Slashdot Mirror
Bloggers Test New MS China Filter
earthbound kid writes "Rebecca MacKinnon at Global Voices Online has set up a test of Microsoft's censored blogs on MSN China (see previous Slashdot story) with screenshots. It seems that MSN rejected titling a new blog 'I love freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy' (in Chinese) because 'The title must not contain prohibited language, such as profanity.' MacKinnon managed to use a workaround and got a pro-freedom blog up, for the moment."
Why not use pornsites' tactics in here?
Like for example, "dmeocarcy" instead of "democracy", "frit psot" instead of well youknow, etc?
When words are outlawed, only outlaws will speak.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Is that everyone knows you are censoring. It only truly works, when ala 1984 everyone is convinced that it isn't happening.
Welcome to the internet China, and Microsoft, claiming you are "just enforcing local laws" is just a bad a defence of the freedoms you enjoy as the traditional "I was just obeying orders defence".
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
by drawing it to Microsoft's attention by posting it on Slashdot, one of the sites that most every Microsoft employee monitors for news.
Shhhhheeeyit.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I hope Chinese people do not use MSN blogger, the other bloggers must e checked too.
All we need to solve this problem is to convince China to broadcast Dallas reruns as a method of showing how decadent the American lifestyle is. Hey, it worked for Romania, didn't it? ;-)
More seriously, an AC a bit higher up had a good point. China is a sovereign nation and has full rights to what goes on inside their borders. We in the US may not *like* it, but their laws are their laws. No such laws exist to _allow_ for free speech. Now If the citizens decided to overthrow their government, then I'm sure you'd see the US right there to support them.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You might be right but threatening to kill the president is a far cry from using the word "democracy".
meep
If I made a cartoon of Snow White, Beauty and the Beast, or any of dozens of other fairy tales that are in the public domain, do you really think I'd get them released with Disney fighting me?
Is it that different if the government blocks free speech directly or allows companies to do it?
yes, because telling a story of how the president might die is certainly threatening to kill him. because, you know, talking about terrorist attacks certainly means I'm going to commit one.
What about those kids who got in trouble with the SS (secret service) when the sang a parody of a song, containing words "kill" and "clinton", etc?
:-P
President Douglas: "In all the time that the Secret Service has been protecting ex-Presidents, how many attempts on their lives have there been?"
Agent: "Uhhhh.... none, sir?"
President Douglas: "I find that sad."
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Threatening to kill the president is against the law in the US. While somebody doing a parody may not go to jail, you do stand a very good chance of getting a visit from the Secret Service.
Writing about freedom & democracy isn't against the law in the US AFAIK.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
MacKinnon managed to use a workaround....
/.ed.
Which promptly got submitted and
Who are the editors working for, exactly?
IF YOU DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH:
* You must have a HotMail account...
Isn't writing these instructions in English a bit like having drive-up ATM's in Braille?
When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
Have you ever seen any of those sites where they show edited bush speaches on .govs? Thhe link to the google cache and the current page, on slight stuff like 'major operations' from 'operations' and various stutters, and mispronounciations.
Why am I not rapping? I am rapping with you in a way.
They are different, but equally threatening to the people in charge.
woah, woah....nobody threatened to kill anyone here. the song was just telling a story. jeeze. telling the story of 9/11 does not mean you plan on repeating it using your own airplanes. no one was threatening anyone.
That's not an example of censorship. It's a bad thing that happened to them, yes, but they were able to say it.
Censorship is preventing something from being expressed, not harassing somebody who already said something.
Censorship definitely exists in the United States; that's what the FCC does to TV and radio with their "obscenity" rules. I know the FCC is trying to replace what parents should be doing (and perhaps doing more sinister things), but I challenge you to prove to me that there is more censorship in the USA than China.
would you be censored for being pro communism? no.
But seriously, if China wants to censor a website, all they need to do is submit an article to slashdot with link to the site...
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
China is a sovereign nation. China is fully within her rights to say what her citizens are allowed to say on line and what they're not.
By your logic, Afghanistan under the Talibans was a sovereign nation, and they were fully within their rights to arrest, torture and shoot any woman who dared going outdoors without wearing a huge blue tent over themselves, or men without beards, or people who owned books. Similarly, Khmer Rouges had the right to deport people to the countryside and kill vietnamese, etc etc etc...
That's so stupid I think you're actually just a troll...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
What about those kids who got in trouble with the SS (secret service) when the sang a parody of a song, containing words "kill" and "clinton", etc? Bah.
We've had 44 presidents, 4 assasinated while in office. 4 more who have had attempts on their life while in office. That's 18% of the the presidents so far.
