I think that was proven to be a scam. The ads went on for years. Where the networks sued? Also Lipazine - or whatever they called it.
Can google be held responsible for ads placed by third parties? Is craigslist responsible for the craigslist killer? What about Nigerian email scams? Are the email providers responsible for those? What about telephone scams? Are the phone responsible?
Just because you settle a lawsuit does not mean that you are admitting to doing anything wrong. Sometimes it's easier, and cheaper, to pay instead of fight.
You have to consider Chinese mentality, and the way the suicides happened. Those workers were making a statement.
And even if you don't consider the suicides, you must admit that worker conditions at Foxconn are beyond horrid.
I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave.
We would all like to think we are better than the 19th century slavers, but are we? I'm sure the old slavers would say there was nothing practical to do about the situation.
What that says is she attending a meeting as the US Secretary of state where a bunch of Islamic governments discussed anti-blasphemy laws....that is not the same thing as her supporting those laws.
Looks to me like the only discussion is how to implement the laws: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
Do some googling. I think you will find that Hillary supports anti-blasphemy laws.
As PJ, at Groklaw asked: what about innocent folks who have placed their files on the service? Who restores their property to them when the entire site goes down? They have property rights too, which are not currently being addressed, that I've seen.
It is extremely unlikely that Iran "hacked" the drone and landed it.
You are right not to trust the US government stories. But, Iran is not especially trustworthy either.
The most likely story is: the drone lost signal, or had some sort of mechanical problem, and glided to a crash landing. Iran picked up wreckage - which was probable not that bad.
1. The MegaUpload case demonstrates that no such bill is even needed.
2. What about innocent folks who have placed their files on the service? Who restores their property to them if the entire site goes down? They have property rights too, which are not currently being addressed, that I've seen.
3. The OPEN bill provides a wrongly accused site no relief, other than dropping the penalties. But they will have suffered financial harm. That needs to be addressed. I have no doubt that Viacom would have used any SOPA-like or OPEN bill against YouTube, which in the end was found not liable for copyright infringement. Why should YouTube be forced into an ITC action, instead of leting it duke it out in litigation in federal courts, with appeals built in and statutes well known? A bill that doesn't restrain such over-the-top complainants can't work.
4. No bill will work anyhow. There is no way to stop copying on the Internet. It's what computers do. You will never find a way to stop it. Criminals are technically smarter than Congressmen. They'll just start up a new site under a new name. Surely Hollywood should have realized by now that they need to invent a new business model or accept a measure of copying as a cost of doing business, just as stores know they can't altogether stop shoplifting. Not every instance of copying is a lost sale. Those folks weren't going to buy from you anyway.
5. Someone needs to think through the property rights of the wrongly accused a lot more than they have. If someone has money in the bank at Paypal or wherever, they have rights to that money, even if only 1% of it is from legitimate sources. A bill that pretends that they have no property rights while fighting for Hollywood's property rights, as they see them and lobby for, is offensively hypocritical. If Iran was theatening to do this to American web sites, how would Congress feel, particularly about them just swallowing up the money? Well, extrapolate.
6. I don't personally believe Hollywood cares about foreign sites. SOPA wouldn't stop sales to the rest of the world, after all. It's instead a chess move to regulate the Internet by forcing regulation on US companies, because they wrongly suppose that is the problem, that the Internet is killing their business model, so they wish to retaliate and block, control, and hobble the new economy so the old economy can survive a little longer. The world is not at consensus that Hollywood is the center of the universe or is to be protected at any cost to the rest of the world. In short, there is a lack of balance in even coming up with a bill like SOPA. A neutered SOPA doesn't address that foundational issue, that this is about regulating US businesses so Hollywood can establish a playing field more slanted in its favor. If you are really interested in jobs, keep in mind that the New Economy creates them, not the Old Economy, which is in a serious decline, despite so many IP laws designed to protect them.
7. None of these bills consider the public's interest as being worthy of protection. There are wide variances in what constitutes copyright infringement. That also is ignored. Where does fair use come in? None of the bills even address that, but it's part of Copyright Law. What about human rights? I mean, who gave Hollywood the right to control the Internet? They didn't invent it or build it. They don't own it. And if the US tells the world that the US owns the Internet, and that US law is to be universally applied or else, there will be serious repercussions and inevitable damage from backlash. It's just a really, really bad idea from the ground up.
8. I have two suggestions. First, Congress members should immediately hire tech support folk to advise. them. Second, if you want to discuss bills like this, get the techies into the discussion to advise you on what US businesses can do technically to protect themselves better than they do now. Trust me, there will be plenty. After that, ask if more even needs to be done.
