Read some of the other comments in this thread. The whole point is that even though Microsoft is following the letter of the law, they shouldn't be. In Rwanda, the letter of the law was 'Kill all the Tutsi's'. Are you saying anyone was justified in doing so? Are you saying Afghanistan was justified in forcing women to hide themselves and brutally punishing them if they didn't obey their draconian laws? I, and many others like myself, don't think so.
No, of course not. There are laws everywhere I don't agree with - the ones you've listed above, and any anti-free speech laws in China.
The bottom line is this: we can't change these morally wrong laws in other countries. But when someone (or some company) supports them, they are sending the message that they agree with them. If they didn't agree with them, and weren't forced to agree with them, then they wouldn't support them. Its plain as day to me. Microsoft supports the suppression of free speech, as long as they profit from it. The only reason they wouldn't do it here, is because it is against the law. But they would if they could. Are you OK with this?
This is where I disagree.
Microsoft, by following the idea of Censorship in China, is doing exactly what it needs to do in order to do business there (and get the potential profit, etc... Everything I said before.).
Microsoft is NOT a Human-Rights Advocacy group. They are NOT a Free-Speech advocacy group. They are a business, and responsible to their shareholders in how they do business. And it would be TERRIBLE business to just ignore one fifth of the world's population.
I don't agree that their doing business in China necessarily shows that they "support" censorship. The most anyone could say is Microsoft supports following local laws - which includes any laws regarding censorship.
Let's settle it right now, then: do you think Microsoft ought to trample on the rights of the Chinese people, if that's what's required to maximize shareholder value?
Short Answer? No, of course not. I'd have to be a raving loon to say yes to that question.
The only thing I can think of to reconcile your defense of Microsoft censoring Chinese citizens at the government's request with your statement that you are not saying that Microsoft is trampling on the rights of people, is that either you don't believe that chinese people have the right to speak their mind freely.
US citizens have certain rights as defined by their government. This includes free speech...
Chinese citizens also have certain rights as defined by their government. This does NOT include free speech.
If Microsoft, while doing business in China, makes it impossible to use certain words - the are denying the Chinese people free speech. A right that they DO NOT HAVE - according to their government. As such, I do not believe there are any rights being trampled on, here.
The idea of inalienable human rights (not the rights defined by a government) is seperate. I in fact DO believe that people have these rights, including Chinese citizens. As do a lot of other people - and those individuals should do everything they can to advocate it, etc...
Microsoft, on the other hand - is a business. Not a Human Rights organization or Advocacy group. I do NOT believe that they have any business either advocating or going against any political ideas - including Free Speech in China. That's not their job, nor why they exist.
Yes that is exactly what you said, everything. Why don't you clarify your argument instead of calling everyone's replies to your mistake 'straw man' arguments?
It's very simply. I'd happily reply to a question - or a request for clarification - or even "Since you say everything - that would also include XYZ. Are you seriously saying Everything?". But so far the responses have been "OMFG!!! YOU SUPPORT XYZ!!!!".
They might as well ask "Why do you hate America?".
Your point is that Microsoft should contribute to the violation the US Constitution as long as it is not in the US, and makes them money. Is it not? Our point is, that if its OK to violate the US Constitution, why shouldn't it be OK to violate child-pornography, murder, or other laws, as long as they are not laws in the country you do them in?
The US Constitution has no bearing outside of the US. None at all. By doing whatever in China, it is not possible to "violate" the US Constitution.
In the country where all this is happening, Microsoft is breaking no laws - neither in spirit or letter. Based on that, your suggestion of "they're already violating XYZ, why not violate ABC as well!?"... I can't see how that's relevant.
You're saying Microsoft must trample on the rights of Chinese people in order to "do everything they can to do business there" in order to "maximize profits".
[...]
There are no words in your mouth other than your own.
Please show EXACTLY where I said that "Microsoft must trample on the rights of the Chinese people".
The number of Straw-Man arguments getting thrown around here is ridiculous.
