can be found on Canoe.ca. Particularly the "Bell Canada" ads where an image with a transparent background, about 100 X 100, slowly "falls" down the screen over top of the goddamn text. It is even more annoying as it falls about about the same rate that I read, such that I'm always trying to read around it.
Is it successful? God, no. Now I'll open up a link on Canoe, throw it in the background for 5 - 10 seconds while I read another page so that the ad is gone by the time I read the article.
Stop pestering us with ads dammit. I change the channels in between commercials (or mute it and read during that time). I close my eyes when I pee in public bathrooms because that damn Zoom media is everywhere. I throw fliers in the garbage. I do not read billboards along the street as I am driving because I'm driving. My attention is on the street. Don't take that to mean that you should buy the damn pavement and stick your logos there, because I'll look up into the sky to spite you. I ignore banner ads, popup ads, junk email, product placements, inserts, fliers, labels, branding, newspaper ads, magazine ads, advertising rags that try to pass themselves off as magazines, "reviews" which are really promotions, and any other forms of advertising I can possibly think of.
When I need or want your product, I'll research it. Until then, leave me alone.
Ah, I'd missed that one. I sure hope there's not a "Clarified Converted Classified Coordinating Artistic License" hidden away somewhere.
This is the problem you get when everyone and their mother release their own licenses and differing versions of each. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out how to get my XFree86 4.0.1 and the nvidia drives to work together nicely =)
Actually, the Artistic License is considered to be non-free by FSF, because it is "too vague" and some passages "are too clever for their own good".
Other than that, the first 4 are considered GPL compatible (modified BSD) and the last 5 are non-GPL compatible, but still considered free software licenses.
Interestingly enough, your most valid point is in your.sig:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin.
What "American Way" does Mr. Allchin refer to? He is quite obviously trying to give up the liberty of what the user can do with the purchased product in order to gain some safety from the competing markets.
Actually, I'm more convinced that they knew he wasn't dead and that the meeting to create the patent went along these lines:
Johnson - "Well, sir, there actually is prior art. And he's not dead."
CEO - "What? He? Who?"
Johnson - "Well, there's this thing called Archie... by a guy named Alan Emtage..."
CEO - "A guy? But there's no patent, right? And he's just one man, not a company, right?"
Johnson (shuffling through papers) - "Um, right on both accounts, sir."
CEO -"Then patent the fucking thing. If he yaps, we'll take it to court. We've got lots of money, he's got none. We'll litigate him to death. He can't afford it, he gives up, we get the benefits."
Johnson (sighing) - "Right again, sir."
CEO - "Now, any other unpatented ideas we can steal... er, 'discover'?"
I had never paid any attention to the BSD section until this came up. Looking at it, I went back and read the previous news & editorials from TuCows.
It's my belief they should have called the section "BSD sucks, and here's why."
I read *every* article they posted, and was hard pressed to find *one* good statement about BSD. Not one! The best I could find was along the lines of "Yes, A is good, but it comes with B, and that sucks, so go use Linux instead".
That's not *BSD infighting. It's *TuCows sucking. If I were a BSD user (which I used to be), I sure wouldn't frequent that site. Even their "here's something cool for BSD" ends up with "but it still sucks".
TuCows seemed to be doing a better job at trying to scare away new users than anything else. Supporting existing users, they definitely didn't even approach it with their news & editorials section.
How can you trust a group that insults its audience and its audience's product all the time?
I'm sorry that you think it is a misrepresentation of the story. I'll admit it's very hard to accurately report what the combined news "scoops" on that site report, as there are at least 5 that deal with Keanu's injury, and most of them conflict. The best representation would be that Coming Attractions is confused about it.
However, the quote I mentioned about Keanu having "tenderness" and "had his foot wrapped" is from the publicist. The difference between having a cast and having it wrapped is subtle.
I agree it's odd that the publicist says that the photos are bogus. However, there are 3 photos that distinctly show his cast (or his wrap). While Photoshop kiddies are really good at what they do, I think it would be very hard to accurately alter 3 photos at 3 different angles. Here I'm counting only the photos I've seen, not the sixteen photos reported by Splash news (search for Keanu), all at various angles.
