, that is the next to go.
Ol' Bill has a point. Short of doing no trade of any sort with the Chinese, no one has much control of what their products are used for. And doing no trade at all would be far more punishing to the Chinese people than risking that one's products might get misused.
Microsoft isn't selling landmines here.
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
RMS, we hold you responsible for human rights violations because somebody used Emacs to write down the names of people to be tortured... (well it could have happened)
The anti-gun nuts? Yeah, all those psychos alarmed by the widespread, practically unregulated availability of fire-arms, they really scare me. They're nutty, just plain nutty. There oughta be a law.
You are wrong. The possession and ownership of firearms is highly regulated. What else are you forbidden from owning even if you commit a crime that has nothing to do with firearms or violence. Be convicted of felony white colar crime and you can not own or posses a firearm of any kind.
When I bought my last firearm, I had to have a state and federal background check, give a thumb print and wait 10 days. I found buying my two ton car a lot easier and no one checked to see if I was convicted drunk driver either.
Okaaay. I presume you mean the proposed law to prevent men convicted of violent assault against their wifes from obtaining semi-automatics? Do you feel that law might inconvenience you in some way?
Okay, the guy has a violent assault on his record and in most states that means he is not allowed to own or posses firearms.
My question is, why should I be punished for the action of a man who is not obeying the law anyways? If he beats his wife there is a good chance he is not going to obey the firearms law anyway. If the guy is convicted of beating his wife, the government should throw him in jail and not restrict my rights.
If you drink and drive, should I have a breath tester installed in my car? No. You are the criminal, not me.
Laws only effect the law abiding.
Linux O Muerte!
Inside a Chinese Government Building:
Person 1: We have this program that will give us the
name and location of all dissidents so we can easily round up.
It will be done in a minute...
A minute later, Blue Screen!
Many people saved from execution.
Hehe, I read it as:
haven't you watched how the anti-GNU nuts use that same stance to sue GNU manufacturers and make it extremely difficult for legitimate gun buyers to buy GNUs?
Of course, you're living on the other side of reality.
Here in the real world, people have an inherent human right to defend themselves. Despite what any government might say and do, no government has the right to impede this.
As far as your assertion that "other than you are a farmer and you need to kill birds and rabbits", that is just ludicrous. Personally, there has been more than one situation where I came *very close* to *needing* a firearm to defend myself, both from robbery (and, quite easily, very much worse) to simple defense from an antagonistic stray animal. Both of these situations are not just not unjustifiable needs for firearms, they are a personal responsibility one has for one's self. Of course, to say that "well you didn't need it" is to miss the point. The only reason I didn't is because of sheer LUCK. One cannot expect a response from the police in a split second (not that that's what happened anyway), nor can one expect an animal to suddenly decide not to attack. It takes an intervening event to change those situations and, personally, I'm not willing to delegate my safety to such chance.
And if you really believe that "guns are illegal in most countries for the simple reason that they have little use other than killing things", then you're not a very astute student of history. Guns are illegal in most countries for the simple purpose of control, displayed under the guise of safety. The reality is that law-abiding, good men and women do not and will not misuse their tools, whether it is a simple hunting rifle or a fully automatic machine gun, and therefore the only reason to restrict them is for different means. Note that despite "gun control" laws, the criminals always seem to be able to get them. Now, why is that? How can one come to the conclusion that this is a good thing for the populace in general, when only the honest people are disarmed?
For all of the talk of "human rights" in these postings, people are missing the most very basic of human rights: the right to self preservation. Without it, no other rights really exist. Then, of course, there's basic liberty. "Gun control" for the general populace is contrary to both of those basic rights.
Somebody please mod the parent down as a complete troll.
I have to say AI is a nice group but have no sense of reality. years ago when Peru was fighting their civl war, AI made a point of saying how the Peruvian Gov't was violating civil rights in fighting that very dirty war, but NOT once did they point out that the guerrilla (i wont label them terrorists since they had a clean political agenda, albiet radical implementation) were toturing the peasants and blowing up civilians in that war.
Since that happened, I've lost respect fot AI and have always found them suspect, like I do Limousine liberals.
Sigs are dangerous coy things
For some reason, most gun owners automatically think they are being targetted by those activities.
Because we are.
Or do you think that this website, operated by the Violence Policy Center is only going after criminals?
It's not paranoia if they really ARE out to get you. ALL of the major gun control groups have made statements along the lines of "we want to ban all guns" over the years.
I don't know any gunowners (and I know ALOT of them) that don't want to keep firearms out of the hands of crminals. The problem is that most of the solutions involve restricting the rights of the law abiding to no good purpose on the off chance that you'll succeed in reducing the use of guns by criminals.
Chicago and Washington DC banned handguns. New York has almost done so. Those places don't seem to have a shortage of armed criminals though, do they? So who, I ask you, is really affected by the law? The good guys, or the bad guys?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
how about we post a story of what Microsoft has not violated. it will be a very terse narrative. The violations' list, can't be tamed, there is no end to the violations to: RFC, Standards, Common Logic, Monopoly Laws, Good Coding Practices, Security Considerations, Visual Basic for The Blind, etc.
-- endspiel fur die MS schwein
It's none of their business to decide who can use their stuff and who can't. If this were allowed wouldn't we have companies deciding not to sell their goods and services to homosexuals and black people?
I don't think it's right what the Chinese government is doing but I also don't think it's right to pick and choose who to sell to. I mean if they didn't buy Microsoft they'd download something better and it would make life even harder for those poor Chinese.
It is actually an embedded tax. You pay their taxes through purchases you make. The government relies on people being ignorant. They burn this into little tykes heads in school.
