More speech by one party doesn't cause less speech by the other.
Not muted by quantity, but muted by availability. To make a speech available, you need a way to have it reach your listeners. All mass broadcast systems, outside arguably the internet, are owned by companies who can be paid to NOT play opposing views or speeches. Censorship? No, the corps work with canidate A to put the price of broadcasting outside the reach of canidate B's budget. Although we have a right to free speech, we do not have a right to be heard.
If I have a pot of money, what business is it of the government whether I listen to how my financial planner tells me to spend it
Because elections are not suppose to be about money. Elections are suppose to be about voting for a canidate who we believe has the best message and will serve in our best interests. With enough money it would be possible for one canidate to effectively mute another. And some people may think that's money well spent. Ofcourse, these are the same types of people who think they should be able to buy away other peoples' freedoms. How very un-American.
If you want to stop this, then say there is a time period, say 60 days before each election
How long does it take a check to clear the bank? Seriously, what is a time limit suppose to do?
It's also a way to entertain people out of the eyes of everyone in Washington or discuss sensitive issues without "leaks" 15 minutes later.
Why, oh why should our president fear leaks? Be honest with yourself. What is it that he is doing that requires a level of secrecy that can only be attained from the confines of his luxureus Texas ranch? How many secrets do you walk around with that you constantly fear someone might find out about? I personally can't think of something I have done that the general public would have a problem with. Why should our president, an elected official, be any different? I think people who a secretive or sneaky are untrustworthy.
but you can't coordinate with the campaign while doing so.
Ummm, yeah. The key word "coordinate" is not a good idea since, like I said, there are limits to how much an INDIVIDUAL can GIVE to a presidental canidate or political party. As I said before, you can do alot as an INDIVIDUAL. Hear it again: INDIVIDUAL. Not an INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING ORDERS FROM A PRESIDENTAL CANIDATES CAMPAIGN OR POLITICAL PARTY TO SPEND AND/OR RECEIVE MONEY.
All your ideas are okay under the current campaign finance rules. You can go buy commercials, put posters up, write a blog, etc as and individual. But to give unlimited contributions directly to a presidental canidate or political party is wrong.
And to add to the parent posters idea, I think political parties, presidents, and its members should be barred from doing fund raisers for their party. Our president, when not hanging out at his Texas ranch (where he spends the majority of his time) spends quite a bit of his time running around to special fund raisers for the Republican party. And before you think this is a Bush bash: Clinton did it while he was president and STILL does it to this day.
A very good reason Microsoft won't use the "patent attack" against Linux is that it could bring back the whole monopoly issue for them again. Many of Microft's recent patent efforts, particulary those that are probably infringed upon by Linux, come after the the monopoly ruling. And as long as Linux never rises under a single large corporation, it makes Linux an extremely hard target to hit.
They don't hate us for our freedoms. They could give a f*** about our women running around half naked here in the U.S. They also don't care if we don't believe in their god. Yes, to them we will burn in their hell. Oh well.
What they DO hate us for is forcing our view of what freedom is on them and trying to change their lives to suite our view of what the world should be. For example, they prefer their women running around covered in a ton of cloth on a hot sunny day. Absurd to me or you but it makes them happy. They don't want us telling them that that is wrong since, to them, they believe it's right. Imagine, for a second, an alternate reality where the Taliban kicked the U.S. ass in an invasion on our soil and toppled the evil villian Bush. Shortly after the invasion they see our women are commiting sins by running around half naked. Feeling bad for us, and taking pity since they don't want these women to burn in hell, they install laws to help protect women by making them wear a blanket around all day.
People find it hard to believe that, somewhere out there, there are people that have a different belief or value system than them. Thats the real world.
Okay, we will use what you provided since I'm not finding much googling.
(2) Except when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security, timely notice of each such meeting shall be published in the Federal Register,
So, if we have these terrorists planning on destroying our phone system, the President can negate the rest of rule 2 by saying it's for national security. No complaints there. They have a legit claim to quickly hold a closed meeting. Otherwise, why the rush? Meetings can be planned out 15 days ahead because there really is no bomb ticking.
However, I also believe that sometimes emergency meetings of federal advisory committees may be needed without excessive lead time.
Sounds good. But like you noted, they don't need the lead time if it's a matter of national security. Terrorists fit that category every time according to our government. Can you give an example of another emergency that 15 days is too long, is not a matter of national security, and would require a special closed session with a bunch of companies and HLS?
