but wouldn't it better serve consumers and Apple if they just put a cheap sticker on the fragile areas that said "Yo if you can't solder things back together, you don't wanna open this"
Wait. Let's try that good ol' Epicurean logical exercise:
First, we know the POTUS has power to influence the DOJ, which is a part of the executive branch.
Now check this out...
Is he willing to prevent dominance of ever-larger corporate entities, but not able? Then he is derelict in his duties.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is complicit in corporate malevolence.
Is he both able and willing? Whence cometh this merger?
Sorry man, you can't go around placing reasonable criticism on Obama here on Slashdot. It gets the mods riled up and frustrated with all that cognitive dissonance. You have to blame nameless entities who operate in the dark, as you see in the +5 comment up top, since the dude they voted for can't possibly do any wrong. Of course, 4 years ago you could accuse Bush of all sorts of unsubstantiated collusion for easy karma.
Would it not be sweeter irony if certain wealthy politicians who are FOR greater taxes were found to be holding considerable sums of money in non-taxed accounts?
I mean, someone who is against taxes who then acts upon that to minimize his tax burden is a dodgy politician but his actions are congruent with his public position, however someone who rails against those who are for less taxes but secretly hides his money from the government would not only be dodgy but also a hypocrite.
Lack of gun violence in nations where unarmed people are ruled by tyrants and criminals is an indicator of progress!
No, I didn't mean that sarcastically at all *roll eyes*
because, before, it was only figurative. Now that people have actually been shot, it no longer remains solely figurative, and thus capable of causing emotional pain by reminding others of the reality of what has just transpired. You see people being painted with target graphics all the time as a reminder that someone is in another's "sights" and that there's an adversarial relationship.
and before anyone gets themselves all contorted by the fact that I'm defending someone unpopular, I would like to make it clear I have never given support to the Palin camp
Legally they can, but it's futile when officials protect their own either as face-saving gestures for the government apparatus or as quid-pro-quo for past/present/future bureaucratic assistance i.e. helping each other hide their own corruption. What would happen if you did sue is that you'd pay out the ass for a lawyer who's made useless by all the red tape and technicalities placed in front of him.
You also have to realize that the "corruption" offense is often just a way for internal factions to get rid of trouble makers or to give the impression that central is taking care of the problem. That's why you always see guys on the lower end of the totem pole get arrested. Not that those guys didn't deserve it, but if you honestly indict everyone who has taken bribes, you'd end up penalizing 90% of the local governments and at least half of the central government.
Native speaker here also. It's in the 3rd paragraph in the 2nd section after the introduction titled "Open the door or close it?" The preceding context is "the decision to import foreign rail technology had already been made." The next sentence can be translated as "the intimations of the higher ups is that 'the development of the project should promote our economy, rather than promote their economy' and [those involved] should act upon considerations that are advantageous to China when acquiring these technologies."
The way it's worded doesn't cast those "higher ups" in a bad light (considering every country would prioritize their own economy), but I think it's not entirely unreasonable to also read that as an implicit request to achieve a balance in maximizing Chinese economic benefits while minimizing foreign economic benefits -- that would be the way I'd understand it if I were a shrewed political underling.
The laws at the central level are indeed improving (slowly), but there is pretty much no change for property owners who see much of their compensation pocketed by local government officials. My girlfriend's family is one such case. They agreed to a 500000RMB deal for their parcel and house on the city outskirts, but the local department in charge of distributing compensation would only release 200000RMB, less than half, telling them 200k is "enough" and that they "shouldn't be greedy", even though the department in charge of development made the deal for 500k. They have no recourse since there's no such thing as suing the government. The only way they could hope to get full compensation is if they had connections with higher level government officials (county or province level) who have the power to indict their subordinates. As to where the rest of the money went, you can take a look at party officials cruising around in Audi A8s and guess.
Who's to say wikileaks itself isn't a false flag operation by that thought process? When you go down that road of paranoia, there's no end to what COULD BE.
I meant to finish that sentence "...between this man and US foreign aid programs as evidence of CIA influence so as to discredit him."
That's the entire chain of links summarized.
It's pretty easy to say "has ties to" and make implications, but none of those links in the article point to specific relationships. It says she wrote articles for an "anti-Castro" magazine. This magazine is accused of by one Swedish professor as having connections with an "anti-Castro" organization. Among this organization's leaders is one man who once had a public argument with a critic where he threw out some personal accusations. A blogger read these accusations, disregarded any possibility of baseless sparring between adversaries, and believed them too specific for a single man to uncover. Then, in true conspiracy theorist fashion, he searched the internet for tenuous connections between this man and US foreign aid programs as evidence
Now, let's forget about this subtle "anti-Castro"/"pro-democracy" turn of phrase, and judge these sites for the time being as unbiased, and work backwards from US foreign aid programs to Ardin. How many leaps across fact-less precipices must one make in order to arrive from one end to the other? I'd say one is too many for a rational man. I invite everyone to read all those links on counterpunch.org and to explain how this is any different from accusations thrown by 911 truthers.
