Just lay out your accusations directly so we can see if they're merited by the evidence. The last part of the summary seems to kind of get to the point by implying that MS's contribution and involvement with these recent PSA causes were a way to market their products. Can we get some clarification?
It seems to me that people with strong opinions will tend to do things that are consistent with those opinions. People whose opinions differ might see that consistency of action over time as an organized conspiracy.
That's be censorship, friend. Defending against trolling will always be tougher than trolling itself, we need to accept it. The only way is to break down the troll's logic, which is fairly easy (and hold on to the hope that most people are intelligent, which is not easy)
If you would read GP more carefully you would notice that he said he was hassled "more than once" while in the US. This indicates that he didn't quite follow his own suggestion of respecting a country's laws after his initial encounter. One could counter-argue that US laws on public photography are murky and interpreted capriciously, but one must then accept that such argument could apply to Coke's experience of Chinese law on GPS usage.
Popularity is NOT a measure of censorship. ONLY censorship is a measure of censorship. If they are not censored by the mass media then you have no comparison to China.
Your post strikes me as strange and inconsistent. If, as a Canadian who has been hassled for taking photos of US buildings, your response is to be reflective of the silliness of these laws which govern photo taking in the US, the so too should you be reflective of the silliness of these laws which govern GPS usage in China. It would make more sense for you to have a heightened awareness for such shenanigans due to your previous experience and to be doubly outraged, rather than excusing one while pointing out the other.
You say that "If you don't like China and its laws don't go there" yet you don't seem to apply the same kind of hand-waving to your experience in the US.
If this "comparative economic utility mitigates the degree of censure" rationale which you have proposed holds true, then it would mean the US, being the world's major exporter of heavy equipment (planes, construction, agricultural, etc) and the source of much of the world's media and software, should also be immune from "bashing" and criticism. Yet, it is not.
If we continue to follow your rationale, the USA's position as a major creditor to the Eurozone would also preclude it from criticism from European Slashdotters. Yet, it is not.
That neither of these ring true for the Slashdot community, and that non-American people here are free to "bash" the US as they please each and every day, means that you are wrong in both of your claims.
Look at how Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman, and other critics of the US live and prosper in the US. Now, look at how their Chinese equivalents are dead, rotting away in jail, under house arrest, or in exile.
That's all you need know to understand that the statements "Fuck China" and "Fuck USA" are weighed differently.
Were these acts of censorship instigated by decree of the US GOVERNMENT or a choice made by the COMPANY? We can be against both sources of censorship, but I think we can also understand the fundamental differences, and the fact that the one which is more pervasive and more broad in its coverage is more threatening to the individual.
Would the equivalent not be a public library? Bandwidth isn't an issue (at least at my tiny local branch) since I see people there stream videos on their Facebook and Youtube all the time. Which makes me think access isn't as much of an issue as converting people who consume to people who invest in themselves. Now, global access disparity is another issue, and it'll take more than the US alone to deal with it.
To distill it even further, explain why you believe information for consumption is morally equivalent to information for collaboration. Slashdotters tend to conflate the two just because they are all "information", but I beg to differ.
Personal attack aside (nice how our enlightened/. community allows personal attacks on some ideas?), you've not made a counter-argument or explained how media consumption (1 way exchange of information) should be elevated to the same level as idea sharing (2 way exchange of information). In simpler terms, explain how a guy getting the latest Batman movie and watching it in his bedroom is morally and ethically defensible to the same degree as a scientist sharing data with another scientist, or a political dissident passing information to another dissident.
Because GP's voice is counter to the belief some Slashdotters hold which conflates piracy of games/movie/software and other consumer media with sharing of knowledge and information. There's a vocal (and popular) contingent among us who would elevate the act of downloading and consuming the latest movie without compensation to the level of scientists freely sharing data or dissidents networking with each other without encumbrance.
Abusive language + pedantry would get you modded down in any other context. But as long as you strawman someone as a Rush fan/Fox News watcher, you get a pass.
I'm not a fan of NASCAR (nor any vehicle racing sport for that matter), but banked circular tracks should be safer than road tracks. And if you want to poo-poo a racing sport, it should be rally racing. Driver and spectator injuries/deaths in rallying dwarf those seen in NASCAR, and that's just looking at Europe alone. There are ZERO safety considerations and even less intelligence in the spectators, who especially like to crowd around dangerous curves with nothing between them and the vehicles.
Nexus device owners should stick to stock, since they get the fastest updates and thus the best security. Only the people who own devices whose manufacturers are slow to release updates should consider modding.
