It's worth watching episodes of Chris Morris's Brass Eye for very good examples of 'celebrities' who will say anything they're told to, or think they should say about subjects they know absolutely nothing about, as if they were leaders of society and authorities in their own right.
It may be Canadian law, but the music companies, who here are engaged in willful commercial copyright infringement (selling infringing, unauthorised copies for a profit) are are the same ones who are asking for harsh statutory damages to apply to non-commercial infringers (redistributing copies for no money) in other juridictions.
They're saying that they are willing and able to engage in commercial copyright infringement and buy their way out of a CRIMINAL act, whilst lobbying for harsher laws against people who share a few mp3s for little more than enthusiasm and love of music and whom they prosecute mercilessly for civil torts.
That's not just ironic and unprincipled, that's taking the piss and laughing all the way to the bank.
I'm not sure that they care about porn so much as care about controlling 'their' citizens. Power needs to be used to be appreciated; without exercising power and control over others, how can one know one has it? It's like music - unless it's being played, it doesn't exist. So they crack down on this and that.
Sex and sexuality is one area where people are the most wilfull - acting for their own (er) ends; of their own volition. It seems like the perfect area to (er) crack down on for an organisation of people looking to exercise control over others and subject them to their will; keep them in line.
>I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.
None of those media news outlets have gone to court, though, to argue that their right to deliberately lie to and consciously mislead their readership is protected by the First Amendment.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so.
The real reason poverty is so rampant in Africa, however, is not the lack of after-sundown lighting, it's the rampant corruption, preventing anything worthwhile from getting done without copious bribes to numerous officials and people of 'importance'.
Extending education time is laudable, but without addressing the foremost cause of the retardation of development, it's not going to make that big a difference whilst corruption is so widespread and entrenched.
>Sorry, but linking is not the same is publishing.
The thing is, I think they (the Mafiaa for want of shorthand) know this. That's not, however, the basis for their public statements and actions, legal or otherwise - that's solely based in the 'say and do anything to maintain the self-interested business model we have because we're attached to it and haven't the fucking imagination to adapt and survive (and hopefully prosper).
I think their time is at an end. They are gatekeepers and really they need to become curators - and along with that comes a financial down-shift: a useful and possibly necessary service, that money can be accrued from, but not the all-powerful position that they once had. The smarter ones will jump ship, I think, and adopt this (or a better) strategy, but their time is at an end and the only yhting that can extend it is their wealth (that can buy disproportionate power with politicians to that which any member of a democracy should have) and their rhetoric.
We know their rhetoric is hollow. They know it too. We can only hope the judiciary are also of the same mind and not easily fooled.
It's not a donation though. It's a statement about what the author will be doing with a percentage of the money paid. There is no 'donate' button. He could equally have said the 'pofit will be split with Wikileaks'.
This is still smelling like censorship by Apple, to me. All those vague inclinations to buy an iPad (when version 2 comes round) - gone.
Good find. Gives the lie to the Swedish state being 'all above board' and very anti-corruption.
Secret deals with the US government - plenty of people suspected that this was the case with the Pirate Bay crackdown - and now it's made clear that deals are being done and hidden from parliamentary scrutiny.
They didn't just remove the cover - they removed the entire magazine. He didn't see it. Which is strange because he's only wanted for questioning, is an innocent (until proven guilty) man, is in on remand (not a sentence) and the article has nothing to do with the offences alleged against him.
They've also reportedly kept paper and writing instruments from him and not allowed him a computer, even with no internet access. It all seems highly punitive for someone who should be able to prepare their defence, taking notes and the like.
In some countries, judges look extremely unfavourably on people who sue first and ask questions later, without attempting to settle things out of court, through less drastic channels. I don't know if the US courts take a similar view.
I think the US govt's reaction to Wikileaks has made it very clear just how mythical is the image it would like the world (and its own citizens) to believe of it's adherence to liberty, freedom of speech and the rule of law.
You sir, may or may not be an idiot, however, I feel certain you are at least no genius.
I love the implications inherent in (I think) all of your posts on this subject: keep your head down and don't even look at these members of the State in the eye. Know your place and don't cause a fuss or they will fuck you up. Don't support Wikileaks materially or financially or you will go on their list.
The implication is that we do not live in a democracy, the State and its agents are essentially hostile to populace and we are cattle that they manage with treats and threats of sticks.
And you would dissuade anyone from trying to change this?
Have I got that correct? We live in a state of terror, prisoners of the political classes and their corporate partners.
>What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?
Nothing, but the hypocritical unprincipled politicians* who are calling for Assange's head feel they can attack Wikileaks because it doesn't look like regular, 4th estate media, and they think this means they can avoid charges of attacking the free press. Because Wikileaks is a little bit different.
They can't, but they think they can, particularly when trying to dupe the least informed members of our societies to rouse support for their attacks.
