Slashdot Mirror
India Joins China in Censoring Websites
cpatil writes "On the directions of the government of India, Indian ISPs have started censoring and blocking web properties. This was first noticed by Indian bloggers and upon inquiring with their respective ISPs, the actions are confirmed. Unfortunately, Blogspot and TypePad are the targets till now." There's an ongoing discussion of the censorship on GoogleGroups. The rediff.com coverage linked above indicates that the blocking is based on a list issued by India's Department of Telecommunications.
For some, it seems odd that a radical anarcho-capitalist would support ANY State action, especially censorship. There is usually only one anti-State camp: the people who want to dismiss the State through some means (voting, bloody revolution, non-violent revolution, black market lifestyle, etc). I don't see ANY way to get rid of the State and any of its forms of coercion (including censorship) through any of the previous means. Every time a right is taken away by a State, every time the State steals from you in the form of taxation and every time the State decides it can help large groups, it does so at very little cost to the individual. You and I won't do anything to prevent US$1 a year from being taken from us, or some fringe right that we don't really see heling our existence. Yet when you combine all those little US$1 fees taken from each individual in the US, someone is earning billions. That person will work extra hard to protect that income, but the millions won't work extra hard to fight a US$1 fee annually. The same is true with rights -- most people won't worry about their basic rights because they feel mostly free. When 10 million people are harmed by an infringement, 290 million residents aren't. Why should they care about 0.3% of the population?
The reason I support State censorship of all media is the same reason why I support the State in all of its madness: the more they do to harm us, the more the free market will provide means for entrepreneurs to find new ways around the madness.
Many of the towns near me have increased their sales tax: up to 9% in some towns! The free market provided loopholes around sales tax for years, and the Internet is the ultimate form of working around the local madness. I don't buy very much locally anymore, and I get to save a huge amount that the State would usually get. It makes me laugh when the local politicians argue about what they're losing to the web. They stole from me, now I get to take it back.
Many of the towns near me are starting to create smoke free "public places" which exist within private property. You can't smoke in restaurants, bars, nightclubs, anywhere. The free market is opening up amazing private property venues for me -- I've already visited 4 private dinner clubs -- the houses of famous and strong chefs in the region who gave up their jobs in order to provide exceptional meals to private consumers. They don't charge a fee, they ask for a donation. For US$50, I can get an amazing meal that gets around most of the regulations of the restaurant-restrictions placed. I can smoke, the chef can cook foods in ways that restaurants often can't, and I pay less than 1/3rd of the usual fee. Some dinner clubs include great wine, and the service is top notch. The chef doesn't worry about income taxes or permits or paying off the local zoning authority and health agency -- and I have yet to hear of anyone getting sick or the like. Good for me, good for the chef, bad for the State.
Let the State censor all of us -- it will only give entrepreneurs more reason to find anonymous replacements of the publicly regulated web. Give it time and who knows what will happen. If every device will be State-required to have some sort of "control" mechanism or DRM or who-knows-what, someone will develop a private hive network on our cell phones or PDAs or old hardware. As long as the State restricts, the market will find ways to provide.
The State: let it grow, let it restrain, let it fail to provide and let the imbeciles that support it think they're doing good for others. I've already found my ways to ignore it in 70% of my life. Eventually I'll extend that more, and not be concerned with what the mad majority wants to do this year that will harm people for generations.
Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism.
My, that's awfully broad.
Help kill corporate productivity!
Maybe this is good:
Censorship in a technically savvy, non-repressed country, will spur censorship-circumvention technology by leaps and bounds.
that America has retaken its rightful position as the largest democracy in the world!
U S A! U S A!
With all the flak they're getting from "outsourcing" it is understandable the Indian govt would want to protect their citizens from the nasty words of layed-off American employees whose jobs were sent to Mumbai!
Dont go to http://pinoyexchange.com/
First they came for the political dissidents. I was not a political dissident.
Then they came for the religous prosthelizers. I was not a religous prosthelizer.
Then they came for the pornographers. I was not a pornographer.
Then they came for the bloggers. That day I got religion and began standing up for my right to sell p0rn.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
India has always been a censoring country (although not as much as China). Usually, anything sexually obscene, or anything else considered highly controversial with the general population will be censored/banned (ie, movies such as 'Water').
However, censoring blog sites is a step down, why would they do this?
"The list [of censored sites] is confidential and I can't make it public"
It seems like they are trying to push some sort of hidden agenda.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
This is very sad. The reason lies not only with dumb politicians but also dumb implementation of policy. Basically, the Indian govt. had sent a list of 22 blogs/sites that it wanted blocked and the ISP's just blocked the entire domain. I hope this will be corrected soon.
Not that I condone the blocking of the 22 sites. Opinion, no matter how counter culturalistic, or hard to swallow must be allowed to be expressed.
The good out of this is that Indian bloggers have filed an application for release the list of the 22 sites blocked. I am very interested to know which sites were officially blocked and why? I have a suspicision that this could have something to do with recent bombings in India. For now, I guess its wait and see.
I saw Indiana Jones in that headline. I need more coffee....
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.- Douglas Adams
http://www.pkblogs.com/ is a very easy way to access blogspot page.
Opens any X.blogspot.com page.
Tried my own blog...opens fine....:)
The usual anonymizer.com also works...
Wincopy
The State has only one intention in mind: create criminals. Nothing the State does can be considered otherwise. This means that people will suffer when some non-violent act is considered criminal. Look at drug laws: they don't work, but they're a great way for the State to expand its income. The same is true of any action that is non-violent in nature (drugs, prostitution, home schooling, gambling, selling, buying, etc).
When the State decides to censor people, it comes in two ways: direct censorship ("You can't talk about subject A") and indirect censorship ("You can't talk about subject B that someone else already talked about"). Subject A is the type of censorship that China and now India are doing. Subject B covers copyright and patents -- both are censorships against words and actions a person wants to perform with his own time, on his own property, using his own body and tools.
There is only one reason for either type of censorship: to protect the interests of an elite individual or group. Subject B censorship (copyright and patents) protects distribution cartels -- the few who control the distribution of content or specific items. Subject A censorship (direct prevention of talking about a certain subject) protects the State itself -- giving major power that is usually used against "enemies" of the State. Both States are corrupt -- if you go to jail because of a corrupt system, there is little that can be done to protect your interests.
We'll hear cries for our own State to work against the States that are censoring others, even though the State we live in is no better. I guess the best defense for my black-market support around censorship is that some eggs will break in order to make the best omelet. Some people will go to jail or will just disappear -- these are those who are directly harmed by the State. Yet millions more will be given more freedoms in whatever the free/black market provides to get around the restrictions and regulations. Over time, this will make us more free in the shadow of the State -- eventually technology will get to the point that no restrictions will be possible on anything the State does. This is a _good_ thing and it is why I consider the "Internet" the most anarcho-capitalist society in existence.
Do I want to be the one to disappear in a cell (or a ditch)? Absolutely not. I was recently in China, and everyone there already has good ways around the State. The government can pretend that their censorship is working, but most Westerners are completely ignorant of the reason behind censorship by China (and India, where I also just visited for almost a month) -- jailing political opponents. The censorship has nothing to do with real topics or anonymous groups -- it is just another tool for the State to get rid of their opponents. It is no different that the "Watch your neighbor" tactics of the USSR, and the US decades ago.
"Web sites can be blocked if they contain pornography, speeches of hate, contempt, slander or defamation, or if they promote gambling, racism, violence or terrorism."
They can't block 95% of the Internet! :-)
I would expect to see some large network launch a large Weblog community intended for soley in country use and advertising. My dollar is this was a payout by the owners of the above mnetioned service. This just smells of dirty money.