Adrenaline probably. They're not fully conscious of the consequences at the moment of something spectacular happening. Same reason a violent tackle in in any contact sport is met with enthusiasm from fans -- that is until they realize the players are not getting up. Look at football (American and Euro) and rugby highlights and you'll see the same thing.
First is a search for two common ways of writing "corrupt official", limited to sites which have forums (filters out official news so you can actually see what people's opinions are). Second is a search for "corruption" also limited to forums. Delete the inurl:forum option for greater breadth. Use your preferred translation service.
I realize you're trying to be tolerant of a different country, but being accommodating to corruption and lack of management is not the moral kind of tolerance. China has been booming for over 30 years, and people have an expectation for a certain quality of life, yet instead of supporting them we see excuses. Imagine Slashdot Europeans reading about inferior labor protections in the US and waiving it off, or even telling other Europeans they should not say anything about the US because of their own countries' prior lackluster history in labor protection. Utterly unfathomable, but this is what we see when the topic is about China.
Industrial oversight is not intuitive as you say, but that's only because modern industrial oversight is NOT based on intuition -- it's based on past knowledge on well-documented cases and sound practices grounded in very basic science. One does not need intuition to have proper oversight, one needs only to heed operational standards that are publicly available. This is why Chinese protesters are out there protesting: knowledge that is KNOWN is not heeded.
There can't be hypocrisy unless those commenting or criticizing the Chinese government were directly involved in the US government's cover-up back in the 50s and 60s. Unless we go down the path where we regard every Briton who comments on African genocide as hypocrites, every Ghanan who comments on slavery as hypocrites, every Ukrainian who comments on Fukushima as hypocrites.
I agree it's both. But the priority seems to be placed on the least problematic area -- semi-auto rifles. If we apply the rationale you've put forth to a historical example, then focusing on airport security in the wake of 9/11 was also "using actual massacres and [terrorism] death statistics to oppose what actually is", and not some fear. I have a feeling you would not be so open to that conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's 'we'? Certainly not the people who pay their bills on time.
I remember reading that he completed Harvard's Math 55, which isn't a small feat even for smartest freshmen.
Just lay out your accusations directly so we can see if they're merited by the evidence. The last part of the summary seems to kind of get to the point by implying that MS's contribution and involvement with these recent PSA causes were a way to market their products. Can we get some clarification?
It seems to me that people with strong opinions will tend to do things that are consistent with those opinions. People whose opinions differ might see that consistency of action over time as an organized conspiracy.
and embarrassing the government is the whole point of FOIA, so they stop doing things to embarrass themselves.
Seems like a no-brainer to consolidate all of their ARM-based devices into the Windows RT ecosystem, which is what they're probably planning.
That's be censorship, friend. Defending against trolling will always be tougher than trolling itself, we need to accept it. The only way is to break down the troll's logic, which is fairly easy (and hold on to the hope that most people are intelligent, which is not easy)
If you would read GP more carefully you would notice that he said he was hassled "more than once" while in the US. This indicates that he didn't quite follow his own suggestion of respecting a country's laws after his initial encounter. One could counter-argue that US laws on public photography are murky and interpreted capriciously, but one must then accept that such argument could apply to Coke's experience of Chinese law on GPS usage.
Popularity is NOT a measure of censorship. ONLY censorship is a measure of censorship. If they are not censored by the mass media then you have no comparison to China.
Your post strikes me as strange and inconsistent.
If, as a Canadian who has been hassled for taking photos of US buildings, your response is to be reflective of the silliness of these laws which govern photo taking in the US, the so too should you be reflective of the silliness of these laws which govern GPS usage in China. It would make more sense for you to have a heightened awareness for such shenanigans due to your previous experience and to be doubly outraged, rather than excusing one while pointing out the other.
You say that "If you don't like China and its laws don't go there" yet you don't seem to apply the same kind of hand-waving to your experience in the US.
If this "comparative economic utility mitigates the degree of censure" rationale which you have proposed holds true, then it would mean the US, being the world's major exporter of heavy equipment (planes, construction, agricultural, etc) and the source of much of the world's media and software, should also be immune from "bashing" and criticism. Yet, it is not.
If we continue to follow your rationale, the USA's position as a major creditor to the Eurozone would also preclude it from criticism from European Slashdotters. Yet, it is not.
That neither of these ring true for the Slashdot community, and that non-American people here are free to "bash" the US as they please each and every day, means that you are wrong in both of your claims.
Look at how Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Glenn Greenwald, Amy Goodman, and other critics of the US live and prosper in the US. Now, look at how their Chinese equivalents are dead, rotting away in jail, under house arrest, or in exile.
That's all you need know to understand that the statements "Fuck China" and "Fuck USA" are weighed differently.