Hence there is no "tax break" on a corporation either.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Admiral ackbar would be proud of this falung gong trapping toliet with internet access :)
The actions of "gun-nuts" usually involve trying to decrease the possibility of dangerous weapons making it into the hands of those idiots and morons you mention.
And those actions simply don't work. All gun laws do is create a black market for guns in the same way that drug laws created the black market for drugs. Yes, the USA's very own drug laws fund dictators, warlords, and terrorists all over the world by creating markets with unusually very high prices. When the government says it is using all its tools against "terrorism", why don't they simply make more things legal, collapsing their prices, and consequently starving the people they are after? Oh, that would mean the government actually forfeits some of its power of the People.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
M$ should be sue for 40 billion dollars for human rights violation and windoze whould be banned.
Linux is used extensively in China. Therefore the OSS community is most likely as guilty as Microsoft. They haven't made any effort to restrict software use by the Chinese govt. I'm all for boycotting China until they reform their system, but singling out Microsoft, who writes a generic operating system as well as tools to write software, is just empty rhetoric. You might as well add Intel, AMD, a dozen motherboard makers, Cisco, etc. to the list.
Vote for Pedro
And just as companies profiting from the Holocaust have paid reparations after the war, so too should Microsoft and Cisco pay once there is a democratic regime in China. So it's in the long-term interest of businesses to follow the Human Rights Norms.
The employees are unlikely to suffer any penalty for participating in the human rights abuses, but if I were an employee of one of these companies I'd still think long and hard about whether I should keep working for them.
Remember that any company seeking to do business in a foreign country is also required to comply with the laws in that country.
A more rational complaint by AI would be that China, if it is still guilty of human rights violations, should be dropped from WTO membership, or that the US should forbid American companies from trading there.
As it stands, this is simply AI taking advantage of the mindless anti-MS mentality prevalent in some quarters and piggy-backing their own ridiculous assertions on that wave.
--- Bill
You can criticize MS, Nortel and whomever you want for abuses by the Chinese govt., but in the end, the internet will be the downfall of the Chinese govt., because it is nearly impossible to stop the flow of information the govt. doesn't want them to see.
Perhaps you'd clarify a few items for me? (1) What exactly is your strategy for defending yourself against a government run amok when they possess tanks, heavy artilley, high-performance aircraft, a formidable navy, well-trained infantry, extremely capable commando units, high explosives, germ warfare stockpiles, and nuclear weapons? (2) If you are under the impression that a revolution will happen, I'd like to know how exactly you are going to organize the revolution when the government can control at will all forms of communication except your voice. Yeah, you can shout things out over your rooftop, but that would also make you a marked man for the first government sniper.
Simply put, this "defense against the government" argument put forward by the righ-wing nuts, may have been valid in the 1800's but is just so much horseshit these days. I'd urge you to go see the documentary "The Revolution will not be televised" now playing in US theatres and keep in mind one thing - the inequity between the firepower and capabilities of first world governments when compared to the general population far exceeds the the inequity between the government of Venezuela and its people.
Yeah, I know. This is offtopic. Unfortunately, it is never wise to not respond to right-wing nuts - they are prone to take silence as meaning that they won the argument.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
Not to get into a pro/anti-gun discussion, but you'll have to admit one thing:
/designed/ to kill.
Guns are
yeah.
Well, it's a bit different... legitimate gun owners shouldn't mind having to jump through a few more hoops provided that it helps keep guns out of the hands of the people that would use them for harm. Of course, I'm not commenting on whether these measures actually work or not...
There is a difference between Windows in the wrong hands and a gun in the wrong hands, you know what I mean?
No way it could have anything to do with the fact that messages in the binary groups are easily 1000 times the size of text messages..
Microsoft is a champion of DRM (under various names) to control and monitor users. So I would not put it past them to do what Amnesty International suspect them of doing.
DRM is just a tool. It's actually a tool to protect rights -- copyright. Is the right to own property not a human right? By your twisted reasoning the following groups are to be suspected of human rights violations due to their support of DRM.
DRM is all about producer control using private keys that you, the user, has no access to. Contrast this to Cryptography where strong cryptography can be used to ensure your privacy and that you are in control.
Please explain how DRM would actually be used to violate human rights. It's designed to allow distrubution of material to large groups. Cryptograhy is designed to keep secrets among a very small group -- just the tool that that the bad people actually need.
I mean... im almost allways in favor of what they do. But they should really seek technicall advice before going on to say such stupid things.
Its either that they are just mentally retarded or that MS marketing is preparing to pitch congress with the idea that, they can ensure their goods are well used if they are protected as a monopoly, whereas we (FLOSS) cannot.
By god, i just saw the flick "Kill Smotchie". If you saw it, youll remember they paint charities in a somehow different light (strong charities are mafia-like).... i see an analogy between that and amnesty and other Non Government Organizations (think greenpeace, which sells protesters to anyone with enough dough).
Lets be carefull with this and strongly oppose any attempt to scorning any software because of the way its used.
I mean, the analogy is simple. Knife companies in the US are also in violation of the UN HRC since their knifes are used in torture in China. Same goes to baseball-bat makers, golf club makers (yes, i see a couple of ways to cause pain with those), and maybe even the record house of Britney Spears (imagine 1400 watt gear in a 2x2 room with 364 days of the blonde bitch singing at you, put in some 60 in. HDTV sets with her videos...you get the idea.)
NO SIG
Luckily here in the UK there aren't many guns, but most of them seem to be in the hands of criminals. I don't fancy owning one, but it's getting so that I'm in favour of the argument that says that it should be a citizen's responsibility to be able to protect themself and those around them, which means carrying a (legally licensed) weapon. If the rabbit could be put back in the hat, great, but it's not going to happen and I'd rather the majority were in the hands of responsible citizens
While the Linux/Unix World struggles to edit another config file, after 3 hours of research, I am headed to the Bar to watch the Super Bowl, work done.
