I concurr that she has a certain role that she must play. She is supposed to be a hostess at social events. And of course she may assist the president in any way, including political discussions. But her political power is strictly through the president, she has none of her own. So only if she decides to act in a political way she becomes a politician. If she restricts herself to charity, she still is a public person and has to deal with public criticism. If she stays silently in the background, she doesn't deserve such a treatment.
But why did they bend over? The situation was: remove a few sites from the index or be blocked completey.
Which one is better for the chinese people? Being totally cut off from the giantic mass of news and information in googles index? Or having 99.9999999% still available with the possibility that the removed information creeps into that rest over time?
I think it was the correct decision given the circumstances.
Yes, refusing to listen to someone who is talking is not censorship... using your power to stop other people from hearing them talking is censorship. That's like, the definition of censorship. But hey, you've managed to sucker me into a pointless semantic argument. Call it whatever you want, it's wrong to use your power, whatever power it may be, to stop someone's message, no matter how much you disagree with it.
Nobody is stopping anybody from hearing what they have to say. To further explain the analogon:
Somebody was standing on a soapbox holding a poster of Michelle Obama (published it on a website on the 'net) when the Google TV team (searchbot) came along, made a recording of that and broadcasted it to everybodys TV that was tuned to the Google station. Then the complaints started and Google stopped the broadcast. The person may still be standing on the soapbox holding the poster, but it is now no longer live on nation-wide TV. Please explain how this is censorship when a TV-station stops broadcasting live from the stadium and switches back to the studio when the game has come to an end.
But nobody is stopping you from going to the stadium to see what is happening there afterwards. Or to go to the soapbox and talk to the person holding the poster.
To be entered into Googles search index is a priviledge, not a right, just like appearing on nation-wide TV is a priviledge, not a right. Thus removeal from the index cannot violate anybodys right, because it was not a right to start with.
Sorry, no. There are laws against violence, and this is a good thing, don't you think? Hate-speech is verbal violence and thus there must be laws against it.
Laws of course need to be well-balanced, restrict only the minimum that needs to be restricted to get the wanted result.
Google have used their power to take an active part in censorship, both in this case and in plenty of cases before.
Refusing to listen to someone who is talking is not censorship. Google just stopped broadcasting a soapbox-speech to the world. The soapbox still is there and the person on it still can express hirs opinion freely. That is not censorship.
If it means subverting elections (Exxon, in Chile), bribing government officials (Boeing, in the tanker deal), or blowing up villages in India (Union Carbide, in Bhopal), they will do that, too. As long as it doesn't cost the shareholders more than it saves or gains, it is "the right thing to do".
Google has yet to show that they are emotionally capable of such a vile thing. And as long as the two founders are in control I am pretty sure that this won't happen.
If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing (and you should be proud) to let people say stuff you don't agree with.
And they can. Nobody took down the site, it's just not listed in an index anymore. Freedom of speech gives you the right to put up your soapbox on a street corner, but it doesn't give you the right to force your opinion down anyones throat by broadcasting it at primetime.
That includes racist bullshit too. Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.
Well, if racist bullshit is published to the general audience, that's libel and can get you into jail, at least in my country.
If antivirus protectors could collect data from machines and users
This idea stopped being a good one here.
not necessarily. privacy could be protected by pseudonymizing the data. the information is in the connections between the nodes, not in the names of the nodes.
why pseudonym and not anonym? because you should tell the infected that they are infected. and yes, who should be trusted to manage the nyms? that's another point for long discussions...
But would Activision have done it if not for fear of reprisal from the government, if it was merely a social taboo rather than a legal one?
of course not. but thats not the point. activision engaged in self-censorship to avoid the risk. they coudld have chosen to fight for the artistic freedom to use the symbols (and imho would have had a significant chance to succeed). "inglorious basterds" was not censored due to its historic relevance.
but the game remains playable without the nazi symbols and without the splatter and gore. anybody who insists that these elements are essential for his enjoyment of the game should get therapy...
Please explain what part of free speech is hindered by outlawing those symbols in a non-historic context? Please also explain how outlawing extreme graphic violence is hindering free speech.