So if they had to pay bribes to Chinese officials to get business, that would be okay? If they had to smuggle in white slavegirls, would that be okay? What you're describing is a very mercantilist, mercenary, conscience-less philosophy of doing business. I don't support it, and I don't think Microsoft should.
So what you're saying is, Money > Freedom. How more un-American can you get?
Wow, wayda put words in my mouth.
All I'm saying is that Microsoft is a Business.
As a Business, Microsoft's first responsibility is to its shareholders - to maximize profits.
China has HUGE porift potential for Microsoft. Therefore, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to try to do everything they can to do business there.
Absolutely none of that equates to your claim of what I'm saying.
Welcome to the internet China, and Microsoft, claiming you are "just enforcing local laws" is just a bad a defence of the freedoms you enjoy as the traditional "I was just obeying orders defence".
Around one fifth of the World's population is in China.
Microsoft would be doing a terrible disservice to their shareholders if they didn't do everything possible to be able to do business with those billion+ people.
It seems like Microsoft is showing their own coders how vulnerable their code is, but these are probably the people who already know that best.
I think it's a matter of levels. Sure, they doubtless know about all the holes in the code or whatever (being the ones that, y'know, PATCH it) - but it's a totally different understanding than that of an expert user.
It's like an Automotive Engineer and a Mechanic. They both "know" essentially the same things about any specific car. But it's their viewpoints and specific backgrounds that make their individual understandings both unique and useful.
I remember an interview with him in Playboy a while back.
Can't remember the exact quote, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but esesntially it said "Being my son's father, I forbid him from listening to Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor tapes, but I really hope he's sneaking them behind my back.".
This school lunch thing is all kinds of lame. Any parent who subscribes to this should be ashamed.
The first time I had ever used Wikipedia was when Hunter S Thompson died.
Upon going to his page, and reading it thoroughly, I was treated to the little known fact that "he was a big supporter of child-pornography".
This of course came as a shock to me - so I started trying to find ANY coroborating evidence elsewhere.
Of course there was none, and within a few minutes the Wiki page was corrected of the stupiditiy.
With this, I have very little faith in the reliability of Wiki pages. Sure, I happened to know enough about HTS to realize that that statement was probably false, and knew enough to double-check it. But what if I didn't? What about the other X thousand people who read the page at that time, and never bothered refreshing?
I'm curious as to what details you believe have been lost between the originals and these. What do you believe an "outline only" photo would show you that these do not?
Looking through each of the photos, it's fairly obvious where the child was.
From what I can tell, what would be behind them is fairly obvoius.
Clearly if there was a crack or sticker or sign directly behind them then the police wouldn't have known to put it back. But otherwise, barring the fairly poor finishing work they did* - all the "guesses" seem reasonable to me.
* - One of the OPers further up has a very good point. Your average Fark Photoshopper would've done a MUCH better job. In each of the photos, it is very clear where the child originally was. (And in the bed-photo, the pose is also clear.)
Slashdot Mirror
Let me guess - you don't?
It's the easiest thing in the world to say "MICRSOFOT SHOULD SACRFICE X BILLION DOLLARS TO DO THIS!" when it doesn't affect you at all.
Read some of the other comments in this thread. The whole point is that even though Microsoft is following the letter of the law, they shouldn't be. In Rwanda, the letter of the law was 'Kill all the Tutsi's'. Are you saying anyone was justified in doing so? Are you saying Afghanistan was justified in forcing women to hide themselves and brutally punishing them if they didn't obey their draconian laws? I, and many others like myself, don't think so.
No, of course not. There are laws everywhere I don't agree with - the ones you've listed above, and any anti-free speech laws in China.
The bottom line is this: we can't change these morally wrong laws in other countries. But when someone (or some company) supports them, they are sending the message that they agree with them. If they didn't agree with them, and weren't forced to agree with them, then they wouldn't support them. Its plain as day to me. Microsoft supports the suppression of free speech, as long as they profit from it. The only reason they wouldn't do it here, is because it is against the law. But they would if they could. Are you OK with this?
This is where I disagree.