Not entirely accurate. Linux/Apache makes a helluva good, cheap printing press for Windows machines, if the application is simple. That is what a Linux server does best, a dirt cheap printer so a Windows machine can print HTML files to the world.
Gotta give Linux that, they make a heckava better printing press than Hewlett Packard or Epson.
Oh yeah, bout forgot, Linux makes a great MP3 player for that old computer in the closet.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Well, yes. Any legislation aiming to restrict the sale or possession of firearms to those who should* be allowed to have them will necessarily inconvenience those poeple somewhat.
In attempting to secure any sort of system, there is always always a tradeoff between effectiveness and ease of use. Many of us on Slashdot accept the inconvenience of keying in an eight-character password (upper- and lower-case letters and numbers, no words please!) one or more times per day to control access ot our computers.
I spent some time in the United States as a student a few years ago. I had to make three trips to the local Social Security Administration office (and fill out copious amounts of paperwork) to acquire a Social Security Number so that I could report my scholarships correctly to Uncle Sam. Again, an apparently necessarily inconvenience to ensure that taxes are paid and that visiting students are legally in the country.
"Gun control" legislation has similar aims. The laws exist to restrict the sale of weapons to appropriate individuals (not insane, underage, or a known criminal; other restrictions may exist by state). Legitimate buyers are inconvenienced, but it is nominally the price of making the system more secure.
Whether this goal is achieved is another question, and whether the system is particularly efficient yet another. To abandon all attempt at gun control isn't the solution--it would be akin to the Social Security Administration giving up on checking ID when issuing SSN cards (because identification can be forged) or to Microsoft responding to exploits by announcing that they were removing all password-checking from their operating systems.
*I will leave the discussion regarding who should have access to firearms for another post.
~Idarubicin
Bush has executed more people than did any of the people he executed, when he was governor of Texas. Who's the slapper? Or are you just bloodthirsty?
--
make install -not war
Amnesty International condemned Chinese dissidents, saying they were causing an increase in the human rights abuses by the Chinese government by making themselves targets for human rights abuse.
Vote for Pedro
I'm wondering how many stories I report are going to get rejected, then scooped a day later by a moderators lackey, before I actually get an attribution.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
While you were sleeping, Amnesty International has been protecting your human rights, as well as those of your fellow humans. Where's some backup for your attack? Or is your keyboard in North Korea's Ministry of Our Flawless Leader's Information, where it's the closest object to a pillow, and is disconnected from sites like Amnesty International?
--
make install -not war
When you program for Windows, you're programming COMMUNISM - a friendly reminder from your friends at Slashdot.
If only the article wasn't such a troll...
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
While you might ignore Amnesty International's indispensible human rights campaigns, neither the humans they've helped nor the public, which is just like them, ignores them. Discard your humanity, your rights, but don't recommend that to the rest of us.
--
make install -not war
Like Visual Torture++? Then I would agree.
-
Back up that assertion, so we can rip it to shreds in front of your eyes. Then check out the example of US war crime in Iraq, documented on CNN, in your name, and on your dime. For extra credit, after you wake up to the US hand on the Iraqi meatgrinder, check Amnesty International's actual campaigns on Iraq, and drop the vaporprop.
--
make install -not war
...who used IBM Holorith cards to track the progress of the Holocaust. So I guess we shouldn't hold IBM and Thomas J. Watson responsible for that, either, even though they clearly knew what the technology was being used for.
FreeSpeech.org
US Constitution, Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
The sentence is a little hard to understand, as it is not even grammatically correct - it's a runon sentence, which makes sense only if joined like:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, requires that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
But I'm not rewriting the Constitution, just trying to understand how Americans are to live under that protection from government control. As long as you're struggling to understand that sentence, you should accept that "regulated" means "supplied with material", its primary meaning when that article was written. And a "Militia" means an informal, self-organized local military unit, not a standing government army. Anyone without a selfserving agenda to be armed to the teeth along with anyone else who wants guns would read that sentence without confusion. It means that the US military is to be structured as local militias, who arm themselves, as protection of the state's liberty.
Well, we have, since the Revolution, instead created a half-trillion dollar a year standing (and fighting) military. We should either drop that military in favor of an 18th Century militia self-armed structure, in keeping with the Constitution, or drop that incoherent amendment. Either way, we should drop the pretense that anyone is entitled to any arms they want in this country.
--
make install -not war
I would love to have another reason to hate MS, but as far as I can tell this is as stupid as accusing Sears of helping China torture people by making tools.
To whoever modded *me* down as offtopic, and the parent down as "insightful", try again.
And I'm posting it *again*, because it's a valid response to the posting above if you don't like what I've written, REPLY TO IT.
Of course, you're living on the other side of reality.
Here in the real world, people have an inherent human right to defend themselves. Despite what any government might say and do, no government has the right to impede this.
As far as your assertion that "other than you are a farmer and you need to kill birds and rabbits", that is just ludicrous. Personally, there has been more than one situation where I came *very close* to *needing* a firearm to defend myself, both from robbery (and, quite easily, very much worse) to simple defense from an antagonistic stray animal. Both of these situations are not just not unjustifiable needs for firearms, they are a personal responsibility one has for one's self. Of course, to say that "well you didn't need it" is to miss the point. The only reason I didn't is because of sheer LUCK. One cannot expect a response from the police in a split second (not that that's what happened anyway), nor can one expect an animal to suddenly decide not to attack. It takes an intervening event to change those situations and, personally, I'm not willing to delegate my safety to such chance.