The Secret Services job is to protect the President, his family, other high ranking officials and their families and foriegn dignitaries. They take their job seriously. They investigate ALL instances of possible threats because one of them just might be real. A guy I knew was pissed at a cop and said "I'm gonna kill the president!" The SS showed up at his door by the end of the week to find out if he was a threat or not. They found out he wasn't and left him alone.
So clarify what you mean by the kids or let the SS do their job.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
The media is free to report views unfavorable to the government, but they may lose some of their priviledged access. I did not like the embedded reporters program - I believed they sold their journalistic souls for access. However, it was optional, and if you wanted to post things against the war like www.juancole.com does, you are free to do so without fear of reprisal.
I struggled for days and days and all I got was this lousy sig.
yes, actually. many people have been thrown in jail for being pro-communism in the few decades.
Honestly, if Chinese bloggers start using this method ie: "dmeocracy", "fredeom"...etc, are we going to see a NEW method of spam filtering come out of China from on high? Would that be considered action through despotism if it actually happened??
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Whoops! I wish I were president...
Why am I not rapping? I am rapping with you in a way.
BTW, I have a spot 'in my business' for an intellectual enterprising young man such as yourself just send $19.95 to:
Nice to see Gilmore's Law is still in effect.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Neither Afghanistan under the Taliban nor Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge were recognized by many countries as legitimate. Not so with China.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Some of us believe that there are such things as basic human rights that all people are entitled to, and that governments should not be allowed to take away from people.
Freedom of speech is one of these rights.
HTH
Hello. Go to the sofa and look for change.
Your Uncle Mildred is happy to see you.
Galvanize the subway on Thursday.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Sorry for the spelling, I had to get past the slashdot profanity filters.
The people, as a majority, on the other hand, seem to always be the outspoken critic that takes the back-seat. How can the people choose a government above them that doesn't correspond to reality? Simply because all government today is implemented in corporate form. I've looked across the Constitution for China, and it is verry sadenning to see it explicitly dedicate powers to various entities that perhaps could not be immediatly changed but by revolution, and worse is it bares false witness of itself by saying China is a "Socialist Republic" every other sentence.
United States, however, is separate from the United States of America because according to Title 28 Section 3002 15a, "United States" is a Federal corporation. And thus the struggle in America is just this; you have federal government and then you have a federal corporation called "United States" in that federal government. About 200 years ago, after the Constitution for the United States of America was written, it was declared by Benjamin Franklin to be a Republic simply by observing the text: not WE THE PEOPLE of the such-and-such STATE of state, but "the people" hold all authority and power and can assign duties to statesmen. Then, a certain "We, the People" emerged, separate from the people.
Cites,
Title 28, Section 3002
Title 28, Section 1746
without prejudice
So once you have enough guns to force your neighbors to recognize you as legitimate, you get to abuse your populace without them doing anything about it?
Sounds about right.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
It depends on the extent. The SS has to investigate potential threats. What if these guys did decide to kill Clinton. The SS had no way of telling wihtout doing at least a little research. They'd look completely incompetent if they missed somethign that obvious.
China is also part of the U.N. and, as a member, subscribes to the United Nations Declaratio on Human Rights.
And, as a result, they should not be censoring their own citizens right to speak freely, etc.
Google for "United Nations Declaration on Human Rights" some time, read it, and then look at what is espoused in that document and what member countries of the United Nations are actually DOING. Particularly, countries that are members of the security council.
What is "said" and what is "done" (or not done) are two differen things.
Microsoft should not be assisting the Chinese government in this, even remotely, and the fact that they are, speaks volumes to me about what Microsoft management things is right and proper, ethical and "good for all".
Either that or money. Sad but true.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
For once Microsoft is not the bad guy here. I don't understand why people are faulting Microsoft for cooperating with a government that could keep them out of a huge market. It is not Microsoft that is deciding that these things should be censored, it is China. Microsoft is just trying to make more money, just like every other American corporation would do. It is China that is trying to keep a lid on ideas that would threaten the way of life for those holding power in that country. And for all of those out there who keep saying that you would never bow to such a request, that's only because you will never have the chance to. If somebody told you if you cooperated with the laws of a country you did not agree with you could make millions or billions more dollars, you would do it. And if you were a public corporation, you would have a responsability to your share holders to do it. If you want to fix the problem, stop talking about how Microsoft is so evil because they are suppressing free speech (which they are not, that's China) and start talking about how the Chinese government is denying peoples rights, and how people and governments can influence China to change.
And Elvis! How could you forget Elvis???
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I don't even know how to reply to this "China is a sovereign nation. China is fully within her rights to say what her citizens are allowed to say on line and what they're not." crap, because a correct arguments would be just very trivial. What you're saying is basically "a bunch of powerful guys have a right to shut or kill anyone they want to".
I couldn't care less.