I guess what I'm getting at is that our government is made up of the people, for the people. Holding special closed meetings and keeping the public in the dark of government affairs is not the ways of a democracy. Its more like a communist government. The government should WANT us to know what they are doing so we can see them doing their job.
Ultimately it comes down to this: they should have just requested amnesty from the 15-day rule and leave it at that. I don't think you'll get many arguments there. But requesting complete amnesty? No.
It's wierd that what you are saying runs counter to everything thats being put in the news, even by FACA and those who support this measure. Where did you glean this tidbit of important information that no one else has brought attention to? I'm not doubting you, but I sure am curious.
I do customer facing web development most of the time. I usually develop in a Windows environment. I'm not a super evangilist for Windows, but it does what I need it to do.
I generally work in a mixed environment with Unix and Windows. All development is done in Windows outside the occasional shell script. So I have seen the good and bad in both.
My Linux vs. Windows server experience is limited to.htaccess and case sensitive URL issues most of the time - so I was being genuinely sincere when I stated my not understanding.
I don't think your situation is a Linux versus Windows issue. Sounds more like a Microsoft IIS web server versus Apache web server issue. Apache is cross platform so we can exclude Linux from the picture.
That having been said, if all the questions I posed are answered with a "No" , then I think the Fedora 2 might not be a very good buisiness decision.
Yes, we live in a "Us versus Them" world. You are either with us, or a zealot.
If GoDaddy has a team of well skilled Linux programmers and admins on staff
Okay, we will go with the "if" and say they don't have these types of people on their staff.
shouldn't they be able to change the code to a form that will suit their needs?
Since we just figured that GoDaddy does not have these type of people on their staff we can easily answer this question with a "no".
And if that is true
We guessed "no", or false, in the last question. So the rest of the statement does not apply.
To become non-biased you have to look at things from both sides. The easiest way to do this is to answer your own questions in reverse from what you would believe to be true or correct. Otherwise, you might be labeled a zealot.
Popeye was a super hero. He had super powers (when he ate his spinach) and often saved Olive Oil or Sweet Pea from Bruto, making him a hero. And Popeye comics pre-date the first Superman (1929 versus 1938).
I never asked the government to do crap about pornography. Sure, there are a few select groups out there who want it censored, but they make of the vast minority. Most people want our government to stay out of our way and out of our business. Our current government is very non-Republican in its strong desire to be big brother. Hopefully we will get a real Republican as president in 2008, not this neo-con, and revert back to better days. Hell, I hope any republican representive this November who is pro-Bush gets beat by a Democrat just to keep the neo-cons out of politics and show the GOP that these types of people are not desired in office.
Some people who fit snugly into your statement wouldn't use a credit card for dining out
You can bet that 99.999% of people trust someone at some point. I remeber two Slashdotters going head-to-head about electronic spying and security. One Slashdotter took the on the paranoid "I have a defense against that" viewpoint while the other destroyed it with that little piece of information. Apparently, from some spy book he/she read, U.S. security agencies use this "outer" trust in order to infiltrate organizations and/or gather information about people or organizations. It is virtually impossible to prevent this due to how we operate in todays world.
It was a reply to this: "Couldn't they prove their case with their own, damn webserver logs?"
Okay, let us look at the analogy:
So a bank notices an employee key card is missing, and it was used to open the front door and the vault door. they even find a hundred thousand dollars missing from the bank, and a review of the security cameras reveals the offender. Should they bother to get a warrant to search their house, or is that just harrassment?
Now why have I, and others, called this a bad analogy? Well, in the analogy a known crime has occurred. If you would have read the article you would have read that it is unknown if a crime has actually occurred. Thus the analogy is bad.
But given the attention span of slashdot readers
I wouldn't snub Slashdotters since, unlike you, most read the article. Your arrogance is humorous in light of your ignorance.
That was a horrible analogy! In the posters analogy, the criminal is identified (via the camera) and a known law has been broken. In the Philly case, there is no known law that has been broken since it is unknown if the secure site is covered under public records. Second, there is only a "guess" that the newspapers gained access to the supposed restricted web site by receiving access by a coroner, if they accessed it at all. What they are looking for is proof a crime was committed without knowledge that one was committed. People, and companies, are protected by these types of "fishing trips" by the Bill of Rights, Section 4. Since you like analogies, heres one for you:
The government comes into your house. Why? It doesn't really matter, since you may have committed a crime. After searching your house, they notice that you had some MP3 songs on your computer. Even though these may have been ripped from legit copies you own, they haul you away for music piracy. You can prove your case later in court. Until then, sit in jail.
