Re:this is getting interesting
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well maybe that's one way of circumventing the great firewall - just have Tibet-protests on just about any website of interest. Eventually they'd have the choice of pulling the plug on either the firewall or the internet connection itself.
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How brave, I think foreign leaders will be impressed and change their evil ways.
*shrug* - the apartheid regime owes it's downfall partly due to economic sanctions by the western world. You can't achieve everything just by getting public opinion in the west on your side. But the western world is powerful, and public opinion is a powerful factor in the western world.
You are right that you don't have to be brave to protest for Tibet while living in the US, you just have to be willing to get of your butt. So what?
Re:Every country has a different threshold
on
China Blocks iTunes
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
How is it our place to criticize them? A country should be able to make decisions about what ideas it tolerates within its borders. Not all countries will make the same decision.
So we should accept another country's right to censorship because that's the moral thing to do? How come that moral concept is universal, and the moral concept of human rights is not? I don't see how that position makes sense.
Because of all the applications you can get for it, of course. Sure it's a voting machine, but you can also surf the internet with it, edit photographs, play games, make phone calls...
A appreciate your point, but it is quite possible to review binary code. Admittedly, that's a lot of work, but it is possible. After that you wouldn't be able to tell for sure that your compiler isn't compromised, but you'd have a good chance that your binary code isn't.
The Olympics aren't about you, and they aren't about your pet issue. There are plenty of other venues to air these protests. Disrespecting the athletes by marring the games with these protests is no better than what happened in Munich in 1972.
Let me put it this way "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." That's from the Olympic charter, in case you were wondering. In this text the personal goals of the competing athletes are not thought to be the overriding concern for the Olympic games.
So the Japanese Ministry of Economy has been manufacturing batteries? Or are they running the QA of Japenese battery manufacturers? Who but Apple should be held responsible if Apple is shipping defective products which cause harm to consumers?
If you really want to mitigate the risks of air travel, then don't fly. I'm serious. Consider why you fly: isn't that mostly for convenience or for entertainment? Yet the risk of the activity is not zero, as with most activities which we engage in for entertainment. You could slip and break your neck while dancing, get bitten by a snake while hiking, get run over by a car while walking to a restaurant round the corner. We don't give up on fun activities just because there is some minute risk, there is no reason to treat risks related to air travel differently from risk related to other activities.
I think they're drafting up Loony Letter #37 for you
Bah. If enough people care about this then the smart companies will take notice. It's all about the money - people being angry about them, likely costs them money. If there is just one person complaining then they'll send the loony letter - if there are thousands who are complaining, then they'll call up their IOC sales rep and ask them what the fuck they are doing. For the IOC it's the same - it's all about money - too many unhappy sponsors and they start to care. A site like slashdot could easily generate enough email traffic for the sponsors to notice.
Anyway, the IOC is a cabal, a Pentavirate and the Olympics have lost all credibility.
Well, while the moral corruption of the IOC is not in itself surprising, it is nevertheless astonishing that they'll still manage to find a new low to sink to...
If Apple wants to move their jobs to save money they can. Not suing them for wages they owe will not guarantee you a job. If you want to keep employed you need to make sure your skills stay up-to-date and relevant. Trying to undercut Indian or Chinese workers, while living in the US is a doomed strategy. You have US living costs, they don't.
Besides: your company will not be loyal to you, no matter how loyal you may have been to the company. Negotiate as much money for your services as you can now and save for later. You will not prevent a company from outsourcing because you haven't asked for a raise in 5 years. It's a capitalist system, and your business is selling your work hours - you need to sell them for the best price you can get on the market.
Freedom of speech is the right to say what you think if you don't thereby infringe on other people's higher valued rights
There is really no constitutional right to not being libeled, so the "higher value" seems a bit dubious. I agree that in practice in the US common law overrules the constitution. That doesn't mean your's is a good definition of "freedom of speech" - it just means you don't actually have unrestricted freedom of speech, regardless of what the US constitution claims.
Nope that's just you choosing to take tons of scientific research with peer-reviewed publications on the one side, and some guy's blogpost on the other side, and deciding that balances out. And the reason that's supposed to work: a world-wide conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, hundreds of governments (even the Bush government accepts this research now) and even several oil executives. Yes of course: it's you who are sane, everybody else is stark-raving mad. Do you really think you are making a good argument there?
Maybe. Or maybe they know who their customers are: people who are not very computer-literate, and who don't care much about computers. With this article they get in the news - it's just the sort of nonsense journalists fall for, and which attracts people to read their inane articles. For these analysts the benefit will be that lots of potential customers will form an association with "Gartner", "analysts" and "technology trends".
The strategy used is quite similar to the one TV "psychics" employ - it's not important that your prophecies come true (nobody checks on that) but that you are heard making prophecies. People stupid enough to buy your services now know that you are selling these services.
