It seems unfair to expect anyone to abide by the law when you need to pay an expert thousands of dollars just to tell you what the law means.
Here's a challenge. Go to any lawyer, preferably the most distinguished and knowledgeable one in the land, and ask him this: "How many laws are there?" He doesn't know.
This is how GWB won in 2000. Take Ralph Nader out of the picture and the decision wouldn't have been left up to the Supreme Court. Third parties always hurts the party they're most similar to, so their effect is usually negative to their cause.
I note that you used the word "fanboi" in your post and thus deserve to be modded -1 Troll.
"Everyone does it" is extremely relevant. If a boycott is being called for for these reasons, then why single Apple out and not also boycott "everyone else?" If Apple's competitors weren't doing this very same thing, I would understand. There's no justification for singling Apple out - why isn't this a smartphone boycott? A technology boycott? Go ahead, boycott all products made in China using crappy labor practices, see what type of luddite that turns you into.
Not unlikely that he has an Android or Windows Phone in his pocket, considering how many people own smartphones now. It would be quite hypocritical if he called for an Apple boycott while holding an iPhone.
But the point is, that that Android or Windows phone was most assuredly manufactured using similar labor practices.
That's my problem with this idea of boycotting Apple: If you want to start boycotting products that are made in China with unsavory labor practices, then you're going to have to boycott practically everything. If you think you're helping anything by buying an Android or Windows phone over an iPhone you're deluding yourself.
Hearst was a supporter of Adolf Hitler from 1934 until 1938
Regarding Duranty: No, I don't think anything could have been done about the famine. Diplomacy would do nothing to sway the Soviets. Why would it? And how would it do anything? A famine means there's not enough food. When there's not enough food there's just not enough food. The Soviets just didn't want their dirty laundry aired. It was 1933. No one was going to help the Soviets. It would just have been bad press - "look how bad communism is!"
Regardless, Hearst is still a much more appropriate analog to Murdoch.
Concerning Iraq: Saddam Hussein complied with every single U.S. request leading up to the war. When he submitted an inventory of his arsenal, Bush claimed that it was inaccurate because WMDs weren't on the list. Upon invasion that inventory looked to be pretty damn accurate.
What failed to sell peace was FUD. It was a textbook example. People were scared and uncertain and Fox News fueled that FUD as much as they could. Other media outlets failed by not standing up to all the nonsense, afraid they'd look unpatriotic, but at least they didn't actively pursue war.
The "serious thoughts" coming from the anti-war movement were drowned out by jingoism, racism, and fear. Right after 9/11 Bill Maher said, "we've been the cowards, launching cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away, that's cowardly." Not long after he show was canceled. The Bush administration, Murdoch, and others on the far right successful used a national hysteria to stifle individual liberties, empower their oligarchy, and effectively wag the dog. The fact that Americans were willing to put up with blatant censorship post-9/11 (banning songs on the radio!) shows just how irrational the general populace was between September 2001 up to around 2005. In your case, the irrationality seems to be a permanent state.
They would have to drop all their political ads if they drop Romney's. While I'm sure they can afford to do that, it certainly isn't in their best interest. In all likelihood Romney knew he would get sued for this, as other posters have mentioned. It's a brilliant strategy: It creates a lot of noise, it pits Romney vs. the media (an area where Gingrich has been winning by chewing out debate moderators), and the ad itself is very effective by reminding the public about what a hypocritical scoundrel Gingrich is.
NBC will sue, Romney will pay. NBC may be playing into Romney's plan, but that's okay for them because they're not running for president. They get the money for running the ad, they get some extra money from the lawsuit. He's not trying to defeat NBC (of course, expect some anti-NBC rhetoric out of Romney to appeal to the base), he's trying to defeat Gingrich. When you're filthy rich you can afford stunts like this.
You are correct that Democrats, by and large, stand on the wrong side of this issue because of their allegiance with Hollywood.
You are incorrect in asserting that Republicans are afraid of the electorate because of the Tea Party. "Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.
I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people. All those black people who rushed out to vote for Obama in '08. Those same black people who didn't vote in the congressional elections in 2010 because Obama wasn't up for reelection. Most importantly, the same black people who will make 2012 another record for voter turnout, reelecting Obama and kicking the Republicans out of congress. And the scariest thing of all for the Republicans has to be, from 2012 - 2016. If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.