Lastly, why would the publicist lie? Well, Jet Li has pulled out. Michelle Yeoh has pulled out. Carrie Moss is injured. The SAG strike might delay the production. With all that surrounding the movie already, why wouldn't he lie, especially if it's something that was only wrapped (wearing the walking cast) for a few days, and didn't really slow him down? I don't think that either Keanu or his publicist want people watching The Matrix 2 and 3 trying to find the scenes where he's wearing a cast.
The other possibility is that the photos aren't faked (that would be a major effort), but dated wrong. I'll admit I find it odd that Keanu has a beard while shooting The Matrix - I wouldn't have pegged Neo as a facial hair kind of guy.
There's no "spin" involved here - it's all subjective interpretation as there are too fe (or too many) facts to go on. Your own interpretation of it is "spin" in it's own way - you dismiss it completely as a rumor, when there is no proof to that either.
From the Coming Attractions page...
Carrie-Anne Moss has suffered a sprained knee while training for the Matrix sequels.
...
Keanu Reeves has sustained a serious injury to his left foot while training for the Matrix sequels.
...
Our first alert came from a reader of yesterday's London Sun newspaper who read a story and saw a picture showing Reeves with his foot in plaster
...
CA was told Reeves did complain about some "tenderness" that he felt around his ankle region, and at the time his ankle was wrapped and later examined by a doctor
...
We were hoping to have some final answers today, but now we just more questions. Stay tuned for more as we uncover it.
The website you referred to does mention Carrie Moss' injury (Jan 9th). It was a London reader that gave them their first tip, confirmed by a website reading a Swedish newspaper. Welcome to the power of the Internet. There are also 3 other photos of him with the cast at Coming Attractions. The publicist only denied that it was broken, and specifically mentioned that Keanu complained of tenderness, and that it was wrapped. It's entirely likely that, as the publicist said, it's not a serious injury, but that it was wrapped in that walking cast to prevent further injury.
Lastly, the article quoted above is Canadian, and it is sourcing the New York Daily News.
The simplest explanation seems to be that Carrie Moss did suffer an injury, as reported, and that Keanu injured his foot but it wasn't as serious as originally stated.
To be honest, it's more likely because of the two party system in the U.S. It divides the country into two distinct groups, and neither party trusts the other.
In Canada, we're friendlier and more trusting.
Different than copyrighted music?
on
Nazis on Napster
·
· Score: 1
One would hope that if the government holds Napster responsible for any copyrighted music being transferred by their system, they would also be responsible for any hate literature as well.
You see, this is just another excuse for the makers of Tomb Raider to keep Laura Croft in skimpy outfits...
"Well, we'd like to cloth her more, but it's just so hard to simulate!"
I didn't say anything last time an election article was posted (in the who-else-is-sick-of-this dept), but this one (in the will-this-never-end dept) sent me over the edge.
What exactly are you sick of? What do you want to end? Democracy? Don't you want to make *goddamn sure* that the people's voice was heard *exactly as they meant it to be*? Are you sick of voting? I'm sure there's a young, poor single mother out there who didn't have time to vote. Maybe you could vote for her. Maybe you could give your vote to one of the *OVER A BILLION PEOPLE IN THE REST OF THE WORLD WHO DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE*.
It is things like this that make people sick of Americans. You have a system that many people in the world would like to have, but not only do you not enjoy it, you're actually "sick of it".
This is a terrific post. You've hit the nail on the head from what I can see.
I would also add the following:
1) An article has to be "signed off" to be refused too. I don't like the idea that the editor who looks at a submission might find it boring, while another finds it interesting. In other words, 2 editors to post, 2 to refuse.
2) Actually *print* a retraction. Most noticeable is the RedHat 7 is Infested With Bugs article, which claimed that RH7 had 2500 bugs. The story was not updated when proved wrong, nor was a retraction found in the following Slashbacks: here, here and here. The claim "they should read all the comments too" is an invalid one as if that were the case, I wouldn't need an article title or summary. In addition, how many sites get the slashdot headers and put them into their site? A quick peek of "redhat 7 is infested with bugs" as a title could possibly scare someone (albeit a naive someone) away from it. This is as bad as Kent Brockman's "The President DIED..... his hair today." or "A popular soft drink has been found to be deadly! We won't tell you which one till 6 o'clock!"
