You've typed out in enough detail that hopefully you see just how biased to your belief system your notion of "rights" is. To touch on one important mistake:
It just means there can be no government force behind the consequences of your actions.
I fire you because you called me a cunt. You turn up to work anyway. I call the police to force you to leave. There's your government force behind the consqeuences of your actions.
Freedom of Speech is in many ways the most fundamental of all freedoms, because without it repressions of the other freedoms cannot be corrected.
There's this habit in the US of regarding freedom of speech as a binary thing, where the US is regarded as traditionally having freedom of speech but "everywhere else" doesn't. This isn't true. The US has many federal and regional laws restricting speech from official secrets to copyright to inciting imminent lawless action. There are many civil and private consequences to speech from fines for libel or "harassment" (consider calling someone a "nigger" in the workplace just once) to losing your job for trying to form a union - again, it's all about the malleable definitions of "freedom" and "speech". I once heard a satellite Eastern European stalwart compliment the US for encouraging criticism of its government, then lament that American workers did not enjoy the similar encouragement and freedom to criticise his boss that he did. To a Westerner it may be perfectly reasonable that you can be fired for publicly calling your boss a cunt but unreasonable to have any action taken against you for calling your head of state a cunt. But this requires so many assumptions about the sort of society you want to live in, and no matter how hard the West tries to impose it, it isn't yet a universal view.
We can have functioning societies with whole swathes of different regulations on speech, even though you may argue that more freedom of speech will produce a better society. But if we lack some semblance of rule of law, or if we lack much more fundamental rights such as the right to life or the right to eat (which is usually a consequence in Western nations of the rights to property and to social welfare), then speech doesn't matter so much.
In the UK we call this the public-private partnership (PPP - no, not that PPP), private finance initiative, introducing competitiveness into service provision, blah, blah, blah. What it actually means is a hegemony of large corporations selected by government cronies which siphon money off the tax payer to provide a service you either didn't want in the first place or which was once provided much more effectively at cost.
When finding out that a government is paying money to a corporation for a service, there is only one necessary question: what compensation will be paid to the men in government who made the decision by the executives of the firm which just won the multi-million-currency contract?
That's one tentacle. You forget all the Javascript web "apps" which encourage you to needlessly store information half way across the world on someone else's machine. Like Stallman said, cloud computing is stupidity - turning your powerful computer into a dumb graphical display is the worst possible outcome.
Is that reality is never as good as possibility, because any idea will end up being moulded for the personal gain of a particular business or government. Whether it's lock-in on the desktop or sending your information off to the cloud, we'll never see a decent peer-to-peer collaborative system as long as humans are designing, building, deploying and maintaining it.
Copyright and patent infringement are the crimes of speaking forbidden things (whatever spin you like to put on it as benefitting mankind, this is fact). I guess it's an extension of this absurdity that that it becomes criminal to speak locations to things which it is forbidden to speak.
Of course, a list of criminals isn't quite the same thing as a list of locations.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they have no physical presence there and therefore have no reason to respect local law.
Ah, the corporation's favourite excuse and the reason for much of the Western world's problems: "We're not abusing our workers - we're outsourcing our work to a country that abuses its workers. The outsourcing firm has no physical presence here so it doesn't need to respect local laws." You buy a kz, you're doing business with kz and hoping to profit from kz.
Kazakhstan is a de-facto dictatorship, ruled by the same man for almost 30 years. Political opposition is censored and overall it is one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
"Wikipedia said..." The US is a de facto dictatorship, ruled by the same Reganite elite for almost 30 years. Political opposition is censored as long as it's too loud to be drowned out and overall every political decision is either the result of corporate lobbying or an election carrot.
This is more honest than the US approach to seizing domains. Of course, Google's too big for that to happen to Google - watch what'd happen to you or I if we were to provide some of the sorts of data in a neatly indexed and searchable format that Google does.
'We find ourselves in a difficult situation: creating borders on the web
Like the one Google cooperated with in China. Of course, kz isn't quite so lucrative a market so it's easier not to respect local law.
raises important questions for us not only about network efficiency
The elephant in the room being the cloud, where you transfer your data half way around the world where previously a few centimetres would have been sufficient.
but also about user privacy
This one's too easy.
and free expression.