And if you really believe that "guns are illegal in most countries for the simple reason that they have little use other than killing things", then you're not a very astute student of history. Guns are illegal in most countries for the simple purpose of control, displayed under the guise of safety. The reality is that law-abiding, good men and women do not and will not misuse their tools, whether it is a simple hunting rifle or a fully automatic machine gun, and therefore the only reason to restrict them is for different means. Note that despite "gun control" laws, the criminals always seem to be able to get them. Now, why is that? How can one come to the conclusion that this is a good thing for the populace in general, when only the honest people are disarmed?
For all of the talk of "human rights" in these postings, people are missing the most very basic of human rights: the right to self preservation. Without it, no other rights really exist. Then, of course, there's basic liberty. "Gun control" for the general populace is contrary to both of those basic rights.
Somebody please mod the parent down as a complete troll.
Some liberties empower people to infringe the rights of others, if abused. Basic liberties are fairly self-limiting, on a human scale. But technology can amplify the consequences of exercising those liberties. America has led the world in both protecting liberty, and amplifying its means of execution. They go hand-in-hand here, and we've developed ways to protect our rights from the abuse of rights by others - liberty vs. license.
Lawyers who are convicted of any serious crime or malfeasance usually are disbarred, which prevents them from using their law license like a weapon, even if their crime was unrelated to a later practice. Doctors, too. When your drivers license is revoked for speeding, you don't get to keep driving, as long as you go slow. And even if your state doesn't have a law prohibiting diagnosed alcoholics from getting a license, it should.
Shooting is a privilege, and it can be revoked if you demonstrate you can't be trusted with it. It's a very risky privilege, and not essential to the workings of our society. So even if cars were more dangerous than guns, the management of those privileges would assign more latitude to driving.
--
make install -not war
What is "wacko" about Amnesty International? How about a citation, rather than just some slander?
--
make install -not war
I fall into that category.
And there aren't legitimate uses for firearms for people who are not farmers? Give me a break. Girl I know killed a man who was trying to rape her with a gun. Of course, she never had a legitimate use for the gun, right? She shouldn't be allowed to have it, right? And if she does have it, we've got to have some sort of registration program and a system to track the movements of these people (this and worse has been proposed by anti-gun lobbiest in the US), right?
Slackware, what else when it must be secure, stable, and easy?
Guns are /designed/ to kill.
Not necessarily. Several of mine are /designed/ to punch holes in paper at long range with phenomenal accuracy; chambered for .22 rimfire, they lack the power to be even remotely effective for killing anything larger than, say, a rabbit; furthermore, their construction (polished, carefully crafted wooden stocks, and polished, blued barrels) make them poorly suited for hunting purposes, which, as we've already established, is the only way they'd be effective in killing; these guns are /designed/ for target shooting (which, last I checked, is an Olympic sport; given that today is Superbowl Sunday, I think it bears reminder that (American) football isn't). I have shotguns of similar construction, very beautiful pieces of steel and walnut that would quickly rust or be damaged if taken hunting under less-than-ideal conditions (i.e. most hunting trips); they make great trap and skeet guns, though (which are also Olympic sports). Ditto with pistols; I've shot some that, while originally designed for military use (Colt 1911-framed .45 automatics), are so heavily modified that they are wholly unsuitable for carry; large scopes, extremely light triggers, added weight, and the like. Fine pistols for competition shooting, though. Guess what? Olympic sport (note: that link takes you to the list of Olympic shooting sports).
So no, I don't have to admit that guns are designed to kill. Some are, yes, but in reality, all guns are designed merely to deliver one or more projectiles to a target located some variable distance away in a predictable manner, and deliver energy to that target. How much energy and the choice of target are the questions; the amount of energy is determined by the designer when he writes the specifications (and also the shooter, when he chooses the caliber), and the choice of target is entirely up to the shooter. Blades are designed to separate one object into two or more; I haven't heard people call for knife or axe control laws, though.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
With all due respect -- I think you're being naive. I am not a gun owner or a Second Amendment absolutist, and I have no problem with background checks or waiting periods, per se. But there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the goal of the gun control organizations and activists is to eliminate private firearm ownership entirely. Has there ever been a case where they passed a new law or outlawed another class of weapon and said, "OK, we're done."?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Yahoo is running a story about how the Cocain Cartels are using Winamp5 to repeatedly blast Cher & Yanni songs into the rooms where suspected theifs are being held, tune in for more at 11.
- You're not paranoid, they really are after you.
You make the typical gun advocate claim that all gun crimes are committed by "criminals", by which you mean habitual criminals. I don't know what the statistics are in the USA, but in Australia a lot of the murders committed with guns were by people who didn't previously have criminal records - basically, people who flipped out for one reason or another. The common thread in these was that self-loading rifles made it too easy for such people to kill a lot of people at once. We restricted their ownership to the few people who actually need them for professional reasons. Voila, no more spree killings since.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
see title.
Here's the US war crime in Iraq that CNN cameras happened to catch.
--
make install -not war
You make the typical gun advocate claim that all gun crimes are committed by "criminals", by which you mean habitual criminals.
Personally (I'm not speaking for all "right to keep and bear arms" advocates) I try not to--I even note something to that effect elsewhere in this thread. That said, I think we can agree that the majority of them are--PARTICULARLY in cities such as DC, Chicago, and New York where ownership is heavily restricted.
The common thread in these was that self-loading rifles made it too easy for such people to kill a lot of people at once. We restricted their ownership to the few people who actually need them for professional reasons. Voila, no more spree killings since.
While I'm very happy that nothing has happened since Port Arthur, I'm not sure that this is a result of the weapons ban you mention. I'm sorry to say that something similar will likely happen in the future. Maybe not with an AK-47--a pistol, a shotgun, maybe not even a gun. On June 8th, 2001, a japanese man killed 8 children, and injured 15 other people with a knife. What that says to me is that people who are going to commit these kinds of acts are going to do so no matter what. Removing firearms from the equation (Japan has extremely strong gun control) merely makes them less efficient.
