While I agree with your premise, that Google is doing this out of self-interest more than altruism, I disagree with some of your assertions.
While YouTube may or may not be violating copyrights (there are methods for dealing with that, many of which came under heavy criticism here on/. when the DMCA was signed into law), I would argue that's more a problem with copyright law than with Google. In fact, the DMCA already gives the media companies too much power over what's on the internet (example: mgoblog.com - the DMCA was used to hinder their fair use of media). Most copyright legislation was written without the internet in mind, and the bits of it that do have it in mind are written by media conglomerate lobbyists - DMCA and the proposed SOPA and PIPA bills.
Same goes with Google Books. Your claim that it's an "attempt to violate authors' rights" lacks merit. Do libraries violate authors' rights? You're right that this may be illegal under current law (or may just be fair use), but rights in a generic sense aren't about the law. Violating one's legal protections is not necessarily a violation of one's rights. The 'right' in 'copyright' is not the same 'right' in 'human rights.' In the sense of copyright it's a legal right, in the sense of human rights it's a moral right (generic usage - the way you used it). Even if Google may be violating the legal rights of certain individuals, it's questionable whether there is any moral transgression or if current copyright legislation is worthy of respect.
Overall, "right" is a murky term and any claim to any right can probably be validly contested. So when you make the claim that Google has "a record of violating them" I would argue that's probably not the case. There are a lot of shady tech companies who do a lot of immoral things, but I can't think of a single case of a tech company violating my rights. It's really a matter of how you define rights - negative, positive; broad, limited; static, evolving. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Google's only enhanced those three for me.
I think that Khan Academy is a good indicator that digital education can work when implemented properly. Arithmetic, Algebra, and Calculus instruction shouldn't need to be updated every year. They come out with new editions with the same crap rearranged and reformatted slightly. Not to mention all that information is available for free on Wikipedia. Also, interactive exercises are exactly what those types of books are missing. Textbooks are a sham - they screw K-12 out of taxpayer money and they screw students out of money in higher education. They're just like the music industry - clinging onto a business model that was once necessary to get material out to the masses that is no longer needed given new forms of communication. Just because in the future textbooks won't be the standard educational item they are today (replaced by iPads) doesn't mean that you won't be able to find those types of resources in print. I'll give you a hint: try a library.
Teach a man to fish and he can fish - but if you videotape it and put it on YouTube, you can teach anyone in the world to fish.
Users = carriers. And the service carriers are some of the most corrupt, immoral companies out there. I'd rather take my chances with Android than Verizon/AT&T Linux.
I guess it's alright that this place is so pro-Google and anti-Microsoft. At this rate, you're on pace to balance this out with your slew of anti-Google posts. What are you up to, 10 in this story alone?
Your advice to stop treating multi-billion dollar corporations as sports teams is something you should consider yourself. The fact of the matter is that corporations do have cultures of their own, which drive the employees and the corporation toward certain actions. Microsoft has a culture of corruption, a culture that has been revealed through their actions, public statements, and internal memos. Steve Ballmer is still their CEO.
Personally, I don't see Google as a white knight in shining armor, but they aren't the vile evil that is Microsoft.
Concerning Internet Explorer - that's bullshit and you know it. There's no comparison between IE and any of Google's services. Microsoft tried to tie IE and Windows in such a way that the internet required Windows. I have yet to see Google implement EEE.
Just because you predicted someone would call you out for being a conspiracy theorists doesn't make you any less of a conspiracy theorist.
China has a goal to be the dominate world power economically, politically, and militarily? No shit, Sherlock. Why do you think the EU formed? Because despite their permanent Security Council status, France is too small to be the dominate world power on their own. So they corralled other European states around them for the economic weight to have a fighting chance against the U.S. and China.
The point is, every country that has the potential to dominate the world economically, politically, and militarily pursues that possibility. I don't see you complaining about all the things the U.S. has done since WWII to dominate the world economically, politically, and militarily. Look at all the havoc we've wreaked in the name of our political ideals: the Korean war, Vietnam, the Gulf wars. The Bay of Pigs. Operation Just Cause. The Iran-Contra scandal.
It's in China's best interest to try and be the best at everything. It's in IBM's best interest to maintain a favorable relationship with China. IBM doesn't owe anything to the west except taxes. Furthermore, IBM maintaining a good relationship with China may be in the west's best interests if you're looking at things in such a way. American jobs, an important American presence in the Chinese market, etc.
