This word has been thrown around by drug warriors for so long it has lost any meaning which we can agree on. One man's addiction is another man's "problem" is another man's recreational activity. This is addressed in depth in Sullum's Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use.
Right now thousands upon thousands of people are compulsively attached to SOMETHING. They are not healthy. This does not mean that the THING is what caused the problem, it lies in the person. They lack willpower. In fact we all do a bit. It's just how we manage it--some people have simply given up. As Erich Fromm wrote, "All of us are more or less insane, or more or less asleep." You can choose not to get out of bed, but of course that wouldn't work out in the long run.
Thomas Szasz has argued much of the same. Addiction lies in the individual, who chooses to start and stop all behaviors. Reject "voodoo pharmacology"!
As for specific advice: If you are worried about your internet usage, unplug it. Live without it for a while. Meditate. Step back. Let go. You can do it.
One big difference between Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of gravity is that Newton's theory says what gravity does (ie. it gives us the magnitude and direction of the force of gravity between two objects) whereas Einstein's theory says that and how as well (i.e. mass curves space-time).
Doesn't Einstein's theory also say to what degree mass curves space-time, and this new theory modifies that, so this is an improvement?
Google Adresses Privacy Concerns With New '30-Day' Policy
"Following stern warnings by the EFF and other consumer groups over Google's new 'Search Across Computers' feature, the company has responded by implementing new policies aimed at protecting their users' privacy. The steps taken by the search giant include encrypting all the user's information and restricting its access to just a handful of employees. And if that's not enough to allay privacy concerns, Google has promised to delete all data within 30 days. In an industry where more extensive data usually leads to higher profits, this tradeoff made by the company appears to be placing customer priorities over shareholder priorities." Looks like someone's trying to earn back their "Do no evil" motto.
If they wish to live up to their high-minded values, and regain public confidence, not only should they do just that, they must. Earlier I posted a list of a few more things that need to be done in order to get back the trust they have just lost.
it's Google who makes a mockery of China's censorship policy
And now you know what happens next: China tells Google "Your censoring is not good enough, please this, this, this, in fact we need full access to your data in order to change it. We have just passed a law requiring it." Then what's Google going to do?
Maybe enough general traffic and China's filtering won't be able to function anyway, and this will only serve to ramp up the traffic.
This brings up an interesting point. What happens when Google's not doing a good enough job in the government's eyes? Will they be forced to give access to their computer systems to government monitors? Brin's "balanced" decision seems to only open new doors. This is the beginning, not the end, of the story.
I am willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt if they promise the following:
Set the terms of exactly how the PRC government will make requests for censorship, and enforce it with international monitors. Threaten to cut off service to the country if the rules are broken.
Never give the PRC government (or any government) access to their physical assets. A written letter from the gov. requesting sites/searches to filter will suffice, thank you.
A list of what has been censored made publicly available on their website. (The Great Firewall can block it, of course, but it can be Tor'd around)
The second bullet point is a difficult one, because what if they receive a subpoena for information, and then are accused of not being completely forthcoming? What if a judge (kangaroo or not) agrees and lets the cops bust down their doors? They had better not host ANYTHING within the borders of that country.
Do you think by moaning about your leaders you have any real power?
Yes. In fact that's the very essence of democracy. The only reason why things have gotten so bad over here is that we've stopped criticizing our leaders. Well, at least the media has.
but Google knows full well what just a little bit more freedom of information will do for people over there
You mean a little less freedom of information, right?
if they make a profit doing it, well, so much the better
How much GOOG stock do you people own? If this were a noble move, Google would donate their Chinese profits to charity.
In short, just like China opening its trade borders and becoming more liberal, especially in the big cities like Shanghai, censorship will be gone in a decade or two.
Not with influential companies like Google making "sacrifices" like this.
We just have to be patient, as the Chinese government does not like fast changes, and it has a lot of past incidents of revolutions that it does not want to repeat.
Or want anyone to know about...
Because Google lacks the potential to "further" the cause of free speech in this altercation, their failure to advance that cause in China is not sufficient to warrant the claim of evilness.
That does not make sense. If they failed to advance the cause of free speech in China, then they must have had the potential to do so. Ergo, Google has done evil.
Slashdot Mirror
This word has been thrown around by drug warriors for so long it has lost any meaning which we can agree on. One man's addiction is another man's "problem" is another man's recreational activity. This is addressed in depth in Sullum's Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use.
