I believe they were only required to remove links from Google News, but for whatever reasons they decided to effectively eradicate the site from Google completely. Read into that what you will.
Sure, but with no lock-in there is little likelihood of a monopoly, especially while competing against a monopoly in a different market that is tying their search.
You don't think Google is going to do everything in its power to become a monopoly? Sure they've seen software lock-ins draw critisism (ala Microsoft) but there are other ways of establishing monopolies and strong arming customers into submission is a good start.
You say anyone can switch but if the product works and nobody knows any better why are they going to switch? Obviously Google are going to try to minimise awareness of monopolistic practices so I just don't think towing the line is something we should be doing with Google right now.
The last numbers I saw placed Google as having about 45% of the search market. That isn't even in the running for being a monopoly.
A little bit of forward looking perhaps? Nearly half of the search market is very substantial. Ok they may not 'officially' be classed as a monopoly but they're well on the way. You're also right theres nothing to stop anyone from moving to a different search engine, oh wait except the fact that hits would flatline overnight...
Their have been ordered to remove other peoples news from their news service, and have decided to additional punish the source by also removing them from the search index.
Mod parent up, this is the important part. I'm suprised at the lack of concern directed at the monopoly Google is building. 'Don't be evil' is all very cute and amusing but we're talking about big business and when 'Don't be evil' begins to impinge on profits you can wave cute cudly Google goodbye. The role Google plays on the internet is hugely important and it's already so well established I think it's here to stay no matter what.
I noticed how people picked up on the fact that this news paper is cleary going to suffer from the punishment Google appears to be metering out. Strangly though the reaction is 'lolz that'll teach em!' instead of 'why is Google being evil?'. Perhaps this is due to the newspaper conveniently being located smack in the poiitical center of Europe, this makes it easy for the observer say to himself who do I dislike more Europe or Google?
All of the items I listed are driving up the price of oil and the only situation that seems to be improving a little is that some Americans are buying vehicles that get better gas mileage.
And invading oil rich countries don't forget. That helps.
Science isn't the only thing reported in the CSM infact it's a very misleading title. But anyone with any common sense isn't going to be reading CSM for science news.
The views and beliefs of the ownership shouldn't be a problem, and if you read the news properly it isn't. I don't read an article to find out what the writers opinion is, I read it to find out whats happening then I draw my own conlusions and form an opinion. Now the writers article may be biased and exclude crucial info, but that's why you get your news from different sources.
Have you ever actually read an article published in the CSM?
It's a valuable resource for stories that often won't make the mainstream press. For a news outlet it's unique in the fact that it isnt funded through advertising so outside the contempory pressures imposed on the media by big business. Thats not to say it isn't subject to other outside pressures. I often skim it for anything interesting, the religous stuff doesn't interest me but you know what there's a simple soultion don't read those articles. Even so you should be critising everything you read as news, religous dogma is the easiest stuff to spot and filter out.
If you want a true picture of the world you should be looking to as many sources as possible.
Ok so you whole career was just ended but its ok because you can just start up your own newspaper? Getting back to the real world though, media organisations are corporations and often part of even larger conglomerates. You don't make money selling newspapers, infact you probably lose money. What you do sell is markets and audiences to the business community, advertising, thats where the money comes from. So if you're asking the right questions and reporting a view of the world that isn't conducive to business interests you can't infact start up your own newspaper.
I think you're right about the UK leading the way in surveilling is population, but the US has got the market cornered when it comes to reporting the 'correct' view of the world. Are we worse than China? tough call in my opinion. China is contained but we're rampaging across the globe so to speak. We don't torture our citizens and make them disapear (Guantanamo notwithstanding) but we do actively aid a significant proportion of the rest of the world in doing so to their citizens.
When was the last journalist killed in the US for writing his mind ? China executed some just last month, and so did Iran.