In summation, don't be afraid to improve. It's a great site, there's lots of viewers, but they won't stay around if the site stagnates.
Regulating internet content is akin to limiting what content is publishable in a newspaper, and no one that I know would stand for that.
I'm not too sure about this. First, web sites are not all "news" sites. In some cases, they are entertainment sites. Entertainment is restricted to a certain degree (rating systems in movies, eg.). Second, I don't agree that newspapers have an unlimited range. If the newspaper decided to run a full page ad of ultra hard core pornography, I would assume that a local constabulary would step in. We (North America) do not live in a censorship-free society.
By the way, the very nature of society allows me, as an individual, a say in what other people do. It protects my individual rights. As an example, it is illegal to publish or distribute hate crime literature, or Holocaust denying literature. According to the "unregulated content" rule, this should be allowed, but our society (for me, Canada) has determined that we don't want this in our country, as it is an assault on our values and standards. As an OSS advocate (can't remember which one) put it, "Your right to swing your fist around ends where my face begins".
I agree with your idealogy that books should be completely uncesored. However, practically speaking, this just isn't the case. Virtually all media is censored in one form or another. If it bothers you to think that the government would censor these sources, look at it instead that they are self-censoring, and would not publish material that would cause them to lose business (media companies are notorious for profit margins). As a consumer, if my local newspaper started running full hard core pornography, I'd probably stop buying it (well, except for the odd one).
When I first read this comment, I thought "that's impossible, they must have meant lack of organization". But the article sure doesn't seem that way...
The Internet, as we know it, can be seen as a new nation being formed. At first, in its earliest stages, it is chaotic, incoherent, and uncontrollable. As it gets larger, and more people join, the need for regulation will arise. Don't be too proud of this invention you've created - it will one day be subjected to the same regulatory world that we all live in.
There can be no question that the Internet will soon be regulated. All forms of media as we know it, in virtually all countries in the world, are regulated in one form or another. If tomorrow we woke up and books were gone, replaced by the Internet, you can be sure that it would be regulated pretty damn fast.
In any sufficiently large group of people, there is the need for regulation to promote order and protect the rights of the people in the group. In a very large group, there is a need for representation, as not all individuals can be directly involved in the regulation or decision making. Although this might not lead to one single entity (depending on how you define entity - it is definitely foreseeable that it will be one organization), it definitely will occur.
The phenomenon of the Internet is not larger than the people of the world. As more people use it, more people will want a say in what is on it. I don't see how that can be questioned.
How does this ruling affect me, as a Canadian? How does it affect an Australian? A Brit? A Norwegian? A Cuban? Can this ruling in any way impact on our rights to display the DeCSS code or distribute it outside of the United States? What are the repercussions if it can or cannot? I don't want to think that the United States is now creating rulings that all people of the world must follow where the Internet is concerned.
I guess the difference is the "half-full, half-empty" argument. My point is that "mostly sovereign" supports my argument - for years it seemed unlikely to have such a large population give up portions of its rights or sovereignty to such a large body. In 1000 AD, I'm sure the idea of 1 billion people under one common rule, partial or otherwise, might have seemed impossible, yet our world currently comprises 2 such nations (India and China). It is definitely believable that at some point in the future, 6 billion people could be subdivided into "mostly sovereign" states with some power being given to one central body.
The difference between "wholly sovereign" and "mostly sovereign" is very small indeed, especially in a world where wars are fought at the banks and in the media, not with muskets and swords.
I still stick to the theory that if enough support were given to a state, it could secede from the US without bloodshed. The country might want some sort of compensation for money invested into the province (which it would have a hard time arguing if the province is a net lender in taxes).
Ask yourself: What would happen if Texas decided to become wholly sovereign? Would the US really call in the army? At what point would they resort to physical force?
Being from Canada, this is a very real situation, as the possibility of the secession of Quebec is very possible. This is very similar to a wholly sovereign state choosing to relinquish some power to a federal body, but reserving the right to withdraw it, the same as a member nation of the WTO.