Personally, I'd rather fight the Dems on copyright issues than let the Republicans back in. It's pretty weak-sauce of the Democrats to allow Hollywood to hold this much control over them, but that doesn't SCARE me. It pisses me off. Republicans starting a war with Iran scares the shit out of me. Their economic policies scare the shit out me because I'm not rich (and even if I was, I would still be morally opposed to them). And their opposition to socialized medicine is indefensible.
That's interesting and all, but the parent didn't say "Murdoch is the worst scum that has ever lived." He said, "Murdoch is scum." He didn't even say that Murdoch was the scummiest man in journalism.
For what it's worth, Hearst was just as or more scummy than Duranty, and he's a more apt comparison to Murdoch. Duranty was just a Soviet shill whereas Hearst paved the way for guys like Murdoch, started a war to sell newspapers, supported Hitler . . . need I go on?
Also, I would argue that NewsCorp's efforts to sell the war in Iraq are far more grievous than denying a famine. Even if Duranty would have reported accurately, those people still would have died. How many thousands died in Iraq because of the misinformation Murdoch spewed out to the public? If News Corp wouldn't have drummed up public support for the war it probably would never have occurred.
This is the argument for apathy, and it's wrong. Protesting isn't just about results, protesting is about standing up for what's right. Regardless, I do believe there are positive results - right now we, along with many others around the world, are discussing an issue that may not have occurred to us, or we may not have known about, had it not been for a group of Polish protestors.
Money isn't everything. That's just a defeatist attitude. It's the type of attitude that, by accepting injustice as inevitable, is complicit in it.
You know, you bring up a good point. If the internet community can try to fight with legislation of their own - legislation that would limit copyrights and extend fair use and public domain - then these media giants might find that they've awakened a sleeping giant. Not only should we be contacting our congressmen and telling them what to oppose, but we should also be telling them what type of changes we want made in regards to copyright.
Even if the endeavor isn't successful, imagine how scared shitless the MPAA would be if we could get guys like Ron Paul and Ron Wyden to introduce a bill that would get rid of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act or other such nonsense. Furthermore, if we can convince guys like that to vocally campaign on these issues, it would do a lot towards raising awareness.
You've confused the 4th and 5th amendments. The 4th amendment protects one against unreasonable search and seizure. That's not what's in dispute here. The 5th amendment protects a defendant from being forced to incriminate themselves.
The passphrase won't give the court anything they don't already have. It will just give them a means to understand the evidence they already have. That's potentially incriminating to the defendant so I would argue that the 5th amendment protects the defendant at least in spirit.
The best analogy I can come up with: Dr. Evil's being charged with attempting to construct a death ray. But he's really unorganized and not even experts can make senes of his poor handwriting and bizarre shorthand in his reams of evil plans. The prosecution can't really prove that Dr. Evil was constructing a death ray without Dr. Evil interpreting the documents for them. Can Dr. Evil be forced to interpret those documents? No! And even if he could, they have no way of knowing whether he's telling the truth. "Gee, I forgot." or "Man, I was really drunk when I wrote this, it doesn't even make sense to me" are both plausible. But Dr. Evil can also just say, "I invoke my 5th amendment rights."
Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but that shouldn't be an issue. The fact that not even lawyers and judges can agree on what the U.S. Constitution means indicates that it's overdue to be rewritten from scratch. The legal system in this country is so convoluted that not even lawyers know whether they're breaking some law at any given moment. How can anyone be expected to obey the law when they don't even know what it means?
Here in Ohio can. But if it's, say, my buddy's car that he let me borrow, then I wouldn't be allowed to shoot or even use the gun as a threat. You're allowed to use force to protect your own property but not others'. Similarly, if someone breaks into your home here you're free to shoot them (I know someone who shot an unarmed intruder in the head, killing them, and charges were never brought against them for it). However, if you're housesitting for someone and they break into that home, you're not allowed to even point a gun at them unless they're armed or physically threatening you (I know someone who went to jail for holding an intruder at gunpoint until the cops got there b/c he wasn't on the lease). I'm full of lovely anecdotes today.
Yeah, because there's a clear distinction between virulent blame and criticism. . .
And before what 'facts got out?' At that point, the fact that BP was responsible for spewing gobs of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico wasn't under dispute. Everyone understood it was an accident. No one was accusing BP of malice, just negligence. Regardless, they were responsible and deserved the virulent blame and criticism thrown at them.
The trick is to only read the headlines and then troll about how Google hates freedom. When employing this method it's very important to inform people to vote for Ron Paul.
Reading the summary . . . pfft, that's almost as quaint as reading the article.