*example of lack of principles and lack of adherence to the rule of law (that's just for us little folks) from The Guardian, today:
"Lawyers representing the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, say that they have been surveilled by members of the security services and have accused the US state department of behaving "inappropriately" by failing to respect attorney-client protocol.
Jennifer Robinson and Mark Stephens of the law firm Finers Stephens Innocent told the Guardian they had been watched by people parked outside their houses for the past week.
[...] a letter from a state department legal adviser – addressed to both Assange and [Robinson] – which appeared to bracket together client and lawyer as if to suggest that WikiLeaks and its lawyers were one and the same.
The letter, which was released to the press, begins: "Dear Ms Robinson and Mr Assange. I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to US Ambassador Louis B Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified US government documents."
Robinson said: "By eliding client and lawyer, that was a very inappropriate attempt to implicate me. That is really inappropriate to come from the state department of all places; they understand very well the rules on attorney-client protocol."
It's quite a serious situation," she said, adding that, according to the UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments should ensure that lawyers "are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference" and that "lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions".
Maybe if Assange wasn't so high profile he'd be enjoying bed and breakfast in a CIA operated secret prison by now instead of just being character assasinated by their black ops.
I've used Adblock for years and disabled it on Slashdot. For some reason I still don't see ads. NoScript is preventing them from appearing - doubleclick is banned permanently, so I guess I'll just have to live with that!
I also disable adblock on sites that provide real value. The Guardian, since its recent Wikileaks efforts, now displays ads (except for doubleclick's). If a site's free, and uses adverts to sustain itself and I value it, it gets a pass.
Slashdot Mirror
They* know how much using the term "brick" incorrectly incenses us and use it to motivate comments and generate content.
*The dark evil forces that lurk behind innaccurate and misleading story submissions.
You went full duplex, man. Never go full duplex.
>Ever tried to disable GoogleUpdater? I mean really disable it?
Yes. The trick is that you have to go into Task Scheduler, and disable it there.
So you have to have a smart phone though.
> By retweeting and posting news stories about this, you've given this designer guy undreamed of publicity.
I'm sure you're right: he never dreamed that hundreds of thousands of people would think him an insensitive asshole.
Whenever I write comments on any website these days, I CTRL+A, CTRL+C before hitting submit.
Burned too many times.
Everyone knows most sequels suck.
But are there any good prequels?
It's worth watching episodes of Chris Morris's Brass Eye for very good examples of 'celebrities' who will say anything they're told to, or think they should say about subjects they know absolutely nothing about, as if they were leaders of society and authorities in their own right.
It may be Canadian law, but the music companies, who here are engaged in willful commercial copyright infringement (selling infringing, unauthorised copies for a profit) are are the same ones who are asking for harsh statutory damages to apply to non-commercial infringers (redistributing copies for no money) in other juridictions.
They're saying that they are willing and able to engage in commercial copyright infringement and buy their way out of a CRIMINAL act, whilst lobbying for harsher laws against people who share a few mp3s for little more than enthusiasm and love of music and whom they prosecute mercilessly for civil torts.
That's not just ironic and unprincipled, that's taking the piss and laughing all the way to the bank.
>Sometimes I feel like I prefer the ads than the constantly begging for money...
Indeed ... until, I's warrant, you have reason to consider the power and influence the companies that adverise, then exert over the content broadcast.
Corporate censorship is pernicious as government censorship (esp. as we've seen recently where the two walk arm-in-arm).
Dylan Moran on Berlusconi (appropriately hosted on YouTube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajrw7uXfKRI
I'm not sure that they care about porn so much as care about controlling 'their' citizens. Power needs to be used to be appreciated; without exercising power and control over others, how can one know one has it? It's like music - unless it's being played, it doesn't exist. So they crack down on this and that.
Sex and sexuality is one area where people are the most wilfull - acting for their own (er) ends; of their own volition. It seems like the perfect area to (er) crack down on for an organisation of people looking to exercise control over others and subject them to their will; keep them in line.
>I'll make you a deal. I'll support a ban on submissions from Fox News as long as we never have to see another submission from MSNBC, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone, or anything similar.
None of those media news outlets have gone to court, though, to argue that their right to deliberately lie to and consciously mislead their readership is protected by the First Amendment.
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
That, to me, says cease using Fox News as a source (and burn it with fire).
The real reason poverty is so rampant in Africa, however, is not the lack of after-sundown lighting, it's the rampant corruption, preventing anything worthwhile from getting done without copious bribes to numerous officials and people of 'importance'.
Extending education time is laudable, but without addressing the foremost cause of the retardation of development, it's not going to make that big a difference whilst corruption is so widespread and entrenched.
>Sorry, but linking is not the same is publishing.
The thing is, I think they (the Mafiaa for want of shorthand) know this. That's not, however, the basis for their public statements and actions, legal or otherwise - that's solely based in the 'say and do anything to maintain the self-interested business model we have because we're attached to it and haven't the fucking imagination to adapt and survive (and hopefully prosper).