Isn't that pretty much what the Americans did in their "anti-Communism" campaign in the 50s on through? Trying to force their beliefs (communism is bad) on other countries?
the point remains that states aren't merely bodies of administrative convenience -- they're their own sovereigns, giving up only enumerated powers to a Federal government
So how, exactly, does that differ from the WTO?
Also, the methods that were used during the Civil War would not be used today without *much* politicking first.
I only use the United States as an example since the majority of readers are American. Other countries - Canada, China, and others - are more heavy handed and controlling than the USA. This is mostly a constitutional feature - the town/city is recognized as a political body, unlike Canada. However, your very argument also supports my theory rather than defeats it: at one point, the United States was not united. Yet now all the states are under one constitution. Although there are differences from region to region (whether state or town), there is still one governing piece of paper. There is one Supreme Court. There is one leader of the country. Although elected by the people, it is his veto on the bill. (This is where the argument for greater and freer access to the Internet could allow for referendums on each issue)
If we follow your argument, we can further subdivide the city into regions (for example, my home town has 6 wards, and two councillors are elected from each ward). Within wards there are neighbourhoods, and within neighbourhoods streets, and homes/shops, then the individual. Although these are not officially recognized as governing bodies in the US (except for the individual), each has a certain realm of control. For example, it is the neighbourhoods decision to implement a Neighbourhood Watch. It is the homeowner's decision to decorate in blue or brown. It is individual's decision to major in English or Physics. If you want to get really crazy, you can argue that it is the cells responsibility to govern energy expenditure within the body.
The reason the above argument can be extended to that point is that the governmental and constitutional model the US follows is not implemented around the world. As I already mentioned, although Canadian cities are given certain powers by the Municipal Acts of various provinces, they are not political bodies recognized by the Constitution. As such, the United States is already one level deeper than Canada. Other countries have harsher rulings on individual freedoms which extends it to the maximum.
The point of the above is to illustrate that we can always point to an example of a smaller unit and say that "it has governing abilities, so the argument that the larger unit has some control is negated to some extent". I didn't suggest complete totalitarian control was exerted by the country, only that a large, coordinated, governing body was established.
What is a country but a cartel of groups (states/provinces/etc.) that agree on policy and enforce it? An organization does not need military power to establish itself as a governing body.
Let's assume that Canada, part of the WTO, does not comply to the will of the WTO. Assume this gets bad enough that action must be taken. Economic sanctions are placed on that country by the other participating countries. For Canada to remain in good economic health, it must comply. Yes, the argument is there that a country, if stubborn enough, can take it to the very end and be completely cut off. This is, really, not that different than the Quebec separation issue. If Quebec did choose to separate from Canada (a clear majority on a clear question), would the federal government intervene with physical force? Although that remains to be seen, most probably not. I could see a similar situation arising in the States if 67% of a state voted to separate.
Hence we can look at states as independent participants in a cartel, called a country, and that, with enough support, they could separate from, and then follow their own laws. This is not far off the WTO's purpose at all, which is one of the reasons why it is protested so much.
I didn't intend to provide maxims, only to illustrate similarities. (I could talk about NATO as well, and point out that the US *did* intervene with physical force when Iraq threatened to take away access to its oil reserves in Kuwait, essentially establishing itself as the guardian of international behaviour, which is one step removed from being an approved guardian, as no country really has the power to face the US down in its current state, but I think this post is long enough).
> now it seems that Yahoo! is supposed to police the entire world.
I agree this seems silly for a private company - however, the presumption "it's the world, it's so big, how can we police it all, that's just silly" doesn't hold water for me.
I'm sure at some point someone saw a city, province (or state), country, continent, as too large of an area to manage. Yet here the USA today, with over 230 million people, all governed under one Constitution. Organizations such as the WTO hold certain restrictions on participating countries - well over a billion people.
It's the same adage as I use for science - never say that something is impossible, never say that something is solved, because someone will prove you wrong. In this case, I'm sure at some point, globalization will push us towards a larger and larger single organization, with one basic set of rules, with slight regional variations.
Slashdot Mirror
can be found on Canoe.ca. Particularly the "Bell Canada" ads where an image with a transparent background, about 100 X 100, slowly "falls" down the screen over top of the goddamn text. It is even more annoying as it falls about about the same rate that I read, such that I'm always trying to read around it.