While india isn't perfect, Pakistan is a complete basket case. The US's financial support of the current regime is madness.
Read more in the economist's special report
Wow, what an ambitious task. Perhaps those Indian censors try to make the river Ganges flow up hill while they are at it.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
If you were making censorship laws, what would YOU allow a judge to order someone to not disclose? Yes, we are talking about prior restraint.
In the USA, judges have the power to issue prior restraint when the person who has the knowledge obtained in on the condition of non-disclosure. For example, a former employer can gag me from spilling corporate secrets. Ditto spilling state secrets if I have a security clearance, or spilling info form a Grand Jury investigation if I was in the hearing room.
In the USA, judges can also restrain you from posting obscene materials or child pornography, as those are illegal to publish under just about any circumstances.
In some countries, of course, the government has more prior restraint power.
So, Slashdotters, how much if any prior restraint would you allow if you were making the rules?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Was it just me that read that as 'Indiana Jones China in censoring websites'?
;-)
I was thinking wow that was gonna be a poor fourth movie
Did anyone else read that as "Indian Jones Censoring Websites"
Throw me the laptop, I'll throw you the link!
Interesting once again. To be frank, I agree :). The state was orginally, a long long long time ago was created to maintain order. To maintain order it needed money to enforce it. And to get money they use taxes, tarrifs, "friendly" donations when the tax man use to knock on your door.
In the threat of losing their power, they may act even stricter. Even resorting to methods like jailing or making people dissapear to maintain their influence.
But they can't catch everyone, and eventually (hopefully) the state would dissolve.
Before another one is created and repeats the same damn ****ing mistakes. >.
"I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes" ~ Laughing Man - GITS:SAC
Uh, looks like my English parser failed me again, from the first glance I assumed the headline said "Indiana Jones", until I realized the absurdity after reading the summary.
Why aren't they censoring Myspace though? It's a much more serious threat to any civilized society than Blogspot, porn, or terrorists.
India isn't China. Never attribute to malice what is explained by incompetence, especially in India. Some bungling bureaucrat had this bright idea, but the sites will be accessible again in a short while. It's happened before. (In fact, right now I can access them from my home account though not from my work account.)
And people here call me nuts when I suggest slashdot is crawling with Austrian-School anarchist whackjobs.... /me rolls eyes.
Take all these "anarcho-capitalists" and put them on a desert island for a week ... the one left alive after that week probably wont be an anarcho-capitalist anymore... /me is center-seeking and dislikes all extreemes.
So true. I used to use the word "government" which is derived from the Latin gubernare -- to restrain, restrict, control the action or behavior of. Just like a "governor" in your car restricts the speed at which you can drive, a government is there to restrict your actions.
I can see the reason behind using government to maintain physical property lines and to punish those who harm the property of another (land, body, or tools). I don't see why government is needed to protect a person's actions or opportunities -- when we try to use government for this reason, we end up with what we have today -- tyranny.
BurntFlag.com
It's about time! I suggest doing away with the "flash" tag and anything that re-sizes your browser window first...
body massage!
The Taj-Mahalt
*groan*
while I see your point, it breaks down as the state continues to grow.
the state does NOT want people working around it, and left unchecked it will flex it's growing muscle to PREVENT those who do work around it - with manipulation, increasing force, and eventually simply locking up, toturing and killing those who rebel.
This is simply a question of some people thinking it's OK to control other people. To a small degree, it works - and keeps order, to a larger degree, it still works, but people start to get unhappy - to an extreme degree, people are harmed by extreme levels of control.
Take that, you idiots who wring your hands about "losing your democracy." Democracy and freedom are not the same thing, and the one does NOT by default lead to the other. In fact, the only major accomplishment of democracy has been to grant legitimacy to the Fascist state. It allows the masses to throw their weight in behind every violation of the rights of the minority.
What India has proved is that democratic states have no inherent moral authority. It has landed itself in the same mass of political crap that China and Saudi Arabia are in. There is no moral difference between states that censor, even if it is "benign." Either way, a state that practices official censorship of anything except for media that requires violence or fraud to be created, is a regime that directly or indirectly uses the threat of loss of life, liberty or property to silence others. There is no moral difference between a threat of prosecution and simply shooting someone in the head, when the offense is speaking out with an unpopular idea.
And by the way, has that rubbish about the Internet detecting censorship as damage and routing around been relegated to the trash heap of history where it belongs? It seems that for citizens of China, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, India and Britain (with its hashed list of "bad sites" as if we even know whether they're all illegal under British law.) that the only routing that is being down is getting in trouble or sent to prison for non-compliance.
It helps a great deal that the idea of dissent versus authority is very uncommon
in India.
Indians, by and large, have a very strong culturally motivated tendency to embrace authority and to support the people being regulated.
Of course there are exceptions, but the norm in India definitely tends toward acceptance of authority.
what about state sponsored health care? road/sewer/water/electricity maintence? I fail to see how any of these create criminals.
Censorship in India is inconsistent and haphazard to say the least.
Local and Central governments will ban/reject a book/film on the pretext that it will be dangerous to religious sentiments or social harmony. An example is the James Laine's book - An Epic on Shivaji, books by Salman Rushdie, the Peter Seller's comedy 'The Party', and even the innocuous (though a bit silly) documentaries made by Louis Malle in the late 60's.
Most of the Anand Patwardhan documentaries were banned/not cleared and his battles with the Indian censor boards show the tolerance level for the overlords are very low. One of the documentaries (if my memory is correct 'Father, Son and Holy War') had footage of the chief minister of the state of Maharashtra and later the speaker of Lok Sabha (lower house of parliament) - Manohar Joshi - seen extolling Hindu women during a rally in a remote Maharashtrian town to give birth to more children to offset the rise in Muslim population (typical FUD by hardliners). If such utterances can be made at a political rally, I have no idea what banning the documentary will prove.
The same time, the most vulgar, sexist and reactionary Hindi (Bollywood for you), Tamil, Telugu, Bengali, Malayalam or other popular cinema pass the censors with absolutely no problem.
Also the Indian Government is yet to relax its hold on radio and licenses to operate a station - which actually reach the 100% of the Indian population (compared to 10-20% reach of the mostly urban satellite/cable.)
Tat Tvam Asi
Bypassing the Ban
...But they are not keeping up their word regarding freedom of speech etc ...They have become the represive govt that they promised to replace in the last election!
The government once again tries to make a fool of itself. They tried it in 2003, failed and now this. Also not all ISP's are blocking the sites. Btw, the new congress government is no longer any diffrent from the BJP. Yeah, they reacted POTO (equivalent to the US Patriot act)
China's obvious censorship goal -- quasi-permanent suppression of the citizens' desire to be able to throw their rulers out of office. (Which is the one big advantage democracies have over other forms of government. Even if you usually replace the bums with guys equally bad, the fact that you can get rid of them certain limits how bad they can get.) This should be fought at almost any cost, both on moral grounds and for enlightened self-interest. And so I'll again shamelessly plus my proposal of how WE -- yes, WE -- can make a difference. http://www.monashreport.com/2006/04/17/how-to-beat -chinese-censorship-operation-peking-duck/
India's apparent censorship goal -- well, like the anti-Nazi free speech limitations in Europe, India's political censorship seems to be focused on defusing (and diffusing) racial, religious, or ethnic tensions, so that they don't erupt into violence or worse. This censorship is certainly something we should carefully monitor and worry about, but it could yet turn out to be relatively benign. E.g., as another poster suggested, it could be the work of an overzealous bureaucrat, or some incompetent ISPs panicking in the face of a sensibly limited directive and blocking much more than they were told to. Either way, the whole thing might and hopefully will soon be reverse.
