There is a reaction that quickly happens every time Slashdot has an article on China's suppression of free speech and association. Apologists for China always trot out past transgressions committed by the USA government. How is that relevant? Does a bad act comitted by the USA give China a 'free' bad act? Aren't Tianenman Square and Kent State both wrong on fundamental moral principle? Why would anyone use one to excuse the other?
I think most people are uncomfortable making moral judgements these days. I'm not. I judge this action by China to be wrong. This is true whether you hate George Bush or not.
I think we need a plan to someday deflect a large asteroid that is on a collison course with earth. The best way to deflect asteroids would be to arrange a collison with another object of mass. I propose that we station the remaining shuttles in orbit. Fill them with more weight to achieve more mass. Equip them with remote control so they can be navigated from earth. Then, when the bad asteroid is detected, place one or more on a collision course.
Re:Americans talk about freedom
on
Press freedom
·
· Score: 1
Let me address one point you made:
You said: Contrast this to many European countries, where if you get into an accident, you walk into a hospital, and they fix it. Bume. You don't pay anything.
Fair enough for minor injuries. If you break your arm, then the English health care system will set it using the same techniques that were in play for the last 200 years. But, God help you if you have a serious health problems that require advanced surgery like 'triple heart by pass'. There are people dying in England while waiting 6 months for the surgery.
Also, socialized medicine in other countries is enabled by the USA. Most advanced medical research advances come from the American health care system. The advances are then replicated in countries with socialized medicine does not offer the same enabling system of research. These so called 'advanced' health care systems in other countries should get down on there knees and thank the USA for making their fairy tale system possible.
Regarding: THE ENTIRE COUNTRY I LIVE IN IS A BUNCH OF RETARDED MONKEYS WHO HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON.
That's an interesting statement because it takes a lot of good things about the USA and wishes them into the corn field. I don't think the USA is perfect but how did retarded monkeys do things like the miracle of Silicon Valley or saving the world in WWII?
Have you ever noticed that Kirk's hairline was receding during the TV show and that, amazingly, he had more hair in the later Star Trek movies. I say charge him $200K for the ride and $50K more if he wants to bring his hair.
Maybe this dome is really full of little communists with parachutes. They are yelling, screwing, and multiplying in there. Pretty soon they'll erupt and conquer Seattle.
It is ineffective to impose democracy at the end of a bayonet on a population that does not yet know that they need democracy. Witness what is going on in Iraq. The USA, in the eyes of the people they are trying to help, has lost the moral authority that launched the initial war. To some Iraqi's, freedom and democracy is represented by the half wit cretins from the Abu Graib prison photos.
I believe the USA should be more isolationist that it is today. We should serve as an example worthy of emulation. This, in the end, is how hearts will be changed in countries where democracy has not yet taken root. It won't take root until there is a change of heart in the internal populations. I think we agree on that.
Not being willing to spill my own blood (that would deprive my children of Daddy) does not mean I should just shut up and do nothing about the menace of the PRC. I comment where I can in order to persuade and change hearts. I devote my professional life to making information more accessible. The www has already played a large role in damaging unfair business practices that relied on tight control of information, like travel agents. The same thing will happen to governments that reserve their power by limiting access to information. China is desparately trying to stick a million fingers in holes in the dike and someday it will fail.
I'll concede that the USA government sometimes over steps it's authority, to the detriment of the individuals involved and to the concept of individual liberty altogether. I read about your gym speaker. What happened was horrible. However, he basically told the FBI to f themselves and that was the end of it. Try that in Communist China.
I have a big issue with one of your other statements: Now, I accept that they believe that, live by that, and good luck to them. As long as they dont try and make me live by their rules, they can live in whatever way they like.
How fortunate that you were not, by the randomness of birth place, born into their system. You are free to sit on the outside, wish them luck, and tell them to leave you alone. You are exercising your freedom of choice to not submit to their system. The unfortunate souls born in the PRC (People's Republic of China) don't have that same freedom of choice that you are exercising yourself.
You say that 'they can live in whatever way they like'. Really? The 'they' you are referring to must be the elite few that really run the PRC.
Can anyone share a url for a search site that has decided to give China the finger over this issue? I'd feel better about using something like searchEatMeChina.com than to contribute to a Google that helps the PRC keep it's own people down.
Ok, Beautyon, let's compare. I'll make a statement that I think is true about the Communist Chinese government.
The Communist Chinese government's rein of power is illegitimate. It is illegitimate because it's power is not derived from free and democratic elections conducted in an uncensored arena of freedom of expression.
That statement alone, made on a website like Slashdot in China, could land me in jail. Perhaps, I would even just disappear and be executed without due process.