Also, the liberalization of China—culturally and economically—has been driven by economically integrating with the west. If we take this cold war attitude like the one we had with the USSR, then it just makes everything worse and widens the divide. Hardcore idealism to the point of making enemies of countries that don't share your ideals doesn't do anyone any good. The U.S., determined to prove the mettle of capitalism during the cold war, allowed all the negative aspects of capitalism take hold out of pure idealism. China's recent success has been contingent upon their flexibility with their old Marxist ideals. The U.S. needs that type of pragmatic flexibility if it wants to compete.
Things are much more complicated than Us vs. Them.
btw, China has already achieved that goal. They are the dominate world power.
The only way I see this as any different than the everyday workings of Washington is that, for once, there are corporations who are taking a side that is in the public's interest. The only reason SOPA exists is because it was written by MPAA/RIAA lobbyists who've bribed (oh, I'm sorry, I mean, contributed to the campaigns of. ..) congressmen into sponsoring it.
I have no idea what you're talking about about this 'failbook wall' thing (I've never used Facebook), but I do know that Facebook, along with Google and Amazon, probably has the most to lose because of SOPA. As I understand it, it would make them responsible for the actions of their users, which would be completely unmanageable for them.
This is why SOPA will fail. These companies cannot afford to let it pass because even if it did their only option would be noncompliance. This threat of a blackout is a warning. If they do go through with it, SOPA will be dead. Almost every single congressman's mailbox/e-mail server will be flooded with messages, it would be like a legal DoS.
Usually when the government does something to help some business it hurts another, this isn't new. The biggest difference here is that usually it's the big business vs. the little business (and the big business always wins). Now it's one mammoth industry vs. another. The MPAA et al are well entrenched in government, but they're going too far and forcing the tech industry to flex its muscles. It's not that the businesses are at odds with their customers - a quaint thought, thinking the customers are somehow an issue here - it's that the businesses are at odds with one another. Similarly, the congresscritters aren't caught in the crossfire between business and their constituents, they're caught in the crossfire between two major industries that have lots to spend on this issue. For them, SOPA is a goldmine. The entertainment industry will pump money into their campaigns in hopes that it will become law, the tech industry will pump money into their campaigns to oppose it.
It kind of reminds me of the Google anti-trust bullshit. I read that Google has been throwing money at politicians left and right trying to fight this. And that's all the politicians really wanted. It's like how we always say that in a lawsuit the lawyers are the only winners. Well, in political battles like these the lobbyists are the winners.
A final note: GoDaddy is facing retaliation from customers, this is true. But most of these customers are, in some sense, 'the tech industry.'
The question is, however, are they actively opposing it in the sense that they are committing resources to fight the bill or are they opposing it by putting out a press release that says, "We oppose SOPA"? Are they still donating money to the politicians who are pushing for SOPA?
At this point, if you're taking GoDaddy's word for it, you're a damn fool.
And even if GoDaddy takes steps to oppose SOPA, their competitors who opposed it all along are still more deserving of the internet community's business. Even if they actively oppose it, does that undo the damage they've already done? They've shown us their true colors, just because business has forced them to do the right thing doesn't mean they want to.
I live in a conservative state (a large Republican majority in the state legislature that dates back to the Civil War, a Republican governor, a split on our Senators, and mostly Republicans in the House . . . we're gerrymandered) where fireworks are illegal. Nice try.
I question what you define as 'anti-science,' as well. In the context of this article, it's denying well established scientific truths. Just because experimenting with plutonium is illegal doesn't make those laws 'anti-science.' In fact, plutonium and other highly radioactive elements are illegal specifically because scientific evidence demonstrates that they're dangerous. This is an exaggeration of your chemistry/rocket example.
Then the 'anti-computer' bit. I don't think science has anything to do with EULAs. Take that complaint up with lawyers and judges. I'm not aware of it as a legislative issue.
Samsung's the one who tried to make their product so similar to the iPhone that it would be confused for one. From the icons to form factor to the freakin' packaging! Sure, half of what Apple is suing them for is silly, but that's just throwing everything at them.