See top.
If we were to operate google.kz only via servers located inside Kazakhstan, we would be helping to create a fractured Internet.'
Sorry? Are your servers routers now? There's nothing I'd love more than a.notUS domain which guarantees that none of my endpoints are in that horribly snoopy country - perhaps kz could increase its visibility by making the only kz requirement that a kz server isn't in the US or one of the US de facto protectorates?
Mr. Coughran said that unfortunately, it would mean that Kazakh users would have a poorer experience as results would no longer be customized for the former Soviet republic.
And this coup de grace is as fallacious as, "She deserved it, she was wearing slutty clothing." No-one's forcing you to customise results according precisely as TLD - that's your choice. If one sovereign nation chooses to have particular rules for its TLD, that is its right. You might like to own the Internet and you sure do love poking your fingers in standards which have nothing to do with you... but it's not yours yet, so fuck off with your preachy bullshit.
Google does not attempt to claim ownership of any of these works
Google is asserting that it offers the same access to materials (subject to duty of care) and their raw digitised forms that it has obtained for itself. __ Yes __ No
Had Google acted philanthropically, providing free public access to the raw data as works are digitised, that would be fine. And it might still benefit financially out of having the sheer resources to provide some impressive hosting of the works for end users.
But it didn't. It played its usual "information for all - but more information for us than for you" game. Publishers groups etc saw it for what it was and we all lost out.
Google, by trying to make money from old works through discriminatory deals with publishers and libraries, has attempted to monetise the public-domain and the nearly-public-domain on a massive scale. No longer is the path to public domain a path to moving ideas and their expression into the people's hands - it's now something that a sufficiently large corporation will try to wrestle control of for itself. The law thus has good reason to view old works as subject to all the usual competition and ownership rules as new works.
The people are as much to blame for their passivity, of course. We, through non-profits and libraries, should have been preparing to distribute old work on a massive scale - to make it clear that it belongs to the people and it is in our interests to hold onto it for our enjoyment. Instead, we lazily allow business to deal with it. We suffer the expected consequences.
"Contractor" and "consultant" are euphemisms for don't care and kickback. You want a good job, you hire an employee. You want an excellent job, you take on a (prospective) partner.
(1) No-one said "take away all the firearms and no one will hurt anyone else", but developed countries with fewer firearms have fewer murders. This doesn't mean taking away firearms in a small area from some people, it means restricting supply to everyone everywhere: the citizen, the police and the criminal;
(2) In average terms, Americans are unsophisticated (and it shows in your trigger-happy defensiveness - learn some English self-deprecation!). At least, in that lack of sophistication, there used to be an effective sense of principle. But all y'all have lost that too.
Can I be one of the ones who would not use this service but do understand why people would want to?
I'll still say they're idiots for contributing toward an always-available always-working world where one is so distracted by one's so important job that he will still waste hours either end through a theatrical security dance. There's only one sort to blame for the TSA: the man who chooses to fly.
No-one who hasn't been propagandised into thinking that guns are as essential as air wants to carry a gun, including criminals. In a country where most cops don't carry guns and most law-abiding citizens don't carry guns, most criminals won't want to carry guns either. Once you shake off that primitive Wild West mentality you'll find that most people simply don't want to create a life-or-death situation for themselves or others, whatever their aim (unless their aim is to kill someone - but that's unsurprisingly rare).
Guns might have been a good protection against the tyranny of government gone bad... a couple of hundred years ago. The government has since so far outpaced the citizen in physical strength that much more sophisticated disobedience is required. Stop waving around your sidearms like yahoos, America, and engage in that sophistication. For your own sake. Please.
Slashdot Mirror
You've typed out in enough detail that hopefully you see just how biased to your belief system your notion of "rights" is. To touch on one important mistake:
It just means there can be no government force behind the consequences of your actions.
I fire you because you called me a cunt. You turn up to work anyway. I call the police to force you to leave. There's your government force behind the consqeuences of your actions.
Freedom of Speech is in many ways the most fundamental of all freedoms, because without it repressions of the other freedoms cannot be corrected.