How is this action even comparable to people who risked their lives and livelihoods in their struggle to be treated like human beings?
This is a few hundred or thousand kids downloading a DDoS-specific script and starting 50, 200, 500 bots on their home computer which then makes that many simultaneous connections requests to a website.
If anything, it's undemocratic obstructionism -- each of them is casting 500 votes for their petty cause when others can only cast 1 when they shop.
One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have "ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups," according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.
In any other story, weasel words like "may have ties" would be pointed out as blatant bias, links to blogs that point to other blogs that in turn point to ufo conspiracy sites would be mocked, and connecting people through a string of tenuous relationships to a morally nebulous organization would be outright dismissed.
Only when one of Slashdot's heroes is in trouble do these standards of judgement fall to the wayside.
Character assassinating his accusers do nothing to help anyone. You post a lot in Assange threads, and I can tell you're a passionate supporter, but postings like this only undermine the public image of his support base.
Does this mean he turned himself in? That is, the police requested his presence at the station and arrested him when he arrived.
Summary should have made that clearer. I (and perhaps most people here) was thinking they busted his door down and dragged him away. Not to imply that not doing so softens the image of the authorities or anything.
I'd just never thought he'd turn himself in.
Most laws around the world seek the arrest of people on suspicion of illicit activity. It prevents their flight pending investigation. That's why you see in the news "suspect arrested" not "convict arrested"
Oh quit your histrionics. You're already in many databases, and nobody cares about you enough to put you on any of the important ones.
I swear, Slashdot population is becoming more and more like teenage girls.
Slashdot Mirror
but wouldn't it better serve consumers and Apple if they just put a cheap sticker on the fragile areas that said "Yo if you can't solder things back together, you don't wanna open this"
Yeah keep that conspiracy going, boys.
that part where he implied that the claim that Apple is doing this only to enhance profits is a conspiracy.
Wait. Let's try that good ol' Epicurean logical exercise:
First, we know the POTUS has power to influence the DOJ, which is a part of the executive branch.
Now check this out...
Is he willing to prevent dominance of ever-larger corporate entities, but not able? Then he is derelict in his duties.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is complicit in corporate malevolence.
Is he both able and willing? Whence cometh this merger?
Sorry man, you can't go around placing reasonable criticism on Obama here on Slashdot. It gets the mods riled up and frustrated with all that cognitive dissonance. You have to blame nameless entities who operate in the dark, as you see in the +5 comment up top, since the dude they voted for can't possibly do any wrong. Of course, 4 years ago you could accuse Bush of all sorts of unsubstantiated collusion for easy karma.
It's a hard life online for non-partisans.
Would it not be sweeter irony if certain wealthy politicians who are FOR greater taxes were found to be holding considerable sums of money in non-taxed accounts? I mean, someone who is against taxes who then acts upon that to minimize his tax burden is a dodgy politician but his actions are congruent with his public position, however someone who rails against those who are for less taxes but secretly hides his money from the government would not only be dodgy but also a hypocrite.
Lack of gun violence in nations where unarmed people are ruled by tyrants and criminals is an indicator of progress!
No, I didn't mean that sarcastically at all *roll eyes*
because, before, it was only figurative. Now that people have actually been shot, it no longer remains solely figurative, and thus capable of causing emotional pain by reminding others of the reality of what has just transpired. You see people being painted with target graphics all the time as a reminder that someone is in another's "sights" and that there's an adversarial relationship.
and before anyone gets themselves all contorted by the fact that I'm defending someone unpopular, I would like to make it clear I have never given support to the Palin camp
Legally they can, but it's futile when officials protect their own either as face-saving gestures for the government apparatus or as quid-pro-quo for past/present/future bureaucratic assistance i.e. helping each other hide their own corruption. What would happen if you did sue is that you'd pay out the ass for a lawyer who's made useless by all the red tape and technicalities placed in front of him.
You also have to realize that the "corruption" offense is often just a way for internal factions to get rid of trouble makers or to give the impression that central is taking care of the problem. That's why you always see guys on the lower end of the totem pole get arrested. Not that those guys didn't deserve it, but if you honestly indict everyone who has taken bribes, you'd end up penalizing 90% of the local governments and at least half of the central government.
