It's intended for French users, isn't it, by the fact that it has a French domain, and also the organization on record is "Yahoo France". And the netblock is owned by Yahoo Europe. Sounds French to me.
But, as I have said, if you start down the slippery slope that web news should be restricted, then you can argue that it all should be. That's why I brought up China -- the best-known-these-days example of severe news restrictions. That's a slippery slope that we shouldn't be starting down. Especially not in the United States.
The First Amendment of the United States [Constitution] is a law governing the U.S. Congress, not U.S. newspapers.
Directly, yes. That translates to, however, the fact that no law exists in the US (whose law applies here) that states that a newspaper must censor itself in any way. Therefore, no US newspaper has any business refusing to publish this story "on the advice of legal counsel" because no law exists that forces the censorship.
How, again, does UK law apply in the US? I'm still waiting.
"On advice of legal counsel", which means "we were afraid of getting hauled into court", for refusing to censor, which means a US news organization thinks the law of another nation applies within our own borders, which is just not true. "We did not feel it was appropriate" is entirely different from "we're afraid of someone else's laws that have no jurisdiction here".
Your comparison with China is a little overheated, isn't it?
No, I don't think it is. Not at all. It's a well-known (outside of China, anyway) subject in which the press has repeatedly censored itself about a given subject because it's inconvenient to somebody for the coverage to exist.
And the particular site in question is a US-based website -- I checked. Do the research yourself if you don't believe me. But, US organization, US netblock so it's based in the US. And hence US law applies. Now, if there were (I don't know if there is or not) a nytimes.co.uk, that's when UK law would apply.
I see nothing in the story that is not simple facts about the case and what has reportedly been found in a police investigation. I see nothing that is even close to exposing any battle plans. I see only the facts that a great many people likely want to learn about the investigation, facts that the investigators have chosen to reveal.
Police do this sort of thing all the time if there is public interest in a case. And news organizations cover that sort of thing all the time. As well they should, as they're there to serve the interests of the public.
You are aware that pretty much every US web business with any presence in China does just that?
Their China-based sites have to follow local laws. That's what "presence in X" means -- operations in a given country. (or do you think I have a "presence in" China for just having a website? I don't have one, and Chinese law can stuff it.) But US-based sites do not have to. And the NY Times is a US-based site.
That's why a US court ruled that the US-based Yahoo auction site did not have to pull Nazi memorabilia, but the French Yahoo auction site does obey the law.
Good journalism doesn't involve censoring oneself because someone else wants you to do so. In fact, good journalism can and often is the very act of doing the opposite. If you're going to argue that journalistic censorship is a good thing, you then open the door to arguments such as "we shouldn't be talking about Falun Gong and the people who practice it because China hates that" or "we shouldn't be publishing anything that dictator X of country Y feels doesn't advance his/her causes" (in that case, we wouldn't know about illegal warrantless wiretapping here in the US, for example, because the publishing of the story was not in line with the power grab plans of the government).
Good journalism is telling the truth and getting that truth out to the people. Good journalism is not altering the truth to make it more palatable or convenient. Good journalism is not changing what one writes or photographs in order to get a more pleasing reaction to anyone from your words or images.
Fired. For altering the news and obscuring the truth. That's how unacceptable alteration of the truth really is. News organizations have an obligation to their readers or viewers -- and not to present, as one episode of a TV drama once put it as it covered the use of news manipulation, "the illusion of truth". (Guide page: "The Illusion of Truth"; notice in the summary that the writers also were honoring those blacklisted by anti-communist activists in the 1950s for producing material that was inconvenient to others).
Good journalism, then, is not censorship -- by any governmental body or by oneself.
How dare they use an available tool to comply with a british law!
How dare they, indeed, when said law has exactly zero jurisdiction in the United States?
Who are we, then (according to your logic), to publish stories about human rights atrocities in China? We should be bowing down to oppressive regimes who want us shot for being able to do so, or at least thrown in jail for life!
While you may not have to follow local laws, it's general considered respectful to follow them.
And yet, the NY Times is in a nation in which the freedom of the press from censorship is held to be sacrosanct, even when the government finds it inconvenient (the NYTimes unleashed the Pentagon Papers, as well as having started the furor over wiretapping). It's totally unbecoming of them to all of a sudden censor themselves in violation of the First Amendment of the United States, which is the law governing a U.S. newspaper.
You follow the law of the nation you're in, not the law of the nation you're from. And the NYTimes is in the U.S.