I wish you will not find yourself in a position where you'd really care about others giving a fuck about your rights to speak/do what you want/live/practice religion, etc.. Either grow up (if you're young and don't have a clue) or... I don't know, if you're a (already ethically formed) adult, then you're pretty much fucked up. Or... you just wanted to make a joke/start a flame. Can't say I'm impressed.
Actually, a good content filter won't let you do GIS's with "SafeSearch is off" in the text of the page.
The requested URL
I've got one (pardon the translation):
m
The real horse is your mother.
Get it?
In spoken Chinese (or rather, the group of languages collectively called Chinese), each syllable is given one of four "tones". The meaning of the word changes if even one syllable is mis-toned. The whole language group is one big pun waiting to happen!
See http://www.omniglot.com/writing/chinese_spoken.ht
for more details.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
"Actual censorship is relatively rare." That's the problem with censorship. Unless you have a totally transparent government, how do you know whether or not someone is being censored? If the target of censorship speaks up, what's the say that protest isn't censored as well? Censorship, in and of itself, is only possible under a system that allows it. Unless citizens know exactly what their government is doing, there's not guarantee our rights are actually being upheld. The whole idea of a law that you're not allowed to talk about is such an anethma to this we should all be outraged. The fact that people can be held without recourse should make us all really angry. Unfortunately, the majority of sheep in the US are willing to give up their freedoms for the false hope of absolute security. They came for your neighbor and you did nothing to stop them. Who then will fight for your rights when they come for you?
Can it synthesize meaning out of a collection of words appearing in context? Like, instead of writing "democracy" in the blog, could one simply write "a form of government based on popular vote?"
Or maybe go the 1984 route: everwhere you want to write the word "freedom" write "slavery" instead.
Oh, poor China is in trouble and the Chinese people are suffering. Don't worry, Americans to the rescue!! Aren't we all glad that we have Americans? They're the reason why everything good on the earth happens.
but I have from reliable sources (on the INTERNET)
Some would argue that the two are mutually exclusive, an oxymoron.
Now on the OTHER hand, my wife's uncle's dog's vet's husband's third cousin says he has a friend who actually WORKS at this place and has SEEN all these aliens...the kids are there too!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And yet, China does not want Japan to be a member. I love the the membership status of the UN *sarcasem*
Life is not for the lazy.
They may well be using simple rule based filtering today, but if the developers are remotely motivated they'll end up with something like Bayesian filtering built into the system. Then it becomes extremely difficult to create workarounds.
Deleted
America, for all its faults, is nothing at all like a totalitarian country.
The U.S.A. on the other hand is creeping closer and closer to becoming a police state.
Actually, you're absolutely right. You should have just left them alone and taken care of your business. As if it weren't already worrying enough.
Global warming is a cube.
They are obviously using smart filtering for profanity, and misflagged 'freedom' as a reference to free software.
In a fair world, refrigerators would make electricity.
It's not the least bit surprising the bloggers have just made a big deal out of what the rest of the technology community has known for a decade (China censors the internet, aka the Great Firewall) and society has known for decade(s) (China is a communist regime, hell-bent on censorship to protect itself).
What disappoints me is that nobody realizes how self-righteous we are. For example- there was an ABC news story recently about China sending in thugs to beat up people and chase them off their land when the government wants their land- which doesn't even really belong to them, anyway.
How horrid, right? Except the US government does virtually the same thing, and it's called Emminent Domain. Your house in the way of that shopping mall? Sorry. Your house belongs to the government now. And then a week later, the government sells it to that land developer who wanted to build the shopping mall. I suppose one could stretch it that we're more "civilized" about it, and spin it such that the law was originally intended to prevent one hick from standing in the way of society- but it's being used every day for exactly what it really was meant to do- give corporations a free lunch over the common man. In Boston, they razed entire neighborhoods, and split in half others, to build the northeast expressway- that hideous raised highway which is finally going away. There have been a lot of plans floated about what to do with all the prime downtown real estate this just created- everything except giving it back to the people it was stolen from in the first place. One of the more popular ideas was a park. Yeah. Great. That'll really console the people who were evicted from their own property by force.
Oh, but this is CENSORSHIP you say. Well, I tell you what? Mention a certain head of the executive branch's name in the same sentence as a chemically powered metal-launching device on the internet, and see how fast it takes for a polite gentleman from the government to knock on your door, and have a nice chat with you about not ever doing that again.
We proudly spout many of the very same things China does now. Secret searches, arrests, detentions? Check, check, and check. Government monitoring of what you read? Check, although the legislature seems to be getting around to working on that one.
My absolute favorite bit was when Rumsfield recently said that military spending for China was the 3rd highest in the world. Something like $50BN. Except guess what the US DoD budget is? THREE HUNDRED BILLION PLUS. We're #3 in the world per-capita, #1 in the WORLD total!
Please help metamoderate.
