Calling the ideology of the Soviet Union "communism" is akin to calling Hitler's Germany "socialism" (which is what kicked off this debate, funnily enough).
No, Communism doesn't equal authoritarianism, especially in the same sense as fascism. How could an ideology seeking to take power away from the rich minority and give it the majority, as well as calling for the dissolution of the State itself be considered "authoritarian"?
"Socialism" could be authoritarian or not, depending on the flavour. There are literally dozens of different types of socialism. Some anarchic, some authoritarian. And some in the middle.
You didn't find it fun, I didn't find it fun either. But plenty of people did so there's no point out leaving out games purely based on your own opinion of them.
Obviously, but the fact that he requested such a stupid thing which is bound to get rejected is now a matter of public knowledge. So he looks like an idiot.
"Regarding the Australian filter, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
The Green party and the Liberal party are both going to block the legislation in the Upper House. Their numbers combined are enough to stop the bill from passing.
The Greens don't get much of their other policies talked about very much, besides the environment, but they have the most pro-Slashdot internet platform out of any political party. By that I mean they support open standards, net-neutrality and internet freedom (no censorship). They also want the government to embrace open source and all government documents to saved in an open document standard."
Regarding the Australian filter, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
The Green party and the Liberal party are both going to block the legislation in the Upper House. Their numbers combined are enough to stop the bill from passing.
The Greens don't get much of their other policies talked about very much, besides the environment, but they have the most pro-Slashdot internet platform out of any political party. By that I mean they support open standards, net-neutrality and internet freedom (no censorship). They also want the government to embrace open source and all government documents to saved in an open document standard.
First of all, no one knows why the site was banned. The article admits it's pure speculation. Secondly, if the article's hypothesis is correct then unlike what some comments are suggesting, it was not to crackdown on anti-Islamic views but the exact opposite. A prominent Muslim creationist has apparently been promoting his views on Blogger so it's been banned, like other sites he posted on before. That's the theory.
And seriously, you're saying that Turkey shouldn't be allowed in the EU because it restricts "freedom of speech"? What about Austria and Germany, where it's a punishable offence to deny the holocaust? They've arrested an Australian citizen for doing exactly that. Clearly Austria and Germany should be thrown out of the EU. What's ironic about Austria is that the neo-fascists there have recently had resounding success at the elections. But that's another story.
The Australian Labor Party was founded in 1891 as a centre-left, social democratic party representing the trade union movement. The Communist Party of Australia was founded in 1920, never found electoral success and disbanded in 1991.
Pretty much everyone in Australia knows this is not actually going to get implemented. The Australian EFF are just enjoying having their moment in the sun. There's no reason to have another story on the exact same topic every few days.
100% right. It was most noticeable during the Olympics.
During the Olympics, the Australian media were in uproar about the "Great Firewall of China". Being a Slashdot reader, I knew all about it but for most people the fact that there's mandatory internet censorship in China was a completey new and abhorrent idea. What they apparently didn't know was that our government was actually testing how to do the exact same thing whilst they were banging on about how bad China is.
I wrote many letters to all the papers on that very topic but alas, they were all ignored.
While I agree with the general sentiment of your post, especially about the history of the IRA, your statement "largely because of something that happened 3000 miles away, the UK feels that such pervasive monitoring is necessary" ignores the 2005 London bombings which killed 52 people and injured 700.
This is particularly relevant to me as I'm travelling to the US next month. I'll be there for a couple of months so taking my laptop is kind of a necessity but really don't know what the hassle's going to be like at the border and whether it's worth it. I'm not particularly worried about them spying on my files since there isn't anything sensitive there and if there was, I could upload it onto a secure server and then download it once in the States but even that is a somewhat depressing course of action to take when entering the "land of the free".
It's almost as if they don't want visitors, tourists, skilled workers?
Except it didn't? You are aware that "Al-qaeda" (Which your side of the debate always fails to define, but let's take it as some kind of mysterious secret organisation of terrorists) never existed in Iraq until after the 2003 invasion.
Crux of that article is that Bush really, really, REALLY wanted to attack Iraq. Through sanctions and military action. It has comments from Powell backing up that view.
Interesting thing is, it was written in January 2001. Quite some time before September 11 and all that shit. So if there was still anyone out there holding on to some hope that the US invaded Iraq because they really DID have connections to 9/11, this is going to make them pretty upset. Of course the really sad part is all those US soldiers that have died in Iraq after signing up because they were hoodwinked by government propaganda and wanted to "Get the bastards back for what they did in New York".
Slashdot Mirror
Calling the ideology of the Soviet Union "communism" is akin to calling Hitler's Germany "socialism" (which is what kicked off this debate, funnily enough).
No, Communism doesn't equal authoritarianism, especially in the same sense as fascism. How could an ideology seeking to take power away from the rich minority and give it the majority, as well as calling for the dissolution of the State itself be considered "authoritarian"?
"Socialism" could be authoritarian or not, depending on the flavour. There are literally dozens of different types of socialism. Some anarchic, some authoritarian. And some in the middle.