That's why Yahoo didn't have to censor Nazi items from its auction site when the French whined about their being available. Guess what, France? Your law doesn't apply here. The French Yahoo site has to follow the law (and it does) but not the U.S. site.
You were saying? There's this, and then Firefox does ask if it should become the default browser. Why would I want to set the default away from Firefox, if I deleted Safari after insttalling it?
I think it's the principle of the matter from the sound of it. That, and he doesn't want a black mark on his credit record for being the victim of fraud. Since when was it acceptable to blame the victim? (since paypal thought so, apparently).
This is why the highest-dollar item I've ever sold on eBay was a camera, once, and I made sure to cover my ass with documentation that it had been sent and was as described. Never had trouble but I never will sell anything like a laptop.
Wow, they actually listened to criticism? I haven't tried to remove it from any system that has SP2 on it -- I'll have to look. The fact that they ever made it impossible, though.... ugh.
People signed those contracts because it was the best way to be heard.
And yet, they want to have their cake and eat it too. It is not the rest of the world's problem if you are unhappy about being treated the way you explicitly agreed to be treated. They either need to find a different label that will be fair, or stop fucking whining. They'd have something to bitch about if there were no alternatives, or if a gun were held to their head and they were forced to sign (but then it would be "under duress" and void), but neither of those are true, so they can just shove it.
Yes. But you can actually get rid of the browser and not be able to use it to browse with. IE, you can't even do that much. Webkit is also not chock full of holes like IE -- I'm sure it has some, but nowhere near as many, and Apple fixes them quickly, and the damn thing doesn't run with super-root privs like IE does, so yet again M$ deserves all the bashing they get.
The credit agency stopped going after him after he sent proof to Paypal that he does not owe them any money and that he delivered the laptop as promised and the buyer accepted it and was happy with it. In other words, Paypal is (for whatever reason) attempting to scam him for money he doesn't owe, and owes him a cancellation of the whole thing. They are the ones committing fraud.
Microsoft can't put good security into Windows. They aren't allowed. They would be "investigated" and sued... again. Every time Microsoft puts some new, useful app into Windows someone cries "monopoly".
That's because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist while Apple is not. The rules are different for monopolies. There are very real rules that Microsoft has to follow that don't apply to Apple.
But at the same time Apple gets applauded for rolling EVERY SINGLE LITTLE POSSIBLE THING into their OS?
Because they don't force you to use any of it. You can delete any of the utilities that you want. Don't want ichat? Trash it.
On the other hand, good luck getting rid of Windows Messenger. It's even hidden in Add/Remove Programs and fixing that requires a hack well beyond most users.
Don't want to use Safari? Make it go poof.
On the other hand, you CANNOT get rid of Internet Explorer. And that's bad. IE is full of security holes and you can't get rid of it. Safari is far safer, and you can get rid of it.
What hypocrisy was that, again? There's a damn good reason MS gets blasted and Apple doesn't. (Well, it does, but nowhere near as much, and I just explained why.)
Maybe. But like I said earlier on in the thread, if you were dumb enough to sign away your rights when better alternatives, I have no sympathy for you. People are inherently lazy and think everyone else, or the government, will look out for them. Everyone's out to screw you; it's up to you and no one else to protect yourself. Why should we be sorry when you don't use your brain?
Depends on whether you want the clutter or not. I'll buy Elton John's albums on hardcopy CD, but everything else, it's digital. I have 750 sq. ft., I need as little stuff as possible in it. (but it's real cheap to heat and cool!)
You want to be heard, you have to go with the big boys.
Microsoft actually forces you to use their stuff; you can't get rid of it. Record labels don't do that. They can't; there's no way to.
iTunes doesn't promote offerings from one label over another, and with music sales shifting there and other online outfits, no, you actually don't have to sign with a big label anymore. That argument may have been true a decade ago, or five years ago, but that is not the case now.
Slashdot Mirror
It's intended for French users, isn't it, by the fact that it has a French domain, and also the organization on record is "Yahoo France". And the netblock is owned by Yahoo Europe. Sounds French to me.
For their UK operations, whatever those may be, yes.
For their US operations, no.
The website is a US operation.
But, as I have said, if you start down the slippery slope that web news should be restricted, then you can argue that it all should be. That's why I brought up China -- the best-known-these-days example of severe news restrictions. That's a slippery slope that we shouldn't be starting down. Especially not in the United States.