And just to be clear -- I think ALL this censorship is stupid. I just think that some of it is bad enough to be my problem and yours, while some of it is benign enough it should be left to the people of the affected countries themselves to deal with as they see fit.
To err is human. To forgive is good system design.
I am guessing that it's most likely related to the recent Terrorist attacks in Mumbai. India's National Security Agencies have been reporting that Terrorists have started using blogs for provocative propaganda that could corrupt the minds of gullible youth. The Indian Government is under huge pressure to extinguish the activities of the terrorist groups that have in recent times started misusing technology for their malicious ends.
...and it's come in quick time._ Censorship
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Bloggers_Against
http://groups.google.com/group/BloggersCollective
I don't want to read
A political blog states that this is a crackdown and an operation is going on to track some terrorist sites IP addresses. Everything will be normal once this operation is over.
o ut/
Link: http://mutiny.wordpress.com/2006/07/17/blog-black
The only reason why you don't see the need, is because you are full of yourself. That is always a problem when one wants to look at various subjects and will always block any reasonable evaluation, as you clearly have shown.
Thank you for playing, please try again next time.
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
It looks like the Indian government is doing this under the umbrella of "cultural sovereignty." They're trying to favor homegrown content rather than the American sites like Google. The Net is blurring national borders, and a lot of people, both in America and abroad, are unhappy about it. They're trying to put a cork in the Net revolution, but it's not going to work.
There's no place like ~.
One rumour about this is that it is a temporary ban. That there's some sort of government action happening in the next 48 hours to shut down a militant/terrorist group and this is to curtail their communications.
Another possibility is some sort of retaliation for the Mumbai bombing.
Regardless, only rumours at the moment. So take with as large a grain of salt as you choose.
This sounds like a job for Zapp Brannigan! Quick, Kif, to the shag mobile!
Full Tilt
what about state sponsored health care? road/sewer/water/electricity maintence? I fail to see how any of these create criminals.
State sponsored health care kills thousands if not millions of people every year. Try releasing a much needed experimental drug to people who are willing to try it -- you'd go to jail. Try charging less to a poor patient than you charge the State -- you'll go to jail (the US government has an entire office dedicated to finding doctors that charge less than they charge Medicare). Try bringing more doctors to the market than the AMA/US wants -- it is illegal.
Try providing alternative water or electricity in your neighborhood -- you'll go to jail. In my previous town I spoke with various neighbors about uniting together to get a large generator installed on our block (this was pre-Y2K, and some people were concerned). We received various competing bids but were told that the local town wouldn't allow it. When we asked for a variance we were told we couldn't do it, and when we tried to do it anyway we were threatened with fines. When we asked what would happen if we didn't pay the fines we were threatened with court and jail time. True story.
Apparently India also bans toilet paper, preferring to wipe their backsides with their bare bands instead. Then they also seem to ban bathing with soap as standing next to one of these natives leaves one thinking they are standing next to a dumpster with a corpse in it.
LOL you're not the only one who saw that...
the state does NOT want people working around it, and left unchecked it will flex it's growing muscle to PREVENT those who do work around it - with manipulation, increasing force, and eventually simply locking up, toturing and killing those who rebel.
Of course it doesn't, but when the State gets too aggressive, it falls apart. The USSR fell apart because communications were growing, technology was freeing people from the State's monopoly over them, and the government got too big to spy on everyone. I was in the USSR as a teen before the collapse and there was a HUGE black/free market in any good you wanted (clothing, food, toilet paper, sex, drugs, cigarettes, even cars and homes!). My last visit to India showed me a HUGE black market in the housing market. When I wanted to buy a house, I was told to pay 20% of the cost in "white money" which the State taxed. The rest (80%) was paid in "black money" under the table.
China and India just opened their border about 10 days ago, now India has learnt something from China, they are really quick.
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
I first read it as 'Indiana Jones in China Censors". Damn my simple brain.
India != China
Sent from my desktop computer
"Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master"
- Pravin Lal
Technoli
1. First they came for the political dissidents. I was not a political dissident. 2. Then they came for the religous prosthelizers. I was not a religous prosthelizer. 3. Then they came for the pornographers. I was not a pornographer. 4. Then they came for the bloggers. That day I got religion and began standing up for my right to sell p0rn.
See, and this is how America is different from India. In America we would have never reached step 4, because the bloggers would have stood up and cried bloody murder the instant someone started to threaten their sources of pr0n
Interesting. What if not everyone on your block wanted the generator? Could they opt out? If so, could they opt out of the inconvenience of the installation, and increased risk of environmental damage that having a generator on your block would entail? Could they opt out potentially decreased home value? How about the surrounding blocks? That's the problem with democracy -- sometimes it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. It's an advantage and a disadvantage. The ordinances that you would have violated were likely in place before you moved in. That's why they call it a 'variance'. Variances are granted all the time -- I got one recently in my town for an extension on my house. Should one assume that the reason you weren't given one is that your plan was not considered a reasonable transgression of the ordinance in place? (Presumably you needed to change the zoning on your block from residential to some industrial-type of zoning.) Your Medicaid example is somewhat disingenuous. The issue isn't with doctors undercharging poor patients, it's with doctors overcharging Medicare. All doctors I've ever dealt with, if they waive any fees at all, do so by billing their standard amount and accepting as payment whatever they get. Still, it seems you've already made up you mind about everything and are unlikely to be dissuaded by anything or anyone, certainly not by someone on /., so good luck to you.
Where there is the necessary technical skill to move mountains, there is no need for the faith that moves mountains.
try moving to Canada where we do medi-care right, try moving to Europe where they do medicare right... hell, just do it right yourself and those problems go away. you mentioned the regulatory process for drugs.... how many hundred, how many thousand drugs have been turned down because they were unsafe? how many thousands are saved every year because these dangerous meds are NOT on the market? call me a little selfish, but i want to make damn sure that the pills im taking arnt going to kill me faster then whatever it is im taking them for. Just cause you cant do something doesnt meen it doesnt work :P
your generator story is all well and good, but what would have happened to you after y2k when the lights stayed on and no one wanted to pay up their share of the maitnence costs? would you have been able to keep such a large generator in working order? doubt it, those things are pricey to keep. Also, what if one of your neighbours is from Australia and wants 240v/50hz power and wont buy any generator that wont provide their needs? Once again, i would rather pay my taxes on time and get quality power out of the plug then take my chances with whatever I, or any of my neighbours, can make. there is accountability this way... if im getting constant brown-outs, i know whos butt to kick. If a neighbourhood powersystem is on the fritz who's responcible? The guy who maintains the generator? the guy who maintains the wires? the guy who has the 72" TV and is sucking up all the juice? Everyone wants to controll their own system but doesnt want to take the problems when that system fails.
and what about water? clean, clear and healty water? would you trust some Joe down the street to keep their filter running? what if his kid was sick one day and he didnt get a chance to fix the filter.... after all, it's not his day-job right? he may make a little money for it but not enough to live on... one day wont matter right?... sorry, I want someone whos ass is on the line if my water isnt 100% safe, there was a case here in Canada where someone was lazy and didnt maintain the filter, people got sick, he is now in jail and wont be out for a long, long time... good incentive to do it right. You may trust Joe... i sure dont, not with my life, not with the life of anyone i love.
As always, for a solution to all your censorship problems, see this. The beta version supports JavaScript too.
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
State sponsored health care kills thousands if not millions of people every year. Try releasing a much needed experimental drug to people who are willing to try it -- you'd go to jail. Try charging less to a poor patient than you charge the State -- you'll go to jail (the US government has an entire office dedicated to finding doctors that charge less than they charge Medicare). Try bringing more doctors to the market than the AMA/US wants -- it is illegal.