Sources please? There are punishments that can be handed out other than execution. Smear campaigns, losing your job, what if you've got a family to feed? I think being unable to work in the proffesion you've trained most of you life for would be the equivelant of an economic execution in this money-centric system we live in.
endanger China's national security, reputation and interests
Although we dont have any specifc laws stating this if the media asks the right questions (or wrong as it were) and crosses the line then then the shit hits the fan. Of course nobody goes to jail like perhaps might happen in China but you can be sure heads will roll, which has the same effect of keeping things in check. Take the Andrew Gilligan/Greg Dyke business a few years ago. The UK government released a dossier outlining the justification for war in Iraq which provided no evidence and lacked any substance whatsoever and Andrew Gilligan reported this. He was quickly sacked but Greg Dyke supported him, subsequently Greg Dyke was sacked, the Director-General of the BBC.
I think the point trying to be made is that exaclty the same thing is expected of the media in the west, we just go about it more subtley.
The fundamental fact driving radical Islam is the 400 year decline of Islamic civilization in competition with the West. What Went Wrong?
I think the fundamental fact driving 'radical Islam' is the Islamic countries have seen what we've done to Latin America and Southeast Asia over the last 50 years and are scared shitless were going to do the same thing to them. Rightly so I'd say.
So we invade/destabalise a large selection of third world countries, either through direct action (not really favoured as much anymore) or by proxy. Destroy the economy, depose democraticaly elected governments, murder millions. And when a few of their citizens become dissafected and launch terrorist acts back at us, your solution is to just wipe them all out?
At this point how do you differentiate yourself from Hitler?
This is - IMHO - means violent retribution against anyone involved, their friends, their families, their countries, their religious centers, etc.
Perhaps they feel the same way about us, don't forget we fucked the rest of the world over first.
To be fair are they any true leftist parties anywhere in western democracy? And I'm talking powerfull parties either in government or opposition. There are many that claim to be but as soon as they get in power the ideals that got them elected seem to dissapear and they follow exactly the same policy as a 'right wing' party.
You've missed the point. So if Hezbolla kidnapped their soldier first it justifies bombing civilian targets? My point is theres been no condemnation of the incursion into Lebanon or calls for a withdrawl.
This terrorism is EXACTLY a byproduct of the Islamic faith, entirely justified by the faith (whether or not some, or even most Muslims disagree with their religious interepretation). These hardliners do in fact profess a goal of bringing the entire world under "shariah" (Muslim rule).
Speak to any hardline Christian and they'll tell you that the world should worship the one God. Thats nothing unique to Islam. By your own admission it is only a minute proportion of the muslim population that engage in terrorism perhaps thousands from a population of over a billion. How do these tiny organisations achieve widespread popular suppport? What dissolusions the populace enough to side with organisations murdering innocent people? The fact that they have witnessed the same happen to friends and family members or been displaced in the hundreds of thousands or been subjected to economic sanctions by the west and live in utter poverty.
Not because the Quaran says so, incidently my understanding is that Islamic literature is very strongly worded to oppose attacking innocent civilians.
You might want to do more research on the origins and history of terrorism, my 'simplistic theory' is shared by many specialists in the field. Terrorism has been around for a long time and usually the aim is to inspire a revolution so that the people might govern themselves. Terroristic ideals change in generational waves. Currently Islam has been hiijacked, for want of a better term, to unite the masses. It is not the primer.
Now, it still happens with both Christianity and Islam. However, Christians have, for the most part, come out of the dark ages. Islam, it seems, has not.
Remember that "A lie told often enough becomes truth"... in Islam you have to pray 6 times a day. All you have to do is change the prayers to whatever you like and then you can convince anybody to kill themselves in the name of the Tooth Fairy
Surely the same could be said about the western media, that doesn't mean it happens.
Your point is what? that muslim prayers are all calls to murder westerners?
Wow, you've lost me there not sure why race and nationality is such an issue for you?
What is the third world anyway? Is pakistan the third world? Most paki's I know would object strongly to that term.
According to a State Department memo from 1949 outlining how these areas were to be brought under US control, most of SouthEast Asia, Africa and the former British Empire. Basically the economies that have been developed and exist to serve the west.
