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'."
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
You know, lots of people roll their eyes when they see someone refer to Microsoft as 'M$' or Windows as 'WinBlowz' or something like that. Some people might even go as far as to flame you for it. Personally, I'm all in favour of it! Nothing makes me happier when I see someone make fun of Microsoft in that way! You know why? Because the quicker I see 'M$' or 'WinDOS' in a comment, the quicker I can disregard everything you've wrote, scroll past your post and add you to my 'retarded peon' list, never to take anything you say seriously ever again, even if its something completely unrelated. So, in future, please try and work your tired shots at microsoft in toward the beginning of your posts. Thanks!
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.
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.
Not the state's liberty, the people's liberty. It's not the right of the state to keep and bear arms.
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.
If you remember your history, the men who wrote that amendment had just recently won a revolution against their own government's regular, uniformed military. Dropping the 2nd amendment because we have a standing army is the last thing they'd have intended. Part of the rationale for arming the population is to keep the government mindfull of who, exactly, is in power.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
The militia is necessary to the state, for its security and freedom.
The uncanny insights of the men who signed the Constitution were informed by their victory over the British Army by the Continental Army, composed largely of self-armed and unarmed American militias. Regardless of our guesses at their "intent", the Constitution indicates that the army they formed was to be made of militias. No doubt they were wary of the tyranny of a government army at the bidding of a monarch - both parts of the equation are open to abuse. Just as important as their innovation of solely Congressional power to declare war was their localization of the military - as usual, to keep the people connected to the power, and primary in the organization of a constrained government.
The issue of whether to switch the gigantic US military to a smaller, more self-organized (and supplied) force is another interesting policy issue. But as we interpret the 2nd Amendment, we can find only a choice between it and that standing army. And we've chosen the army. So we should drop the amendment formally, especially as it's being misapplied to create an uninfringed right to bear arms by anyone who wishes, which only the totally unrealistic would defend.
--
make install -not war
he militia is necessary to the state, for its security and freedom.
The uncanny insights of the men who signed the Constitution were informed by their victory over the British Army by the Continental Army, composed largely of self-armed and unarmed American militias. Regardless of our guesses at their "intent", the Constitution indicates that the army they formed was to be made of militias.
There's no need to guess. Those men left behind many writings that made their feelings on the subject abundantly clear. If you require something more substantial than the private writings of our founding fathers, I suggest you look at state constitutions of the time.
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Some other state constitutions raise the very question you post, though most of them are also VERY clear about who the actual right belongs to.
Massachussetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by
North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty. they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.
South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The issue of whether to switch the gigantic US military to a smaller, more self-organized (and supplied) force is another interesting policy issue. But as we interpret the 2nd Amendment, we can find only a choice between it and that standing army.
I'm confused as to why you
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?