I have far more forgiveness for what Apple is doing than Microsoft. Apple just wants to force their competitors' products to be distinguishable from their own and not be carbon-copies. Microsoft wants to 'own' the market, whether it be through the success of their own product or extorting money from others.
When the iPhone came out, all the anti-Apple people laughed at it predicting it to be a failure because it didn't have a keyboard. "People need the physical input of buttons!" The multitouch gestures on the iPhone existed only on the trackpads of MacBooks. Now every phone is a clone of the iPhone from the look to the way you use it. Back then a smartphone was a Blackberry or some type of slider phone. It wasn't considered a smartphone without a physical keyboard. Apple's the only company in this brouhaha who can lay claim to real innovation.
Sure, it looks simple and obvious now, but that's Apple's forte—innovating in a way that seems obvious in hindsight. There were once several methods of constructing a door or archway. But once post and lintel was introduced it became standard, because upon seeing post and lintel the primitive architect had an 'aha!' moment.
The TV in my bedroom is a tad over 20" and isn't HD. In my living room the TV is 40" and I think that's huge. When I go to friends' houses and they're watching stuff on their 50"+ TVs, I have to step back as far as possible to see the entire scene at once.
When I was a kid, a 30" TV was considered ginormous. While I'm sure it would probably be in Apple's best interest to sell larger models, I don't understand your complaint that a 32" TV is too small for a bedroom. Do you have have eyesight problems?
I was a big fan of apple back in the old hypercard and basic days when apple wanted to bring their users CLOSER to the computing experience and really make their users more powerful.
XCode, AppleScript. 'Nuff said. Back in the HyperCard/Basic days you had to pay hundreds of dollars for CodeWarrior or something similar.
Fix the patent system. If you want to boycott companies that 'abuse' it then you'll end up boycotting all technology companies. Good luck with that luddite strategy. Every mobile phone maker is suing every other mobile phone maker. This is a systemic problem, not a localized one. If any of these companies try to take the moral high ground they will be put out of business. We should attack the root of the problem, the patent system, rather than the end result of the problem.
If Apple was nothing but a patent troll then I would understand the argument. But if Apple was nothing but a patent troll they wouldn't have any products to boycott.
If it's astroturfing, then probably the first astroturfing campaign to have a positive effect. It's better to give your money to an astroturfer than to GoDaddy. So I'm all for an astroturfing campaign that encourages an even greater exodus from GoDaddy.
Regardless, I think you've just got your tin-foil hat on a bit tight. I've heard of Namecheap. Funny anecdote: I never used them b/c they have the word 'cheap' in their name and I tend to avoid things with that word. As an old retail boss of mine would always say, "Refer to the product as inexpensive, not cheap. Cheap can refer to quality whereas inexpensive exclusively refers to price."
The difference between our arguments is that I claim that the Japanese have a moral right to kill the Sea Shepherd activists. It's pretty basic: if someone comes on my property and starts destroying things, I have the right to pull out my rifle and shoot them.
The moral justifications for vigilantism are dubious, at best. It doesn't matter if the Sea Shepherd activists are carrying out international law because 1) they are doing so without authorization, thus doing so illegally 2) it's not clear whether this 'international law' is truly international or deserving of respect. The Japanese certainly don't agree to it, are they not a nation? Furthermore, how come there are five countries who can ignore 'international law': Russia, U.S., China, U.K., and France; although not technically exempt, they cannot be punished for violating international law unless they decide to punish themselves (fat chance). Is the U.S. not currently partaking in torture? Does China not violate human rights? And Russia. ..PUTIN! Poisoning political opponents in former Soviet Bloc countries. . . What about the U.K.'s illegal espionage activities that have been exposed time and time again? I think you'd be hard pressed to morally justify a vigilante defending 'international law.'
Property rights, however, are the philosophical basis upon which almost all modern law, government, and economy is morally justified. Consult the writings of John Locke for a more thorough explanation.
Yeah! Terrorism is awesome when it's motivated by tree-hugging!
If I was a Japanese whaler Sea Shepherd wouldn't exist, their asses would be getting eaten by the fishes they love oh-so-much at the bottom of international waters.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of the fact that the Japanese partake in whaling, but I think they have more of a right to do that than Sea Shepherd does to terrorize the whalers. The whalers would be completely justified in protecting their property with deadly force.
If Japanese activists came over and did this sort of thing to American ships the U.S. Navy wouldn't think twice before torpedoing their asses.