So true. I bought a copy of Sacred for my computer some months back from Walmart. The problems went as such:
1. First, it didn't like my virtual CD drive software. Even though the software was not running, it wouldn't let me start the game until the offending software was completely removed from my computer.
2. The game would not work because I had anti-virus software running. I had to manually turn off the anti-virus software. Since it was Norton AntiVirus, this was quite a chore. And since I always wanted the anti-virus software running on my computer on startup, I refused to uninstall the anti-virus software or keep it turned off.
3. It demanded that I had to load it from my DVD drive instead of the CD drive (and mind you that this is CD media, not a DVD). Unlike the DVD drive, I rarely use my CD drive so I figured just keeping the Sacred CD in the drive would save me having to load and unload the game disc whenever I wanted to play the game. Nope. Can't do that.
4. Booting the game took forever and dragged my system almost to a halt. Durign this time, my DVD drive made some sickening sounds as it was started and stopped multiple times.
5. After all the above, the game would still sometimes not run. I joined the voices of many others screaming at the company for producing this pile of steaming crap. All they could do was say they were working with the copy protection software company to resolve the problems. Waiting.....waiting....
Annoyed, I downloaded a "no-cd" hack. I can't play the game online, but I CAN play the game. Thats all I ever wanted to do. This hack solved all my problems. I didn't need the game CD in the drive anymore so I could play the game when I wanted to without hunting for the game CD. My anti-virus software could remain running. My virtual CD software could remain installed. The game started in seconds!
Ofcourse, Sacred will get an update in the very near future that will make the hack not work anymore and I will once again be stuck with a game I don't want to run because of its copy protection.:(
No java. This is from a long time Java programmer. Java is not a good language to start with. None of the.NET framework languages either. Whats that leave? A bunch of other bad choices for languages for starting programmers. And remember, we are not aiming for college students here. Need something for younger audience.
I would say a scripting language may be a better route. Problem is, the major ones are too major: Ruby, Python, and even Perl are too complicated to start with. Don't even go near Javascript, with its horrible prototype base which could completely ruin chances for future development into the world of OO programming.
Mozilla is honest. The figure they give is how many downloads they have counted . Now, how many of those downloads were from unique users? Thats a mystery there.
McDonalds has for years advertised they have served "millions" and later "billions" of people. Interestingly, they never spent the time to figure out that some of those billions served were sometimes the same people going back for more (sick bastards). But that fact doesn't matter since the truth is that McDonalds "served" that many people, not "served" that many unique people. And McDonalds is an advertising monster! They thought advertising the number served was a good idea. Probably 99.9% of Americans today know of that particular advertisement. That advertisement campaign was sooo good we all remember it! So, your idea that number counting in advertisements is not an effective means of promotion you are really, really wrong in that assumption.
Awesome! OSS needs more government funded projects to find bugs and security issues. All those "experts" who kept bitchin that noone would spend the time or money finding security holes in OSS should go shut the hell up and go back to writing brochures for Microsoft.
Linux and UNIX revenues are only two different numbers
Out of curiosity: why? They are, basically, the same thing. Many people usually talk about these systems by calling them "*nix".
However, tracking the decline of the traditional UNIX/RISC market is valuable information for many people.
Okay, you are mentioning an operating system and processor instruction set in the same line as if they are somehow competing technologies. First, many Unix flavours (and Linux) can work on RISC based chipsets. Sun, for example, has sold a version of Solaris for x86 platforms (RISC based) for years. Some Unix flavours have been on that platform for much longer.
I was going by the Register article (dated on the 20th). The other link, down in the middle, does have a date showing a request to Yahoo dated June of last year. Thanks for pointing that out. Without the Danish toon reasoning, it only makes the whole issue even more questionable.
Slashdot Mirror
More speech by one party doesn't cause less speech by the other.
Not muted by quantity, but muted by availability. To make a speech available, you need a way to have it reach your listeners. All mass broadcast systems, outside arguably the internet, are owned by companies who can be paid to NOT play opposing views or speeches. Censorship? No, the corps work with canidate A to put the price of broadcasting outside the reach of canidate B's budget. Although we have a right to free speech, we do not have a right to be heard.