Is it successful? God, no. Now I'll open up a link on Canoe, throw it in the background for 5 - 10 seconds while I read another page so that the ad is gone by the time I read the article.
Stop pestering us with ads dammit. I change the channels in between commercials (or mute it and read during that time). I close my eyes when I pee in public bathrooms because that damn Zoom media is everywhere. I throw fliers in the garbage. I do not read billboards along the street as I am driving because I'm driving. My attention is on the street. Don't take that to mean that you should buy the damn pavement and stick your logos there, because I'll look up into the sky to spite you. I ignore banner ads, popup ads, junk email, product placements, inserts, fliers, labels, branding, newspaper ads, magazine ads, advertising rags that try to pass themselves off as magazines, "reviews" which are really promotions, and any other forms of advertising I can possibly think of.
When I need or want your product, I'll research it. Until then, leave me alone.
Ah, I'd missed that one. I sure hope there's not a "Clarified Converted Classified Coordinating Artistic License" hidden away somewhere.
This is the problem you get when everyone and their mother release their own licenses and differing versions of each. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out how to get my XFree86 4.0.1 and the nvidia drives to work together nicely =)
Actually, the Artistic License is considered to be non-free by FSF, because it is "too vague" and some passages "are too clever for their own good".
Other than that, the first 4 are considered GPL compatible (modified BSD) and the last 5 are non-GPL compatible, but still considered free software licenses.
Just wanted to clear that up =)
Interestingly enough, your most valid point is in your .sig:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin.
What "American Way" does Mr. Allchin refer to? He is quite obviously trying to give up the liberty of what the user can do with the purchased product in order to gain some safety from the competing markets.
I guess Mr. Allchin deserves neither.
A few more ...
6. The atom
7. The wave-particle duality of light
8. E=mc^2
9. Thought
10. God
Actually, I'm more convinced that they knew he wasn't dead and that the meeting to create the patent went along these lines:
... by a guy named Alan Emtage..."
... er, 'discover'?"
Johnson - "Well, sir, there actually is prior art. And he's not dead."
CEO - "What? He? Who?"
Johnson - "Well, there's this thing called Archie
CEO - "A guy? But there's no patent, right? And he's just one man, not a company, right?"
Johnson (shuffling through papers) - "Um, right on both accounts, sir."
CEO -"Then patent the fucking thing. If he yaps, we'll take it to court. We've got lots of money, he's got none. We'll litigate him to death. He can't afford it, he gives up, we get the benefits."
Johnson (sighing) - "Right again, sir."
CEO - "Now, any other unpatented ideas we can steal
I had never paid any attention to the BSD section until this came up. Looking at it, I went back and read the previous news & editorials from TuCows.
It's my belief they should have called the section "BSD sucks, and here's why."
I read *every* article they posted, and was hard pressed to find *one* good statement about BSD. Not one! The best I could find was along the lines of "Yes, A is good, but it comes with B, and that sucks, so go use Linux instead".
That's not *BSD infighting. It's *TuCows sucking. If I were a BSD user (which I used to be), I sure wouldn't frequent that site. Even their "here's something cool for BSD" ends up with "but it still sucks".
TuCows seemed to be doing a better job at trying to scare away new users than anything else. Supporting existing users, they definitely didn't even approach it with their news & editorials section.
How can you trust a group that insults its audience and its audience's product all the time?
I'm sorry that you think it is a misrepresentation of the story. I'll admit it's very hard to accurately report what the combined news "scoops" on that site report, as there are at least 5 that deal with Keanu's injury, and most of them conflict. The best representation would be that Coming Attractions is confused about it.
However, the quote I mentioned about Keanu having "tenderness" and "had his foot wrapped" is from the publicist. The difference between having a cast and having it wrapped is subtle.
I agree it's odd that the publicist says that the photos are bogus. However, there are 3 photos that distinctly show his cast (or his wrap). While Photoshop kiddies are really good at what they do, I think it would be very hard to accurately alter 3 photos at 3 different angles. Here I'm counting only the photos I've seen, not the sixteen photos reported by Splash news (search for Keanu), all at various angles.