Fuck the system man, it's keeping us down. It's making us BUY all of this shit. Cry me a fucking river.
I'm pretty pissed off about living in a 'first world country' that makes me BUY health care and education . . . First world for whom? You were joking but the system is keeping more people down than it's helping out.
There are a bunch of corrupt assholes at the top of the food chain, but tell me how that is any different from any other point in history. It isn't.
The income disparity between the upper and lower class is approaching that of Pre-Revolution France.
It takes more effort to keep things going, than it does to get in the way and fuck things up.
If 'keep things going' means continuing to allow the income disparity to grow, continuing to watch an entire generation waste away into idleness, and continue working ridiculously long work weeks so the privileged few can enjoy the fruits of our labors; then perhaps it's best to just fuck things up. Topple the structure and those on top have the furthest to fall. Those on the bottom have nothing to lose. ..it can't get much worse for them.
you don't seem to understand what sort of service an outfit like Stratfor provides
a place to put political workers on retainer between elections with a front of being an academic institution staffed by those that no University would employ
I think he does. Sure, they might churn out some interesting writings, and they may even occasionally be useful, but that doesn't change their raison d'etre.
Your humanitarian project analogy may have been more meaningful before Google existed. Sure, Stratfor predates Google, but not by much. You might as well call a spade a spade. Think tanks exist because there are more political science majors than there are real political jobs. What distinguishes them from lobbyists is that they sometimes pretend to be objective - instead of outright saying 'we want you to vote this way' the think tank says 'our objective research says you should vote this way.' The latter sounds like a more convincing argument if you really believe the 'objective' part. They churn out statistics and reports, but the people who fund the think tanks more often than not want those statistics and reports to reflect a certain worldview.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree with your premise, that Google is doing this out of self-interest more than altruism, I disagree with some of your assertions.
While YouTube may or may not be violating copyrights (there are methods for dealing with that, many of which came under heavy criticism here on /. when the DMCA was signed into law), I would argue that's more a problem with copyright law than with Google. In fact, the DMCA already gives the media companies too much power over what's on the internet (example: mgoblog.com - the DMCA was used to hinder their fair use of media). Most copyright legislation was written without the internet in mind, and the bits of it that do have it in mind are written by media conglomerate lobbyists - DMCA and the proposed SOPA and PIPA bills.
Same goes with Google Books. Your claim that it's an "attempt to violate authors' rights" lacks merit. Do libraries violate authors' rights? You're right that this may be illegal under current law (or may just be fair use), but rights in a generic sense aren't about the law. Violating one's legal protections is not necessarily a violation of one's rights. The 'right' in 'copyright' is not the same 'right' in 'human rights.' In the sense of copyright it's a legal right, in the sense of human rights it's a moral right (generic usage - the way you used it). Even if Google may be violating the legal rights of certain individuals, it's questionable whether there is any moral transgression or if current copyright legislation is worthy of respect.
Overall, "right" is a murky term and any claim to any right can probably be validly contested. So when you make the claim that Google has "a record of violating them" I would argue that's probably not the case. There are a lot of shady tech companies who do a lot of immoral things, but I can't think of a single case of a tech company violating my rights. It's really a matter of how you define rights - negative, positive; broad, limited; static, evolving. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Google's only enhanced those three for me.
I think that Khan Academy is a good indicator that digital education can work when implemented properly. Arithmetic, Algebra, and Calculus instruction shouldn't need to be updated every year. They come out with new editions with the same crap rearranged and reformatted slightly. Not to mention all that information is available for free on Wikipedia. Also, interactive exercises are exactly what those types of books are missing. Textbooks are a sham - they screw K-12 out of taxpayer money and they screw students out of money in higher education. They're just like the music industry - clinging onto a business model that was once necessary to get material out to the masses that is no longer needed given new forms of communication. Just because in the future textbooks won't be the standard educational item they are today (replaced by iPads) doesn't mean that you won't be able to find those types of resources in print. I'll give you a hint: try a library.
Teach a man to fish and he can fish - but if you videotape it and put it on YouTube, you can teach anyone in the world to fish.
the internet
Is Al Gore still on their board?
Users = carriers. And the service carriers are some of the most corrupt, immoral companies out there. I'd rather take my chances with Android than Verizon/AT&T Linux.