If I have a pot of money, what business is it of the government whether I listen to how my financial planner tells me to spend it
Because elections are not suppose to be about money. Elections are suppose to be about voting for a canidate who we believe has the best message and will serve in our best interests. With enough money it would be possible for one canidate to effectively mute another. And some people may think that's money well spent. Ofcourse, these are the same types of people who think they should be able to buy away other peoples' freedoms. How very un-American.
If you want to stop this, then say there is a time period, say 60 days before each election
How long does it take a check to clear the bank? Seriously, what is a time limit suppose to do?
It's also a way to entertain people out of the eyes of everyone in Washington or discuss sensitive issues without "leaks" 15 minutes later.
Why, oh why should our president fear leaks? Be honest with yourself. What is it that he is doing that requires a level of secrecy that can only be attained from the confines of his luxureus Texas ranch? How many secrets do you walk around with that you constantly fear someone might find out about? I personally can't think of something I have done that the general public would have a problem with. Why should our president, an elected official, be any different? I think people who a secretive or sneaky are untrustworthy.
but you can't coordinate with the campaign while doing so.
Ummm, yeah. The key word "coordinate" is not a good idea since, like I said, there are limits to how much an INDIVIDUAL can GIVE to a presidental canidate or political party. As I said before, you can do alot as an INDIVIDUAL. Hear it again: INDIVIDUAL. Not an INDIVIDUAL RECEIVING ORDERS FROM A PRESIDENTAL CANIDATES CAMPAIGN OR POLITICAL PARTY TO SPEND AND/OR RECEIVE MONEY.
All your ideas are okay under the current campaign finance rules. You can go buy commercials, put posters up, write a blog, etc as and individual. But to give unlimited contributions directly to a presidental canidate or political party is wrong.
And to add to the parent posters idea, I think political parties, presidents, and its members should be barred from doing fund raisers for their party. Our president, when not hanging out at his Texas ranch (where he spends the majority of his time) spends quite a bit of his time running around to special fund raisers for the Republican party. And before you think this is a Bush bash: Clinton did it while he was president and STILL does it to this day.
A very good reason Microsoft won't use the "patent attack" against Linux is that it could bring back the whole monopoly issue for them again. Many of Microft's recent patent efforts, particulary those that are probably infringed upon by Linux, come after the the monopoly ruling. And as long as Linux never rises under a single large corporation, it makes Linux an extremely hard target to hit.
They don't hate us for our freedoms. They could give a f*** about our women running around half naked here in the U.S. They also don't care if we don't believe in their god. Yes, to them we will burn in their hell. Oh well.
What they DO hate us for is forcing our view of what freedom is on them and trying to change their lives to suite our view of what the world should be. For example, they prefer their women running around covered in a ton of cloth on a hot sunny day. Absurd to me or you but it makes them happy. They don't want us telling them that that is wrong since, to them, they believe it's right. Imagine, for a second, an alternate reality where the Taliban kicked the U.S. ass in an invasion on our soil and toppled the evil villian Bush. Shortly after the invasion they see our women are commiting sins by running around half naked. Feeling bad for us, and taking pity since they don't want these women to burn in hell, they install laws to help protect women by making them wear a blanket around all day.
People find it hard to believe that, somewhere out there, there are people that have a different belief or value system than them. Thats the real world.
Okay, we will use what you provided since I'm not finding much googling.
(2) Except when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security, timely
notice of each such meeting shall be published in the Federal Register,
So, if we have these terrorists planning on destroying our phone system, the President can negate the rest of rule 2 by saying it's for national security. No complaints there. They have a legit claim to quickly hold a closed meeting. Otherwise, why the rush? Meetings can be planned out 15 days ahead because there really is no bomb ticking.
However, I also believe that sometimes emergency meetings of federal advisory committees may be needed without excessive lead time.
Sounds good. But like you noted, they don't need the lead time if it's a matter of national security. Terrorists fit that category every time according to our government. Can you give an example of another emergency that 15 days is too long, is not a matter of national security, and would require a special closed session with a bunch of companies and HLS?