Interesting how one majorly flawed implementation can make you come to such a conclusion. Do you always base your ideas on so little information?
I'm not even going to counter your argument, because your argument only points out known flaws in the US implementation of state sponsored health care, and not in the concept as such.
Try providing alternative water or electricity in your neighborhood -- you'll go to jail. In my previous town I spoke with various neighbors about uniting together to get a large generator installed on our block (this was pre-Y2K, and some people were concerned). We received various competing bids but were told that the local town wouldn't allow it. When we asked for a variance we were told we couldn't do it, and when we tried to do it anyway we were threatened with fines. When we asked what would happen if we didn't pay the fines we were threatened with court and jail time. True story.
Ah, you ran into the state imposed monopoly on running cables and such. You may want to go take a look in a typical southeast asian city for a clue why that is in fact a very good idea.
Breaking the law gets you fined and not paying fines gets you in jail? the horror!
But then.. buying a generator because of y2k? I guess that tells it all.
US big business is by and large pro censorship and pro fascism. No more embarrasing employee whistelblowers or news leaks. No more looking up the competition to get a better deal. No more hearing about the opposition candidate who wants to crack down on corporate excesse and corruption. No more union organizing or flashmob activism. and etc. There are a few exceptions, but not too many.
Compare traffic fatalites per annum with the terrorism fatalities.
- terrorism : 2,976 fatalities in 9/11 | spending 37.7 billion dollars (just for homeland security)
- traffic : 41,945 fatailities in 2000 | spending 5.3 billion dollars (just for the TSA)
If there is an infinitesimal chance that censorship is going to prevent something that scares them, people in general are going to take that chance. The blogs may actually inspire terrorism, and it is easier to address that than the issues that inspire those blogs.-Phantom of the Operating System
references
Where do people like you get off. If you said this in any real context, you would be the one considered extreme. When they said the earth centered arround the sun - that was considered an extreme position. When they said that people didn't need a king to rule them - that was considered an extreme position. When they said, we should sail east to create new trading routes - that was an outrageous notion. When they said that government need not choose peoples religion to ensure stability - that was an extreme position. When they said slavery should be abolished and not compromised - that was also an extreme position. The entire renissance and the entire protistant reformation was considered extreme. The magna carta, the declaration of independence, evolution ... all of these were once considered extreme positions too. The people who wanted racial equality and interracial relationships were considered extremists.
There is a reason why they say "I like my tea hot, or I like my tea iced, but give me warm tea and I will spit it out. Sir, you have pretty much deligated yourself to the trash heap of history. Stop careing about what feels extreme, and start caring about what is correct and you might just get somewhere in life.
"from the keeping-up-with-the-wangs department" Next thing I know the IT department will mark Slashdot as off-limits for objectionable content...
So one Democratic nation on the other side of the world acting in a non-Democratic fashion and censoring... proves that Democracy doesn't work.
Therefore, the Americans or British or whatnot who are worried that their nation is beginning to act in a non-Democratic fashion are foolish and should give up, because (as India proves by their failure to protect their Democracy) Democracy is already non-Democracy.
Just... wow.
Promoting free expression in China always seemed like the only fontier left for Indiana Jones.
First thing I thought of with all the other various political stuff going on around the world right now. And how about the US censoring about all the weird sub activity going on along the coasts? I guess the little peeps can't be bothered with interrupting their sports and movies and music lives with nasty political realities. I guess that's what you get when 98% of all the news broadcast is controlled by less than one dozen humans.......
Just keep the beer cheap and the entertainments flowing, and easy credit, and they got it all covered, they can do whatever they want to do, and not many will care, or even know about it for that matter....
I'm not a huge fan of hispanic culture south of the border (I don't like drunk macho culture to be specific, just another version of being a clueless redneck), but at least those folks down there got the nads to actually protest in the streets against their globalist fatcats when their elections get hijacked. Funny how that is being ignored in the news in favor of watching the zionists go apesquat again. What is it now, three generations living under zionist apartheid, and whenever they dare to fight back they are called terrorists?
India's censorship is a joke compared to the amount of censorship and newsaganda pushed in the US.
They (India) could avoid a lot of trouble by acknowledging that kashmir is predominatly muslim and just letting it go, same with fooling around in sri lanka, just let it go, it's not worth it.
I think you have that backwards. Unions are far more fascist than corporations will ever be. Let's examine it:
1) You move freely among corporate jobs, with the occasional exception of working in the same industry (but you're free to negotiate the clause). Unions? Typically you're REQUIRED to join the union and give them your money before you can work.
2) In a corporation, you are an individual, free to negotiate whatever terms you can get. In a union, you are held hostage by the "union contract", which is negotiated via threats. You are limited to whatever the Union negotiates for you -- minus the Union's "cut".
3) In a corporation, you are free to do your best work, and negotiate for better rewards. In a Union, you are encouraged to do the absolute minimum possible, otherwise the other Union members will get angry with you for setting a bad precedent. After all, you're all under the same contract.
In the old days, unions had a good reason to exist. Nowadays, with better communication and better mobility, unions absolutely suck, and just drag down the economy. I hate unions.
I think I need a bigger font on my RSS reader...
Every ban Govt proposes is in the name of controlling terrorists. There are such unclarified reports this time too. It is very same as denying public water supply in the name of terrorists are used to drink it. This also shows that Govt of India & CERT-IN did'nt learn anything from the past experience of banning yahoo! Groups in the name of militant Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) of the Khasi tribe, started a mailinglist named kynhun. The popularity popularity and visibility went up by leaps and bounds instantaneously, despite it being blocked by all ISPs! Clearly, you can't ban anything on the internet. More than a censorship it violates Communication rights of the people. see full post at moving republic
I always find it funny when peopel blame the "state" as there is no entity known as the "state." The state is made of people, directly and indirectly, and quite often the decline happens during the terms of many politicians and leaders. It's not the state which fails but rather society in one way or another.
I swore it said "Indiana Jones in China Censoring Websites". I was about to throw up a little in my mouth...
You are in a maze of little twisting passages, all different.
True dependent on the type of government, the state is essentialy a reflection of society. Of also how it can capitalize on society's wants, dislikes, and fears. I guess it's if your going along with mass society or against the flow. And that as long as you'll go against it, you'll be sticking out till there's enough people going against that it becomes the main flow. And the government by then either tries to adapt or falls apart, which once again leads to another one being constructed with a belief that "it'll be better this time". Yet the same exact thing will happen.
"I thought what I'd do was I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes" ~ Laughing Man - GITS:SAC
try moving to Canada where we do medi-care right, try moving to Europe where they do medicare right
Please tell me in these places where public health care is down right, how much tax do you pay? How much are you paying because some fat ass can't stop eating, meets the 'requirements' for a gastric bypass, gets it, needs tons of surgies due to complications, still can't stop eating, blows their staples and then needs another revision? Do you REALLY feel that's a good way to spend your hard earned money (taken in the form of taxes)? I certainly don't.
I also find it interesting that you seem so upset about losing your right to smoke in a restaurant, but, OTOH, you don't seem to consider another person's right to breathe clean air (especially in a restaurant, when one is supposed to enjoy him/herself). When you smoke you're not only affecting negatively your own health (which, as far as I'm concerned, is your absolute right), but also the health of the people around you. Free market doesn't really work here, since most owners will not put "no smoking" signs, considering that it limits their clientelle. So a person who hates smoking, like me, only has two choices: eat out and inhale very annoying and toxic fumes, or eat home.
The Raven
It doesn't matter much how you view this. Nation-wide State enforced censorship (being it what is made in China, in India or even in the US) is something that does not look like very democratic.