I think their time is at an end. They are gatekeepers and really they need to become curators - and along with that comes a financial down-shift: a useful and possibly necessary service, that money can be accrued from, but not the all-powerful position that they once had. The smarter ones will jump ship, I think, and adopt this (or a better) strategy, but their time is at an end and the only yhting that can extend it is their wealth (that can buy disproportionate power with politicians to that which any member of a democracy should have) and their rhetoric.
We know their rhetoric is hollow. They know it too. We can only hope the judiciary are also of the same mind and not easily fooled.
It's not a donation though. It's a statement about what the author will be doing with a percentage of the money paid. There is no 'donate' button. He could equally have said the 'pofit will be split with Wikileaks'.
This is still smelling like censorship by Apple, to me. All those vague inclinations to buy an iPad (when version 2 comes round) - gone.
Good find. Gives the lie to the Swedish state being 'all above board' and very anti-corruption.
Secret deals with the US government - plenty of people suspected that this was the case with the Pirate Bay crackdown - and now it's made clear that deals are being done and hidden from parliamentary scrutiny.
They didn't just remove the cover - they removed the entire magazine. He didn't see it. Which is strange because he's only wanted for questioning, is an innocent (until proven guilty) man, is in on remand (not a sentence) and the article has nothing to do with the offences alleged against him.
They've also reportedly kept paper and writing instruments from him and not allowed him a computer, even with no internet access. It all seems highly punitive for someone who should be able to prepare their defence, taking notes and the like.
In some countries, judges look extremely unfavourably on people who sue first and ask questions later, without attempting to settle things out of court, through less drastic channels. I don't know if the US courts take a similar view.
Unsubstantial?
I think the US govt's reaction to Wikileaks has made it very clear just how mythical is the image it would like the world (and its own citizens) to believe of it's adherence to liberty, freedom of speech and the rule of law.
You sir, may or may not be an idiot, however, I feel certain you are at least no genius.
So what's the myth that he's helping bust?
That America is the land of the free?
That the US government believes in free speech and a free press?
That the US Government never ignores or actively goes against the US constitution and follows the 'rule of law'?
That when politicians talk about democracy, behind closed doors, they don't roll around on the floor in hysterics?
I love the implications inherent in (I think) all of your posts on this subject: keep your head down and don't even look at these members of the State in the eye. Know your place and don't cause a fuss or they will fuck you up. Don't support Wikileaks materially or financially or you will go on their list.
The implication is that we do not live in a democracy, the State and its agents are essentially hostile to populace and we are cattle that they manage with treats and threats of sticks.
And you would dissuade anyone from trying to change this?
Have I got that correct? We live in a state of terror, prisoners of the political classes and their corporate partners.
>What exactly is Wikileaks doing that all these other media organizations aren't also doing?
Nothing, but the hypocritical unprincipled politicians* who are calling for Assange's head feel they can attack Wikileaks because it doesn't look like regular, 4th estate media, and they think this means they can avoid charges of attacking the free press. Because Wikileaks is a little bit different.
They can't, but they think they can, particularly when trying to dupe the least informed members of our societies to rouse support for their attacks.
*example of lack of principles and lack of adherence to the rule of law (that's just for us little folks) from The Guardian, today:
"Lawyers representing the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, say that they have been surveilled by members of the security services and have accused the US state department of behaving "inappropriately" by failing to respect attorney-client protocol.
Jennifer Robinson and Mark Stephens of the law firm Finers Stephens Innocent told the Guardian they had been watched by people parked outside their houses for the past week.
[...] a letter from a state department legal adviser – addressed to both Assange and [Robinson] – which appeared to bracket together client and lawyer as if to suggest that WikiLeaks and its lawyers were one and the same.
The letter, which was released to the press, begins: "Dear Ms Robinson and Mr Assange. I am writing in response to your 26 November 2010 letter to US Ambassador Louis B Susman regarding your intention to again publish on your WikiLeaks site what you claim to be classified US government documents."
Robinson said: "By eliding client and lawyer, that was a very inappropriate attempt to implicate me. That is really inappropriate to come from the state department of all places; they understand very well the rules on attorney-client protocol."
It's quite a serious situation," she said, adding that, according to the UN's Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, governments should ensure that lawyers "are able to perform all of their professional functions without intimidation, hindrance, harassment or improper interference" and that "lawyers shall not be identified with their clients or their clients' causes as a result of discharging their functions".
[...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/05/julian-assange-lawyers-being-watched
Maybe if Assange wasn't so high profile he'd be enjoying bed and breakfast in a CIA operated secret prison by now instead of just being character assasinated by their black ops.
I've used Adblock for years and disabled it on Slashdot. For some reason I still don't see ads. NoScript is preventing them from appearing - doubleclick is banned permanently, so I guess I'll just have to live with that!
I also disable adblock on sites that provide real value. The Guardian, since its recent Wikileaks efforts, now displays ads (except for doubleclick's). If a site's free, and uses adverts to sustain itself and I value it, it gets a pass.