Were these acts of censorship instigated by decree of the US GOVERNMENT or a choice made by the COMPANY? We can be against both sources of censorship, but I think we can also understand the fundamental differences, and the fact that the one which is more pervasive and more broad in its coverage is more threatening to the individual.
Would the equivalent not be a public library? Bandwidth isn't an issue (at least at my tiny local branch) since I see people there stream videos on their Facebook and Youtube all the time. Which makes me think access isn't as much of an issue as converting people who consume to people who invest in themselves. Now, global access disparity is another issue, and it'll take more than the US alone to deal with it.
To distill it even further, explain why you believe information for consumption is morally equivalent to information for collaboration. Slashdotters tend to conflate the two just because they are all "information", but I beg to differ.
Personal attack aside (nice how our enlightened /. community allows personal attacks on some ideas?), you've not made a counter-argument or explained how media consumption (1 way exchange of information) should be elevated to the same level as idea sharing (2 way exchange of information). In simpler terms, explain how a guy getting the latest Batman movie and watching it in his bedroom is morally and ethically defensible to the same degree as a scientist sharing data with another scientist, or a political dissident passing information to another dissident.
Movies I can understand, but music samples are everywhere on iTunes, Amazon, Spotify, etc.
Because GP's voice is counter to the belief some Slashdotters hold which conflates piracy of games/movie/software and other consumer media with sharing of knowledge and information. There's a vocal (and popular) contingent among us who would elevate the act of downloading and consuming the latest movie without compensation to the level of scientists freely sharing data or dissidents networking with each other without encumbrance.
Abusive language + pedantry would get you modded down in any other context. But as long as you strawman someone as a Rush fan/Fox News watcher, you get a pass.
I'm not a fan of NASCAR (nor any vehicle racing sport for that matter), but banked circular tracks should be safer than road tracks. And if you want to poo-poo a racing sport, it should be rally racing. Driver and spectator injuries/deaths in rallying dwarf those seen in NASCAR, and that's just looking at Europe alone. There are ZERO safety considerations and even less intelligence in the spectators, who especially like to crowd around dangerous curves with nothing between them and the vehicles.
Nexus device owners should stick to stock, since they get the fastest updates and thus the best security. Only the people who own devices whose manufacturers are slow to release updates should consider modding.
Adrenaline probably. They're not fully conscious of the consequences at the moment of something spectacular happening. Same reason a violent tackle in in any contact sport is met with enthusiasm from fans -- that is until they realize the players are not getting up. Look at football (American and Euro) and rugby highlights and you'll see the same thing.
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E8%85%90%E8%B4%A5%E5%AE%98%E5%91%98%7C%E8%85%90%E5%AE%98++inurl%3Aforum%7Cforums
https://www.google.com/search?q=%E8%85%90%E8%B4%A5+inurl%3Aforum%7Cforums&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS490US490&oq=%E8%85%90%E8%B4%A5+inurl%3Aforum%7Cforums
First is a search for two common ways of writing "corrupt official", limited to sites which have forums (filters out official news so you can actually see what people's opinions are). Second is a search for "corruption" also limited to forums. Delete the inurl:forum option for greater breadth. Use your preferred translation service.
I realize you're trying to be tolerant of a different country, but being accommodating to corruption and lack of management is not the moral kind of tolerance. China has been booming for over 30 years, and people have an expectation for a certain quality of life, yet instead of supporting them we see excuses. Imagine Slashdot Europeans reading about inferior labor protections in the US and waiving it off, or even telling other Europeans they should not say anything about the US because of their own countries' prior lackluster history in labor protection. Utterly unfathomable, but this is what we see when the topic is about China.
Industrial oversight is not intuitive as you say, but that's only because modern industrial oversight is NOT based on intuition -- it's based on past knowledge on well-documented cases and sound practices grounded in very basic science. One does not need intuition to have proper oversight, one needs only to heed operational standards that are publicly available. This is why Chinese protesters are out there protesting: knowledge that is KNOWN is not heeded.
There can't be hypocrisy unless those commenting or criticizing the Chinese government were directly involved in the US government's cover-up back in the 50s and 60s. Unless we go down the path where we regard every Briton who comments on African genocide as hypocrites, every Ghanan who comments on slavery as hypocrites, every Ukrainian who comments on Fukushima as hypocrites.
I agree it's both. But the priority seems to be placed on the least problematic area -- semi-auto rifles. If we apply the rationale you've put forth to a historical example, then focusing on airport security in the wake of 9/11 was also "using actual massacres and [terrorism] death statistics to oppose what actually is", and not some fear. I have a feeling you would not be so open to that conclusion.