I believe that punishing the law abiding for the acts of a very, very few is morally reprehensible. I believe conflating "safety" with gun control is akin to claiming that invading Iraq makes America safe from terrorists attacks.
I wish the world was different--I really do. It would be nice to live in a world without violence, without people who would murder for $10, or an expensive piece of clothing. Without brutal dictators who would murder their own people. But we don't live in that world.
Until we do, I retain the right to protect myself and my family, by any and all available means. Anyone who attempts to restrict me from doing so is a fool at best, an outright enemy at worst.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
n 1994, the US government imposed...
Well then the obvious soluition is to tun around and charge US makers in participating in civil rights abuses in the United States.
This to me is not all that far fetched. With all the crap going on in the US, you could very well defend the idea that companies should not be actively participating in it.
The boycottdelta.com project did a good job at this, by holding Delta responsible for being the first airline to participate in CAPPS II. That, at the very least, delayed the implimentation of CAPPS II.
Now having said that, I've had an issue with the Ohio BMV collecting and retaining driver information that they were not authroized to collect. I could say the invasion of privacy is a civil rights abuse, and that some company has participated in this abuse, it seems that, at the very least, a company supporting technology to a government should know if the government has been authorized and is permitted to collect the information.
As far as I'm concerned, some doors have been open.
That's a pretty low threshold for what a right is.
T@iw@n, T1b3t, d3m0cr@cy, di$$ident.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I've seen a lot of biased headlines since I started visiting Slashdot in the 90s. But seeing "Microsoft Violates Human Rights In China" because bad people might be using their software takes the cake.
Where is the "Open Source Violates Human Rights In China," since there is a China Linux distribution and all? Or did we conveniently forget about that? How stupid.
What about KDE removing the Taiwan flag so that they'll sell in China?
Is that a human rights violation? Will Slashdot report with a "KDE Violates Human Rights In China" headline? Doubt it.
See title.
They would simply use open source software instead. In fact, you could look at it this way: the Chinese government run their tracking software on an OS that's full of bugs and tends to crash at the slightest provocation. Better for the people they are tracking than if they ran it on a nice stable Linux, eh?
Why the hostility to Amnesty International?
The Nobel Peace laureate and Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble called human rights organisations a "great curse" yesterday and accused them of complicity in terrorist killings.
KDE removed the Taiwan flag so that they would sell in China. Where is the "KDE Violates Human Rights In China" headline on Slashdot?
China is building their own OS using Linux so I guess one again y'all are full of hypocritical shyt.
.up a huge can of worms for the Open Source community and an open source operating system.
People in glass houses should not throw bulldozers...
Loading...
Quote 1: "how about the stigma assigned by the anti-gun-nuts to us gun owners because of this"
Quote 2: "You cant have it both ways."
No doubt part of the 'stigma' of being a gunwieldingmaniac... ahem... 'legitimate gun owner' is being called childish names. You, sir (or ma'am), can't have it both ways.
Incidentally, you're also a fucking idiot.
Read Pynchon.
No doubt this 'publicity stunt' is aimed at promoting Amnesty's new line of products, so they can reap huge profits when it takes off in the media... oh wait... well, i guess they just like to get attention for no particular reason then. Or maybe THEY CARE ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS? Nah...
Read Pynchon.
I'm a current member, and you are correct regarding their policies to the best of my knowledge. There is a very strong emphasis on individual human rights, particularly due process, presumption of innocence and the elimination of all torture and use of the death penalty.
I am staggered when people can look at an organisation like AI and react in a hostile manner. It's like saying you hate sunbeams, puppy dogs and rainbows, for god's sake. They have no ulterior motives, they have no shadowy interests, they aren't selling anything. They are a not-for-profit organisation dedicated to protecting the most basic rights of every human on the planet, including the inhabitents of the western world.
They are not anti-trade. They are not anti-sovereignty. They are not anti-business. They are simply anti-violations of human rights, that's pretty much it. Anyone who directly or indirectly contributes to such violations is therefore highlighted as part of their efforts to bring problems to the attention of the world.
Incidentally, I don't think anyone who says Amnesty 'doesn't propose any solutions' is thinking about it very hard. I can propose a generic solution: stop violating human rights. It's really not that hard to implement:
1. Stop violating human rights
2. ???
3. Profit!
Read Pynchon.
Governments would certainly struggle to be oppressive without technology. It's hard to oppress the massess without guns, spying machinery and propaganda. I have a feeling the Chinese government would lose control if they tried punching people, reading the gossip columns and word of mouth instead of using the technologically superior equivalents.
I think ultimately this is not a black or white issue. The whole question of human rights is so multi-faceted that I don't think you can totally blame or exonerate anyone who deals with China indirectly in these circumstances. Of course the final responsibility is with the Chinese, but does that mean that those who aid them, knowingly or not, are totally blameless?
Read Pynchon.
Show me 10 Amnesty members who were for removing Saddam Hussein from power.
If I sell a service/software/product that can be used for many purposes, I should not be held accountable for how it's used. Even if I sell something that can only be used to violate human rights, I should not be held accountable (since it, after all, still can be kept as a exhibition). Here, we have the same crowd who rightfully says that the makers of P2P software, encryption software, file-sharing software, DeCSS, and other pieces of software, shouldn't be held liable for the illegal uses of those software; that same community, now, is idiotically and hypocritically saying that Microsoft should be held liable for the way it's software is used.
What we really have here is a case of attempted slavery. The government, and various special interest groups, are trying to enslave producers of goods. What? How? They are trying to enslave producers by trying to force them to expend resources monitoring and determining how their products are used.