On behalf of all fans of Battlestar Galactica, I say "Woosh.
Or has the final seasons already been filmed?
You didn't find it fun, I didn't find it fun either. But plenty of people did so there's no point out leaving out games purely based on your own opinion of them.
You can win the game by killing or making friends. Pick whatever you want.
So they want to utilise the good will of the open source community and turn a profit from their hard work?
That didn't take long. Well I guess it took a while, but going by their company motto it shouldn't have happened at all.
Obviously, but the fact that he requested such a stupid thing which is bound to get rejected is now a matter of public knowledge. So he looks like an idiot.
Did this guy not get legal advice pointing out that what he's asking for is almost definitely illegal/unconstitutional?
I never thought the thing I use to clean my keyboard could be used to power a car.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1012207&cid=25565869
"Regarding the Australian filter, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
The Green party and the Liberal party are both going to block the legislation in the Upper House. Their numbers combined are enough to stop the bill from passing.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/30/1224956188036.html
The Greens don't get much of their other policies talked about very much, besides the environment, but they have the most pro-Slashdot internet platform out of any political party. By that I mean they support open standards, net-neutrality and internet freedom (no censorship). They also want the government to embrace open source and all government documents to saved in an open document standard."
Regarding the Australian filter, it doesn't look like it's going to happen.
The Green party and the Liberal party are both going to block the legislation in the Upper House. Their numbers combined are enough to stop the bill from passing.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2008/10/30/1224956188036.html
The Greens don't get much of their other policies talked about very much, besides the environment, but they have the most pro-Slashdot internet platform out of any political party. By that I mean they support open standards, net-neutrality and internet freedom (no censorship). They also want the government to embrace open source and all government documents to saved in an open document standard.
First of all, no one knows why the site was banned. The article admits it's pure speculation. Secondly, if the article's hypothesis is correct then unlike what some comments are suggesting, it was not to crackdown on anti-Islamic views but the exact opposite. A prominent Muslim creationist has apparently been promoting his views on Blogger so it's been banned, like other sites he posted on before. That's the theory.
And seriously, you're saying that Turkey shouldn't be allowed in the EU because it restricts "freedom of speech"? What about Austria and Germany, where it's a punishable offence to deny the holocaust? They've arrested an Australian citizen for doing exactly that. Clearly Austria and Germany should be thrown out of the EU. What's ironic about Austria is that the neo-fascists there have recently had resounding success at the elections. But that's another story.
Sigh, from the article:
"AGL will power the system with renewable energy."
You're quite incorrect.
The Australian Labor Party was founded in 1891 as a centre-left, social democratic party representing the trade union movement. The Communist Party of Australia was founded in 1920, never found electoral success and disbanded in 1991.
Pretty much everyone in Australia knows this is not actually going to get implemented. The Australian EFF are just enjoying having their moment in the sun. There's no reason to have another story on the exact same topic every few days.
Ayn Rand? It's a quote from Marx. It's his own summation of Communism. You failed at this argument because you do not grasp what communism is.
100,000 / 1 million is 10%, not 1%.
100% right. It was most noticeable during the Olympics.
During the Olympics, the Australian media were in uproar about the "Great Firewall of China". Being a Slashdot reader, I knew all about it but for most people the fact that there's mandatory internet censorship in China was a completey new and abhorrent idea. What they apparently didn't know was that our government was actually testing how to do the exact same thing whilst they were banging on about how bad China is.
I wrote many letters to all the papers on that very topic but alas, they were all ignored.
Enough said.
While I agree with the general sentiment of your post, especially about the history of the IRA, your statement "largely because of something that happened 3000 miles away, the UK feels that such pervasive monitoring is necessary" ignores the 2005 London bombings which killed 52 people and injured 700.
This is particularly relevant to me as I'm travelling to the US next month. I'll be there for a couple of months so taking my laptop is kind of a necessity but really don't know what the hassle's going to be like at the border and whether it's worth it. I'm not particularly worried about them spying on my files since there isn't anything sensitive there and if there was, I could upload it onto a secure server and then download it once in the States but even that is a somewhat depressing course of action to take when entering the "land of the free".
It's almost as if they don't want visitors, tourists, skilled workers?
Except it didn't? You are aware that "Al-qaeda" (Which your side of the debate always fails to define, but let's take it as some kind of mysterious secret organisation of terrorists) never existed in Iraq until after the 2003 invasion.
Search crews have found some wreckage, apparently. No link because it's only a banner on CNN's website.
Crux of that article is that Bush really, really, REALLY wanted to attack Iraq. Through sanctions and military action. It has comments from Powell backing up that view.
Interesting thing is, it was written in January 2001. Quite some time before September 11 and all that shit. So if there was still anyone out there holding on to some hope that the US invaded Iraq because they really DID have connections to 9/11, this is going to make them pretty upset. Of course the really sad part is all those US soldiers that have died in Iraq after signing up because they were hoodwinked by government propaganda and wanted to "Get the bastards back for what they did in New York".