Well apart from conservatives looking for big-state solutions, which I find amusing - this "within three years" estimation is based on nothing but a talk-show host's fantasies. The Manhattan project on the other hand had not only a specific goal, but also the support of many reputable scientists who thought the project feasible. i don't really understand why political clowns are taken so seriously in public discussion.
Also, even if we had technology today, which would enable us to generate to generate energy cheaply and at low ecological cost - just look at the hug amount of infrastructure needed to drive e.g. the electric grid. If this technology could replace a oil-fired power plant directly, you would still need to build hundreds of these plants before you'd become oil-independent (plus you'd need to find a way to produce fuel for cars etc with this system, and build the required infrastructure, too).
This "focusing all our energy" thing doesn't make sense either - assigning thousands of aeronautical engineers to some nuclear fusion project is not going to help. We are all familiar with the "mythical man month" problem, right? We have a lot of things which can be done today to reduce our dependency on oil - offshore wind farms, reducing energy consumption, streamlining the transportation systems etc. Even if we find the magical bullet technology later on - having reduced our fossil fuel consumption earlier will still have helped to make the rollout of that technology faster - because we don't have to replace so much infrastructure anymore.
Besides, the proof is in the pudding - the jury got it right, despite the lack of a body, which SO many slashodotters claimed was a fatal flaw in the case against Reiser.
You can get to the right result from the wrong starting point. If (hypothetically) you'd convict everyone suspected of murder regardless of evidence - then some of the actual murderers might tell you the location of the body in order to get a reduced sentence. You'd still have a lot of innocent people in jail, though.
Well, is the Pope catholic? Seriously - is he? That would depend on whether he really believes in the religion he preaches - some Popes in the past did not, but in modern times that's not actually a problem for the catholic church. I'd say the same criteria would have to be applied to any ideology: if you believe in an ideology and base your policy on it - then your reference to it is not just symbolic. Was the Mao regime (and that does not just include himself, but the vast numbers actually running the country) communist? Did they read Marx and believe in his ideas? Who can claim that their claim to be communists is less valid then their own? Is real communism only defined by people who are "theoretical communists" - i.e. people who never actually attempt to run a country on their own? I think Mao has a much better claim.
Didn't have a chance to respond earlier, in case you are reading replies to old posts:
They don't place prior restraint on speech, they make me responsible for certain consequences of such speech.
Not an invalid point of view, but I'm not sure if it's useful. Once you go with that line of reasoning you have the right to commit murder in the US (you just are responsible for the consequences) and a citizen of Burma has freedom of speech, too. There are things you can do, and the government has no lawful power to stop you - those are rights. If doing something can get you sued or arrested - then the right to do it, is not available to you (regardless whether it should or should not be).
Smith doesn't get to have me arrested. He can sue me; if and only if he proves that the charges are false and caused him harm, he can get compensation.
Sorry, but you'll find the burden of proof doesn't work that way, in this kind of cases. (Makes sense to an extent, too: you may somehow be able that you didn't murder a specific person, but you'll find it's impossible to prove that you never murdered anyone.)
He can't, as the Cult of Scientology did here, send the cops over to take away my sign and bust me.
Please don't try that... You'll find that all sorts of other laws will pop up and interfere with your sign...
I'm not sure there's any need or use for the government to become involved.
Be that as it may: the US has long since decided that the government is involved there.
if it progresses to harassment
I'm sure that Scientology will take the view that it does. Not that I agree with them, but they'll likely argue that.
This leaves open the question of whether libel and slander laws are a violation of free speech.
Does it? It clearly places restrictions on free However libel and slander laws predate freedom of speech, so the case can certainly be made that the first amendment was never meant to not have these restrictions. Unfortunately that also means that there are restrictions to the freedom of speech right, but nowhere does it specify what those are and where the boundary between a legal and illegal restrictions would be. As a result it has been left to the courts to define them. These days you even have an FCC with the authority to fine people for using swear words, and there are obscenity laws on the books, too. (BTW: the first amendment protection for freedom of the press is also absolute. Well, in theory, in practice - unsurprisingly - it's not.)
You have the right to stand on the corner with a sign saying "X is Y!"
As much as I like the sentiment - in which jurisdiction do you have the right to do that for X="My neighbour Mr Smith" and Y="a thief/murderer/rapist"? In any country I know of, there are libel and slander laws which pose limits on free speech. Usually there are exceptions for people who are in the public view (e.g. politicians or movie stars) so you are often free to insult them, but in general that's not the case.