Threatening to kill the president is against the law in the US. While somebody doing a parody may not go to jail, you do stand a very good chance of getting a visit from the Secret Service.
I'm not aware of any laws against threatening the President, any more than threatening the life of any other person.
You will get a visit from the Secret Service (or the FBI if the Secret Service is too busy) who will investigate to determine if the threat is a valid one, but (assuming it isn't) you can't be prosecuted for it (any more than you would for threatening the life of any other person.)
Worst case, you may be put on a "watch list" of people that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the President. No fundraising banquets for you. Whereas, if you threatened me, I'd get a restraining order stating that you shouldn't be within 100 feet of me at any time. Same deal.
Actually that's pretty much how Afghanistan was, until their leaders were no longer content only abusing their own people and decided to give protection and support to terrorists who coordinated attacks on other countries. For the most part, tyrants get away with stuff in their own countries and only get stomped when they piss off a more powerful nation.
Claiming China (or rather those in power in China) can do whatever it wants because it' a sovereign nation (so what?) is really taking the easy way out and choosing not to care about your fellow human beings.
:-/
While I agree with your sentiments, I don't think you follow the complexity of the situation. The government of China is allowed to be the government by its people. Unless the people there are willing to rise up against their own government, there's little we can do about it over here. It's simply not in our hands to change. And businesses that wish to do business in China must either follow their laws or get out.
Question: What would you have the US or UN do about the situation? Allocate money to start a war over people's right to free speech being taken away? Would you die to protect the speech in China? Would you be willing to put the lives of your family and friends on the line? What lengths would you go to in order to make certain that China has free speech?
Now here's a really vexing question for you: Would the Chinese people support the US if we were to attempt to overthrow their government, or would they fight against us for their sovergnty?
You have to be very careful about these situations. Believe it or not, your attempts to impose your goals on others may actually turn them against you.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You are sorely, sorely, stupid. Have you missed the entire past 250 years of history?
"We hold these truths to be SELF EVIDENT..." You should complete the rest. If you haven't memorized it already, go search for "Declaration of Independence" on Google.
Man is sovereign. God gave man their rights. Man gives some of their power to form a government. Their rights do not come from the government, and the created beast called government has no rights to turn on their master. Instead, it is the government who may have their powers revoked at any time by a displeased population.
Governments are instituted by men for one purpose - to PROTECT (not intrude) on the rights of men. When governments go beyond this and begin intruding on their rights, man has a right and a duty to overthrow the government.
In the US, we have a system of constant revolution. Every 4 years we choose a new "king "and every 2 and 6 years we have a brand new "parliament". Should the majority of the people become dissatisfied with their government, they rise up and rebel at the ballot box, and a completely new government is formed with completely new people and possibly new rules. Our bloodless revolutions have been occuring for quite some time now (with only minor hiccups that were quickly resolved), and is the model for the rest of the world.
The Taliban was a tyrannical regime. Thank God every day that they are fallen and scattered and busy trying to find a new place to sleep each night rather than a someone new to persecute and torture. The USSR was a tyrannical regime. Thank God that they are gone as well. China, North Korea, and every member of the "Axis of Evil" has their days numbered. One day, their people will rise up (perhaps with some assistance) and overthrow their governments and remake it in their own image.
You represent an ancient artifact of outmoded thinking. Your kind and your beliefs are so outmoded and so useless that we forget that there are people who still think like you. What do you think has happened to the world for the past 250 years? Why do you think there isn't a nation in Europe run by a dictator or king anymore? Why have the great dynasties of Asia fallen into a distant memory? Where are the conquerors and emperors and dictators of yester-year? Where is their glory and their armies and navies and power? They are in the trash-bin of history, along with the backward notion that they somehow have a divine right to oppress people. One by one, tyrannical regimes are replaced with peaceful democracies. The march has been constant since 1776, and it won't stop until every nation is free. It won't even stop then, as each nation has periodic peaceful revolutions to remind their governments that the people are not slaves but masters.
This revolution of the world hasn't been stopped or slowed at any time in its histories. Great Brittain, the super-power, couldn't stop it when it was contained by 13 small colonies, barely able to raise a navy. Hitler, in control of over half of Europe, couldn't stop it when it was in the hands of a small island-nation and an agricultural nationa in economical ruin and for all purposes disarmed. Imperial death troops from Japan couldn't stop it despite the fact that the nation guarding it was busy in two wars spread across the world. The great USSR couldn't even slow it down when it claimed minor victories in pockets of the world. Do you think it will be any different in China or Iraq or Syria or Iran or North Korea?
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
What you're saying is basically "a bunch of powerful guys have a right to shut or kill anyone they want to".
I don't know if you have noticed, but this is the way the world has been functioning for the last some thousand years. Or do you really believe that "a right" is something given to your precious self by a benevolent supernatural being? by some pretty fairy maybe?