So where do you draw the line? When can we stop calling India the biggest democracy in the world? Should we really do that or this is nothing compared to anywhere else in the world?
>Try releasing a much needed experimental drug to people who are willing to try it -- you'd go to jail.
This is a damned-if-they-do-damned-if-they-don't situation that has much more to do with the vox populi, originally, than The State. In the 1880's people or companies could release anything they wanted onto the drug market, making any claims they wanted. Enough people complained that Congress established the FDA to ensure truth-in-advertising: if you *say* your drug cures baldness and cancer, it must do exactly that. Since drugs are a somewhat higher-than-average risk product, they demand a somewhat higher-than-average set of tests and verification information than bottle openers.
The drug cartel -- oops, I mean industry -- is not unhappy about this situation, and has worked hard with government regulation to drive the costs of validating a drug to the FDA's satisfaction to exostratospheric levels to create an artificial barrier for entry into the drug market, but the government gave the people what they originally demanded: protection from unscrupulous people providing a potentially lethal product.
So now we're in a situation where drug companies get sued for releasing a very effective drug (for example, Vioxx, which was a wonder drug for my mother (who would probably buy it on the black market if she could) but injured and killed some people) and at the same time those companies get sued for *not* releasing new HIV drugs that have yet to pass the tests that Vioxx passed (arguably.) I'm not crying for the drug cartel^H^H^H^H^Hompanies. I'm just saying that if you're in the business of making pharmaceuticals, in the current business environment, you're probably screwed, and it's going to be a lawyer doing the screwing, not the government.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
I thought this was an announcemnt for a new Indiana Jones movie in China.
But seriously, I think this trend of web censorship is just the beginning. Blood sucking politicians enjoy having control over the prolitariat. Controlling the media, whether its newspapers, magazines, tv, news, etc are all signs of despotism. Isn't that right Rupert.
Are you really so brainwashed against being social that you refuse to help people who NEED medical attention but can't afford it, at the risk of a FEW freeloading jackasses? Or is it that your country is just filled with freeloading jackasses? I can't tell which.
Whoa there dumbass. I'm not making this crap up... its not a FEW freeloading jackasses. My wife works doing insurance precertification for the hospital here. MOST of her day is spent with these fatasses and their laziness. Yes, they actually have a 12" pizza at 9AM for a SNACK between their breakfast and lunch, and then complain they are too fat. My wife knows this because as part of getting the surgry they have to keep a food diary.
There are so many people trying to get these surgeries that the surgery departments spends an ENTIRE day just dealing with nothing but these soon to be patients.
And FWIW, this is mostly private insurance she's dealing with. I fail to see how switching to public healthcare would fix any of these problems.
People that NEED healthcare go to ERs, where they get the treatment regardless of ability to pay. There's even signs that tell you so when you come in.
It might be easy to criticize this from outside but people need to understand a few things.
1. They want to block access to sites that can potentially give rise to violence.
2. India has a huge muslim population and some of them are fundamentalists. The patience of the rest usually is very volatile after such attacks. Hatred preaching websites can be extremely effective to trigger violence from any side as seen in the past.
3. If #2 happens, the number of casualties is a lot more than the event that triggered it (also proved by recent history).
4. The chances of people reacting to such sites greatly reduce as time goes on. I will not be surprised if all the bans are lifted soon.
5. If they decide to ban websites that preach violence, I do not see any problem with that. It is not like they want to shield people from what is going on in the outside world. They just want to prevent more casualties. Equating this action with what China does is ignorance.
sure they can. its easy!
while (true) { int counter = 1; if(counter <= 95){ block(); } else { allow(); } if(counter = 100){ counter = 1; } }
This is completely false. This is not a sig.
From what I've heard Islam is taking over India, and the rest of southwest Asia which is not already Islamic.
If so, and India becomes like all the other Islamic theocratic despotic regimes, why would censorship, demonification of christianity & judaisim in all forms, hatred for judeo christian ideals for inalienable rights and any kind of justice and equality, in fact outright meideval(sp) sharia law be a surprise to anyone?
Heck it is the well known media fact in the west that islamic revolution, followed by strict theocratic goverment by thugs with long beards, black caftans, and kafiyeh will solve all problems (with AK74's), especially those caused by the evil ones in the west who desire to poison muslims with open, frank, decadent smut, pornogrpahy, commercialism, information, sensationalism, and mixed with a little truth if you can find it.
The censorship of the internet in india is just the very tip of the iceberg. The idea that, according to the media, Somalia's warlords have been "pacified" by Islamic Sharia law is perfect evidence for my point. Imagine it, outlaw everything which does not conform to your personal reality, if it will not conform go to "jihad" over it, make it go away politically, or kill it. If someone had told me that someone would be able to spread a warrior/terrorist religion, culture, ethos, doctrine and government around the world so fast 20 years ago I would have accused them of insanity.
And yet, here on Main St. USA we still cannot get over the idea that almost everyplace in the world which has the heroin fix we want/need (petroleum) is run by a bunch of hegemonist, bigoted (racially, ethnically and religously), left wing fanatics who will pour money (which we seem all too willing to pay) into the most terroristic causes on the face of the planet. (for all the true trolls out there you will have a hard time refuting this given Chavez, and Obrador) Even a US muslim will probably accede to the idea that donations to some congregation of "peaceful" muslims here in the USA is reasonably likely to wind up in the hands of Jemal Islamiya, os Hezbollah, etc. Worse yet, islamic republics, and societies see no irony in the idea that while they claim islam to be peaceful, tolerant, and conservative Muslims that the Mullahs, Ayatollahs, Imams ascribe to doctrine that is all but peaceful, tolerant, and conservative. That is part of Qranic language, if I tell a lie, deceive, or just promote/promulgate the lies of someone else promoting Islam I have not sinned, but rather will be blessed. That is the worst part of the lie, that if someone notionally promoting Islam advocates something evil, destructive, or negative in the remote that this is permissable, and in fact desireable.
If as I understand from reading about Indian demographics, the population is inexorably moving towards Islam. I think the consequence is dire for the Indian population; a dark, theocratic, authoritarian, arbitrary and backward government with a bleak isolationist (towards the outside world) future with unhappy people, a growing problem with population and a fetid economy and all the associated social ills. Although India is so depsrately poor in many places, it does not deserve to get worse. I fear this is what will happen under the kind of imposed theocratic law caused by Islamic influence in government.
I have honest sympathy for those in other countries who are living with this kind of stuff. Don't know what to do about it, but one thing I would suggest is apply for an H1B if you live there. I have quite a surprising number of friends who have taken this advice. Others would consel more tolerance and valuing differences. I cannot see any reason to value systems which would further erode my inalienable rights. Even by suggesting I should not be able to state the above is an abridgement, let alone censoring my freedom to view the response. I hope that anyone able to read this in India understands the value of freedom that Ghandi was willing to give so much for, and how
call me a little selfish, but i want to make damn sure that the pills im taking arnt going to kill me faster then whatever it is im taking them for.
No one is forcing you to take experimental drugs. But if every day is agony and you're not expected to last out the year, is it really sensible to keep you from a drug that has a 10% chance of making you better off, if you understand the risk and want to try it?
your generator story is all well and good, but what would have happened to you after y2k when the lights stayed on and no one wanted to pay up their share of the maitnence costs?