Yes, but many churches are also accepted by mainstream society to be churches while others others are considered to be nothing more than commercial ventures looking for a way to avoid taxation. Scientology has exactly that problem e.g. in Germany - the German state does not accept them to be a religious organization, hence no tax benefits. So calling Scientology a "self proclaimed church" seems valid to me - while they call themselves that, many people disagree. That's quite different from disagreeing with their teachings: many people disagree with catholicism, buddhism or protestantism, too - however they would agree that these are churches.
Hypothetically, if Microsoft were to declare themselves a church - most people wouldn't be prepared to accept that label either. Words have meanings, and someone calling themselves something doesn't mean others have to consider it an appropriate description. If only a minority agrees the label fits, then "self proclaimed" is just what it is.
Slashdot Mirror
I liked these, too: http://dfc.furr.org/
Well maybe that's one way of circumventing the great firewall - just have Tibet-protests on just about any website of interest. Eventually they'd have the choice of pulling the plug on either the firewall or the internet connection itself.
*shrug* - the apartheid regime owes it's downfall partly due to economic sanctions by the western world. You can't achieve everything just by getting public opinion in the west on your side. But the western world is powerful, and public opinion is a powerful factor in the western world.
You are right that you don't have to be brave to protest for Tibet while living in the US, you just have to be willing to get of your butt. So what?
So we should accept another country's right to censorship because that's the moral thing to do? How come that moral concept is universal, and the moral concept of human rights is not? I don't see how that position makes sense.
Because of all the applications you can get for it, of course. Sure it's a voting machine, but you can also surf the internet with it, edit photographs, play games, make phone calls ...
A appreciate your point, but it is quite possible to review binary code. Admittedly, that's a lot of work, but it is possible. After that you wouldn't be able to tell for sure that your compiler isn't compromised, but you'd have a good chance that your binary code isn't.
Let me put it this way "The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity." That's from the Olympic charter, in case you were wondering. In this text the personal goals of the competing athletes are not thought to be the overriding concern for the Olympic games.
So the Japanese Ministry of Economy has been manufacturing batteries? Or are they running the QA of Japenese battery manufacturers? Who but Apple should be held responsible if Apple is shipping defective products which cause harm to consumers?
If you really want to mitigate the risks of air travel, then don't fly. I'm serious. Consider why you fly: isn't that mostly for convenience or for entertainment? Yet the risk of the activity is not zero, as with most activities which we engage in for entertainment. You could slip and break your neck while dancing, get bitten by a snake while hiking, get run over by a car while walking to a restaurant round the corner. We don't give up on fun activities just because there is some minute risk, there is no reason to treat risks related to air travel differently from risk related to other activities.
Well if you are willing to abandon good taste (as I myself certainly am) here you go: I hit a tree babe
It would only be like that, if the punishment for stealing a car was less than the purchase price of that car.
How embarrassing is that?
Meh. Could be worse.
Bah. If enough people care about this then the smart companies will take notice. It's all about the money - people being angry about them, likely costs them money. If there is just one person complaining then they'll send the loony letter - if there are thousands who are complaining, then they'll call up their IOC sales rep and ask them what the fuck they are doing. For the IOC it's the same - it's all about money - too many unhappy sponsors and they start to care. A site like slashdot could easily generate enough email traffic for the sponsors to notice.
Well, while the moral corruption of the IOC is not in itself surprising, it is nevertheless astonishing that they'll still manage to find a new low to sink to ...
Besides: your company will not be loyal to you, no matter how loyal you may have been to the company. Negotiate as much money for your services as you can now and save for later. You will not prevent a company from outsourcing because you haven't asked for a raise in 5 years. It's a capitalist system, and your business is selling your work hours - you need to sell them for the best price you can get on the market.
There is really no constitutional right to not being libeled, so the "higher value" seems a bit dubious. I agree that in practice in the US common law overrules the constitution. That doesn't mean your's is a good definition of "freedom of speech" - it just means you don't actually have unrestricted freedom of speech, regardless of what the US constitution claims.
That which was supposed to happen with usenet posts after a few days - it goes away. Storing usenet data wasn't the rule before dejanews came along.
Nope that's just you choosing to take tons of scientific research with peer-reviewed publications on the one side, and some guy's blogpost on the other side, and deciding that balances out. And the reason that's supposed to work: a world-wide conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, hundreds of governments (even the Bush government accepts this research now) and even several oil executives. Yes of course: it's you who are sane, everybody else is stark-raving mad. Do you really think you are making a good argument there?
Maybe. Or maybe they know who their customers are: people who are not very computer-literate, and who don't care much about computers. With this article they get in the news - it's just the sort of nonsense journalists fall for, and which attracts people to read their inane articles. For these analysts the benefit will be that lots of potential customers will form an association with "Gartner", "analysts" and "technology trends".