Guess what, all rights that someone has are only valid as long as he's able to enforce them. Just like your country's right to send you to jail is made valid by enforcing it through *violence*. In the end, it all boils down to who's stronger. Sorry to break such news to you.
Global warming is a cube.
And by your logic our form of government is the only valid form. Every other type of government is wrong and we should put considerable political pressure on them or just invade them right out and make it all better with 'democracy'. The grandparent isn't a troll, he's stating a fact. If you live in a country you live by the laws of that land. If you don't like the laws then move. I realize that moving isn't always possible for any number of reasons (financial, government, etc...), but that's life. The United States isn't, or shouldn't be, the big brother for every country on Earth.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech, I just don't think we have a right to put our nose in China's internal affairs and tell them that they're wrong.
I bet they're telling them their Intellectual Property practices are wrong. It's all and only about money.
And you're going to support that "natural law" till your dying breath aren't you? Maybe go to war to enforce it? Maybe just go outside and beat up some weaklings, just to prove that it still holds?
That's very interesting. Do you have specific examples? Stutters and mispronunciations get cut out of transcripts all the time; that's not really a conspiracy. But actually adding/removing words is a big deal, especially if it's deliberate.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
Actually no. The Taliban was left to it's own devices to systematically oppress women including all the horrible things you mentioned (as well as many you didn't). The US did nothing until the terrorists that they were harboring decided to attack us.
Genocide in Rwanda, and the US does nothing.
Genocide in the Sudan and the US does nothing (even though we fully admit that it's genocide this time around).
Zimbabwe is systematically destoying the homes of the poorer classes who didn't vote for the president in the last election. The US is doing nothing.
Saudi Arabia is listed as a violator of human rights by our own government, but we aren't doing anything.
The US has used the 'they are a soverign nation, and we have no right to intercede in their affairs' argument when it suits them, but use the opposite argument when there is something worth taking.
--Chag
I don't see how I need to support or enforce something that just happens to be. Do you support or enforce, say, electricity? Rain? Gravity?
Anyway, in case you're not convinced of what I said in my post, you should consider that "beating up some weaklings" is exactly the way most nations were, and still are, made. I would like to remind you that the winners write the rules. That's exactly the way the USA will justify its invasion of Iraq (and other countries before that): we has won. we has big gun. we is teh right ones.
Have a nice life pretending someone/something actually protects you.
Global warming is a cube.
First posting isn't trolling. It's...first posting.
"I'm all for free speech, I just don't think we have a right to put our nose in China's internal affairs and tell them that they're wrong." Well...we have every right to SAY it's wrong. That's what free speech is all about. Obviously this is not something to go to war about. Economic sanctions, maybe. But it's sad when a mind's muzzled.---Al
MINDMISTRESS ---the greatest super
If the law of "might makes right" is so all-pervasive, how do you explain the civil rights movement in the US? Why was India given her independence by England? Why do cars stop for pedestrians?
What about changing the plain text "freedom" or "democracy" to multi-part images of those words (or the characters that represent them in Chinese) that are lined up? Couldn't that get past their filters? Just a thought.
It is in fact illegal and you can get yourself up to 5 years:
/ parts/i/chapters/41/sections/section_871.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Being a blog and all, I'd consider it's 'information' kinda questionable, and it's opinions somewhat colored (politically). It also apeared to be more about the website than specific speaches...But I digress
http://www.differentstrings.info/archives/2003/08/ more_bush_revis.html
Why am I not rapping? I am rapping with you in a way.
The Republic of China, whose capital is Taipei, has democracy and free speech. Those Maoist insurgents on the mainland are illegitimate. There is only One China!
Oh, and also check out some of those "Bushism" books , one of them had an intro (the second one, I think) about how it was getting harder to find bushisms (i.e. I know how hard it is to put food on your family), as they edit the speaches they post online, though that's of less relevence.
Why am I not rapping? I am rapping with you in a way.
<p>Following the logic you apply to those situations, is the United States (a sovereign nation) fully within its rights to arrest and "interrogate" (read: torture; for references - watch the news) prisoners in Gitmo?</p>
<p>Furthermore, what authority does the United States have concerning other sovereign nations? The definition of "sovereign" is:</p>
<blockquote>Self-governing; independent</blockquote>
<p>Are you saying that an independent nation cannot have the freedom to do what it wants? Even if it conflicts with American worldviews, we should respect the sovereign nature of every nation around the globe.</p>
<p>While I don't think you're a troll, I just want to point out the other side the statement you made. You can't be selective about where the rules apply, chap.</p>
(the following is an actual post after being censored and released for public consumption)
~April 17~
Last year, Zhyang and I went to visit New York in America, the land of xxxxxxx. We had a xxxxxx time! We learned so much about xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxx, we realized it was a xxxxxxx country. We even got so see the Statue of xxxxxxxxxx. I want to tell all my fellow citizens to xxxxxxxx as soon as they get to xxxxxxxx. There, a person will translate English for you and give you xxxxxx. They also know alot about Microsoft and their products, they even have legal copies to purchase and take home.