Also worth noting is the increase in political donations/lobbyists hired by Google when their anti-trust case started.
Politicians seem to always have a problem with big companies that aren't paying their tithe.
I guess it's alright that this place is so pro-Google and anti-Microsoft. At this rate, you're on pace to balance this out with your slew of anti-Google posts. What are you up to, 10 in this story alone?
Your advice to stop treating multi-billion dollar corporations as sports teams is something you should consider yourself. The fact of the matter is that corporations do have cultures of their own, which drive the employees and the corporation toward certain actions. Microsoft has a culture of corruption, a culture that has been revealed through their actions, public statements, and internal memos. Steve Ballmer is still their CEO.
Personally, I don't see Google as a white knight in shining armor, but they aren't the vile evil that is Microsoft.
Concerning Internet Explorer - that's bullshit and you know it. There's no comparison between IE and any of Google's services. Microsoft tried to tie IE and Windows in such a way that the internet required Windows. I have yet to see Google implement EEE.
That's a very broad use of the word 'hostile.'
Just because you predicted someone would call you out for being a conspiracy theorists doesn't make you any less of a conspiracy theorist.
China has a goal to be the dominate world power economically, politically, and militarily? No shit, Sherlock. Why do you think the EU formed? Because despite their permanent Security Council status, France is too small to be the dominate world power on their own. So they corralled other European states around them for the economic weight to have a fighting chance against the U.S. and China.
The point is, every country that has the potential to dominate the world economically, politically, and militarily pursues that possibility. I don't see you complaining about all the things the U.S. has done since WWII to dominate the world economically, politically, and militarily. Look at all the havoc we've wreaked in the name of our political ideals: the Korean war, Vietnam, the Gulf wars. The Bay of Pigs. Operation Just Cause. The Iran-Contra scandal.
It's in China's best interest to try and be the best at everything. It's in IBM's best interest to maintain a favorable relationship with China. IBM doesn't owe anything to the west except taxes. Furthermore, IBM maintaining a good relationship with China may be in the west's best interests if you're looking at things in such a way. American jobs, an important American presence in the Chinese market, etc.
Also, the liberalization of China—culturally and economically—has been driven by economically integrating with the west. If we take this cold war attitude like the one we had with the USSR, then it just makes everything worse and widens the divide. Hardcore idealism to the point of making enemies of countries that don't share your ideals doesn't do anyone any good. The U.S., determined to prove the mettle of capitalism during the cold war, allowed all the negative aspects of capitalism take hold out of pure idealism. China's recent success has been contingent upon their flexibility with their old Marxist ideals. The U.S. needs that type of pragmatic flexibility if it wants to compete.
Things are much more complicated than Us vs. Them.
btw, China has already achieved that goal. They are the dominate world power.
The only way I see this as any different than the everyday workings of Washington is that, for once, there are corporations who are taking a side that is in the public's interest. The only reason SOPA exists is because it was written by MPAA/RIAA lobbyists who've bribed (oh, I'm sorry, I mean, contributed to the campaigns of. . .) congressmen into sponsoring it.
I have no idea what you're talking about about this 'failbook wall' thing (I've never used Facebook), but I do know that Facebook, along with Google and Amazon, probably has the most to lose because of SOPA. As I understand it, it would make them responsible for the actions of their users, which would be completely unmanageable for them.
This is why SOPA will fail. These companies cannot afford to let it pass because even if it did their only option would be noncompliance. This threat of a blackout is a warning. If they do go through with it, SOPA will be dead. Almost every single congressman's mailbox/e-mail server will be flooded with messages, it would be like a legal DoS.
Usually when the government does something to help some business it hurts another, this isn't new. The biggest difference here is that usually it's the big business vs. the little business (and the big business always wins). Now it's one mammoth industry vs. another. The MPAA et al are well entrenched in government, but they're going too far and forcing the tech industry to flex its muscles. It's not that the businesses are at odds with their customers - a quaint thought, thinking the customers are somehow an issue here - it's that the businesses are at odds with one another. Similarly, the congresscritters aren't caught in the crossfire between business and their constituents, they're caught in the crossfire between two major industries that have lots to spend on this issue. For them, SOPA is a goldmine. The entertainment industry will pump money into their campaigns in hopes that it will become law, the tech industry will pump money into their campaigns to oppose it.