The strategy used is quite similar to the one TV "psychics" employ - it's not important that your prophecies come true (nobody checks on that) but that you are heard making prophecies. People stupid enough to buy your services now know that you are selling these services.
Also, even if we had technology today, which would enable us to generate to generate energy cheaply and at low ecological cost - just look at the hug amount of infrastructure needed to drive e.g. the electric grid. If this technology could replace a oil-fired power plant directly, you would still need to build hundreds of these plants before you'd become oil-independent (plus you'd need to find a way to produce fuel for cars etc with this system, and build the required infrastructure, too).
This "focusing all our energy" thing doesn't make sense either - assigning thousands of aeronautical engineers to some nuclear fusion project is not going to help. We are all familiar with the "mythical man month" problem, right? We have a lot of things which can be done today to reduce our dependency on oil - offshore wind farms, reducing energy consumption, streamlining the transportation systems etc. Even if we find the magical bullet technology later on - having reduced our fossil fuel consumption earlier will still have helped to make the rollout of that technology faster - because we don't have to replace so much infrastructure anymore.
You can get to the right result from the wrong starting point. If (hypothetically) you'd convict everyone suspected of murder regardless of evidence - then some of the actual murderers might tell you the location of the body in order to get a reduced sentence. You'd still have a lot of innocent people in jail, though.
Well, is the Pope catholic? Seriously - is he? That would depend on whether he really believes in the religion he preaches - some Popes in the past did not, but in modern times that's not actually a problem for the catholic church. I'd say the same criteria would have to be applied to any ideology: if you believe in an ideology and base your policy on it - then your reference to it is not just symbolic. Was the Mao regime (and that does not just include himself, but the vast numbers actually running the country) communist? Did they read Marx and believe in his ideas? Who can claim that their claim to be communists is less valid then their own? Is real communism only defined by people who are "theoretical communists" - i.e. people who never actually attempt to run a country on their own? I think Mao has a much better claim.
They don't place prior restraint on speech, they make me responsible for certain consequences of such speech.
Not an invalid point of view, but I'm not sure if it's useful. Once you go with that line of reasoning you have the right to commit murder in the US (you just are responsible for the consequences) and a citizen of Burma has freedom of speech, too. There are things you can do, and the government has no lawful power to stop you - those are rights. If doing something can get you sued or arrested - then the right to do it, is not available to you (regardless whether it should or should not be).
Smith doesn't get to have me arrested. He can sue me; if and only if he proves that the charges are false and caused him harm, he can get compensation.
Sorry, but you'll find the burden of proof doesn't work that way, in this kind of cases. (Makes sense to an extent, too: you may somehow be able that you didn't murder a specific person, but you'll find it's impossible to prove that you never murdered anyone.)
He can't, as the Cult of Scientology did here, send the cops over to take away my sign and bust me.
Please don't try that... You'll find that all sorts of other laws will pop up and interfere with your sign...
I'm not sure there's any need or use for the government to become involved.
Be that as it may: the US has long since decided that the government is involved there.
if it progresses to harassment
I'm sure that Scientology will take the view that it does. Not that I agree with them, but they'll likely argue that.
This leaves open the question of whether libel and slander laws are a violation of free speech.
Does it? It clearly places restrictions on free However libel and slander laws predate freedom of speech, so the case can certainly be made that the first amendment was never meant to not have these restrictions. Unfortunately that also means that there are restrictions to the freedom of speech right, but nowhere does it specify what those are and where the boundary between a legal and illegal restrictions would be. As a result it has been left to the courts to define them. These days you even have an FCC with the authority to fine people for using swear words, and there are obscenity laws on the books, too. (BTW: the first amendment protection for freedom of the press is also absolute. Well, in theory, in practice - unsurprisingly - it's not.)
As much as I like the sentiment - in which jurisdiction do you have the right to do that for X="My neighbour Mr Smith" and Y="a thief/murderer/rapist"? In any country I know of, there are libel and slander laws which pose limits on free speech. Usually there are exceptions for people who are in the public view (e.g. politicians or movie stars) so you are often free to insult them, but in general that's not the case.
Yes, but many churches are also accepted by mainstream society to be churches while others others are considered to be nothing more than commercial ventures looking for a way to avoid taxation. Scientology has exactly that problem e.g. in Germany - the German state does not accept them to be a religious organization, hence no tax benefits. So calling Scientology a "self proclaimed church" seems valid to me - while they call themselves that, many people disagree. That's quite different from disagreeing with their teachings: many people disagree with catholicism, buddhism or protestantism, too - however they would agree that these are churches.
Hypothetically, if Microsoft were to declare themselves a church - most people wouldn't be prepared to accept that label either. Words have meanings, and someone calling themselves something doesn't mean others have to consider it an appropriate description. If only a minority agrees the label fits, then "self proclaimed" is just what it is.