- witchcraft - apostasy - blasphemy - homosexuality - crimes against chastity (i.e. the crime of being raped)
And Iran executes more people, per-capita , than any other nation
Also worth mentioning, Iran executes people for these "crimes" in the most gruesome, and painful ways possible: beheading, hanging, even stoning. The hangings are usually suspension hangings which are far more painful, and last much longer.
Iran also executes children as young as nine years old.
Other than execution, Iranian punishments include: amputation and flogging. Although sometimes those turn out to be executions also. As in the case of a child who was sentenced to 100 lashes, after being raped by a relative. She collapsed after 70 lashes, and died soon afterward. No punishment for the relative.
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
As one of the commenters about that video pointed out:
I'm not supporting or denying the video, but how are we supposed to know if they are actually Christians? Aside from the title there is no reference to Christianity.
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
Slashdot Mirror
The HI government would have to back down, I am very certain of that.
How are the going to investigate *me* if they don't know who I am?
What if thousands of people do the same thing?
I guess Slashdot had to approve another google smear story. Not like we can go 24 hours without one. Think I'm kidding? See for yourself.
I think that was proven to be a scam. The ads went on for years. Where the networks sued? Also Lipazine - or whatever they called it.
Can google be held responsible for ads placed by third parties? Is craigslist responsible for the craigslist killer? What about Nigerian email scams? Are the email providers responsible for those? What about telephone scams? Are the phone responsible?
Just because you settle a lawsuit does not mean that you are admitting to doing anything wrong. Sometimes it's easier, and cheaper, to pay instead of fight.
That would be my guess. Apple does a lot of things right. I would feel a lot better about Apple, if it were not for their constant IP scams.
It keeps me from buying Apple products. But, that's just me.
You have to consider Chinese mentality, and the way the suicides happened. Those workers were making a statement.
And even if you don't consider the suicides, you must admit that worker conditions at Foxconn are beyond horrid.
I think being a worker at Foxconn would be no better, maybe worse, than being a 19th century slave.
We would all like to think we are better than the 19th century slavers, but are we? I'm sure the old slavers would say there was nothing practical to do about the situation.
I don't somebody at google could scratch their nose without slashdot posting a story about google being evil.
Just don't use google. Use microsoft instead, problem solved.
Unlike microsoft, google has no way to vendor-lock anybody.
Seriously, is there anybody who can't see though this?
In Iran, he would have probably been sentenced to death.
I thought Confucianism was more of a philosophy than a religion.
What that says is she attending a meeting as the US Secretary of state where a bunch of Islamic governments discussed anti-blasphemy laws....that is not the same thing as her supporting those laws.
Looks to me like the only discussion is how to implement the laws: "U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
Do some googling. I think you will find that Hillary supports anti-blasphemy laws.
Sorry, but faith does not allow for logic and evidence. It's just a fact.
So saying ALL Atheists are somehow Morally grounded is also not educated.
Good thing I never said that. Oh, but you are person of faith. So, things become magically true just because somebody says so.
As PJ, at Groklaw asked: what about innocent folks who have placed their files on the service? Who restores their property to them when the entire site goes down? They have property rights too, which are not currently being addressed, that I've seen.
It is extremely unlikely that Iran "hacked" the drone and landed it.
You are right not to trust the US government stories. But, Iran is not especially trustworthy either.
The most likely story is: the drone lost signal, or had some sort of mechanical problem, and glided to a crash landing. Iran picked up wreckage - which was probable not that bad.
The drones are made to be extremely stable. They practically fly themselves.
If the engine died, it would glide to a crash landing. It would not "fall out of the sky."
1. The MegaUpload case demonstrates that no such bill is even needed.
2. What about innocent folks who have placed their files on the service? Who restores their property to them if the entire site goes down? They have property rights too, which are not currently being addressed, that I've seen.
3. The OPEN bill provides a wrongly accused site no relief, other than dropping the penalties. But they will have suffered financial harm. That needs to be addressed. I have no doubt that Viacom would have used any SOPA-like or OPEN bill against YouTube, which in the end was found not liable for copyright infringement. Why should YouTube be forced into an ITC action, instead of leting it duke it out in litigation in federal courts, with appeals built in and statutes well known? A bill that doesn't restrain such over-the-top complainants can't work.
4. No bill will work anyhow. There is no way to stop copying on the Internet. It's what computers do. You will never find a way to stop it. Criminals are technically smarter than Congressmen. They'll just start up a new site under a new name. Surely Hollywood should have realized by now that they need to invent a new business model or accept a measure of copying as a cost of doing business, just as stores know they can't altogether stop shoplifting. Not every instance of copying is a lost sale. Those folks weren't going to buy from you anyway.