Also most pakistani-british citizens I know would object to the term paki by the way.
Religion is the main cause in this case: it is a means to and end that is the domination of one religion to the exclusion of others. Religious motives are present in a lot of wars and conflicts throughout history. Sometimes it is a tool to the end, but too often it is the end itself. You can't deny the presence and power of religious zealots.
That simply is not true. Frankly I can't even believe that you're suggesting that terrorism is a byproduct of the Islamic faith. Your suggesting the primary cause of terrorism is Islam attempting to conquer the west, completely ridiculous. Please cite where in the Quaran it says this.
For me it seems far more realistic that the geopolitical actions of United States and the west in the last half century are to blame for anti-western sentiment in the world.
Actually Hezbollah is able to fight because it has massive popular support amongst the people. I was reffering to the fact that the attack by Israel has not recieved any condemnation from the United States.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe they were only required to remove links from Google News, but for whatever reasons they decided to effectively eradicate the site from Google completely. Read into that what you will.
You don't think Google is going to do everything in its power to become a monopoly? Sure they've seen software lock-ins draw critisism (ala Microsoft) but there are other ways of establishing monopolies and strong arming customers into submission is a good start.
You say anyone can switch but if the product works and nobody knows any better why are they going to switch? Obviously Google are going to try to minimise awareness of monopolistic practices so I just don't think towing the line is something we should be doing with Google right now.
A little bit of forward looking perhaps? Nearly half of the search market is very substantial. Ok they may not 'officially' be classed as a monopoly but they're well on the way. You're also right theres nothing to stop anyone from moving to a different search engine, oh wait except the fact that hits would flatline overnight...
Mod parent up, this is the important part. I'm suprised at the lack of concern directed at the monopoly Google is building. 'Don't be evil' is all very cute and amusing but we're talking about big business and when 'Don't be evil' begins to impinge on profits you can wave cute cudly Google goodbye. The role Google plays on the internet is hugely important and it's already so well established I think it's here to stay no matter what.
I noticed how people picked up on the fact that this news paper is cleary going to suffer from the punishment Google appears to be metering out. Strangly though the reaction is 'lolz that'll teach em!' instead of 'why is Google being evil?'. Perhaps this is due to the newspaper conveniently being located smack in the poiitical center of Europe, this makes it easy for the observer say to himself who do I dislike more Europe or Google?
All of the items I listed are driving up the price of oil and the only situation that seems to be improving a little is that some Americans are buying vehicles that get better gas mileage. And invading oil rich countries don't forget. That helps.
Public subsidies through the Pentagon system.
The views and beliefs of the ownership shouldn't be a problem, and if you read the news properly it isn't. I don't read an article to find out what the writers opinion is, I read it to find out whats happening then I draw my own conlusions and form an opinion. Now the writers article may be biased and exclude crucial info, but that's why you get your news from different sources.
It's a valuable resource for stories that often won't make the mainstream press. For a news outlet it's unique in the fact that it isnt funded through advertising so outside the contempory pressures imposed on the media by big business. Thats not to say it isn't subject to other outside pressures. I often skim it for anything interesting, the religous stuff doesn't interest me but you know what there's a simple soultion don't read those articles. Even so you should be critising everything you read as news, religous dogma is the easiest stuff to spot and filter out.
If you want a true picture of the world you should be looking to as many sources as possible.
I think you're right about the UK leading the way in surveilling is population, but the US has got the market cornered when it comes to reporting the 'correct' view of the world. Are we worse than China? tough call in my opinion. China is contained but we're rampaging across the globe so to speak. We don't torture our citizens and make them disapear (Guantanamo notwithstanding) but we do actively aid a significant proportion of the rest of the world in doing so to their citizens.
Sources please? There are punishments that can be handed out other than execution. Smear campaigns, losing your job, what if you've got a family to feed? I think being unable to work in the proffesion you've trained most of you life for would be the equivelant of an economic execution in this money-centric system we live in.