The First Amendment of the United States [Constitution] is a law governing the U.S. Congress, not U.S. newspapers.
Directly, yes. That translates to, however, the fact that no law exists in the US (whose law applies here) that states that a newspaper must censor itself in any way. Therefore, no US newspaper has any business refusing to publish this story "on the advice of legal counsel" because no law exists that forces the censorship.
How, again, does UK law apply in the US? I'm still waiting.
"On advice of legal counsel", which means "we were afraid of getting hauled into court", for refusing to censor, which means a US news organization thinks the law of another nation applies within our own borders, which is just not true. "We did not feel it was appropriate" is entirely different from "we're afraid of someone else's laws that have no jurisdiction here".
Your comparison with China is a little overheated, isn't it?
No, I don't think it is. Not at all. It's a well-known (outside of China, anyway) subject in which the press has repeatedly censored itself about a given subject because it's inconvenient to somebody for the coverage to exist.
And the particular site in question is a US-based website -- I checked. Do the research yourself if you don't believe me. But, US organization, US netblock so it's based in the US. And hence US law applies. Now, if there were (I don't know if there is or not) a nytimes.co.uk, that's when UK law would apply.
I see nothing in the story that is not simple facts about the case and what has reportedly been found in a police investigation. I see nothing that is even close to exposing any battle plans. I see only the facts that a great many people likely want to learn about the investigation, facts that the investigators have chosen to reveal.
Police do this sort of thing all the time if there is public interest in a case. And news organizations cover that sort of thing all the time. As well they should, as they're there to serve the interests of the public.
You are aware that pretty much every US web business with any presence in China does just that?
Their China-based sites have to follow local laws. That's what "presence in X" means -- operations in a given country. (or do you think I have a "presence in" China for just having a website? I don't have one, and Chinese law can stuff it.) But US-based sites do not have to. And the NY Times is a US-based site.
That's why a US court ruled that the US-based Yahoo auction site did not have to pull Nazi memorabilia, but the French Yahoo auction site does obey the law.
Netcraft confirms it: Site report for www.nytimes.com -- US address, and that IP netblock is owned by NTT America, Inc.
On the contrary.
Good journalism doesn't involve censoring oneself because someone else wants you to do so. In fact, good journalism can and often is the very act of doing the opposite. If you're going to argue that journalistic censorship is a good thing, you then open the door to arguments such as "we shouldn't be talking about Falun Gong and the people who practice it because China hates that" or "we shouldn't be publishing anything that dictator X of country Y feels doesn't advance his/her causes" (in that case, we wouldn't know about illegal warrantless wiretapping here in the US, for example, because the publishing of the story was not in line with the power grab plans of the government).
Good journalism is telling the truth and getting that truth out to the people. Good journalism is not altering the truth to make it more palatable or convenient. Good journalism is not changing what one writes or photographs in order to get a more pleasing reaction to anyone from your words or images.
Reuters AlertNet - Reuters drops freelance Lebanese photographer over image
Fired. For altering the news and obscuring the truth. That's how unacceptable alteration of the truth really is. News organizations have an obligation to their readers or viewers -- and not to present, as one episode of a TV drama once put it as it covered the use of news manipulation, "the illusion of truth". (Guide page: "The Illusion of Truth"; notice in the summary that the writers also were honoring those blacklisted by anti-communist activists in the 1950s for producing material that was inconvenient to others).
Good journalism, then, is not censorship -- by any governmental body or by oneself.
How dare they use an available tool to comply with a british law!
How dare they, indeed, when said law has exactly zero jurisdiction in the United States?
Who are we, then (according to your logic), to publish stories about human rights atrocities in China? We should be bowing down to oppressive regimes who want us shot for being able to do so, or at least thrown in jail for life!
To try to watch BBC online content outside of the UK. Denied!
I tried a random link from the site and it works:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/help/3681938.stm
I'm in St. Louis, MO.
While you may not have to follow local laws, it's general considered respectful to follow them.
And yet, the NY Times is in a nation in which the freedom of the press from censorship is held to be sacrosanct, even when the government finds it inconvenient (the NYTimes unleashed the Pentagon Papers, as well as having started the furor over wiretapping). It's totally unbecoming of them to all of a sudden censor themselves in violation of the First Amendment of the United States, which is the law governing a U.S. newspaper.
You follow the law of the nation you're in, not the law of the nation you're from. And the NYTimes is in the U.S.