5. Someone needs to think through the property rights of the wrongly accused a lot more than they have. If someone has money in the bank at Paypal or wherever, they have rights to that money, even if only 1% of it is from legitimate sources. A bill that pretends that they have no property rights while fighting for Hollywood's property rights, as they see them and lobby for, is offensively hypocritical. If Iran was theatening to do this to American web sites, how would Congress feel, particularly about them just swallowing up the money? Well, extrapolate.
6. I don't personally believe Hollywood cares about foreign sites. SOPA wouldn't stop sales to the rest of the world, after all. It's instead a chess move to regulate the Internet by forcing regulation on US companies, because they wrongly suppose that is the problem, that the Internet is killing their business model, so they wish to retaliate and block, control, and hobble the new economy so the old economy can survive a little longer. The world is not at consensus that Hollywood is the center of the universe or is to be protected at any cost to the rest of the world. In short, there is a lack of balance in even coming up with a bill like SOPA. A neutered SOPA doesn't address that foundational issue, that this is about regulating US businesses so Hollywood can establish a playing field more slanted in its favor. If you are really interested in jobs, keep in mind that the New Economy creates them, not the Old Economy, which is in a serious decline, despite so many IP laws designed to protect them.
7. None of these bills consider the public's interest as being worthy of protection. There are wide variances in what constitutes copyright infringement. That also is ignored. Where does fair use come in? None of the bills even address that, but it's part of Copyright Law. What about human rights? I mean, who gave Hollywood the right to control the Internet? They didn't invent it or build it. They don't own it. And if the US tells the world that the US owns the Internet, and that US law is to be universally applied or else, there will be serious repercussions and inevitable damage from backlash. It's just a really, really bad idea from the ground up.
8. I have two suggestions. First, Congress members should immediately hire tech support folk to advise. them. Second, if you want to discuss bills like this, get the techies into the discussion to advise you on what US businesses can do technically to protect themselves better than they do now. Trust me, there will be plenty. After that, ask if more even needs to be done.
- witchcraft
- apostasy
- blasphemy
- homosexuality
- crimes against chastity (i.e. the crime of being raped)
And Iran executes more people, per-capita , than any other nation
Also worth mentioning, Iran executes people for these "crimes" in the most gruesome, and painful ways possible: beheading, hanging, even stoning. The hangings are usually suspension hangings which are far more painful, and last much longer.
Iran also executes children as young as nine years old.
Other than execution, Iranian punishments include: amputation and flogging. Although sometimes those turn out to be executions also. As in the case of a child who was sentenced to 100 lashes, after being raped by a relative. She collapsed after 70 lashes, and died soon afterward. No punishment for the relative.
Apple is spinning things to put a happy face on what Apple is doing.
IMO: Apple is no different than any other major US tech company.
I am surprised at how many people still fall for this BS.
I don't think it's facebook that is criticized.
How mid-evil of her.
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
http://techtalk.dice.com/t5/Miscellaneous/Hillary-Clinton-supports-so-called-quot-anti-blasphemy-quot-laws/m-p/247326/highlight/true#M970
it is not an either or proposition.. science and religion arent mutually exclusive.. science doesnt deal with morality, or faith..
How can believing due to faith, be compatible with believing in the scientific method? Faith means that you believe without logic or evidence.
As one of the commenters about that video pointed out:
I'm not supporting or denying the video, but how are we supposed to know if they are actually Christians? Aside from the title there is no reference to Christianity.
Seems like a fair question to me.
Hillary Clinton is bringing about anti-blasphemy laws.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/07/15/hrf-to-clinton-and-o-i-c-commit-to-implementation-of-resolution-to-combat-religious-intolerance/
The USA is going the same way. Hillary Clinton was lobbying for anti-blasphemy laws.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/07/15/hrf-to-clinton-and-o-i-c-commit-to-implementation-of-resolution-to-combat-religious-intolerance/
Hillary Clinton supports "anti-blasphemy" laws
"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will attend a meeting with the head of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) representing 57 governments. Among other subjects, they will discuss how to implement an unprecedented consensus resolution on combating religious intolerance adopted at the U.N. Human Rights Council in March 2011[i]. Human Rights First welcomed that adoption of the resolution as an important shift away from efforts at the U.N. to prohibit “defamation of religions” – in essence an international blasphemy code. The OIC had for the past decade supported such efforts, which have had serious consequences for fundamental rights to freedom of expression and belief."
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2011/07/15/hrf-to-clinton-and-o-i-c-commit-to-implementation-of-resolution-to-combat-religious-intolerance/