I guess what I'm getting at is that our government is made up of the people, for the people. Holding special closed meetings and keeping the public in the dark of government affairs is not the ways of a democracy. Its more like a communist government. The government should WANT us to know what they are doing so we can see them doing their job.
Ultimately it comes down to this: they should have just requested amnesty from the 15-day rule and leave it at that. I don't think you'll get many arguments there. But requesting complete amnesty? No.
It's wierd that what you are saying runs counter to everything thats being put in the news, even by FACA and those who support this measure. Where did you glean this tidbit of important information that no one else has brought attention to? I'm not doubting you, but I sure am curious.
I do customer facing web development most of the time. I usually develop in a Windows environment. I'm not a super evangilist for Windows, but it does what I need it to do.
.htaccess and case sensitive URL issues most of the time - so I was being genuinely sincere when I stated my not understanding.
I generally work in a mixed environment with Unix and Windows. All development is done in Windows outside the occasional shell script. So I have seen the good and bad in both.
My Linux vs. Windows server experience is limited to
I don't think your situation is a Linux versus Windows issue. Sounds more like a Microsoft IIS web server versus Apache web server issue. Apache is cross platform so we can exclude Linux from the picture.
That having been said, if all the questions I posed are answered with a "No" , then I think the Fedora 2 might not be a very good buisiness decision.
??.
Linux zealots
Yes, we live in a "Us versus Them" world. You are either with us, or a zealot.
If GoDaddy has a team of well skilled Linux programmers and admins on staff
Okay, we will go with the "if" and say they don't have these types of people on their staff.
shouldn't they be able to change the code to a form that will suit their needs?
Since we just figured that GoDaddy does not have these type of people on their staff we can easily answer this question with a "no".
And if that is true
We guessed "no", or false, in the last question. So the rest of the statement does not apply.
To become non-biased you have to look at things from both sides. The easiest way to do this is to answer your own questions in reverse from what you would believe to be true or correct. Otherwise, you might be labeled a zealot.
Popeye was a super hero. He had super powers (when he ate his spinach) and often saved Olive Oil or Sweet Pea from Bruto, making him a hero. And Popeye comics pre-date the first Superman (1929 versus 1938).
I never asked the government to do crap about pornography. Sure, there are a few select groups out there who want it censored, but they make of the vast minority. Most people want our government to stay out of our way and out of our business. Our current government is very non-Republican in its strong desire to be big brother. Hopefully we will get a real Republican as president in 2008, not this neo-con, and revert back to better days. Hell, I hope any republican representive this November who is pro-Bush gets beat by a Democrat just to keep the neo-cons out of politics and show the GOP that these types of people are not desired in office.
Some people who fit snugly into your statement wouldn't use a credit card for dining out
You can bet that 99.999% of people trust someone at some point. I remeber two Slashdotters going head-to-head about electronic spying and security. One Slashdotter took the on the paranoid "I have a defense against that" viewpoint while the other destroyed it with that little piece of information. Apparently, from some spy book he/she read, U.S. security agencies use this "outer" trust in order to infiltrate organizations and/or gather information about people or organizations. It is virtually impossible to prevent this due to how we operate in todays world.
It was a reply to this: "Couldn't they prove their case with their own, damn webserver logs?"
Okay, let us look at the analogy:
So a bank notices an employee key card is missing, and it was used to open the front door and the vault door. they even find a hundred thousand dollars missing from the bank, and a review of the security cameras reveals the offender. Should they bother to get a warrant to search their house, or is that just harrassment?
Now why have I, and others, called this a bad analogy? Well, in the analogy a known crime has occurred. If you would have read the article you would have read that it is unknown if a crime has actually occurred. Thus the analogy is bad.
But given the attention span of slashdot readers
I wouldn't snub Slashdotters since, unlike you, most read the article. Your arrogance is humorous in light of your ignorance.
Your analogy was pretty good.
That was a horrible analogy! In the posters analogy, the criminal is identified (via the camera) and a known law has been broken. In the Philly case, there is no known law that has been broken since it is unknown if the secure site is covered under public records. Second, there is only a "guess" that the newspapers gained access to the supposed restricted web site by receiving access by a coroner, if they accessed it at all. What they are looking for is proof a crime was committed without knowledge that one was committed. People, and companies, are protected by these types of "fishing trips" by the Bill of Rights, Section 4. Since you like analogies, heres one for you:
The government comes into your house. Why? It doesn't really matter, since you may have committed a crime. After searching your house, they notice that you had some MP3 songs on your computer. Even though these may have been ripped from legit copies you own, they haul you away for music piracy. You can prove your case later in court. Until then, sit in jail.