Come back next week and learn more about my trip to Amsterdam in Holland! You won't believe all the xxxxxxxxxxxxxx there!
-Yao
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
We all know what's going on here. Microsoft is not interested in Chinese bloggers. They are interested in selling copies of their OS and Office. They will be happy to sacrifice retail for government business (you have noticed this it true in the USA as well?).
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Countries do not have any rights. Countries have powers granted to them by the citizens.
Luke-Jr
By your logic, Afghanistan under the Talibans was a sovereign nation...
That's precisely the logic used when the Americans are defending the dictators being propped up by them. If the Taliban wasn't interfering with American business, or if they were still "defending" American "interests", they would be allowed to carry on, unfettered, no matter how much torture they commit. Every country's sovereignty takes second place to American/UK business. That's a fact born out of their meddling in the Middle East, and other resource rich areas.
What?
1st (in 2003) they give up the source code of windows, to their communist government...
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-990526.html
Now they work w/ the communist government to oppress the chinese people.
Another reason why open source products are NECESSARY in a free-thinking society.
the only permanence in existence, is the impermanence of existence.
Let's have some hypothetical fun and assume that there are some brave souls who live in, say, Beijing, and who decide to write about their views on Taiwan independence, or democracy, or freedom of speech, there are many ways to get around it -- just use different words! For instance, I'm sure someone would have no problem setting up a Chinese blog titled "Taiwanese People should decide their own fate", or "People are the master of their political future", or "Putting people in prison for their words is wrong" etc, I mean I can go on and on. Relax, Chinese people aren't dumb; they'll figure out myriads of ways to get around their stupid government's tyrannical rules.
I'm glad that the bloggers are blowing the whistle on this unholy alliance between Microsoft and the Chinese government. For those of you who are still cynical about the power of blogging, consider this: the struggle for individual freedom is being fought, not by politicians in Washington, but on a new frontline called "blogosphere".
Bloggers are everywhere, we are unstoppable. I've written a light-hearted piece titled "Invasion of Blogging Critters" on my blog at http://sunandfun.blogspot.com/, if anyone's interested.
Sun and Fun
"United States" means a Federal corporation.
You're not interpretting the statute correctly at all.
The definition section is merely stating that where "United States" is referred to in that section, such things apply to all federal corporations, agencies, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States, or any instrumentality of the United States.
In other words, it applies to the TVA (A Federal corporation), it also applies to the FDIC (another Federal corporation). It doesn't apply to the California Bureau of Motor Vehicles (A California agency) but it does apply to the USPTO, which is an entity of the United States.
See 5 USC 103; which definies "government corporation" and "government controlled corporation." A Government corporation is one which is owned by the United States; a government controlled corporation is one which the US does not own, but it controls.
Or, for example, see 12 USC 1811; which created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is a federal corporation.
However, the is no federal corporation called "the United States".
See, you can't just create things without there being a law to create them. There is no law creating any such federal corporation. There are many laws creating other federal corporations. You're just making stuff up because you think you understand what you read, but you really don't.
The other section you quoted, which is basically a long way of saying, every document you submit to the courts of the United States must say that you declare that everything is correct under penalty of perjury.
The first part means that if the document is executed (signed) outside the territory of the United States, then you must add the phrase that you are subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of the United States for committing perjury in the document, even though the perjure may have been committed outside the jurisdiction of the United States. If you are inside the territory of the United States when you execute such a document, it would be redundant to include "under the laws of the United States of America," because when you commit perjury within the territory of the United States, you are already subject to those laws.
I've actually bothered to take the time and review some case law regarding 28 USC 1746, and they're pretty much all cases where someone tried to submit a document for evidence without putting in the nice form statement that is prescribed in that statute. If the person was outside the United States (i.e. in Germany) at the time of filing, they needed to include the phrase "laws of the United States", if they were inside the United States (i.e. in Texas) at the time of filing, they didn't need to include the phrase.
The only purpose of that phrase is to say that you submit to jurisdiction in the United States for the crime of perjury if you have committed it in filing said document with the court.
In fact, the Federal District Court of Hawaii has even said that so long as something substantially similar to those magic phrases are included in the document, it is good enough. Even if the phrase "under the laws of the United States of America" is left out.
If you don't put that declaration on a document submitted for evidence, chances are, you're not going to be able to use it as evidence.
Stop trying to draw something out the federal rules of evidence that isn't there.
What?
Censoring speech is illegal in China. Read the chinese constitution. The 35th amendment guarantees a freedom of speech and assembly.