Right now thousands upon thousands of people are compulsively attached to SOMETHING. They are not healthy. This does not mean that the THING is what caused the problem, it lies in the person. They lack willpower. In fact we all do a bit. It's just how we manage it--some people have simply given up. As Erich Fromm wrote, "All of us are more or less insane, or more or less asleep." You can choose not to get out of bed, but of course that wouldn't work out in the long run.
Thomas Szasz has argued much of the same. Addiction lies in the individual, who chooses to start and stop all behaviors. Reject "voodoo pharmacology"!
As for specific advice: If you are worried about your internet usage, unplug it. Live without it for a while. Meditate. Step back. Let go. You can do it.
One big difference between Newton's theory of gravity and Einstein's theory of gravity is that Newton's theory says what gravity does (ie. it gives us the magnitude and direction of the force of gravity between two objects) whereas Einstein's theory says that and how as well (i.e. mass curves space-time).
Doesn't Einstein's theory also say to what degree mass curves space-time, and this new theory modifies that, so this is an improvement?
Google Adresses Privacy Concerns With New '30-Day' Policy
"Following stern warnings by the EFF and other consumer groups over Google's new 'Search Across Computers' feature, the company has responded by implementing new policies aimed at protecting their users' privacy. The steps taken by the search giant include encrypting all the user's information and restricting its access to just a handful of employees. And if that's not enough to allay privacy concerns, Google has promised to delete all data within 30 days. In an industry where more extensive data usually leads to higher profits, this tradeoff made by the company appears to be placing customer priorities over shareholder priorities." Looks like someone's trying to earn back their "Do no evil" motto.
As Explained by Dinosaurs.
Tell her it helps with her glaucoma.
Don't worry chief, we tagged that car "getting away".
Standing on the brake pedal without the power assist is like standing on a rock.
Would it help if you pumped the brake pedal?
Go to jail. Go directly to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.
Under a system proposed by Harvard University Professor Terry Fisher:
l _downloads/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/free_lega
If they wish to live up to their high-minded values, and regain public confidence, not only should they do just that, they must. Earlier I posted a list of a few more things that need to be done in order to get back the trust they have just lost.
it's Google who makes a mockery of China's censorship policy
And now you know what happens next: China tells Google "Your censoring is not good enough, please this, this, this, in fact we need full access to your data in order to change it. We have just passed a law requiring it." Then what's Google going to do?
... unless you bribe someone.
This brings up an interesting point. What happens when Google's not doing a good enough job in the government's eyes? Will they be forced to give access to their computer systems to government monitors? Brin's "balanced" decision seems to only open new doors. This is the beginning, not the end, of the story.
I am willing to give Google the benefit of the doubt if they promise the following:
The second bullet point is a difficult one, because what if they receive a subpoena for information, and then are accused of not being completely forthcoming? What if a judge (kangaroo or not) agrees and lets the cops bust down their doors? They had better not host ANYTHING within the borders of that country.
but that doesn't mean that we had the potential to do so
And Google didn't?
If one man can make a difference, surely Google could have.
Pretty sure they wont find this.
Do you think by moaning about your leaders you have any real power?
Yes. In fact that's the very essence of democracy. The only reason why things have gotten so bad over here is that we've stopped criticizing our leaders. Well, at least the media has.
Next question: what search engine should I switch to?
The question after that: What search engine should Google employees switch to?
but Google knows full well what just a little bit more freedom of information will do for people over there
You mean a little less freedom of information, right?
if they make a profit doing it, well, so much the better
How much GOOG stock do you people own? If this were a noble move, Google would donate their Chinese profits to charity.
In short, just like China opening its trade borders and becoming more liberal, especially in the big cities like Shanghai, censorship will be gone in a decade or two.
Not with influential companies like Google making "sacrifices" like this.
We just have to be patient, as the Chinese government does not like fast changes, and it has a lot of past incidents of revolutions that it does not want to repeat.
Or want anyone to know about...
I mean, where to begin?
Because Google lacks the potential to "further" the cause of free speech in this altercation, their failure to advance that cause in China is not sufficient to warrant the claim of evilness.
That does not make sense. If they failed to advance the cause of free speech in China, then they must have had the potential to do so. Ergo, Google has done evil.
Who's got the guns now?
Chinese results.
Can any of y'all read Chinese? From the garbled text it doesn't look like there's a notice or anything.
That's the first result for google.com too: Here
For the correct spelling:
English results
Chinese results
Yes, that is censorship. Fuck! Now I have to get rid of my Gmail account? Fuck you Google!
... running OSX and XP simultaneously? Those new Macs have dual-core for a reason ya know.