Microsoft, by following the idea of Censorship in China, is doing exactly what it needs to do in order to do business there (and get the potential profit, etc... Everything I said before.).
Microsoft is NOT a Human-Rights Advocacy group. They are NOT a Free-Speech advocacy group. They are a business, and responsible to their shareholders in how they do business. And it would be TERRIBLE business to just ignore one fifth of the world's population.
I don't agree that their doing business in China necessarily shows that they "support" censorship. The most anyone could say is Microsoft supports following local laws - which includes any laws regarding censorship.
Let's settle it right now, then: do you think Microsoft ought to trample on the rights of the Chinese people, if that's what's required to maximize shareholder value?
d =12847461
Short Answer? No, of course not. I'd have to be a raving loon to say yes to that question.
Long answer here -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153122&ci
The only thing I can think of to reconcile your defense of Microsoft censoring Chinese citizens at the government's request with your statement that you are not saying that Microsoft is trampling on the rights of people, is that either you don't believe that chinese people have the right to speak their mind freely.
US citizens have certain rights as defined by their government. This includes free speech...
Chinese citizens also have certain rights as defined by their government. This does NOT include free speech.
If Microsoft, while doing business in China, makes it impossible to use certain words - the are denying the Chinese people free speech. A right that they DO NOT HAVE - according to their government. As such, I do not believe there are any rights being trampled on, here.
The idea of inalienable human rights (not the rights defined by a government) is seperate. I in fact DO believe that people have these rights, including Chinese citizens. As do a lot of other people - and those individuals should do everything they can to advocate it, etc...
Microsoft, on the other hand - is a business. Not a Human Rights organization or Advocacy group. I do NOT believe that they have any business either advocating or going against any political ideas - including Free Speech in China. That's not their job, nor why they exist.
Yes that is exactly what you said, everything. Why don't you clarify your argument instead of calling everyone's replies to your mistake 'straw man' arguments?
It's very simply. I'd happily reply to a question - or a request for clarification - or even "Since you say everything - that would also include XYZ. Are you seriously saying Everything?". But so far the responses have been "OMFG!!! YOU SUPPORT XYZ!!!!".
They might as well ask "Why do you hate America?".
Your point is that Microsoft should contribute to the violation the US Constitution as long as it is not in the US, and makes them money. Is it not? Our point is, that if its OK to violate the US Constitution, why shouldn't it be OK to violate child-pornography, murder, or other laws, as long as they are not laws in the country you do them in?
The US Constitution has no bearing outside of the US. None at all. By doing whatever in China, it is not possible to "violate" the US Constitution.
In the country where all this is happening, Microsoft is breaking no laws - neither in spirit or letter. Based on that, your suggestion of "they're already violating XYZ, why not violate ABC as well!?"... I can't see how that's relevant.
Congratulations, you won the argument.
I did indeed say "Everything" - therefore, I meant everything under the sun.
Microsoft should start producing hardcore child pornography!
Microsoft should start carpet-bombing Europe!
Indeed, that is EXACTLY what I said.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
There is a HUGE difference between claiming that I'm saying XYZ - and claiming that XYZ, in your opinion, logically follows from what I'm saying.
You're saying Microsoft must trample on the rights of Chinese people in order to "do everything they can to do business there" in order to "maximize profits".
[...]
There are no words in your mouth other than your own.
Please show EXACTLY where I said that "Microsoft must trample on the rights of the Chinese people".
The number of Straw-Man arguments getting thrown around here is ridiculous.
So if they had to pay bribes to Chinese officials to get business, that would be okay? If they had to smuggle in white slavegirls, would that be okay? What you're describing is a very mercantilist, mercenary, conscience-less philosophy of doing business. I don't support it, and I don't think Microsoft should.
Once again, I said aboslutely NONE of that.
So what you're saying is, Money > Freedom. How more un-American can you get?
Wow, wayda put words in my mouth.
All I'm saying is that Microsoft is a Business.
As a Business, Microsoft's first responsibility is to its shareholders - to maximize profits.