Now, I could make the same statement about the presidency of George W Bush. I could say that his rein is illegitimate because the electoral college is a sham and Al Gore won the absolute majority of the votes. I can say that now, on Slashdot, whilst I casually sip my Sunday morning coffee and nothing will happen to me.
Comparing the USA vs. China in this arena of the freedom of expression is ridiculous.
This has been the way of things since the beginning of time. For each accomplishment that results from hard work, inventiveness, and bonds of trust there is a group of free loading dirt bags that will exploit it's weaknesses for selfish gain.
E-Commerce is big enough now to attract the attention of criminals. I suppose that's an expected milestone for E-Commerce. The cowboy days of fast progress in an arena of trust and goodwill are over.
Ok, now I have a pretty good picture of the society that you advocate. In your world, newspaper editors have the exclusive privelege of free speech. I find this very warped. I know a few newspaper editors and I'll take my chances in an open and free system any day rather than the one you are advocating.
Also, in your new radical society, who pays the objective third party that deems things to be real editorials or not? Perhaps that objective third party can where a military style uniform with shiny knee boots.
In what sense? The transfer cannot presumed to be voluntary.
Legal issues aside, if you have any degree of personal integrity, you will not post these photos to a blog without the photographers permission. It is a simple choice to make. You can post to the blog or not. The choice is up to you and it reflects on your character.
It is interesting that everyone here is gleefully talking about legality of copyright and how there probably is no real legal recourse for the victims.
For me, personally, it is a matter of personal integrity. I know that I do not have the permission of the photographer. It is still up to him to choose to give it or not. The fact that I do not have any means of discovering who the photographer really is does not matter. I don't have his permission and therefore I am honor bound not to post them in the blog we are talking about here.
You guys splitting legal hairs are missing the point. Everyone in this case is free to do as their conscience allows. If you are a decent person, you won't post these photos in a blog.
What are the copyright issues here? I'm assuming that by default the pictures are protected by a copyright belonging to the owner of the memory stick. If I am right, this could be a problem for blogspot.
You are avoiding the two questions I posed. My questions refer to the classic old issue of newspaper editorials. Please just answer them directly. Then, I promise that I'll pick up the new thread of TV editorials that you have started.
Here are the two questions again:
Why am I not free to spend money to gain the same audience for my speech that a newspaper editor has?
Do we live in a world where newspaper editors are recognized as benevolent leaders with more due respect than the rest of us?
In the world that you advocate, the ability to influence elections is limited to a small circle of elite newspaper editors. Why am I not free to spend money to gain the same audience for my speech as a newspaper editor?
Do we live in a world where newspaper editors are recognized as benevolent leaders with more due respect than the rest of us?
That law you are going to write had better have a great deal of language devoted to the definition of an editorial page. I am going to start a newspaper where the daily editorial is available each day to the highest bidder.
Let's change the scenario just a bit. Let's say that instead of being a man who has the means to purchase tv spots, that I am the editor of the local newspaper in Tim's congressional district. As the editor, I write a series of weekly editorials that advocate the election of Tim. These editorials appear on the editorial page of the newspaper. The rest of the scenario is the same. Tim is elected. I request a meeting with Tim. Tim can grant the meeting or not. I can decide I still like Tim or not.
Let's imagine the following scenario. There is a guy named Tim running for congress. I like what Tim stands for. I decide, without consulting Tim, to purchase some tv ads that explain why I like Tim. Tim gets elected. One day, I phone Tim's office and ask if he has time to meet with me. There is some pending legislation that I am concerned about. Tim is free to grant me the meeting or not. I am free to continue to like Tim or not.
Nobody was compelled by force to do anything that they would refuse to do otherwise. It's just two men making decisions about communicating in a free society.
Any law which would prevent my scenario violates the first amendment.
The real root of this issue is that operating systems have become commodity technology. They only can command a premium price if they enable the development of advanced and popular software applications that their competitor operating systems cannot host.
Microsoft's strategy should be to continue to make their systems better and stay one step ahead of the commodities. They are accomplishing this for desktop applications but they are failing in server systems.
The government lobbying is merely a rear guard tactical action to buy time for the strategic efforts. A fine thing to do in a free society, although I hope their efforts are ineffective.
That's an interesting way to look at it. Can you give an idea of how you would word a new law that would prevent (directly or indirectly) Microsoft from lobbying on this issue? How would this law be enforced? What would the penalties be?
Please consider, while doing this, that your law must not violate first amendment protections for freedom of speech.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a reaction that quickly happens every time Slashdot has an article on China's suppression of free speech and association. Apologists for China always trot out past transgressions committed by the USA government. How is that relevant? Does a bad act comitted by the USA give China a 'free' bad act? Aren't Tianenman Square and Kent State both wrong on fundamental moral principle? Why would anyone use one to excuse the other?