It kind of reminds me of the Google anti-trust bullshit. I read that Google has been throwing money at politicians left and right trying to fight this. And that's all the politicians really wanted. It's like how we always say that in a lawsuit the lawyers are the only winners. Well, in political battles like these the lobbyists are the winners.
A final note: GoDaddy is facing retaliation from customers, this is true. But most of these customers are, in some sense, 'the tech industry.'
The question is, however, are they actively opposing it in the sense that they are committing resources to fight the bill or are they opposing it by putting out a press release that says, "We oppose SOPA"? Are they still donating money to the politicians who are pushing for SOPA?
At this point, if you're taking GoDaddy's word for it, you're a damn fool.
And even if GoDaddy takes steps to oppose SOPA, their competitors who opposed it all along are still more deserving of the internet community's business. Even if they actively oppose it, does that undo the damage they've already done? They've shown us their true colors, just because business has forced them to do the right thing doesn't mean they want to.
I live in a conservative state (a large Republican majority in the state legislature that dates back to the Civil War, a Republican governor, a split on our Senators, and mostly Republicans in the House . . . we're gerrymandered) where fireworks are illegal. Nice try.
I question what you define as 'anti-science,' as well. In the context of this article, it's denying well established scientific truths. Just because experimenting with plutonium is illegal doesn't make those laws 'anti-science.' In fact, plutonium and other highly radioactive elements are illegal specifically because scientific evidence demonstrates that they're dangerous. This is an exaggeration of your chemistry/rocket example.
Then the 'anti-computer' bit. I don't think science has anything to do with EULAs. Take that complaint up with lawyers and judges. I'm not aware of it as a legislative issue.
Samsung's the one who tried to make their product so similar to the iPhone that it would be confused for one. From the icons to form factor to the freakin' packaging! Sure, half of what Apple is suing them for is silly, but that's just throwing everything at them.
I have far more forgiveness for what Apple is doing than Microsoft. Apple just wants to force their competitors' products to be distinguishable from their own and not be carbon-copies. Microsoft wants to 'own' the market, whether it be through the success of their own product or extorting money from others.
When the iPhone came out, all the anti-Apple people laughed at it predicting it to be a failure because it didn't have a keyboard. "People need the physical input of buttons!" The multitouch gestures on the iPhone existed only on the trackpads of MacBooks. Now every phone is a clone of the iPhone from the look to the way you use it. Back then a smartphone was a Blackberry or some type of slider phone. It wasn't considered a smartphone without a physical keyboard. Apple's the only company in this brouhaha who can lay claim to real innovation.
Sure, it looks simple and obvious now, but that's Apple's forte—innovating in a way that seems obvious in hindsight. There were once several methods of constructing a door or archway. But once post and lintel was introduced it became standard, because upon seeing post and lintel the primitive architect had an 'aha!' moment.
32" too small for a bedroom? What?
The TV in my bedroom is a tad over 20" and isn't HD. In my living room the TV is 40" and I think that's huge. When I go to friends' houses and they're watching stuff on their 50"+ TVs, I have to step back as far as possible to see the entire scene at once.
When I was a kid, a 30" TV was considered ginormous. While I'm sure it would probably be in Apple's best interest to sell larger models, I don't understand your complaint that a 32" TV is too small for a bedroom. Do you have have eyesight problems?
Hey now, he's 15! He's been boycotting Apple his whole life!
I was a big fan of apple back in the old hypercard and basic days when apple wanted to bring their users CLOSER to the computing experience and really make their users more powerful.
XCode, AppleScript. 'Nuff said. Back in the HyperCard/Basic days you had to pay hundreds of dollars for CodeWarrior or something similar.
You can pry my MacBook from my cold dead hands.
Fix the patent system. If you want to boycott companies that 'abuse' it then you'll end up boycotting all technology companies. Good luck with that luddite strategy. Every mobile phone maker is suing every other mobile phone maker. This is a systemic problem, not a localized one. If any of these companies try to take the moral high ground they will be put out of business. We should attack the root of the problem, the patent system, rather than the end result of the problem.
If Apple was nothing but a patent troll then I would understand the argument. But if Apple was nothing but a patent troll they wouldn't have any products to boycott.