There's this habit in the US of regarding freedom of speech as a binary thing, where the US is regarded as traditionally having freedom of speech but "everywhere else" doesn't. This isn't true. The US has many federal and regional laws restricting speech from official secrets to copyright to inciting imminent lawless action. There are many civil and private consequences to speech from fines for libel or "harassment" (consider calling someone a "nigger" in the workplace just once) to losing your job for trying to form a union - again, it's all about the malleable definitions of "freedom" and "speech". I once heard a satellite Eastern European stalwart compliment the US for encouraging criticism of its government, then lament that American workers did not enjoy the similar encouragement and freedom to criticise his boss that he did. To a Westerner it may be perfectly reasonable that you can be fired for publicly calling your boss a cunt but unreasonable to have any action taken against you for calling your head of state a cunt. But this requires so many assumptions about the sort of society you want to live in, and no matter how hard the West tries to impose it, it isn't yet a universal view.
We can have functioning societies with whole swathes of different regulations on speech, even though you may argue that more freedom of speech will produce a better society. But if we lack some semblance of rule of law, or if we lack much more fundamental rights such as the right to life or the right to eat (which is usually a consequence in Western nations of the rights to property and to social welfare), then speech doesn't matter so much.
In the UK we call this the public-private partnership (PPP - no, not that PPP), private finance initiative, introducing competitiveness into service provision, blah, blah, blah. What it actually means is a hegemony of large corporations selected by government cronies which siphon money off the tax payer to provide a service you either didn't want in the first place or which was once provided much more effectively at cost.
When finding out that a government is paying money to a corporation for a service, there is only one necessary question: what compensation will be paid to the men in government who made the decision by the executives of the firm which just won the multi-million-currency contract?
That's one tentacle. You forget all the Javascript web "apps" which encourage you to needlessly store information half way across the world on someone else's machine. Like Stallman said, cloud computing is stupidity - turning your powerful computer into a dumb graphical display is the worst possible outcome.
Is that reality is never as good as possibility, because any idea will end up being moulded for the personal gain of a particular business or government. Whether it's lock-in on the desktop or sending your information off to the cloud, we'll never see a decent peer-to-peer collaborative system as long as humans are designing, building, deploying and maintaining it.
But how will Google make money if you keep your information to yourself?
All I'm hearing is that ninjas are cowards.
Copyright and patent infringement are the crimes of speaking forbidden things (whatever spin you like to put on it as benefitting mankind, this is fact). I guess it's an extension of this absurdity that that it becomes criminal to speak locations to things which it is forbidden to speak.
Of course, a list of criminals isn't quite the same thing as a list of locations.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they have no physical presence there and therefore have no reason to respect local law.
Ah, the corporation's favourite excuse and the reason for much of the Western world's problems: "We're not abusing our workers - we're outsourcing our work to a country that abuses its workers. The outsourcing firm has no physical presence here so it doesn't need to respect local laws." You buy a kz, you're doing business with kz and hoping to profit from kz.
Kazakhstan is a de-facto dictatorship, ruled by the same man for almost 30 years. Political opposition is censored and overall it is one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
"Wikipedia said..." The US is a de facto dictatorship, ruled by the same Reganite elite for almost 30 years. Political opposition is censored as long as it's too loud to be drowned out and overall every political decision is either the result of corporate lobbying or an election carrot.
Grow up and travel.
Done. Try to visit Bradley Manning.
This is more honest than the US approach to seizing domains. Of course, Google's too big for that to happen to Google - watch what'd happen to you or I if we were to provide some of the sorts of data in a neatly indexed and searchable format that Google does.
'We find ourselves in a difficult situation: creating borders on the web
Like the one Google cooperated with in China. Of course, kz isn't quite so lucrative a market so it's easier not to respect local law.
raises important questions for us not only about network efficiency
The elephant in the room being the cloud, where you transfer your data half way around the world where previously a few centimetres would have been sufficient.
but also about user privacy
This one's too easy.
and free expression.
See top.
If we were to operate google.kz only via servers located inside Kazakhstan, we would be helping to create a fractured Internet.'
Sorry? Are your servers routers now? There's nothing I'd love more than a .notUS domain which guarantees that none of my endpoints are in that horribly snoopy country - perhaps kz could increase its visibility by making the only kz requirement that a kz server isn't in the US or one of the US de facto protectorates?