I think most people are uncomfortable making moral judgements these days. I'm not. I judge this action by China to be wrong. This is true whether you hate George Bush or not.
Porn would be a good cash cow for funding the research.
I think we need a plan to someday deflect a large asteroid that is on a collison course with earth. The best way to deflect asteroids would be to arrange a collison with another object of mass. I propose that we station the remaining shuttles in orbit. Fill them with more weight to achieve more mass. Equip them with remote control so they can be navigated from earth. Then, when the bad asteroid is detected, place one or more on a collision course.
Let me address one point you made:
You said: Contrast this to many European countries, where if you get into an accident, you walk into a hospital, and they fix it. Bume. You don't pay anything.
Fair enough for minor injuries. If you break your arm, then the English health care system will set it using the same techniques that were in play for the last 200 years. But, God help you if you have a serious health problems that require advanced surgery like 'triple heart by pass'. There are people dying in England while waiting 6 months for the surgery.
Also, socialized medicine in other countries is enabled by the USA. Most advanced medical research advances come from the American health care system. The advances are then replicated in countries with socialized medicine does not offer the same enabling system of research. These so called 'advanced' health care systems in other countries should get down on there knees and thank the USA for making their fairy tale system possible.
Regarding: THE ENTIRE COUNTRY I LIVE IN IS A BUNCH OF RETARDED MONKEYS WHO HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON.
That's an interesting statement because it takes a lot of good things about the USA and wishes them into the corn field. I don't think the USA is perfect but how did retarded monkeys do things like the miracle of Silicon Valley or saving the world in WWII?
Have you ever noticed that Kirk's hairline was receding during the TV show and that, amazingly, he had more hair in the later Star Trek movies. I say charge him $200K for the ride and $50K more if he wants to bring his hair.
That's interesting and full of hidden significance when you start considering how to make sure the 'stop' happens.
SpooForBrains, please tell us your plan for implementing the 'stop'.
I'm OK with any plan where all changes are voluntary.
Maybe this dome is really full of little communists with parachutes. They are yelling, screwing, and multiplying in there. Pretty soon they'll erupt and conquer Seattle.
I'm sorry Dave, but I can't let you do that.
Daisy....Daisy....
As far as spilling my own blood goes....
It is ineffective to impose democracy at the end of a bayonet on a population that does not yet know that they need democracy. Witness what is going on in Iraq. The USA, in the eyes of the people they are trying to help, has lost the moral authority that launched the initial war. To some Iraqi's, freedom and democracy is represented by the half wit cretins from the Abu Graib prison photos.
I believe the USA should be more isolationist that it is today. We should serve as an example worthy of emulation. This, in the end, is how hearts will be changed in countries where democracy has not yet taken root. It won't take root until there is a change of heart in the internal populations. I think we agree on that.
Not being willing to spill my own blood (that would deprive my children of Daddy) does not mean I should just shut up and do nothing about the menace of the PRC. I comment where I can in order to persuade and change hearts. I devote my professional life to making information more accessible. The www has already played a large role in damaging unfair business practices that relied on tight control of information, like travel agents. The same thing will happen to governments that reserve their power by limiting access to information. China is desparately trying to stick a million fingers in holes in the dike and someday it will fail.
I'll concede that the USA government sometimes over steps it's authority, to the detriment of the individuals involved and to the concept of individual liberty altogether. I read about your gym speaker. What happened was horrible. However, he basically told the FBI to f themselves and that was the end of it. Try that in Communist China.
I have a big issue with one of your other statements: Now, I accept that they believe that, live by that, and good luck to them. As long as they dont try and make me live by their rules, they can live in whatever way they like.
How fortunate that you were not, by the randomness of birth place, born into their system. You are free to sit on the outside, wish them luck, and tell them to leave you alone. You are exercising your freedom of choice to not submit to their system. The unfortunate souls born in the PRC (People's Republic of China) don't have that same freedom of choice that you are exercising yourself.
You say that 'they can live in whatever way they like'. Really? The 'they' you are referring to must be the elite few that really run the PRC.
Can anyone share a url for a search site that has decided to give China the finger over this issue? I'd feel better about using something like searchEatMeChina.com than to contribute to a Google that helps the PRC keep it's own people down.
Ok, Beautyon, let's compare. I'll make a statement that I think is true about the Communist Chinese government.
The Communist Chinese government's rein of power is illegitimate. It is illegitimate because it's power is not derived from free and democratic elections conducted in an uncensored arena of freedom of expression.
That statement alone, made on a website like Slashdot in China, could land me in jail. Perhaps, I would even just disappear and be executed without due process.
Now, I could make the same statement about the presidency of George W Bush. I could say that his rein is illegitimate because the electoral college is a sham and Al Gore won the absolute majority of the votes. I can say that now, on Slashdot, whilst I casually sip my Sunday morning coffee and nothing will happen to me.