I like the insightful evidence you provided to support this claim. You're right. It's time to go back to AltaVista b/c they didn't try to manage search results in a way that forced the user to be presented with the most useful results. That's true freedom, clicking on a porn site when looking for information on something totally irrelevant because the web authors can put whatever the hell they want in the meta data. What's next? Is Google going to infringe on my right to accidentally infest my computer with malware by filtering out those sites as well? Fucking fascists.
Damn you! Get off your lazy ass and go make me some maple syrup! What're you doing on/.? You're jeopardizing your Canadian heritage. If you guys keep spending time on the internet pretty soon you'll figure out what real bacon is. Then Canadian culture will be no more.
Seriously, though, it's cute that the northern territories think they're sovereign. What's next? Puerto Rico?
I think you're part of a very small minority around here. Most/.ers tend to support Wikileaks even if they're not a big fan of Assange. It kind of goes in line with that Voltaire quote: Though I may disagree with what you say I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
The idea that not even the internet is a safe place for whistleblowers is truly frightening to me. I don't buy any argument that justifies censorship for national security. Thomas Jefferson gutted the army/navy at a time when warfare and invasions were common, when there were enough Native Americans to sack and destroy every American city, and when pirates sailed the seas (he did send some ships to deal with the pirates - but it's noteworthy that he didn't overreact and build a grand navy). I'll paraphrase this quote as Wikipedia is protesting: "We must never sacrifice our liberty for security."
I have yet to hear an anti-Wikileaks argument that doesn't amount to sacrificing liberty for security. Don't live in fear, especially of information.
My congressman is a master of politely telling me to go fuck myself. He'll always respond to my letters, never with form letters, but each time he's told me the same old, "well, you've given me a lot to consider, I love hearing from my constituents, but I disagree with you and your quaint opinion."
When he announced that he wasn't running for reelection I gave up on him. Now I just bug the senators.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems unfair to expect anyone to abide by the law when you need to pay an expert thousands of dollars just to tell you what the law means.
Here's a challenge. Go to any lawyer, preferably the most distinguished and knowledgeable one in the land, and ask him this: "How many laws are there?" He doesn't know.
This is how GWB won in 2000. Take Ralph Nader out of the picture and the decision wouldn't have been left up to the Supreme Court. Third parties always hurts the party they're most similar to, so their effect is usually negative to their cause.
I can get tech products for free? Damn! All that money wasted!
I note that you used the word "fanboi" in your post and thus deserve to be modded -1 Troll.
"Everyone does it" is extremely relevant. If a boycott is being called for for these reasons, then why single Apple out and not also boycott "everyone else?" If Apple's competitors weren't doing this very same thing, I would understand. There's no justification for singling Apple out - why isn't this a smartphone boycott? A technology boycott? Go ahead, boycott all products made in China using crappy labor practices, see what type of luddite that turns you into.
Not unlikely that he has an Android or Windows Phone in his pocket, considering how many people own smartphones now. It would be quite hypocritical if he called for an Apple boycott while holding an iPhone.
But the point is, that that Android or Windows phone was most assuredly manufactured using similar labor practices.
That's my problem with this idea of boycotting Apple: If you want to start boycotting products that are made in China with unsavory labor practices, then you're going to have to boycott practically everything. If you think you're helping anything by buying an Android or Windows phone over an iPhone you're deluding yourself.
You're wrong on every point. Am I surprised? No.
Your wiki quote is cute. You left out this part:
Hearst was a supporter of Adolf Hitler from 1934 until 1938
Regarding Duranty: No, I don't think anything could have been done about the famine. Diplomacy would do nothing to sway the Soviets. Why would it? And how would it do anything? A famine means there's not enough food. When there's not enough food there's just not enough food. The Soviets just didn't want their dirty laundry aired. It was 1933. No one was going to help the Soviets. It would just have been bad press - "look how bad communism is!"
Regardless, Hearst is still a much more appropriate analog to Murdoch.
Concerning Iraq: Saddam Hussein complied with every single U.S. request leading up to the war. When he submitted an inventory of his arsenal, Bush claimed that it was inaccurate because WMDs weren't on the list. Upon invasion that inventory looked to be pretty damn accurate.
What failed to sell peace was FUD. It was a textbook example. People were scared and uncertain and Fox News fueled that FUD as much as they could. Other media outlets failed by not standing up to all the nonsense, afraid they'd look unpatriotic, but at least they didn't actively pursue war.