I'm no fan of Microsoft. In fact, they have benefitted from various State-interventions in the free market -- like copyrights, trademarks, and patents -- which create artificial scarcity. However, that still does not mean that it is right to punish them for something of which they should have no liability.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Laws only effect the law abiding.
And the arrested.
I recommend finding a new cliche' to coin, cuz that one don't float.
Moo
Without writing an essay...
There is a terrible problem with brutal dictatorships on Planet Earth. Whenever possible, the tactics of MLK and Gandhi are best. But these are mostly practical vs an Oppressive Democracy or "Benevolant" Dictator, not an exceptionally brutal Dictator.
AI is a wacko organization in that they tend to,
1. Discount the need for brutal military action to break the backs of the worst dictatorships.
2. They tend to do a poor job of distinguishing between an unpleasant but needed evil such as the war to crush Islamo Fascism, and the actions of the ugliest of dictators.
3. I don't think that it is unfair to point out it's obvious Communist roots. This is not entirely a criticism.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
I am a semi regular reader of AI's website. It is quite interesting, and they do a great job of shining the light on many evil things. But there is a good deal I cannot agree with.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
It's one thing for Amnesty International to make the statement that MS is helping to violate human rights. However, citing MS as the violator of a UN Human Rights Code seems the height of hypocrisy. Is not China a member of the United Nations? Why is the Chinese government not being censured for failing to abide by a code which they must have approved (or abstained from voting on) as China is a permanent member of the Security Council and hence has veto power over all UN resolutions.
in the whole world. You are worried about few villages in china? Talk Iraq. Talk Afghanistan. Talk VietNam. Talk Banana republics. Dude, america killed far more number of people than anyone else.. you can just relax. Oh btw, they bill the country for the bombs too... ala haliburton in Iraq.
Just me thinking out loud, but isn't writing something like "MICROSOFT VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS" somewhat, you know, slanderous? "MICROSOFT AND HUMAN RIGHTS", that's fine. "HUMAN RIGHTS AND SOFTWARE", yeah that's okay. "MICROSOFT VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS" is pure slander. If you don't believe me, believe dictionary.com... slander n. 1. Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation. 2. A false and malicious statement or report about someone. The headline states that MS is guilty of human rights violations in China. That is the only way one could possibly interpret that statement and it is clearly worded to ensure as much. The MS bashing is one thing, but watch your asses. MS can fold you up and stuff you in the glove compartment without batting an earnings report, and shit like this gives them a good fucking reason.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
People killing with guns is a seperate logical case, and is an AND.
People killing with other weapons besides guns is a different circumstance (logical case).
HenryJamesFeltus.com
I stand corrected. I reckon my program has bugs in it also.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Was trying to sidestep this unpleasant fact amigo
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Ridiculous bid by Amnesty Internation for donations from Microsoft? What? Most likely.
i know its "their" website and all, but can we collectively fire the yellow journalists that make up the slashdot staff ?
this headline is the most absurd thing i have _ever_ read here. everytime i think i've seen the dumbest peice of editorial slant condensed into just the few lame sentences they add to the usually slanted lame article submission.. something like this comes along and moves the bar.
listen, taco - your proseletyzing(sp?) is really dragging down an otherwise nice site.
Historically there's been plenty of things to be mad at microsoft for. There's no need to resort to just making shit up. If you want to dedicate all of slashdot to hatred-fueled Microsoft bashing, you could at least stick to things that are accurate!!
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
So what you're saying is, Bill Gates possibly secretly wishes to quash the pro-democracy movement in China???
(How utterly thoughtful of IBM to leave all the evidence right there in their archives for Edwin Black to discover! Lucky for him Hollerith didn't destroy it, what with all the war crimes commission and all...)
This means that if Microsoft violates or allows violations of human rights, by act of design or negligence, it means they are prepared to violate anyones human rights for profit. What is more sinister is now that such software methods exists it can be refined to violate human rights anywhere. Microsoft Dissident tracker for Windows anyone?
This applies to any corporation, they are by definition of U.S law, classed as legal entities with the same legal obligations and entitlements as any U.S citizen - why then should they be treated differently? Anyone care to make a list?
http://www.google.com/search?q=corporation+Huma
Since Freedom is such an etherial thing it's hard to notice it slipping away, until it's gone.
I mean, western society is still free and for the people, isn't it?
You are right that open source software can just as easily be used for evil as proprietary software.
The fundamental difference though, is that open source, public domain software is given to the community at large to do with what they will without the authors being able to control its use, whereas proprietary software is knowingly sold to people/entities whose track record on human rights is usually pretty well known before the sale is made.
Visceral Psyche Films
All your criticisms of Amnesty International seem to be predicated on the assumption that war is the way to protect human rights. I would like to see your examples of that success of war, as prosecuted by the American military, since the 2nd world war. With the exception of the NATO war, led by the US, in Yugoslavia, and the possible trivial example in Liberia, which is too early to tell. While the Amnesty International program has success without war, as is also demonstrated around the world, in Europe, South America, Asia, and the US every 4 and 6 years.
--
make install -not war
"Chicago and Washington DC banned handguns. New York has almost done so. Those places don't seem to have a shortage of armed criminals though, do they? So who, I ask you, is really affected by the law? The good guys, or the bad guys?"
There is a logical error in your argument because we have no way of knowing what the death rate from handguns would be in these cities if there were no gun control laws. I find it difficult to believe that the shootings (accidental and criminal) in these cities would not rise if everyone had a corner gunshop as well as a corner deli.
Also, your argument that restrictions make no difference does not take into account that there is an extensive trade in guns purchased in other states and brought into these cities. If guns were more tightly controlled everywhere the availability of guns for criminals in these cities would likely be much less.