But there are still a bunch of jackasses around who try to revive that old feelings. And they would use those hated symbols to spread their evil thoughts.
"Inglorious Basterds" was not censored in Germany because it clearly showed the situation from the right perspective.
Activision is. And they have good reasons to do so: risk management. Yes, they could try and argue that the use of Nazi symbols is artistic and thus exempted from the verbot. But there remains a significant risk that the game might still be verboten, so they create a toned-down version for the german market to avoid an R-rating (which they would also get for extreme violence and splatter elements and which would mean no public advertising of the game).
Germany doesn't ban Nazi symbols in all cases, glorious basterds had no problem using them. But it does ban them when there is a chance that they are used to strengthen the elements that want to revive the thousand-year-reich...
It will take a while for the shops to get those into stock, but they already exist, I own two of them. Just 5W but lights like a 40W bulb. Have a look at http://www.earthled.com/
CFLs come in two flavors, the slow starters are more efficient and last longer, but should only be used in places where they are on most of the time. The more commen CFLs are quick-starter that create full intensity within seconds but draw 10-20% more power and have a somewhat reduced lifetime. Unfortunately this isn't always stated clearly on the packaging...
Slashdot Mirror
Shall we pick the nits? :-)
I concurr that she has a certain role that she must play. She is supposed to be a hostess at social events. And of course she may assist the president in any way, including political discussions. But her political power is strictly through the president, she has none of her own. So only if she decides to act in a political way she becomes a politician. If she restricts herself to charity, she still is a public person and has to deal with public criticism. If she stays silently in the background, she doesn't deserve such a treatment.
Hmm, interesting, can't see it here. First page shows just normal Pics...
Haven't heard of that story, wasn't reported that prominently in my country.
I'm with you, it's the way the vicinity reacts.
But why did they bend over? The situation was: remove a few sites from the index or be blocked completey.
Which one is better for the chinese people? Being totally cut off from the giantic mass of news and information in googles index? Or having 99.9999999% still available with the possibility that the removed information creeps into that rest over time?
I think it was the correct decision given the circumstances.
Yes, refusing to listen to someone who is talking is not censorship... using your power to stop other people from hearing them talking is censorship. That's like, the definition of censorship. But hey, you've managed to sucker me into a pointless semantic argument. Call it whatever you want, it's wrong to use your power, whatever power it may be, to stop someone's message, no matter how much you disagree with it.
Nobody is stopping anybody from hearing what they have to say. To further explain the analogon:
Somebody was standing on a soapbox holding a poster of Michelle Obama (published it on a website on the 'net) when the Google TV team (searchbot) came along, made a recording of that and broadcasted it to everybodys TV that was tuned to the Google station. Then the complaints started and Google stopped the broadcast. The person may still be standing on the soapbox holding the poster, but it is now no longer live on nation-wide TV. Please explain how this is censorship when a TV-station stops broadcasting live from the stadium and switches back to the studio when the game has come to an end.
But nobody is stopping you from going to the stadium to see what is happening there afterwards. Or to go to the soapbox and talk to the person holding the poster.
To be entered into Googles search index is a priviledge, not a right, just like appearing on nation-wide TV is a priviledge, not a right. Thus removeal from the index cannot violate anybodys right, because it was not a right to start with.
anti-hate-speech laws are immoral.
Sorry, no. There are laws against violence, and this is a good thing, don't you think? Hate-speech is verbal violence and thus there must be laws against it.
Laws of course need to be well-balanced, restrict only the minimum that needs to be restricted to get the wanted result.
Google have used their power to take an active part in censorship, both in this case and in plenty of cases before.
Refusing to listen to someone who is talking is not censorship. Google just stopped broadcasting a soapbox-speech to the world. The soapbox still is there and the person on it still can express hirs opinion freely. That is not censorship.
Michelle Obama is not a politician. Attacking family members of a politician is a No-no.
Tell that to Sarah Palin.
Can't tell the difference? Plain racist libel versus I-preach-water-but-my-family-drinks-wine?