The "serious thoughts" coming from the anti-war movement were drowned out by jingoism, racism, and fear. Right after 9/11 Bill Maher said, "we've been the cowards, launching cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away, that's cowardly." Not long after he show was canceled. The Bush administration, Murdoch, and others on the far right successful used a national hysteria to stifle individual liberties, empower their oligarchy, and effectively wag the dog. The fact that Americans were willing to put up with blatant censorship post-9/11 (banning songs on the radio!) shows just how irrational the general populace was between September 2001 up to around 2005. In your case, the irrationality seems to be a permanent state.
They would have to drop all their political ads if they drop Romney's. While I'm sure they can afford to do that, it certainly isn't in their best interest. In all likelihood Romney knew he would get sued for this, as other posters have mentioned. It's a brilliant strategy: It creates a lot of noise, it pits Romney vs. the media (an area where Gingrich has been winning by chewing out debate moderators), and the ad itself is very effective by reminding the public about what a hypocritical scoundrel Gingrich is.
NBC will sue, Romney will pay. NBC may be playing into Romney's plan, but that's okay for them because they're not running for president. They get the money for running the ad, they get some extra money from the lawsuit. He's not trying to defeat NBC (of course, expect some anti-NBC rhetoric out of Romney to appeal to the base), he's trying to defeat Gingrich. When you're filthy rich you can afford stunts like this.
You are correct that Democrats, by and large, stand on the wrong side of this issue because of their allegiance with Hollywood.
You are incorrect in asserting that Republicans are afraid of the electorate because of the Tea Party. "Tea Party" is just a replacement term for "neo-con" because, after eight years of GWB, the majority of Americans finally figured out that "neo-cons" are the scum of the fucking earth.
I'll tell you what Republicans are afraid of: Black people. All those black people who rushed out to vote for Obama in '08. Those same black people who didn't vote in the congressional elections in 2010 because Obama wasn't up for reelection. Most importantly, the same black people who will make 2012 another record for voter turnout, reelecting Obama and kicking the Republicans out of congress. And the scariest thing of all for the Republicans has to be, from 2012 - 2016. If Obama can deliver better education, health care, and redistribute wealth; then all those black voters will realize the difference they've made and will likely vote in every election for the rest of their lives.
Personally, I'd rather fight the Dems on copyright issues than let the Republicans back in. It's pretty weak-sauce of the Democrats to allow Hollywood to hold this much control over them, but that doesn't SCARE me. It pisses me off. Republicans starting a war with Iran scares the shit out of me. Their economic policies scare the shit out me because I'm not rich (and even if I was, I would still be morally opposed to them). And their opposition to socialized medicine is indefensible.
That's interesting and all, but the parent didn't say "Murdoch is the worst scum that has ever lived." He said, "Murdoch is scum." He didn't even say that Murdoch was the scummiest man in journalism.
For what it's worth, Hearst was just as or more scummy than Duranty, and he's a more apt comparison to Murdoch. Duranty was just a Soviet shill whereas Hearst paved the way for guys like Murdoch, started a war to sell newspapers, supported Hitler . . . need I go on?
Also, I would argue that NewsCorp's efforts to sell the war in Iraq are far more grievous than denying a famine. Even if Duranty would have reported accurately, those people still would have died. How many thousands died in Iraq because of the misinformation Murdoch spewed out to the public? If News Corp wouldn't have drummed up public support for the war it probably would never have occurred.
This is the argument for apathy, and it's wrong. Protesting isn't just about results, protesting is about standing up for what's right. Regardless, I do believe there are positive results - right now we, along with many others around the world, are discussing an issue that may not have occurred to us, or we may not have known about, had it not been for a group of Polish protestors.
Money isn't everything. That's just a defeatist attitude. It's the type of attitude that, by accepting injustice as inevitable, is complicit in it.
You know, you bring up a good point. If the internet community can try to fight with legislation of their own - legislation that would limit copyrights and extend fair use and public domain - then these media giants might find that they've awakened a sleeping giant. Not only should we be contacting our congressmen and telling them what to oppose, but we should also be telling them what type of changes we want made in regards to copyright.
Even if the endeavor isn't successful, imagine how scared shitless the MPAA would be if we could get guys like Ron Paul and Ron Wyden to introduce a bill that would get rid of the Mickey Mouse Protection Act or other such nonsense. Furthermore, if we can convince guys like that to vocally campaign on these issues, it would do a lot towards raising awareness.
You've confused the 4th and 5th amendments. The 4th amendment protects one against unreasonable search and seizure. That's not what's in dispute here. The 5th amendment protects a defendant from being forced to incriminate themselves.