Lastly, why would the publicist lie? Well, Jet Li has pulled out. Michelle Yeoh has pulled out. Carrie Moss is injured. The SAG strike might delay the production. With all that surrounding the movie already, why wouldn't he lie, especially if it's something that was only wrapped (wearing the walking cast) for a few days, and didn't really slow him down? I don't think that either Keanu or his publicist want people watching The Matrix 2 and 3 trying to find the scenes where he's wearing a cast.
The other possibility is that the photos aren't faked (that would be a major effort), but dated wrong. I'll admit I find it odd that Keanu has a beard while shooting The Matrix - I wouldn't have pegged Neo as a facial hair kind of guy.
There's no "spin" involved here - it's all subjective interpretation as there are too fe (or too many) facts to go on. Your own interpretation of it is "spin" in it's own way - you dismiss it completely as a rumor, when there is no proof to that either.
From the Coming Attractions page ...
Carrie-Anne Moss has suffered a sprained knee while training for the Matrix sequels.
...
Keanu Reeves has sustained a serious injury to his left foot while training for the Matrix sequels.
...
Our first alert came from a reader of yesterday's London Sun newspaper who read a story and saw a picture showing Reeves with his foot in plaster
...
CA was told Reeves did complain about some "tenderness" that he felt around his ankle region, and at the time his ankle was wrapped and later examined by a doctor
...
We were hoping to have some final answers today, but now we just more questions. Stay tuned for more as we uncover it.
The website you referred to does mention Carrie Moss' injury (Jan 9th). It was a London reader that gave them their first tip, confirmed by a website reading a Swedish newspaper. Welcome to the power of the Internet. There are also 3 other photos of him with the cast at Coming Attractions. The publicist only denied that it was broken, and specifically mentioned that Keanu complained of tenderness, and that it was wrapped. It's entirely likely that, as the publicist said, it's not a serious injury, but that it was wrapped in that walking cast to prevent further injury.
Lastly, the article quoted above is Canadian, and it is sourcing the New York Daily News.
The simplest explanation seems to be that Carrie Moss did suffer an injury, as reported, and that Keanu injured his foot but it wasn't as serious as originally stated.
To be honest, it's more likely because of the two party system in the U.S. It divides the country into two distinct groups, and neither party trusts the other.
In Canada, we're friendlier and more trusting.
One would hope that if the government holds Napster responsible for any copyrighted music being transferred by their system, they would also be responsible for any hate literature as well.
The latter is much more damaging than the former.
What about quoting yourself in your own paper? (from your .sig) - Seth manages it quite nicely ;)
"Well, we'd like to cloth her more, but it's just so hard to simulate!"
But so very easy to stimulate.
I didn't say anything last time an election article was posted (in the who-else-is-sick-of-this dept), but this one (in the will-this-never-end dept) sent me over the edge.
What exactly are you sick of? What do you want to end? Democracy? Don't you want to make *goddamn sure* that the people's voice was heard *exactly as they meant it to be*? Are you sick of voting? I'm sure there's a young, poor single mother out there who didn't have time to vote. Maybe you could vote for her. Maybe you could give your vote to one of the *OVER A BILLION PEOPLE IN THE REST OF THE WORLD WHO DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE*.
It is things like this that make people sick of Americans. You have a system that many people in the world would like to have, but not only do you not enjoy it, you're actually "sick of it".
I'm sick. Of attitudes like that.
This is a terrific post. You've hit the nail on the head from what I can see.
..... his hair today." or "A popular soft drink has been found to be deadly! We won't tell you which one till 6 o'clock!"
I would also add the following:
1) An article has to be "signed off" to be refused too. I don't like the idea that the editor who looks at a submission might find it boring, while another finds it interesting. In other words, 2 editors to post, 2 to refuse.
2) Actually *print* a retraction. Most noticeable is the RedHat 7 is Infested With Bugs article, which claimed that RH7 had 2500 bugs. The story was not updated when proved wrong, nor was a retraction found in the following Slashbacks: here, here and here. The claim "they should read all the comments too" is an invalid one as if that were the case, I wouldn't need an article title or summary. In addition, how many sites get the slashdot headers and put them into their site? A quick peek of "redhat 7 is infested with bugs" as a title could possibly scare someone (albeit a naive someone) away from it. This is as bad as Kent Brockman's "The President DIED
In summation, don't be afraid to improve. It's a great site, there's lots of viewers, but they won't stay around if the site stagnates.