That's why Yahoo didn't have to censor Nazi items from its auction site when the French whined about their being available. Guess what, France? Your law doesn't apply here. The French Yahoo site has to follow the law (and it does) but not the U.S. site.
U.S. judge says 'au revoir' to French lawsuit against Yahoo
So UK law can just piss off (as I think the Brits say it).
True. But I would be surprised if all of these did not inquire whether they should be the default at startup.
I like the app I linked in my previous post, anyway. Far more control over defaults than the system allows when stock.
You were saying? There's this, and then Firefox does ask if it should become the default browser. Why would I want to set the default away from Firefox, if I deleted Safari after insttalling it?
Rubicode - RCDefaultApp
Though I do think that WAS a hairbrained decision.
I think it's the principle of the matter from the sound of it. That, and he doesn't want a black mark on his credit record for being the victim of fraud. Since when was it acceptable to blame the victim? (since paypal thought so, apparently).
This is why the highest-dollar item I've ever sold on eBay was a camera, once, and I made sure to cover my ass with documentation that it had been sent and was as described. Never had trouble but I never will sell anything like a laptop.
Wow, they actually listened to criticism? I haven't tried to remove it from any system that has SP2 on it -- I'll have to look. The fact that they ever made it impossible, though .... ugh.
People signed those contracts because it was the best way to be heard.
And yet, they want to have their cake and eat it too. It is not the rest of the world's problem if you are unhappy about being treated the way you explicitly agreed to be treated. They either need to find a different label that will be fair, or stop fucking whining. They'd have something to bitch about if there were no alternatives, or if a gun were held to their head and they were forced to sign (but then it would be "under duress" and void), but neither of those are true, so they can just shove it.
Yes. But you can actually get rid of the browser and not be able to use it to browse with. IE, you can't even do that much. Webkit is also not chock full of holes like IE -- I'm sure it has some, but nowhere near as many, and Apple fixes them quickly, and the damn thing doesn't run with super-root privs like IE does, so yet again M$ deserves all the bashing they get.
The credit agency stopped going after him after he sent proof to Paypal that he does not owe them any money and that he delivered the laptop as promised and the buyer accepted it and was happy with it. In other words, Paypal is (for whatever reason) attempting to scam him for money he doesn't owe, and owes him a cancellation of the whole thing. They are the ones committing fraud.
Microsoft can't put good security into Windows. They aren't allowed. They would be "investigated" and sued... again. Every time Microsoft puts some new, useful app into Windows someone cries "monopoly".
That's because Microsoft is a convicted monopolist while Apple is not. The rules are different for monopolies. There are very real rules that Microsoft has to follow that don't apply to Apple.
But at the same time Apple gets applauded for rolling EVERY SINGLE LITTLE POSSIBLE THING into their OS?
Because they don't force you to use any of it. You can delete any of the utilities that you want. Don't want ichat? Trash it.
On the other hand, good luck getting rid of Windows Messenger. It's even hidden in Add/Remove Programs and fixing that requires a hack well beyond most users.
Don't want to use Safari? Make it go poof.
On the other hand, you CANNOT get rid of Internet Explorer. And that's bad. IE is full of security holes and you can't get rid of it. Safari is far safer, and you can get rid of it.
What hypocrisy was that, again? There's a damn good reason MS gets blasted and Apple doesn't. (Well, it does, but nowhere near as much, and I just explained why.)
Maybe. But like I said earlier on in the thread, if you were dumb enough to sign away your rights when better alternatives, I have no sympathy for you. People are inherently lazy and think everyone else, or the government, will look out for them. Everyone's out to screw you; it's up to you and no one else to protect yourself. Why should we be sorry when you don't use your brain?
And most people don't use itunes. Most people buy CDs, from shops.
Maybe. For now. But CD sales are going down and digital downloads are going up. Think about that.
Depends on whether you want the clutter or not. I'll buy Elton John's albums on hardcopy CD, but everything else, it's digital. I have 750 sq. ft., I need as little stuff as possible in it. (but it's real cheap to heat and cool!)
You want to be heard, you have to go with the big boys.
Microsoft actually forces you to use their stuff; you can't get rid of it. Record labels don't do that. They can't; there's no way to.
iTunes doesn't promote offerings from one label over another, and with music sales shifting there and other online outfits, no, you actually don't have to sign with a big label anymore. That argument may have been true a decade ago, or five years ago, but that is not the case now.