The passphrase won't give the court anything they don't already have. It will just give them a means to understand the evidence they already have. That's potentially incriminating to the defendant so I would argue that the 5th amendment protects the defendant at least in spirit.
The best analogy I can come up with: Dr. Evil's being charged with attempting to construct a death ray. But he's really unorganized and not even experts can make senes of his poor handwriting and bizarre shorthand in his reams of evil plans. The prosecution can't really prove that Dr. Evil was constructing a death ray without Dr. Evil interpreting the documents for them. Can Dr. Evil be forced to interpret those documents? No! And even if he could, they have no way of knowing whether he's telling the truth. "Gee, I forgot." or "Man, I was really drunk when I wrote this, it doesn't even make sense to me" are both plausible. But Dr. Evil can also just say, "I invoke my 5th amendment rights."
Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but that shouldn't be an issue. The fact that not even lawyers and judges can agree on what the U.S. Constitution means indicates that it's overdue to be rewritten from scratch. The legal system in this country is so convoluted that not even lawyers know whether they're breaking some law at any given moment. How can anyone be expected to obey the law when they don't even know what it means?
Don't worry, congress is immune.
Here in Ohio can. But if it's, say, my buddy's car that he let me borrow, then I wouldn't be allowed to shoot or even use the gun as a threat. You're allowed to use force to protect your own property but not others'. Similarly, if someone breaks into your home here you're free to shoot them (I know someone who shot an unarmed intruder in the head, killing them, and charges were never brought against them for it). However, if you're housesitting for someone and they break into that home, you're not allowed to even point a gun at them unless they're armed or physically threatening you (I know someone who went to jail for holding an intruder at gunpoint until the cops got there b/c he wasn't on the lease). I'm full of lovely anecdotes today.
Yeah, because there's a clear distinction between virulent blame and criticism. . .
And before what 'facts got out?' At that point, the fact that BP was responsible for spewing gobs of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico wasn't under dispute. Everyone understood it was an accident. No one was accusing BP of malice, just negligence. Regardless, they were responsible and deserved the virulent blame and criticism thrown at them.
In this day and age, the Constitution is outdated.
The trick is to only read the headlines and then troll about how Google hates freedom. When employing this method it's very important to inform people to vote for Ron Paul.
Reading the summary . . . pfft, that's almost as quaint as reading the article.
TOP TEN ______ OF ALL TIME: pg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
i'm not yelling /. here are less caps for you
-1. I disagree with your offtopic flamebait.
I like the insightful evidence you provided to support this claim. You're right. It's time to go back to AltaVista b/c they didn't try to manage search results in a way that forced the user to be presented with the most useful results. That's true freedom, clicking on a porn site when looking for information on something totally irrelevant because the web authors can put whatever the hell they want in the meta data. What's next? Is Google going to infringe on my right to accidentally infest my computer with malware by filtering out those sites as well? Fucking fascists.
Yes. Here spending money is an exercise in free speech. The Supreme Court said so.
Kids in the Hall. Or, um, um. . .hockey?
Damn you! Get off your lazy ass and go make me some maple syrup! What're you doing on /.? You're jeopardizing your Canadian heritage. If you guys keep spending time on the internet pretty soon you'll figure out what real bacon is. Then Canadian culture will be no more.
Seriously, though, it's cute that the northern territories think they're sovereign. What's next? Puerto Rico?
I think you're part of a very small minority around here. Most /.ers tend to support Wikileaks even if they're not a big fan of Assange. It kind of goes in line with that Voltaire quote: Though I may disagree with what you say I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
The idea that not even the internet is a safe place for whistleblowers is truly frightening to me. I don't buy any argument that justifies censorship for national security. Thomas Jefferson gutted the army/navy at a time when warfare and invasions were common, when there were enough Native Americans to sack and destroy every American city, and when pirates sailed the seas (he did send some ships to deal with the pirates - but it's noteworthy that he didn't overreact and build a grand navy). I'll paraphrase this quote as Wikipedia is protesting: "We must never sacrifice our liberty for security."
I have yet to hear an anti-Wikileaks argument that doesn't amount to sacrificing liberty for security. Don't live in fear, especially of information.
In fairness, it was a joke. Nice analysis, though.
My congressman is a master of politely telling me to go fuck myself. He'll always respond to my letters, never with form letters, but each time he's told me the same old, "well, you've given me a lot to consider, I love hearing from my constituents, but I disagree with you and your quaint opinion."
When he announced that he wasn't running for reelection I gave up on him. Now I just bug the senators.