I'm not too sure about this. First, web sites are not all "news" sites. In some cases, they are entertainment sites. Entertainment is restricted to a certain degree (rating systems in movies, eg.). Second, I don't agree that newspapers have an unlimited range. If the newspaper decided to run a full page ad of ultra hard core pornography, I would assume that a local constabulary would step in. We (North America) do not live in a censorship-free society.
By the way, the very nature of society allows me, as an individual, a say in what other people do. It protects my individual rights. As an example, it is illegal to publish or distribute hate crime literature, or Holocaust denying literature. According to the "unregulated content" rule, this should be allowed, but our society (for me, Canada) has determined that we don't want this in our country, as it is an assault on our values and standards. As an OSS advocate (can't remember which one) put it, "Your right to swing your fist around ends where my face begins".
I agree with your idealogy that books should be completely uncesored. However, practically speaking, this just isn't the case. Virtually all media is censored in one form or another. If it bothers you to think that the government would censor these sources, look at it instead that they are self-censoring, and would not publish material that would cause them to lose business (media companies are notorious for profit margins). As a consumer, if my local newspaper started running full hard core pornography, I'd probably stop buying it (well, except for the odd one).
When I first read this comment, I thought "that's impossible, they must have meant lack of organization". But the article sure doesn't seem that way ...
The Internet, as we know it, can be seen as a new nation being formed. At first, in its earliest stages, it is chaotic, incoherent, and uncontrollable. As it gets larger, and more people join, the need for regulation will arise. Don't be too proud of this invention you've created - it will one day be subjected to the same regulatory world that we all live in.
There can be no question that the Internet will soon be regulated. All forms of media as we know it, in virtually all countries in the world, are regulated in one form or another. If tomorrow we woke up and books were gone, replaced by the Internet, you can be sure that it would be regulated pretty damn fast.
In any sufficiently large group of people, there is the need for regulation to promote order and protect the rights of the people in the group. In a very large group, there is a need for representation, as not all individuals can be directly involved in the regulation or decision making. Although this might not lead to one single entity (depending on how you define entity - it is definitely foreseeable that it will be one organization), it definitely will occur.
The phenomenon of the Internet is not larger than the people of the world. As more people use it, more people will want a say in what is on it. I don't see how that can be questioned.
All that remains is how it will be implemented.
Yikes! Does the onslaught and deception never end?
How does this ruling affect me, as a Canadian? How does it affect an Australian? A Brit? A Norwegian? A Cuban? Can this ruling in any way impact on our rights to display the DeCSS code or distribute it outside of the United States? What are the repercussions if it can or cannot? I don't want to think that the United States is now creating rulings that all people of the world must follow where the Internet is concerned.
I guess the difference is the "half-full, half-empty" argument. My point is that "mostly sovereign" supports my argument - for years it seemed unlikely to have such a large population give up portions of its rights or sovereignty to such a large body. In 1000 AD, I'm sure the idea of 1 billion people under one common rule, partial or otherwise, might have seemed impossible, yet our world currently comprises 2 such nations (India and China). It is definitely believable that at some point in the future, 6 billion people could be subdivided into "mostly sovereign" states with some power being given to one central body.
The difference between "wholly sovereign" and "mostly sovereign" is very small indeed, especially in a world where wars are fought at the banks and in the media, not with muskets and swords.
I still stick to the theory that if enough support were given to a state, it could secede from the US without bloodshed. The country might want some sort of compensation for money invested into the province (which it would have a hard time arguing if the province is a net lender in taxes).
Ask yourself: What would happen if Texas decided to become wholly sovereign? Would the US really call in the army? At what point would they resort to physical force?
Being from Canada, this is a very real situation, as the possibility of the secession of Quebec is very possible. This is very similar to a wholly sovereign state choosing to relinquish some power to a federal body, but reserving the right to withdraw it, the same as a member nation of the WTO.
Diablo II was delayed to test the Battle.net servers. That might not be a case of cheating, but it's a delay due to multiplayer
Also, if it takes them X days to deal with cheating issues, then the game is delayed X days.