Reports of the recent attempt to hold manufacturers accountable for who they sell to have been subtley spun by the gun lobby to make it appear ridiculous. In the case of the Colt lawsuit, the suit was not to hold Colt responsible if someone was killed by any old Colt gun, but was made because Colt was selling handguns to a few large-volume gun dealers who were shipping those guns illegally to areas with restrictive gun laws. Colt knew these dealers were running guns to New York and selling them illegally (they hd been informed by law-enforcement) and yet did not stop selling to them. It is not ridiculous at all to hold Colt responsible when they knew very well their product was being re-sold illegally.
For some reason, most gun owners automatically think they are being targetted by those activities. Does that say something about your self-image?
when some stupid woman fget's on TV screaming how owning guns will kill my child? Yes I AM being directly targetted. anti-gun lobbying is running full speed on FUD and very VERY little truth. Mt daughter was taught how to fire a firearm SAFELY. not by her "wild eyed gun totin' father" as someone like you would put it, but by a nation wide terrorist group called the Girl Scouts of America trying to arm and train our youth to run through the screets killing at random!
yur type started the war against gun by using the blanket generalization... and now you bitch when the can of worms you opened is used elsewhere...
I repeat myself...
you cant have it both ways.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Some Gun control is fine. we like some gun control. when you have these lunatics on TV screaming how guns kill! guns in your house will kill your kids! having guns in my hose CAUSES school shootings! OMG!! you have guns?? TERRORIST!!
This is all you hear on TV from the anti-gun lobby groups.. nothing but complete lies and zero truth.
They fail to mention that the gang down in the getto is not going to guns-r-us to buy their weapons with their ID and permit. they are buying them on the black market. Getting weapons that I was NEVER able to buy.
you can make gun ownership punishable by death and it will not remove ONE gun from the streets or the hands of the idiots and morons that use them imporperly (I.E. not for target,hunting,self defense)..
gun control is NOT the answer, because it solves nothing but hidden adgendas of a few rich people with too much time on their hands.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Here in the UK it's not generally acceptable to own a gun.
really?? so you dont have ANY hunting groups or gun clubs there then... Hmmm, I must have mistaken that IRA training facility outside london for a shooting range that had many MANY fine looking UK residents shooting skeet in a most impressive way.
I suggest you actually LEARN about your own country before you speak about it.
BTW, the last national SKEET championships was dominated by UK, and EUROPEAN shooters..
It must have only been the complete loonies from your country in those events.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
is it?
a gun can kill a limited number of people.. microsoft products can keep a list of millions of prisioners to be gassed.
it still doesnt matter, you CANT blame a manufacturer for the use of their tool. anyone that blames a gun maker for a killing is just as retarted as someone blaming microsoft for doctor Evil's use of excel.
[noun] doesn't [bad verb]
People with [noun] [bad verb]s.
You should look at Stargoat's journal which has a lot on China and human rights. He seems to keep a serious eye on China.
Wikileaks, no DNS
It is thanks to organizations like AI that rogue goverments get criticism that otherwise would not exist due to commercial or political niceties and expediency.
When the US and the UK were busy helping a certain Hussein against Iran, AI was all around the place denouncing his attrocities.
People that wanted to listen, learned and listend.
People like you, ignored them.
We all know the consequences.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Since when?
You have been listening too much to right wing media...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Profitting from human misery is immoral, no matter how you spin it.
By large the OSS world does not profit from their products, there are companies that do (Sun) and rightly are also mentioned in the report.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Given that the U.S Department of Justice wants VoIP technology to enable wiretaps for the purposes of criminal investigations and combatting terrorism, what prevents the government of the PRC from using that exact same technology to stamp out dissidents that advocate democracy, human rights, freedom of religion?
Really, what's a company to do in the worldwide marketplace?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Great post.
There is a logical error in your argument because we have no way of knowing what the death rate from handguns would be in these cities if there were no gun control laws.
I agree--we can't know the answer to that. However, I never mentioned death rates--I merely pointed out that there is no shortage of armed crminals in New York, Chicago, or DC. In this, gun control has quite obviously failed in keeping weapons out of the hands of crminals, but succeeded wildly in disarming the law abiding. This is NOT debatable--it's fact.
Also, your argument that restrictions make no difference does not take into account that there is an extensive trade in guns purchased in other states and brought into these cities. If guns were more tightly controlled everywhere the availability of guns for criminals in these cities would likely be much less.
It would probably be less, but not MUCH less. Wittness the UK, where gun ownership among crminals has increased dramatically since 1997. Lawful owners have been all but eliminated, the number of unlawful owners have skyrocketed, and the UK's neighbors all have strict gun control laws--not to mention the UK is a damned island. Say all 50 states end up with gun laws similar to DC, and somehow the large number of guns already in the hands of people (280,000,000 of them--guns, not people, that is) are dealt with. You don't think some enterprising soul will start importing container loads of weapons from 3rd world countries, where full auto AK-47s go for $25? Or steal them from police, or the army?
The only answer to the "gun control doesn't work because the laws in $PLACE are less restrictive" is the complete destruction of every firearm on earth, and the removal of all knowledge required to produce more--which is about as probable as Bush submitting a balanced budget to congress.
Reports of the recent attempt to hold manufacturers accountable for who they sell to have been subtley spun by the gun lobby to make it appear ridiculous.
For the most part, they are.
Colt was selling handguns to a few large-volume gun dealers who were shipping those guns illegally to areas with restrictive gun laws. Colt knew these dealers were running guns to New York and selling them illegally (they hd been informed by law-enforcement) and yet did not stop selling to them.