What happens if all of the customers in an area decide that they want to go Amish? Any business endeavour is a risk, there's always a case where things can go horribly wrong and cost you a lot. But if you're willing to take a risk, why should anyone stop you? As for accountability, I'd get a lot more out of yelling at my neighbor than my power company's answering machine when the power goes down. A small power co-op actually *prevents* people like your hypothetical 72" TV watcher; if there are only 20 people on the line, they know exactly who is taking more than their chare.
and what about water? clean, clear and healty water? would you trust some Joe down the street to keep their filter running? what if his kid was sick one day and he didnt get a chance to fix the filter.... after all, it's not his day-job right?
This is the very best example of government regulation screwing things up. In many cities, it has been made illegal to collect rainwater for any purpose. What this does, primarily, is provide a nice steady revenue stream for the water company throughout the year. We're generally talking smart, educated people who are either going to filter the water or only use it for the laundry or the yard. Worse than the American case, however, is water regulation in the third world. Someone will run a pipe out to a village in the middle of nowhere, and the government will force everyone to use it for clean water. Of course, the people don't have any money to *pay* for this water, so they basically either drink from hidden, less sanitary cisterns, or go without.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
A "religous prosthelizer" sounds like someone who convinces you to saw your leg off for religious reasons.
1) there is a huge difference between cosmetic and nessisary surgeries. your overwaight friend there would have a VERY hard time getting approval for a bypass if he is eating a pizza as a snack (as you said in a comment lower down). Contrary to popular beliefe, you cant just waltz into a hospital and say "hay, im not feeling good, give me a surgery"... there are checks and controlls as to what is covered and what is not.
2)yes, our taxes are higher, but not as much as you may think. IIRC even in Ontario (one of the highest taxed provences in the country) its only a few % higher then the american national average. but seeing as you need to buy private insurence youre not ahead anything.
3) peace of mind... My mother didnt need to re-morgage her house to pay for her cancer treatment, I dont need to pay all $400 of my money up front for my medications every 3 months, When my dad broke his leg it didnt cost him thousands of dollars out of pocket to get treated. Of course i DO realize that all this money does come out of our pockets sometime, but its a lot easier to swollow a few extra hundred dollars taxes a year then needing to shell out $50,000 in one sitting.
4) we take care of our own... One thing that has always grated me about american healthcare is that it's based on a system of greed. "Why should i pay for that person to get better?" well, because that other person over there will pay to help you get better if you cant afford it. I dont know too many people with $100k laying around to be able to afford a major health emergency.
India is large and poor. But we keep sending work over there because it is supposedly democratic.
In this case I think we should link the issue of outsourcing with freedom of the press -- if you're going to censor blogs and the Internet, you're tyrants and we don't support tyrants. So no more outsourcing for you.
Power has a tendency to coalesce and centralize no matter what you happen to call that power base.
Look at the fall of rome.. after the government collapsed a new and arguably more oppressive system arose was people who controlled physical/military force exerted their dominance.
The truth is, that anywhere where government intervention creates a large enough black market, cartels which have no respect for the law show up and begin exerting their own "government style" control over it. Granted their power is superceded and dwarfed by the actual government when theyre found, but when theyre not they may as well be the law themselves.
You of course know how the mafia controls such things as drug distribution, prostitution, and illegal gambling.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Because that is exactly the Indian pespective. This will get fixed within the week.
I love the Indian beureucracy. Through its thirteen trillion and one faults, it stands as something with just enough power to keep everything running. It totally lacks the power to do anything bad.
A great firewall of India is impossible because there are no tanks you can quelch a student movement in India with. Comparing India with China is just silly here.
I think zoning laws are some of the worst laws in existence -- private property should not be regulated as long as actions on that property don't harm another's property physically. I believe if my generator made noise that affected my neighbors, there should just be tort laws that cover it (and I believe tort can be provided for in a free market without the legal system!). If I pollute my neighbors property, fine. But if I want to paint my home pink with stripes, I should be free to. If I want to build it all the way up to my neighbor's property, I should be free to.
The Medicare thought of my is NOT disingenous. Look at this WashTimes article:
No Charity Allowed
Didn't need to call me a dumbass... you just confirmed my second point. God damn, those are some fat bastards.
And I'm glad America still has free ERs, it's hard to track where it's slid to in its descent to totalitarianism.
A ruling like that work. Soviet? Gone. Nazi? Gone. Kings? Gone. The ending happens to be a little worse than the start; this just reminded me of Luis XVI.
The parent poster is making a case for waking the frog up before it's slowly boiled by giving it a proverbial electric jolt.
you then overgeneralize this into some kind of rant against the philosophy behind supply side economics.
Granted there are other holes in this person's position, but this is not one of them. People don't seem to care when things are taken away by inches, take anoxia for example. If youre suddenly thrust into an environment where you can't breathe, youll try to claw your way out.. but if someone gradually removes the oxygen in the air you'll begin to experience tiredness, but you won't know exactly why, then reduced judgment, then euphoria, but things will have become terminally deadly (without external help) before you actually notice it.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
And it never EVER does. Government is a permanent in society. Allow my to show a example. Let's say there is no government. Someone has a big gun (or other weapon), and you do not. You, on the other hand, have found a way to sustain you and your family off the land. The guy with the gun (lets call him Bob) figures out that if he threatens you, he can just steal your stuff. Bob does this to several groups over a period of time. The groups finally have decided that they have had enough, and they band together to stop the threat. They take out Bob, and also decide if anything like this threatens them like this again, they will band together again. They pledge to work together to stop stealing and murder in their groups.
And just like that, there is government. Actually, if you paid attention, two states formed: first a dictatorship by Bob, they a group lead state (democracy-like) for the common good. And it isn't a far step to control other things. Lets say there is a drought. Groups realize that if other groups die, they have less protection, so they feed the group. Or they realize that the same thing could happen to them, and they help the other groups so the other groups will do the same for them one day. Now the government is a function of not just protection, but welfare. This highlights a few facts of government:
1. States are a constant. As long as we remain social creatures, they will always exist.
2. States can just be a community banding together for the common good. It is just a function of organized society.
3. States can be formed for the majority (the groups) or the minority (Bob). Your choice.
There is a great quote from Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everything we have tried so far." If state is a constant, as I have shown, then it is better to have a government run by the group then an individual. Now, you may argue that America is run by individuals, but they are elected officials. To get office, they must appeal to the people for support, so if they do something stupid, you can't remove responsibility from the people. Who you are really mad at are people that allow oppressive and/or stupid laws/individuals to remain. Don't like it, work to change it: educate people. Support better schools to teach people how the world works... Wait, you don't like paying taxes, do you. Then I guess your right: there is no hope. Sorry for disagreeing
I give bread to the poor, they call me a saint.
I ask why the poor have no bread, they call me a communist.
i think 99% of slashdotters would agree that a site promoting the human trafficking of minors should be banned
i also think 99% slashdotters would agree that a site promoting basic awareness of sexually transmitted diseases should not be banned
the point is, censorship is not the issue, WHAT is being censored is the issue
even the most rabid "censorship is evil" idealist would agree that some really nasty content should be squashed. folks: i said really nasty content. i'm talking about sites promoting the human trafficking of minors, for example
and it's not like the issue is black and white either. there is always a grey area. ALWAYS. there will always be sites that some think should be banned, and some don't. always. forever. welcome to reality: the issue is not really simple
and guess what idealists? that's life. there is no simple ideal you can adhere to, that doesn't have some exceptions. life is complex and full of nuance. you can't beat a subject matter with a simpleminded adherence to a simple concept: "all censorship is evil" and expect it that to work in reality. and admitting that fact does NOT mean you accept all censorship. admitting you think a site promoting human trafficking of minors should be banned does NOT mean you accept that a site promoting democracy should be banned
because again: WHAT is being censored is the issue, NOT the issue of censorship itself
it's ridiculous to debate the existence of censorship. it's NOT ridiculous (and more it is more effective) to debate WHAT is being censored
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Anyone else read: Indiana Jones China in Censoring Websites?