Native speaker here also. It's in the 3rd paragraph in the 2nd section after the introduction titled "Open the door or close it?" The preceding context is "the decision to import foreign rail technology had already been made." The next sentence can be translated as "the intimations of the higher ups is that 'the development of the project should promote our economy, rather than promote their economy' and [those involved] should act upon considerations that are advantageous to China when acquiring these technologies."
The way it's worded doesn't cast those "higher ups" in a bad light (considering every country would prioritize their own economy), but I think it's not entirely unreasonable to also read that as an implicit request to achieve a balance in maximizing Chinese economic benefits while minimizing foreign economic benefits -- that would be the way I'd understand it if I were a shrewed political underling.
The laws at the central level are indeed improving (slowly), but there is pretty much no change for property owners who see much of their compensation pocketed by local government officials. My girlfriend's family is one such case. They agreed to a 500000RMB deal for their parcel and house on the city outskirts, but the local department in charge of distributing compensation would only release 200000RMB, less than half, telling them 200k is "enough" and that they "shouldn't be greedy", even though the department in charge of development made the deal for 500k. They have no recourse since there's no such thing as suing the government. The only way they could hope to get full compensation is if they had connections with higher level government officials (county or province level) who have the power to indict their subordinates. As to where the rest of the money went, you can take a look at party officials cruising around in Audi A8s and guess.
Who's to say wikileaks itself isn't a false flag operation by that thought process? When you go down that road of paranoia, there's no end to what COULD BE.
Best choice for him, not for the people, of course. Or are you making excuses for fascists?
I meant to finish that sentence "...between this man and US foreign aid programs as evidence of CIA influence so as to discredit him."
That's the entire chain of links summarized.
It's pretty easy to say "has ties to" and make implications, but none of those links in the article point to specific relationships. It says she wrote articles for an "anti-Castro" magazine. This magazine is accused of by one Swedish professor as having connections with an "anti-Castro" organization. Among this organization's leaders is one man who once had a public argument with a critic where he threw out some personal accusations. A blogger read these accusations, disregarded any possibility of baseless sparring between adversaries, and believed them too specific for a single man to uncover. Then, in true conspiracy theorist fashion, he searched the internet for tenuous connections between this man and US foreign aid programs as evidence
Now, let's forget about this subtle "anti-Castro"/"pro-democracy" turn of phrase, and judge these sites for the time being as unbiased, and work backwards from US foreign aid programs to Ardin. How many leaps across fact-less precipices must one make in order to arrive from one end to the other? I'd say one is too many for a rational man. I invite everyone to read all those links on counterpunch.org and to explain how this is any different from accusations thrown by 911 truthers.
But they said they're not centrally organized, which means you'd have to ask every single one of them to make sure.
cancelling mis-clicked modding, sorry bro
How is this action even comparable to people who risked their lives and livelihoods in their struggle to be treated like human beings?
This is a few hundred or thousand kids downloading a DDoS-specific script and starting 50, 200, 500 bots on their home computer which then makes that many simultaneous connections requests to a website.
If anything, it's undemocratic obstructionism -- each of them is casting 500 votes for their petty cause when others can only cast 1 when they shop.
Oh that infamous politically active and effectual WoW playerbase -- foiled again by the media powers that be!
One accuser, Anna Ardin, may have "ties to the US-financed anti-Castro and anti-communist groups," according to Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett, writing for CounterPunch.
In any other story, weasel words like "may have ties" would be pointed out as blatant bias, links to blogs that point to other blogs that in turn point to ufo conspiracy sites would be mocked, and connecting people through a string of tenuous relationships to a morally nebulous organization would be outright dismissed.
Only when one of Slashdot's heroes is in trouble do these standards of judgement fall to the wayside.
Character assassinating his accusers do nothing to help anyone. You post a lot in Assange threads, and I can tell you're a passionate supporter, but postings like this only undermine the public image of his support base.
Does this mean he turned himself in? That is, the police requested his presence at the station and arrested him when he arrived. Summary should have made that clearer. I (and perhaps most people here) was thinking they busted his door down and dragged him away. Not to imply that not doing so softens the image of the authorities or anything. I'd just never thought he'd turn himself in.
Most laws around the world seek the arrest of people on suspicion of illicit activity. It prevents their flight pending investigation. That's why you see in the news "suspect arrested" not "convict arrested"
Oh quit your histrionics. You're already in many databases, and nobody cares about you enough to put you on any of the important ones. I swear, Slashdot population is becoming more and more like teenage girls.
Everyone who responds to you without knowing the source of the quote is probably a 90's kid.
Don't forget here, too.
Mods think you're either a wikileaks supporter or a government shill.