China has HUGE porift potential for Microsoft. Therefore, they have a responsibility to their shareholders to try to do everything they can to do business there.
Absolutely none of that equates to your claim of what I'm saying.
Welcome to the internet China, and Microsoft, claiming you are "just enforcing local laws" is just a bad a defence of the freedoms you enjoy as the traditional "I was just obeying orders defence".
Around one fifth of the World's population is in China.
Microsoft would be doing a terrible disservice to their shareholders if they didn't do everything possible to be able to do business with those billion+ people.
It seems like Microsoft is showing their own coders how vulnerable their code is, but these are probably the people who already know that best.
I think it's a matter of levels. Sure, they doubtless know about all the holes in the code or whatever (being the ones that, y'know, PATCH it) - but it's a totally different understanding than that of an expert user.
It's like an Automotive Engineer and a Mechanic. They both "know" essentially the same things about any specific car. But it's their viewpoints and specific backgrounds that make their individual understandings both unique and useful.
This is not an Air Conditioner.
This is an Evaporative Cooler, AKA a Swamp Cooler.
... what the Famous Penn and Teller trick was...
: cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/labscam.html+penn+t eller+arno&hl=en
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:xJ536HFTXwIJ
I remember an interview with him in Playboy a while back.
Can't remember the exact quote, and I'm too lazy to look it up, but esesntially it said "Being my son's father, I forbid him from listening to Eddie Murphy and Richard Pryor tapes, but I really hope he's sneaking them behind my back.".
This school lunch thing is all kinds of lame. Any parent who subscribes to this should be ashamed.
Google Translation of the Message Board : http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.vandal.net%2Fforo%2Fcache%2F239109_1.htm&la ngpair=es%7Cen&hl=en&c2coff=1&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&pr ev=%2Flanguage_tools
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_On
This has been confirmed as fake.
The Google-Translated version of the original Message Board - shows the creater of the vid.
Also, there's an IGN claiming it's a hoax that I can't seem to find ATM. But it doesn't give any reasoning, just says "it's fake".
You know, 'da-da-da-da'
Oh yeah, THAT song. So much better than that other song, 'da-da-do-da'.
b.) It's not all that popular. Only a small fraction of PS2 or XBOX users actually pay for the service.
... Wait, what?
What "pay" service for the PS2 are you referring to?
Last time I checked, getting a PS2 online only required a PS2 network adapter, and a network connection.
The first time I had ever used Wikipedia was when Hunter S Thompson died.
Upon going to his page, and reading it thoroughly, I was treated to the little known fact that "he was a big supporter of child-pornography".
This of course came as a shock to me - so I started trying to find ANY coroborating evidence elsewhere.
Of course there was none, and within a few minutes the Wiki page was corrected of the stupiditiy.
With this, I have very little faith in the reliability of Wiki pages. Sure, I happened to know enough about HTS to realize that that statement was probably false, and knew enough to double-check it. But what if I didn't? What about the other X thousand people who read the page at that time, and never bothered refreshing?
This IS a fundamental problem with Wikis.
Especially about themselves.
No reasonably sensible person "needs" a warning to remind them of this fact.
Uhhh... Does anyone else see a slight logistical problem with the left-most coupon?
I'm curious as to what details you believe have been lost between the originals and these. What do you believe an "outline only" photo would show you that these do not?
Looking through each of the photos, it's fairly obvious where the child was.
From what I can tell, what would be behind them is fairly obvoius.
Clearly if there was a crack or sticker or sign directly behind them then the police wouldn't have known to put it back. But otherwise, barring the fairly poor finishing work they did* - all the "guesses" seem reasonable to me.
* - One of the OPers further up has a very good point. Your average Fark Photoshopper would've done a MUCH better job. In each of the photos, it is very clear where the child originally was. (And in the bed-photo, the pose is also clear.)
The sheer creativity and resourcefulness of some Hackers is just mind-boggling.
If Apple / NASA / (et all) had any sense at all, they'd be beating down this guy's door to hire him into a think-tank.