If it means subverting elections (Exxon, in Chile), bribing government officials (Boeing, in the tanker deal), or blowing up villages in India (Union Carbide, in Bhopal), they will do that, too. As long as it doesn't cost the shareholders more than it saves or gains, it is "the right thing to do".
Google has yet to show that they are emotionally capable of such a vile thing. And as long as the two founders are in control I am pretty sure that this won't happen.
If you care about freedom of speech you have to be willing (and you should be proud) to let people say stuff you don't agree with.
And they can. Nobody took down the site, it's just not listed in an index anymore. Freedom of speech gives you the right to put up your soapbox on a street corner, but it doesn't give you the right to force your opinion down anyones throat by broadcasting it at primetime.
That includes racist bullshit too. Even if it is directed at the world's favorite US president's wife.
Well, if racist bullshit is published to the general audience, that's libel and can get you into jail, at least in my country.
They never did that for the "Bush chimp" pictures.
That's political satire - not racism.
Racism won't be truly a thing of the past until we can make fun of black and white politicians alike.
Michelle Obama is not a politician. Attacking family members of a politician is a No-no.
Just put some shock-absorbant insulation in between. And use several layers of mirrors, like super-insulation.
You have to design it to be a kind of ablative armor that creates enough "smoke" to disperse the incoming phaser beam. Ablative generator-deployed armor technology helps a lot here.
Not necessarily if you apply the reflective shielding in layers.
But you may want to wait for the ultimate ablative armor technology...
How about putting the reflective cover *beneath* the stealth painting?
1) get hit by laser (at which point you obviously are already detected)
2) stealth painting boils away
3) mirror reflects laser
4) ???
5) Profit!!
If antivirus protectors could collect data from machines and users
This idea stopped being a good one here.
not necessarily. privacy could be protected by pseudonymizing the data. the information is in the connections between the nodes, not in the names of the nodes.
why pseudonym and not anonym? because you should tell the infected that they are infected. and yes, who should be trusted to manage the nyms? that's another point for long discussions...
Given that most of us watch real life only through keyholes and telescopes... :o)
*ducksandrunsforcover*
But would Activision have done it if not for fear of reprisal from the government, if it was merely a social taboo rather than a legal one?
of course not. but thats not the point. activision engaged in self-censorship to avoid the risk. they coudld have chosen to fight for the artistic freedom to use the symbols (and imho would have had a significant chance to succeed). "inglorious basterds" was not censored due to its historic relevance.
but the game remains playable without the nazi symbols and without the splatter and gore. anybody who insists that these elements are essential for his enjoyment of the game should get therapy...
Please note that it was not the german law-enforcement who ordered the recall, Activision did that on their own.
Please explain what part of free speech is hindered by outlawing those symbols in a non-historic context? Please also explain how outlawing extreme graphic violence is hindering free speech.
But there are still a bunch of jackasses around who try to revive that old feelings. And they would use those hated symbols to spread their evil thoughts.
"Inglorious Basterds" was not censored in Germany because it clearly showed the situation from the right perspective.
Please note that it's not Germany who is censoring. Activision is.
Activision is. And they have good reasons to do so: risk management. Yes, they could try and argue that the use of Nazi symbols is artistic and thus exempted from the verbot. But there remains a significant risk that the game might still be verboten, so they create a toned-down version for the german market to avoid an R-rating (which they would also get for extreme violence and splatter elements and which would mean no public advertising of the game).
Germany doesn't ban Nazi symbols in all cases, glorious basterds had no problem using them. But it does ban them when there is a chance that they are used to strengthen the elements that want to revive the thousand-year-reich...
It will take a while for the shops to get those into stock, but they already exist, I own two of them. Just 5W but lights like a 40W bulb. Have a look at http://www.earthled.com/
In my country we pay about $0.20/kW, so for me the numbers add up just fine...
CFLs come in two flavors, the slow starters are more efficient and last longer, but should only be used in places where they are on most of the time. The more commen CFLs are quick-starter that create full intensity within seconds but draw 10-20% more power and have a somewhat reduced lifetime. Unfortunately this isn't always stated clearly on the packaging...
Have a look at EarthLed.com, they have LED PAR20 replacements.