Mr. Coughran said that unfortunately, it would mean that Kazakh users would have a poorer experience as results would no longer be customized for the former Soviet republic.
And this coup de grace is as fallacious as, "She deserved it, she was wearing slutty clothing." No-one's forcing you to customise results according precisely as TLD - that's your choice. If one sovereign nation chooses to have particular rules for its TLD, that is its right. You might like to own the Internet and you sure do love poking your fingers in standards which have nothing to do with you... but it's not yours yet, so fuck off with your preachy bullshit.
Google does not attempt to claim ownership of any of these works
Google is asserting that it offers the same access to materials (subject to duty of care) and their raw digitised forms that it has obtained for itself.
__ Yes
__ No
Had Google acted philanthropically, providing free public access to the raw data as works are digitised, that would be fine. And it might still benefit financially out of having the sheer resources to provide some impressive hosting of the works for end users.
But it didn't. It played its usual "information for all - but more information for us than for you" game. Publishers groups etc saw it for what it was and we all lost out.
Just because something can be, it doesn't mean it is.
You might as well say, "Humans? Murderers." Are you a murderer?
Google, by trying to make money from old works through discriminatory deals with publishers and libraries, has attempted to monetise the public-domain and the nearly-public-domain on a massive scale. No longer is the path to public domain a path to moving ideas and their expression into the people's hands - it's now something that a sufficiently large corporation will try to wrestle control of for itself. The law thus has good reason to view old works as subject to all the usual competition and ownership rules as new works.
The people are as much to blame for their passivity, of course. We, through non-profits and libraries, should have been preparing to distribute old work on a massive scale - to make it clear that it belongs to the people and it is in our interests to hold onto it for our enjoyment. Instead, we lazily allow business to deal with it. We suffer the expected consequences.
Who do they put in those positions?
Folks who -- (perhaps), don't type like, this etc.? Management's more than knowing the arguments to grep.
"Contractor" and "consultant" are euphemisms for don't care and kickback. You want a good job, you hire an employee. You want an excellent job, you take on a (prospective) partner.
(1) No-one said "take away all the firearms and no one will hurt anyone else", but developed countries with fewer firearms have fewer murders. This doesn't mean taking away firearms in a small area from some people, it means restricting supply to everyone everywhere: the citizen, the police and the criminal;
(2) In average terms, Americans are unsophisticated (and it shows in your trigger-happy defensiveness - learn some English self-deprecation!). At least, in that lack of sophistication, there used to be an effective sense of principle. But all y'all have lost that too.
Can I be one of the ones who would not use this service but do understand why people would want to?
I'll still say they're idiots for contributing toward an always-available always-working world where one is so distracted by one's so important job that he will still waste hours either end through a theatrical security dance. There's only one sort to blame for the TSA: the man who chooses to fly.
Don't worry, your credibility has been ruined by admitting that you're engaged in the Wikipedia MMORPG.
99% of statistics, Internet, made up, etc.
In this case, the 99% figure so often quoted by Internet Libertarians is based on the cost of a fixed amount of gold over time.
Assuming that there's no other reason for gold to change in value.
No-one who hasn't been propagandised into thinking that guns are as essential as air wants to carry a gun, including criminals. In a country where most cops don't carry guns and most law-abiding citizens don't carry guns, most criminals won't want to carry guns either. Once you shake off that primitive Wild West mentality you'll find that most people simply don't want to create a life-or-death situation for themselves or others, whatever their aim (unless their aim is to kill someone - but that's unsurprisingly rare).
Guns might have been a good protection against the tyranny of government gone bad... a couple of hundred years ago. The government has since so far outpaced the citizen in physical strength that much more sophisticated disobedience is required. Stop waving around your sidearms like yahoos, America, and engage in that sophistication. For your own sake. Please.
Keep up. I linked you to what many have considered is a merciful technological solution to suffering.
Maybe your religion wants to "prevent death" in a terminally ill cripple. Not all of us are that simplistic.
LALALA I AM YOUNG death and dying doesn't matter to me!!!
Yet.
FCC says SAR not appropriate to compare.