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwh.. Forget that shit!
If someone is actually trafficking minors, they should be arrested for that.
However, if they're promoting it by saying positive things about it, and not trafficking minors themselves, and have nothing to do with trafficking minors (besides talking about them in a positive light), that's disturbing, but it's the cost of free speech.
Block one instance of free speech, and the rest will follow. I'm sorry, but no matter how repulsive the speech, as long as they are not commiting bodily harm or depriving others of life or liberty with their words, it should not be censored.
that's like saying i can threaten to kill you, but until i actually kill you, no one can do anything about me
your idealism is very touching, but you have to realize it doesn't work in the real world
if someone is online talking about human trafficking in the concrete: who, what, where, logistics, etc., they should be censored, arrested, etc.
if they are talking about it in the abstract, then that's fine
but we're not talking about abstract issues now are we?
you need to admit that on the subject of certain noxious issues, such as human trafficking in the concrete, not the abstract, then censorship is utterly appropriate
you say that's not black and white? that there are grey areas between the concrete and the abstract and you could err and censor someone who shouldn't be censored?
i agree wtih you 100%
welcome to reality: it's not simple, there are grey areas. but because there are grey areas does not mean there are not also black areas
you do not allow the black areas for the sake of the existence of grey areas
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Sir, you are lost beyond redemption
What does "center-seeking" mean? There is no "center" between being a Statist and being Anarcho-capitalist. Either you think freedom requires the State or it doesn't. There is no "center" there.
And here we have a gloriously apt demonstration of the sickness to which all extremists eventually succumb: the belief that anyone who does not strictly share their exact own extreme worldview is, themselves, an extremist for the other side.
Is there such a thing as a state which respects personal freedom? Is it possible that while no state respects personal freedom completely, some states respect personal freedom relatively more or less than other states? Is it possible to construct, by design, a form of constitutionally limited government which maximizes the personal freedom enjoyed by its citizens? Heck, what about all the really crazy possibilities that open up if it occurs to us it may be possible for actors other than states to limit personal freedoms? Like, what if it's possible for something that has nothing to do with states whatsoever-- like, I dunno, capitalism or something-- to create a situation where not everyone is absolutely and completely free, meaning that "personal freedom" is something entirely different from just a measurement of whether or not a government exists?
Wait, no, never mind, none of those shades of gray or tertium quids matter or even exist. There are only two options: Either you're with us, or you're with the Statists. You may not personally identify as a "Statist" or even be sure what one is, but that's okay. If you won't become an anarchocapitalist extremist, then by process of elimination you must be a Statist. You are only allowed to be an extremist; the extremists have declared it. Choose your side.
The doctor in question is simply ignorant. Most of the people doing this knows that the way around these contracts is to bill the patient the full price, only you "forget" to bill them. When they don't pay, you "forget" to send their account to a collections agency or report them to a credit bureau. Finally you just write it off as bad debt. Sure, if you do it a lot, you might get an auditor that looks deeply enough into it and wants to know why you don't ever report certain patients to credit bureaus, but at least you've got proof that you "billed" them the correct amount.
Incidentially, EVERY major insurer has the exact same language in their in-network contracts. The only difference is that by "defrauding" Aetna, instead of being arrested you just get dropped from their in-network status (IIRC you lose 15% of the usual payment, assuming you still get Aetna patients since the patient will pay more as well, its been a while since I've read the actual contract) and possibly sued.
As for zoning, yes, the vast majority of zoning laws are stupid, but not nearly as bad as deed restrictions that are applied to the property itself. Unlike a law that I can dream about getting repealed, these things are next to impossible to remove.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Yeah, no kidding. Last time I was in the ER (several fractured bones in my hand, couple years ago) I had to wait behind several other people who... well, let's just say they probably hadn't been able to see their toes in quite some time without severe contortion. Got to listen to them, too, at the admittance desk. All of them had insurance. I didn't. Complaints ranged from "extreme lethargy" to heart palpitations (the latter from someone probably close to half my age but nearly twice my weight at a guess)
Meanwhile, the doctors that see them can't just say "Hey, you eat too much and don't exercise, get off your fat ass!" to those who inflict it upon themselves - and refuse them further treatment until they follow the program. A nurse came out and asked the bunch of us "anyone here who requires immediate treatment?" and nearly everyone raised their hands, including the ! 5'3" ~300lb woman who'd a moment before been chasing her kids all over the waiting room. Um, yeah.
But obesity "treatment" is big biz, brings lotsa dollars, Oprah shows, media attention...
I smoke cigarettes. I know the effects, been smoking for twenty years. (stupid, yes) But I'm in damned good physical shape otherwise, I don't go see a doctor when I bike ten km and I'm out of wind. If that's not a good analogy for many of these people, I don't know what is! (I'm well aware that some people have genetic or medical problems such as diabetes that contribute to obesity, that's not the point I'm trying to make - stated so that somebody else doesn't)
I think part of the problem is the lobotomy box and all the programs on there telling people that they aren't responsible for their own fuckups. Sheeze.
Sigh.
Y'know, I don't bitch much about this. I don't seek medical care often, either - I take care of my own problems unless they might interfere with me making a living. (broken hand bones definitely qualify for a tradesman), and once I put a deep four inch slash in my leg that I cleaned and sutured myself...
But sometimes it just gets to be too much...
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Your zeal overwhelms you sir. Unions are instrumental in fighting fascism. Look at Poland, Italy, Germany or any other country during WW2 that was actually invaded and captured. The resistance came from workers groups and unions in many parts.
What's weird is that I can still access these sites. Blogger.com works albeit slowly. Mumbaihelp fails to load, upon checking (using a proxy) though it seems that it's a problem with the site, not my ISP. For the record I'm using MTNL Broadband, which is clearly mentioned in the article as one of the blocking parties.
Though if they are resorting to censoring the internet, well, that makes my blood boil a fair extent. Something would need to be done. Seriously, putting aside all the Goatse's (which our Slashdot brethren love..) and the other bad stuff on the net, I love the net for it's inherent freedom. Can't have them censoring it now, can we ?
...nah, actually I don't welcome this.
The Left-wing Congress-led ruling govt is showing that it finds blogs a threat. Let's take a look at some of the sites which our Leftists have decided they want to ban:
http://www.indianexpress.com/story/8719.html
Okay, so since these bans are taking place in the wake of the Mumbai train bombings, am I supposed to believe that the people from Hinduhumanrights.org planted RDX plastic explosives on those trains?
No, this is an opportunity for our Left-wing thought police to slip in some crackdowns on people they don't like -- especially those not sharing their same Left-wing ideology.
The Left-wing Congress coalition won't do a damn thing to stop Pakistan and its jihad machine -- oh, but they will ban the 'nefarious' Hindus who might complain about the Congress Party's biased policies. Subversive phrases like "HinduHumanRights" must not be tolerated. Sounds like slapping a gag on the victims to shut up their annoying cries for help. Better that than actually exerting some effort to get Pakistan off our backs.
I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in any Hindu deity, nor do I pray to any Hindu god, nor do I attend any Hindu places of worship. But that doesn't mean I believe jihadi terrorists armed by Pakistan should be allowed to kill infidels like myself with impunity. I therefore don't see any objectionable material presented on the website HinduHumanrights.org
I don't see that it attacks or vilifies any other religion, including Islam. I don't see how complaining about the murder of Pandits in Kashmir constitutes Hate Speech. I don't see a reason to ban this site as hate-mongering. I do see that the spineless Congress-led govt would rather suppress complaints about their ineffectiveness against Islamic terrorism rather than addressing them.