Microsoft's actions are entirely extralegal, but way to go pulling chinese law out of your ass. Next time, just shut up if you don't know what you are talking about.
Also, a lot of chinese people have tried to resist their government. They are dead. Microsoft will help the Chinese government cover up it's egregious violations of the chinese constitution. In other words, MS is going to help china kill it's citizens in secret.
And if you think that this kind of thing would be okay if it were legal, why? Are laws worth more than basic human rights?
You own Microsoft stock, don't you?
how humans love you
I love freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy
1 L0\/3 fr33d0m 0f 5p33ch, 6u/\/\4n r1667ts, 4nd d3m0cr4cy!!!
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Haw shucks.
What ya'll should say is:
"Wull, d'em foks ain't nuthin but terrists and awdabee shot... BLAM!"
"Piter, too, is dead."
And americans should resolve their own government censorship problems before they go telling other people what to say and how to say it.
I wonder how many of those 'activists' have even been to China, or for that matter, even have passports.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
Someone got a 37 month Federal prison sentence for making a joke about that topic.
s +bush+burning+Richard+Humphreys&btnG=Search
It is a VERY bad idea. Its more than just being investigated, having to get a lawyer, and inconvience and expense.
It is about being sentenced to hard time in the Federal pen.
Here are links to the case where it actually happened:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=37+month
It happend to Richard Humphreys and it wasn't China, it was Portland, Oregon.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Can it be that the translation of love in Chinese might be considered profanity?
Does Chinese even have a absolute concept of love or is the word for word translations something like "great sex", "sensual sex", or "bang, bang, bang"?
China is a member of the United Nations, and as such has signed on to certain human rights, among these the right to free expression of opinion.
China thus seems to be in breach of this charter.
Further, being a Chinese citizen (or citizen of most countries) is not like a business contract entered into of free will. For this reason, it seems to me that Chinese (or other countries') laws that could fairly be judged as severely unjust, or sometimes immoral, should not be considered binding on individuals who are citizens through no choice of their own.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
in other news, americans willingly hate democracy
YAZBS
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
As a Cambodian, I beg to differ. The Khmer Rouges' admitted goal was to drastically (by approximately 80%) reduce the population of the country, under the pretext that the land couldn't support that many people. Cambodia is a very fertile place. I've gone back there, and while there are many poor people, I'd say that very few are actually dying of malnutrition. The reign of the Khmer Rouges was the theater of one of the worst cases of /auto-genocide/ in history, and we can only be happy that someone had the guts to come in to try and stop the insanity.
I guess you would have cheered after Briand & Kellog if you'd been there at the time.
Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
All the Google hits seem to bring up far left fringe sites. In fact one of them, godlike productions, has a link to Austin American Statesman, but that site returns a "Not Found" for the link. A CNN "link" returns a "Not Found". A search on CNN (burning bush joke and burning bush comment) find nothing related to this. It purports to be a copy of an AP article. Some of them have no attribution and are just blog entries.
So... I wandered over to AP and searched their archive with burning bush comment (right from the "headline"). The only thing it turned up was from about a month ago and it was a story about Fidel Castro.
Update! I did find one article (getting tired of reading loony reactionary sites so I'm done...) in Wilmette Week Online. It's a local paper and it's a story about a local man. I think the only reason they ran it is because he's a cabbie from Portland. I still have yet to find it in any national news orgs. It paints a far different picture of Humphreys. He believes himself as a prophet of God. He refused to return a cab to the cab company he worked for. He threatened the general manager: "You would do wise to leave me alone and listen well to me if you value your skin and your soul". He was arrested 14 times in the 10 months leading up to this incident.
Here's another choice quote from the article:"In presenting his case, Humphreys read long biblical passages and described the past nine years of his life in detail. After his narrative exceeded 45 minutes, Ridgeway and Judge Lawrence Piersol coaxed him into resting his case."
So I hardly think he was convicted just because he told a joke.
Nice try, though.
"This calls for a very special blend of psychology and extreme violence" - Vyvyan "The Young Ones"
No. By anyone's logic.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
you could try just putting your post up as a big image. using some good image compression, the file might not be terribly big. just mix some normal text in there too, and then it requires a human (or some really super advanced algorithm) to manually censor the article.
You mean that if I threat to kill your president, the USA SS will be sent over to investigate me?
I'LL KILL YOUR PRESIDENT, DEATH TO GEORGE BUSH!!!
Oh boy! I just can't wait till those secret agents get here, I'll be the coolest guy in the neighbourhood!!!
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
The "woraround" link in TFA led me to this link. That persons situation and the MSN situation in China is not about assasination threats or even the law, it is about intimidation to silence dissent. We all know that anyone with a handfull of crayons can intellectualy threaten Bush, but how does someone posting on a blog physically threaten the president anymore than graffiti on a wall?