So true. I bought a copy of Sacred for my computer some months back from Walmart. The problems went as such:
:(
1. First, it didn't like my virtual CD drive software. Even though the software was not running, it wouldn't let me start the game until the offending software was completely removed from my computer.
2. The game would not work because I had anti-virus software running. I had to manually turn off the anti-virus software. Since it was Norton AntiVirus, this was quite a chore. And since I always wanted the anti-virus software running on my computer on startup, I refused to uninstall the anti-virus software or keep it turned off.
3. It demanded that I had to load it from my DVD drive instead of the CD drive (and mind you that this is CD media, not a DVD). Unlike the DVD drive, I rarely use my CD drive so I figured just keeping the Sacred CD in the drive would save me having to load and unload the game disc whenever I wanted to play the game. Nope. Can't do that.
4. Booting the game took forever and dragged my system almost to a halt. Durign this time, my DVD drive made some sickening sounds as it was started and stopped multiple times.
5. After all the above, the game would still sometimes not run. I joined the voices of many others screaming at the company for producing this pile of steaming crap. All they could do was say they were working with the copy protection software company to resolve the problems. Waiting.....waiting....
Annoyed, I downloaded a "no-cd" hack. I can't play the game online, but I CAN play the game. Thats all I ever wanted to do. This hack solved all my problems. I didn't need the game CD in the drive anymore so I could play the game when I wanted to without hunting for the game CD. My anti-virus software could remain running. My virtual CD software could remain installed. The game started in seconds!
Ofcourse, Sacred will get an update in the very near future that will make the hack not work anymore and I will once again be stuck with a game I don't want to run because of its copy protection.
Well, if Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and various reality/game shows are any indication, I'd say we're going downhill fast...
I dunno. If women are evolving to look more like Britney Spears, is that bad?
No java. This is from a long time Java programmer. Java is not a good language to start with. None of the .NET framework languages either. Whats that leave? A bunch of other bad choices for languages for starting programmers. And remember, we are not aiming for college students here. Need something for younger audience.
I would say a scripting language may be a better route. Problem is, the major ones are too major: Ruby, Python, and even Perl are too complicated to start with. Don't even go near Javascript, with its horrible prototype base which could completely ruin chances for future development into the world of OO programming.
There's one crucial difference: honesty.
Mozilla is honest. The figure they give is how many downloads they have counted . Now, how many of those downloads were from unique users? Thats a mystery there.
McDonalds has for years advertised they have served "millions" and later "billions" of people. Interestingly, they never spent the time to figure out that some of those billions served were sometimes the same people going back for more (sick bastards). But that fact doesn't matter since the truth is that McDonalds "served" that many people, not "served" that many unique people. And McDonalds is an advertising monster! They thought advertising the number served was a good idea. Probably 99.9% of Americans today know of that particular advertisement. That advertisement campaign was sooo good we all remember it! So, your idea that number counting in advertisements is not an effective means of promotion you are really, really wrong in that assumption.
Awesome! OSS needs more government funded projects to find bugs and security issues. All those "experts" who kept bitchin that noone would spend the time or money finding security holes in OSS should go shut the hell up and go back to writing brochures for Microsoft.
Yeah, Mono is a nice project. Theres is also a Java .NET framework that can be used with it (IKVM).
Linux and UNIX revenues are only two different numbers
Out of curiosity: why? They are, basically, the same thing. Many people usually talk about these systems by calling them "*nix".
However, tracking the decline of the traditional UNIX/RISC market is valuable information for many people.
Okay, you are mentioning an operating system and processor instruction set in the same line as if they are somehow competing technologies. First, many Unix flavours (and Linux) can work on RISC based chipsets. Sun, for example, has sold a version of Solaris for x86 platforms (RISC based) for years. Some Unix flavours have been on that platform for much longer.
I was going by the Register article (dated on the 20th). The other link, down in the middle, does have a date showing a request to Yahoo dated June of last year. Thanks for pointing that out. Without the Danish toon reasoning, it only makes the whole issue even more questionable.
The thing is, I can't see how this can be positive for Yahoo. I can only guess that this is in response to the whole Danish cartoon fiasko.