The Left-wing are frightened of blogs and populist journalism. They'd rather only have a media with a firm brick-and-mortar address which they can control and pressure more easily.
Ham-fisted behavior from our Left-wing tinpot luncheon-leaders.
Which immediately leads me to say, "In Congress-ruled India, Spam blocks you!"
...and they feel compelled to show that its in their hands and go out and do daft things. I saw mumbai.blogspot.com in google's cache and its hardly anythign which must be banned - instead they ought to link to it from their dingy no-info sites.
These politician and bureaucrat low lifes make me sick.
Amen!
I'm living in Italy at the moment and tried to go to one of the online poker sites, but I was greeted with a message that states that because it's illegal here, access is blocked. I doubt this is the only other country that censors certain websites due to internal laws.
In Somalia and Afghanistan there was no funtioning state for years.
What we got is the worst nutcases running the show.
That is what you want for all of us, but you and your ilk will not succeed.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I will refer to your chef example only, I have not enough enery to debunk so much nonsense.
What you are advocating is the law of the jungle.
If I go to eat somewhere I want to make sure what I am eating is eadible and will not harm me.
The typical anarchist answer is, well, let the market decide, but in this case, were harm may be major or final, I can't just go and take my bussiness elsewhere.
If you are happy with that, all the power to you, but if what it takes to stop that mad world you want for us is the state, then bring it on I say.
In countries where no state exists we have seen nothing but chaos, generalized mayhem and indiscrimante killings. Why people in modern countries insist on this fallacy about how we can make without an stat (i.e. without a commonly agreed arbeiter) just shows a tremendous lack of education.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Go and read the newspapers about how well they are doing...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Censorship exists everywhere, and I don't think it is accepted more hypocritically than in the west, espesically the US.
Government censorship is considered to be a symptom of tyranny, yet the public as a whole readily accepts and expects corporate censorship, and has for decades. When it comes to television and radio, "you can't say that" or "you can't see that" have been used for decades to suppress words, ideas and images, and very few people seem to mind. I don't think that any US television network will deny the existence of network censors.
1968 "Sponsors go into an uproar and threaten to pull support after a television program shows interracial 'touching.' During the taping of a duet between Petula Clark and Harry Belafonte, Clark lays her hand on Belafonte's arm (Clark is white and Belafonte is black)."
"After being invited by the Smothers Brothers to perform his anti-Vietnam anthem 'Waist Deep in the Big Muddy' on their TV show, Pete Seeger is edited out of the program by the censors at CBS television."
1971 "Several radio stations alter the John Lennon song 'Working Class Hero' without the consent of Lennon or his record label."
1975 "Radio stations across the country refuse to play Loretta Lynn's 'The Pill' because of its references to birth control."
2001 "Producers of Late Night with David Letterman cancel an appearance by singer Ani DiFranco after she refuses to drop plans to perform the song 'Subdivision.' The song deals with racism and white flight to the suburbs."
Censorship is all around you. China and India did not invent it.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
To make that statement you'll have to do more explaining than that. Simply dismissing his argument and giving no counterpoints just isn't enough.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Am I the only one who read this is as "Indiana Jones...."
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
this is really bad :( i dont understand the idea of blocking blogs?
anyway there are some sites like http://www.secgeeks.com/ where u can start your blog related to technology.
I'm not the person who posted the grandparent, but how about this:
Please stay the hell out of my state. The great-grandparent's attitude is the same kind of attitude that has made Los Angeles a sprawling unlivable armpit of the country; made Atlanta in to one giant 30 mile wide traffic jam; created a country that essentially can't operate without almost every individual driving each day; costs taxpayers untold amounts of money running roads, sewers, and services to idiotic locations; and hundreds of other painful externalities that everyone else has to suffer even if the runoff from your mine doesn't ruin our water, or the slope instability your clearcut logging doesn't wash away someone else's house, or your high-rise condo doesn't immediately fall off the bluff in to the ocean, or...
We all live in this society and as populations increase, we also increasing share the impacts of things individuals do to their own property. As such, land use laws help prevent you from subsidizing other people's changes, and protect the quality of life for everyone in an area.
It's also worth noting that well managed land use laws also have an impact on prosperity: businesses are more likely to locate in desirable areas; people are more likely to choose to live in desirable areas; and high-paying service oriented businesses may be more profitable in desirable areas because qualified people may not need enticement of much higher salaries to locate there.
But that's really an aside to the fact that this isn't a frontier anymore and we do have to live together. There are few quicker ways to permanently ruin a state than to gut its land use laws.
Unions are instrumental in fighting fascism.
Of course they did -- Unions hate competition, and will do ANYTHING to survive. They would fight just as hard to keep out a libertarian government that happened to want to outlaw unions.
What does "center-seeking" mean? There is no "center" between being a Statist and being Anarcho-capitalist. Either you think freedom requires the State or it doesn't. There is no "center" there.
Statist is not the proper antonym for anarchist. One can fully support anarchistic ethics (that people ought to be free to do whatever they want so long as they're not doing unto others as those others don't want) and at the same time support any of a variety of methods of ENFORCING such ethics.
You could leave it up to each individual to defend his or her rights; that is, if someone is mugging you, nobody else is under any sort of obligation to help you, and if you fail to defend yourself, tough. This is the crazy kind of anarchy that just doesn't work, because it simply turns into a case of might-makes-right, and unless every single person in contact with this society adheres perfectly to anarchistic ethics, someone who doesn't adhere to such a system will eventually find it advantageous to coerse other people and then you'll wind up with tyranny. That's why this kind of anarchy doesn't work: it's unstable and self-defeating, the system incapable of defending itself against violations.
Alternatively, you could keep a powerful centralized state authority (appointed or elected by whatever means: monarchy, democracy, republic, whatever), and use that to enforce anarchist ethics. This, as I understand it, is basically what Libertarians advocate: keep a strong state in place, but have the laws that that state enforces be simply protection of people and property. This is fairly close to what the founders of the United States were going after too. The problem with this, as we have seen, is that the centralized state is basically in the same position as a powerful individual in the earlier kind of anarchy, and if it decides to diverge from anarchist ethics, it can start grabbing up power and you start moving toward tyranny again. This system too is eventually self-defeating.
Yet another method, which I advocate, is that the responsibility to enforce the law by left up to each and every individual, but that those individuals are not only responsible for their own defense, but for the defense of everyone else in their group as well. I basically hold that in order for freedom to exist, people must uphold not only the responsibility to respect each other, but also to defend each other. In short, coersive or violent force is only and always not only justified, but DEMANDED in response to others' force, even if the force of those others was directed at an individual other than yourself. To keep such a system managable on scales larger than a simple tribe, I advocate that people organize into self-selecting groups of managable size (this would be like a household or a neighborhood block) under a single leader, who is given the extra responsibility of being that group's dedicated peacekeeper (mediator, policeman, etc), and in exchange is given the right to act on behalf of the group as a whole (pending the approval of the group, i.e. the group can hold an approval vote on a prospective action or on a decision already made, and force the leader to do / not do something on their behalf). The leader is also responsibile for representing the group to other groups; these groups then forms larger groups of groups, with the leaders of those larger groups having the responsibility of mediating and policing inter-group conflicts (and coordinating the collective actions of the leaders of the sub-groups to that end). And so on and so on as far up as you need to go to have a managable number of members in all groups of all levels.
It may be useful to visualize not the typical two-dimensional Nolan chart of political orientation, but rather a three-dimensional one. Two dimensions are the standard interpersonal and economic axis of permissiveness/restrictiveness. The third axis regards who enforces the law: radically centralized, radically decentralized, or a more moderate system like the one I've just described. Fo
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."