"We've had 44 presidents, 4 assasinated while in office. 4 more who have had attempts on their life while in office. That's 18% of the the presidents so far."
Thanks for the interesting stats on what is obviously a dangerous but very rewarding job but other dangerous and rewarding jobs don't seem to require an army of SS officers. From my brief experience on the planet it seems to me that political leaders do more to succesfully incite violence than all the blogs ever writen combined.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The gag is from the movie "My Fellow Americans". IF you haven't seen it, put down whatever you're doing and go get the DVD! ;-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"I just don't think we have a right to put our nose in China's internal affairs and tell them that they're wrong."
So long as they insist upon an authoritarian one-party system, we sure as hell have the right.
just type these words '×ÔÓÉÑÔÂÛ ÈËÈ ÃñÖ÷' (the chinese translation of 'freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy') at www.baidu.com (a chinese search engine),you can find there are many chinese site containing these words.
I would like to refer you to the reply to your comment posted by an AC; I would have written exactly the same words. To sum up: people obey the law because otherwise they will be beaten/fined/or somehow hit. Movements (of any kind) simply try to be the next guy with the gun: they try to change society in some ways that give them an advantage over adversaries/the status quo. In fact, most movements for freedom that actually succeeded in freeing a country from tyrants quickly turned into dictatorships. We has big gun. Why was India made independat? Because the UK found it *convenient*. It does not matter whether it actually was or not: they did it because they thought it would be good for the UK. Because it would -- guess what -- give them some advantage.
Global warming is a cube.
You are free not to agree with me, however I would like to remind you that while you have apparently been lucky and you are now happier than before, this is not always the case.
It's a bit like going out, shooting a few dozen clips, killing lots of people, then singling out the one who was not hit and saying "see, shooting at random is good. this guy was not hurt".
Of course this image is a bit of an exaggeration, however it raises a question: how do we draw the line separating "rightful" from "unrightful" intervention? Because you could say, "i was shooting at bad guys(tm), killed them all and saved the hostage. i'm a hero". Or you could have just been on a mindless shooting spree.
What if next time some foreign government decides that *you* need to be disposed of? It would be best if we all just minded our own business. I, for one, would be happy if nobody interfered with my country's business.
Global warming is a cube.
Anyway, as long as a country does not restrict freedom of its citizens to move across the border, I don't see a problem. Let countries decide how they want to live, and let people settle in a country which suits them best.
By your logic, Afghanistan under the Talibans was a sovereign nation, and they were fully within their rights to arrest, torture and shoot any woman who dared going outdoors without wearing a huge blue tent over themselves, or men without beards, or people who owned books.
So shall we just overlook the fact that the US government installed and supported the Taliban regime until they became inconvenient, at which point they were removed?
And don't try to claim that the US invaded Afghanistan to save the women, it was because they wanted to run a gas pipeline through Afghanistan to the coast and make a lot of money for the old boys network that runs America.
Ah, come on!
I mean.. I was trying to be funny, and look what I got! A +1 Insightfull!!
I must be the most boring person on the planet.
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
'I love freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy'
Why does the author assume that democracy goes hand in hand with freedom of speech and human rights?
Democracy has time and time again show itself the worst enemy of the most basic human right of all, the right to keep the property your create for yourself. (see graph on: http://haxor.dk/articles/denmarksucks.html ).
Furthermore, most democracies in the western world have anti-racism laws. But if you can only speak the "right" things, that is non-racist and non-blasphemous words, then you dont' have freedom of speech. What will it be - you can't have you cake and eat it too.
I'm talking about when I stand at a crosswalk, perfectly happy to wait for traffic, maybe I haven't even decided to cross there yet, and cars slow down and stop and motion me across. Why do you think they do that?
Our government exists by consent of the people. We can change that government in elections. You can run if there isn't a compassionate enough candidate, or you can support someone else who is at least slightly more compassionate.
You have a very limited view of the potential of the human race, my friend.
Freedom is an advantage. All other things being equal, a freer more just society will develop technology quicker, and be able to use that technology to improve their evolutionary survival fitness.
This is because arbitrary barriers to education or communication prevent contributions from geniuses or near-geniuses in the oppressed groups. All things being equal, if you remove those barriers to contribution the rate of contributions should increase.
It is in your best interests to support freedom and justice.
Does anyone actually realize that not everyone in China is actually against what's happening there? Sure, there are those who desire freedom of speech, but there are also many who don't. Many of us are brought up in a society that advocates freedom of speech, but we should realize that there are Chinese citizens who have lived without it their whole lives and simply have no interest in having it.
By the logic I just specified, it isn't. Whether an entity is "justified" in acting has very little to do with how that entity actually acts.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]