"High Volume" dealers are more likely to see their products sold illegally, because they sell more guns. That said, if these dealers are commiting crimes they should be held both criminally and civilly responsible. There is an entire federal agency that has a mandate to do this! What the hell is BATFE doing if they're not arresting dealers who they KNOW (according to you) are committing felonies? Why do those dealers still have their FFLs? Why doesn't BATFE TELL Colt, S&W, etc that they're not allowed to ship weapons to those dealers anymore? What's the purpose of having this massive federal agency if it isn't doing it's job, and why should the manufacturer be blamed for the failings of government?
I'm just as concerned about gun runners as you are, you know--it's why I don't object to all the damned paperwork I have to keep (I'm a federally licensed gun collector, and have to put up with most of the same stuff a dealer has to) and why I don't object to the background check when I buy a weapon from a dealer. But what the goal of every major gun control group is is NOT "keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals" but the desctruction of the right to keep and bear arms. And these lawsuits are just a tool they're using to acheive that aim, and attempt to do with the courts what they cannot do with the legislature.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety
By the way, your sig is incredibly ironic, given the conversation we're having.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Idiots with drugs kill themselves. Idiots with guns kill others.
Oh, not so ironic. Just because i believe there should be controls on gun ownership doesn't mean I'm not patriotic or don't believe in defending my (and your) rights. I just don't interpret "An organized militia being..." as granting an unfettered right for everyone to own unlimited untraceable weapons. When the Constitution was written the most advanced weapon was a musket and the military was actually made up of volunteers from state militias who brought their own guns. Things have changed.
Maybe you think I am more extreme than I really am - I don't support a total ban on gun ownership, and I actually own a handgun, but lets face it - if I blow away everyone in a McDonalds my biggest worry in being identified is the car I drove up in and NOT the ballistics of the weapons I used. That's just screwy in my opinion.
Idiots with guns kill others.
So do idiots with 2x4s with nails put through them. Let's make them illegal, too!
All the gun control nuts do is forget that in a civilized society, it is and always will be a matter of personal responsibility, which is not helped at all by draconian laws making everything illegal. Rather than pouring millions of dollars down the toilet on superfluous law enforcement, why not add gun training to school curriculums as an elective. Teach our kids gun safety, birth control, and finance, and they'll grow old knowing how to hunt and defend themselves, keep from reproducing like rabbits, and stay out of bankruptcy court.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
Oh, not so ironic. Just because i believe there should be controls on gun ownership doesn't mean I'm not patriotic or don't believe in defending my (and your) rights
:)
I'm not suggesting your're not patriotic (for all I know, you're a member of the ACLU or a 1st or 4th amendment activist.) Unlike some of those I associate with, I see past the 2nd amendment to the entire constitution and bill of rights. I was, however, suggesting your sig was quite ironic given that the right to bear arms is one of those essential liberties, and gun control advocates, for the msot part, want to trade them for a little temporary safety.
I just don't interpret "An organized militia being..." as granting an unfettered right for everyone to own unlimited untraceable weapons.
Most weapons aren't untraceable (unless you're talking about something made before 1898 that's not required to ever be on paper, or something made before 1968 that might never have been logged in someone's records.) Most modern firearms are easily traceable, and traces are done all the time. I'm an FFL (type 03, collector) and would have to cooperate with BATF if any of the weapons I've ever owned ended up at a crime scene somewhere. From manufacturer, to distributor, to dealer, to original purchaser, and beyond, BATF tracks weapons found at crime scenes.
I don't believe we need much more than this--and certainly not a log of every gun owner and what they own.
When the Constitution was written the most advanced weapon was a musket and the military was actually made up of volunteers from state militias who brought their own guns. Things have changed.
I disagree with this statement--or at least the point you're trying to make with it--completely. That's like suggesting that since we didn't have radio, television, or the internet in 1791, that none of these things are protected by the 1st amendment. If the 2nd amendment truly is obsolete (and I don't agree that it is) then change the constitution the right way and (try to) amend it. Don't weaken the entire document by picking and choosing which parts of it are "relevent" to modern times.
Maybe you think I am more extreme than I really am
Sorry if I jumped to conclusions. The gun manufacturer lawsuits are a hot button for me, because there is little to no merit in any I've seen. I tend to assume things about proponents of them.
lets face it - if I blow away everyone in a McDonalds my biggest worry in being identified is the car I drove up in and NOT the ballistics of the weapons I used. That's just screwy in my opinion.
I agree--but I don't see the whole ballistic fingerprinting thing (which is what I Assume you're referring to--if not, I'm sorry) as being a tool to locate crmininals (which I agree is a good thing--anyone who blows away everyone at a mcdonalds is someone we need to find, using all the tools we can) but rather a means to backdoor gun registration--which is a neccessary prelude to confiscation.
I wish you would have replied to my other post--it would have been a much more interesting conversation, I think.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
Not a bad idea, except you'll never get it passed. the pro-life group will be outraged at the second topic, credit companies will make large contributions to prevent the third. You may atually have more chances of passing the first topic.
Those are not facts, they are statistics. There is a big difference.
There is no such thing as a "Linux 7.0 webserver." There are many distributions of Linux and a few webservers available. Not listing the distribution and webserver package used kills any kind of credibility because it makes it impossible to duplicate.
I call BS on this one. On even a 350Mhz system I can install a base Debian install and webserver & ipchains package under one hour. Over three hours sounds like every single package was installed. I don't think which type of package (.rpm,
If you want to find out for yourself you can download the ISOs for Fedora GNU/Linux at http://fedora.redhat.com/download/
Microsoft actually has a bad track record when it come to being trusted and although it's software is getting better, at times it could use a little more testing. You also make being a hacker sound like a bad thing. Because of people being way to liberal about what is a hacker, it has now lost almost all meaning. Many people use the word "hacker" to mean that they are computer savvy in some way.