My point is, I *never* go online, nor do I want to. I'd like a single player game (take out the networking or something) only.
Isn't that pretty much what the Americans did in their "anti-Communism" campaign in the 50s on through? Trying to force their beliefs (communism is bad) on other countries?
the point remains that states aren't merely bodies of administrative convenience -- they're their own sovereigns, giving up only enumerated powers to a Federal government
So how, exactly, does that differ from the WTO?
Also, the methods that were used during the Civil War would not be used today without *much* politicking first.
I only use the United States as an example since the majority of readers are American. Other countries - Canada, China, and others - are more heavy handed and controlling than the USA. This is mostly a constitutional feature - the town/city is recognized as a political body, unlike Canada. However, your very argument also supports my theory rather than defeats it: at one point, the United States was not united. Yet now all the states are under one constitution. Although there are differences from region to region (whether state or town), there is still one governing piece of paper. There is one Supreme Court. There is one leader of the country. Although elected by the people, it is his veto on the bill. (This is where the argument for greater and freer access to the Internet could allow for referendums on each issue)
If we follow your argument, we can further subdivide the city into regions (for example, my home town has 6 wards, and two councillors are elected from each ward). Within wards there are neighbourhoods, and within neighbourhoods streets, and homes/shops, then the individual. Although these are not officially recognized as governing bodies in the US (except for the individual), each has a certain realm of control. For example, it is the neighbourhoods decision to implement a Neighbourhood Watch. It is the homeowner's decision to decorate in blue or brown. It is individual's decision to major in English or Physics. If you want to get really crazy, you can argue that it is the cells responsibility to govern energy expenditure within the body.
The reason the above argument can be extended to that point is that the governmental and constitutional model the US follows is not implemented around the world. As I already mentioned, although Canadian cities are given certain powers by the Municipal Acts of various provinces, they are not political bodies recognized by the Constitution. As such, the United States is already one level deeper than Canada. Other countries have harsher rulings on individual freedoms which extends it to the maximum.
The point of the above is to illustrate that we can always point to an example of a smaller unit and say that "it has governing abilities, so the argument that the larger unit has some control is negated to some extent". I didn't suggest complete totalitarian control was exerted by the country, only that a large, coordinated, governing body was established.
What is a country but a cartel of groups (states/provinces/etc.) that agree on policy and enforce it? An organization does not need military power to establish itself as a governing body.
Let's assume that Canada, part of the WTO, does not comply to the will of the WTO. Assume this gets bad enough that action must be taken. Economic sanctions are placed on that country by the other participating countries. For Canada to remain in good economic health, it must comply. Yes, the argument is there that a country, if stubborn enough, can take it to the very end and be completely cut off. This is, really, not that different than the Quebec separation issue. If Quebec did choose to separate from Canada (a clear majority on a clear question), would the federal government intervene with physical force? Although that remains to be seen, most probably not. I could see a similar situation arising in the States if 67% of a state voted to separate.
Hence we can look at states as independent participants in a cartel, called a country, and that, with enough support, they could separate from, and then follow their own laws. This is not far off the WTO's purpose at all, which is one of the reasons why it is protested so much.
I didn't intend to provide maxims, only to illustrate similarities. (I could talk about NATO as well, and point out that the US *did* intervene with physical force when Iraq threatened to take away access to its oil reserves in Kuwait, essentially establishing itself as the guardian of international behaviour, which is one step removed from being an approved guardian, as no country really has the power to face the US down in its current state, but I think this post is long enough).
> now it seems that Yahoo! is supposed to police the entire world.
I agree this seems silly for a private company - however, the presumption "it's the world, it's so big, how can we police it all, that's just silly" doesn't hold water for me.
I'm sure at some point someone saw a city, province (or state), country, continent, as too large of an area to manage. Yet here the USA today, with over 230 million people, all governed under one Constitution. Organizations such as the WTO hold certain restrictions on participating countries - well over a billion people.
It's the same adage as I use for science - never say that something is impossible, never say that something is solved, because someone will prove you wrong. In this case, I'm sure at some point, globalization will push us towards a larger and larger single organization, with one basic set of rules, with slight regional variations.