Although we dont have any specifc laws stating this if the media asks the right questions (or wrong as it were) and crosses the line then then the shit hits the fan. Of course nobody goes to jail like perhaps might happen in China but you can be sure heads will roll, which has the same effect of keeping things in check. Take the Andrew Gilligan/Greg Dyke business a few years ago. The UK government released a dossier outlining the justification for war in Iraq which provided no evidence and lacked any substance whatsoever and Andrew Gilligan reported this. He was quickly sacked but Greg Dyke supported him, subsequently Greg Dyke was sacked, the Director-General of the BBC.
I think the point trying to be made is that exaclty the same thing is expected of the media in the west, we just go about it more subtley.
What a shock a prominent business publication advocates introducing mobile phone networks to developing countries, of course it's for their own good.
I think the fundamental fact driving 'radical Islam' is the Islamic countries have seen what we've done to Latin America and Southeast Asia over the last 50 years and are scared shitless were going to do the same thing to them. Rightly so I'd say.
At this point how do you differentiate yourself from Hitler?
Perhaps they feel the same way about us, don't forget we fucked the rest of the world over first.To be fair are they any true leftist parties anywhere in western democracy? And I'm talking powerfull parties either in government or opposition. There are many that claim to be but as soon as they get in power the ideals that got them elected seem to dissapear and they follow exactly the same policy as a 'right wing' party.
I think it's more like
Best. Propaganda System. Ever.
Lebanon - 515-828 dead, 2145-3200 seriously wounded, 1,000,000 displaced.
Israel - 41 dead, 19 seriously wounded, 300,000 displaced.
This kidnap-counter-kidnap has been going on for years. Who 'dunnit' first is a little moot at this point wouldn't you say?
Speak to any hardline Christian and they'll tell you that the world should worship the one God. Thats nothing unique to Islam. By your own admission it is only a minute proportion of the muslim population that engage in terrorism perhaps thousands from a population of over a billion. How do these tiny organisations achieve widespread popular suppport? What dissolusions the populace enough to side with organisations murdering innocent people? The fact that they have witnessed the same happen to friends and family members or been displaced in the hundreds of thousands or been subjected to economic sanctions by the west and live in utter poverty.
Not because the Quaran says so, incidently my understanding is that Islamic literature is very strongly worded to oppose attacking innocent civilians.
You might want to do more research on the origins and history of terrorism, my 'simplistic theory' is shared by many specialists in the field. Terrorism has been around for a long time and usually the aim is to inspire a revolution so that the people might govern themselves. Terroristic ideals change in generational waves. Currently Islam has been hiijacked, for want of a better term, to unite the masses. It is not the primer.
Now, it still happens with both Christianity and Islam. However, Christians have, for the most part, come out of the dark ages. Islam, it seems, has not.
The solution is to convert them to christianity?
Surely the same could be said about the western media, that doesn't mean it happens.
Your point is what? that muslim prayers are all calls to murder westerners?
What is the third world anyway? Is pakistan the third world? Most paki's I know would object strongly to that term.
According to a State Department memo from 1949 outlining how these areas were to be brought under US control, most of SouthEast Asia, Africa and the former British Empire. Basically the economies that have been developed and exist to serve the west.
Also most pakistani-british citizens I know would object to the term paki by the way.
I believe the Quaran says the exact same thing.
That simply is not true. Frankly I can't even believe that you're suggesting that terrorism is a byproduct of the Islamic faith. Your suggesting the primary cause of terrorism is Islam attempting to conquer the west, completely ridiculous. Please cite where in the Quaran it says this.
For me it seems far more realistic that the geopolitical actions of United States and the west in the last half century are to blame for anti-western sentiment in the world.
Now you're saying this isn't going to breed hatred against the US?
Actually Hezbollah is able to fight because it has massive popular support amongst the people. I was reffering to the fact that the attack by Israel has not recieved any condemnation from the United States.