Comparing the USA vs. China in this arena of the freedom of expression is ridiculous.
This has been the way of things since the beginning of time. For each accomplishment that results from hard work, inventiveness, and bonds of trust there is a group of free loading dirt bags that will exploit it's weaknesses for selfish gain.
E-Commerce is big enough now to attract the attention of criminals. I suppose that's an expected milestone for E-Commerce. The cowboy days of fast progress in an arena of trust and goodwill are over.
Ok, now I have a pretty good picture of the society that you advocate. In your world, newspaper editors have the exclusive privelege of free speech. I find this very warped. I know a few newspaper editors and I'll take my chances in an open and free system any day rather than the one you are advocating.
Also, in your new radical society, who pays the objective third party that deems things to be real editorials or not? Perhaps that objective third party can where a military style uniform with shiny knee boots.
In what sense? The transfer cannot presumed to be voluntary.
Legal issues aside, if you have any degree of personal integrity, you will not post these photos to a blog without the photographers permission. It is a simple choice to make. You can post to the blog or not. The choice is up to you and it reflects on your character.
It is interesting that everyone here is gleefully talking about legality of copyright and how there probably is no real legal recourse for the victims.
For me, personally, it is a matter of personal integrity. I know that I do not have the permission of the photographer. It is still up to him to choose to give it or not. The fact that I do not have any means of discovering who the photographer really is does not matter. I don't have his permission and therefore I am honor bound not to post them in the blog we are talking about here.
You guys splitting legal hairs are missing the point. Everyone in this case is free to do as their conscience allows. If you are a decent person, you won't post these photos in a blog.
What are the copyright issues here? I'm assuming that by default the pictures are protected by a copyright belonging to the owner of the memory stick. If I am right, this could be a problem for blogspot.
You are avoiding the two questions I posed. My questions refer to the classic old issue of newspaper editorials. Please just answer them directly. Then, I promise that I'll pick up the new thread of TV editorials that you have started.
Here are the two questions again:
Why am I not free to spend money to gain the same audience for my speech that a newspaper editor has?
Do we live in a world where newspaper editors are recognized as benevolent leaders with more due respect than the rest of us?
I can see now that I should have resisted the indulgence of engaging in hyperbole.
I'm actually more interested in hearing your reply to the two questions that I posed.
Why am I not free to spend money to gain the same audience for my speech that a newspaper editor has?
Do we live in a world where newspaper editors are recognized as benevolent leaders with more due respect than the rest of us?
In the world that you advocate, the ability to influence elections is limited to a small circle of elite newspaper editors. Why am I not free to spend money to gain the same audience for my speech as a newspaper editor?
Do we live in a world where newspaper editors are recognized as benevolent leaders with more due respect than the rest of us?
That law you are going to write had better have a great deal of language devoted to the definition of an editorial page. I am going to start a newspaper where the daily editorial is available each day to the highest bidder.
Ok, now it's clear how you feel.
Let's change the scenario just a bit. Let's say that instead of being a man who has the means to purchase tv spots, that I am the editor of the local newspaper in Tim's congressional district. As the editor, I write a series of weekly editorials that advocate the election of Tim. These editorials appear on the editorial page of the newspaper. The rest of the scenario is the same. Tim is elected. I request a meeting with Tim. Tim can grant the meeting or not. I can decide I still like Tim or not.
Would you ban this as well? Why or why not?
Let's imagine the following scenario. There is a guy named Tim running for congress. I like what Tim stands for. I decide, without consulting Tim, to purchase some tv ads that explain why I like Tim. Tim gets elected. One day, I phone Tim's office and ask if he has time to meet with me. There is some pending legislation that I am concerned about. Tim is free to grant me the meeting or not. I am free to continue to like Tim or not.
Nobody was compelled by force to do anything that they would refuse to do otherwise. It's just two men making decisions about communicating in a free society.
Any law which would prevent my scenario violates the first amendment.
The real root of this issue is that operating systems have become commodity technology. They only can command a premium price if they enable the development of advanced and popular software applications that their competitor operating systems cannot host.
Microsoft's strategy should be to continue to make their systems better and stay one step ahead of the commodities. They are accomplishing this for desktop applications but they are failing in server systems.
The government lobbying is merely a rear guard tactical action to buy time for the strategic efforts. A fine thing to do in a free society, although I hope their efforts are ineffective.
That's an interesting way to look at it. Can you give an idea of how you would word a new law that would prevent (directly or indirectly) Microsoft from lobbying on this issue? How would this law be enforced? What would the penalties be?
Please consider, while doing this, that your law must not violate first amendment protections for freedom of speech.