If it's astroturfing, then probably the first astroturfing campaign to have a positive effect. It's better to give your money to an astroturfer than to GoDaddy. So I'm all for an astroturfing campaign that encourages an even greater exodus from GoDaddy.
Regardless, I think you've just got your tin-foil hat on a bit tight. I've heard of Namecheap. Funny anecdote: I never used them b/c they have the word 'cheap' in their name and I tend to avoid things with that word. As an old retail boss of mine would always say, "Refer to the product as inexpensive, not cheap. Cheap can refer to quality whereas inexpensive exclusively refers to price."
Anyone want to take bets on how long it will be until Danica's driving another car? Namecheap should offer to sponsor her.
The difference between our arguments is that I claim that the Japanese have a moral right to kill the Sea Shepherd activists. It's pretty basic: if someone comes on my property and starts destroying things, I have the right to pull out my rifle and shoot them.
The moral justifications for vigilantism are dubious, at best. It doesn't matter if the Sea Shepherd activists are carrying out international law because 1) they are doing so without authorization, thus doing so illegally 2) it's not clear whether this 'international law' is truly international or deserving of respect. The Japanese certainly don't agree to it, are they not a nation? Furthermore, how come there are five countries who can ignore 'international law': Russia, U.S., China, U.K., and France; although not technically exempt, they cannot be punished for violating international law unless they decide to punish themselves (fat chance). Is the U.S. not currently partaking in torture? Does China not violate human rights? And Russia. . .PUTIN! Poisoning political opponents in former Soviet Bloc countries. . . What about the U.K.'s illegal espionage activities that have been exposed time and time again? I think you'd be hard pressed to morally justify a vigilante defending 'international law.'
Property rights, however, are the philosophical basis upon which almost all modern law, government, and economy is morally justified. Consult the writings of John Locke for a more thorough explanation.
Yeah! Terrorism is awesome when it's motivated by tree-hugging!
If I was a Japanese whaler Sea Shepherd wouldn't exist, their asses would be getting eaten by the fishes they love oh-so-much at the bottom of international waters.
I'm not necessarily a big fan of the fact that the Japanese partake in whaling, but I think they have more of a right to do that than Sea Shepherd does to terrorize the whalers. The whalers would be completely justified in protecting their property with deadly force.
If Japanese activists came over and did this sort of thing to American ships the U.S. Navy wouldn't think twice before torpedoing their asses.
Fuck the system man, it's keeping us down. It's making us BUY all of this shit. Cry me a fucking river.
I'm pretty pissed off about living in a 'first world country' that makes me BUY health care and education . . . First world for whom? You were joking but the system is keeping more people down than it's helping out.
There are a bunch of corrupt assholes at the top of the food chain, but tell me how that is any different from any other point in history. It isn't.
The income disparity between the upper and lower class is approaching that of Pre-Revolution France.
It takes more effort to keep things going, than it does to get in the way and fuck things up.
If 'keep things going' means continuing to allow the income disparity to grow, continuing to watch an entire generation waste away into idleness, and continue working ridiculously long work weeks so the privileged few can enjoy the fruits of our labors; then perhaps it's best to just fuck things up. Topple the structure and those on top have the furthest to fall. Those on the bottom have nothing to lose. . .it can't get much worse for them.
you don't seem to understand what sort of service an outfit like Stratfor provides
a place to put political workers on retainer between elections with a front of being an academic institution staffed by those that no University would employ
I think he does. Sure, they might churn out some interesting writings, and they may even occasionally be useful, but that doesn't change their raison d'etre.
Your humanitarian project analogy may have been more meaningful before Google existed. Sure, Stratfor predates Google, but not by much. You might as well call a spade a spade. Think tanks exist because there are more political science majors than there are real political jobs. What distinguishes them from lobbyists is that they sometimes pretend to be objective - instead of outright saying 'we want you to vote this way' the think tank says 'our objective research says you should vote this way.' The latter sounds like a more convincing argument if you really believe the 'objective' part. They churn out statistics and reports, but the people who fund the think tanks more often than not want those statistics and reports to reflect a certain worldview.
I didn't excuse her. Just because she's being exploited doesn't mean that 1) I feel sorry for her 2) She's not to blame 3) She can drive.
It's just, she's not the issue with this story, GoDaddy is. Danica is just a peripheral character. I could care less about her.