Maybe subterfuge? Have a fake, front-end desktop environment for those pesky inspectors. But the real data is hidden away only findable after certain keystrokes and innocuous-looking codes are entered. I'm surprised no one has thought of this.
Even simpler: have a second drive that holds only data hidden away in your laptop. You activate the connection with a hidden, physical switch. If they ask where the D: drive is, just say, oh that's an external drive I use at work. Or, that's the network drive at work.
The history of journalism is not one of "ideals" and "integrity". The days of Hearst and yellow journalism are not too far in the past. In fact, the reason journalists had to clean up their acts is because of its ugly early history. But most changes were cosmetic. Just open up your local paper and tell me what you see. Is it ads about new products and movies and well-funded political campaigns? Well there you go.
Don't worry, there will always be "independent" sources of news and "independent" blogs. Some people will always want to know the truth instead of reading about new products (the minority).
Sorry if I sound arrogant but obviously we both have strong opinions on the subject. In an ideal world, you would be right. But the way I see it, the world of blogs is going to be just as messy as the world of journalism. As readers migrate to the Internet it'll just get worse. The money will follow the eyeballs. It'll be interesting to see if the bloggers with the most integrity win out. So far I think they have and I feel optimistic for the future.
If you want a newspaper (from the biggest to the smallest) to review your movie, play, product, etc., you have to buy advertising in that paper.
I've worked in promotions. I have the experience of calling a major paper up and asking if we could get our play reviewed. "If you buy an ad, we'll consider it," is their answer.
I've also worked in the editorial department. If you think that ad buying doesn't influence editorial, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
This is nothing new. There's nothing to see here, move along.
What this does show is that blogging is maturing as an industry. Advertisers are willing to invest in ads. This is a good thing. (Unless you think the way all major newspapers do business is unethical as well.)
Amen brother. I tried to watch one episode of 24 recently. Jack ripped some guy's throat out with his teeth. Sickened, I turned the channel. That is by far the most violent thing I've ever seen in primetime. And yet, you don't hear conservatives get in a stink. No, it's Janet Jackson and Timberlake. Maybe that incident had more to do with miscegenation rather than sex.
Censorship is about inventing an enemy or censoring political speech you don't like. The US religious right hates fornication so no "sex" on TV.
Back in the 20s 30s 40s 50s, film producers got away with showing pornos by couching them as "educational" films for married people. Same crap, different ideology.
Playboy magazine promoted casual sex. Heffner even wrote a "Playboy Philosophy". No wonder the right hated them.
"systematically"? In China, the government censors. In the US, the government censors as well, but the largest censor is monied interests. In China, the politicians have all the power. In the US, it's those with money. This is why Google censors political sites in China, and censors sites that infringe on "property rights" or other business interests in the US.
It's Capitalism vs. Socialism. Different words, same crooked ass-wipes up at the top. The US was founded by a bunch of rich businessmen who wondered, why can't *we* run the country instead of kings? And that US tradition continues today. There are small advantages and disadvantages comparing a business-run country with a totalitarian dictatorship, but honestly, I have yet to see many differences. Different words, same result: Everyone on top lives like kings. Everyone on the bottom works really hard to make sure the ones at top live like kings.
As for a system, yes, power is slightly more distributed in the US as compared to China. But there are advantages and disadvantages for the masses in both scenarios. At least the Chinese government seems to have some sense of noblesse oblige when it comes to helping their people. In the US, our overlords seem to have no such sympathies with the common man.
Most of the stories coming out of China are FUD, BTW.
(And Scientology is a business, as are all religions.)
I'm glad someone bothered to point this fact out and I hope someone takes the same pains on every Google-censorship-in-China story.
It's absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical for so many on Slashdot to criticize Google's China policy and make no mention of their US censorship policy. Google has to censor results in *every* country to comply with each nation's laws. If there's a country where results *don't* have to be filtered, I want to hear about it.
Sorry, but there's no such thing as free speech anywhere in the world. Get off your high horses Slashdotters.
So they don't have freedom of speech - so what? Neither does the US. In the US political speech is free, but commercial speech is not. The reverse is true in China. Obviously this is because in China the aristocracy is made up of the political class while in the US the Aristocracy is made up of the business class. You can go to prison in the US for piracy. Does anyone else not see just how unjust such a thing is? Yeah, fines, okay, but imprisonment? Cruel and unusual punishment for sure, but I suppose when business and making money is what's sacred, no punishment can be severe enough when violating that sanctity.
When the US takes over Iraq, the supposed worst thing committed by Saddam becomes the worst thing committed by US soldiers: torture. Gassing the Kurds? What about Waco? Maybe you don't think they're comparable, but think about the spin someone could put on Waco to try and make the US government look evil (and people have). So what are we supposed to believe? The reality is Saddam took care of Iraq better than the US has. Saddam's Iraq, even under sanctions, at least had electricity and running water. The US has managed to kill far more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.
How are we different? How is the US different when it comes to human rights abuses than any other nation? All this propaganda regarding China, N. Korea, Iraq, Cuba, is just FUD. Look at the US' history of imperialism. You get a clearer picture then.
For every "horrible" thing China does to their people, I could come up with a counterexample from the good old US of A.
I would love for someone to make the case of why China is so evil. I'd really like to hear it. What? They're not a representative democracy? Neither is the US. The US practices winner-takes-all elections. (And if you ask Chomsky the US isn't even a representative democracy.) Plus, the US political system is paid for by corporate money so corporations end up having complete control of the system. It's exactly the way our entreprenurial founding fathers wanted things to be. The US has repeatedly engaged in military action inspired by business interests. How is that less evil than current Chinese policy?
I just wish next time someone wants to describe some state as doing horrible things to their people, they would make a coherent case. There are a lot of countries in the world that truly are run by malicious despots (most African and poor so no one gives a crap).
Wow what a grim world view. I personally don't know you so I can't actually care about you specifically but I care about everyone in general. Call me a hippy but I actually love you and I wish the best for you. I really hope some day we can get passed this "I don't know you, you don't live near me, you don't affect me, so screw you" mentality. This entire universe has been churning away for billions of years and out of all the possible outcomes, the universe has lined up so that we can all be here on this earth together and we just look at it and go "big deal". All we have is each other and our time is so short together, I wish we could stop taking it for granted...
Wow, you really feel that way? It's nice to hear.
So uh, I was wondering, could you lend me a few hundred to get through the rest of the month? I'll pay you back...
There really is no one else to blame. Not the gun manufacturer, not the game developer/publisher, not even society."
Really?
I don't blame the game developer but then is it really wise to develop a game the rewards acts that is anti-social?
Think about it this light. How many times have we praised a movie or say a book like 1984, Brave New World, Gentleman's Agreement, Uncle Tom's cabin, or of a number of other acts of fiction because they made us think?
If a book or movie can move people in a positive way then it is logical that a book or movie like, say the Turner Diaries can move people in a negative way?
If a book or movie can "change someones life". Then it can change someones life.
If a book or movie can do that then couldn't a video game?
I don't think it can only work one way. If art and literature is important because it can convey powerful messages then it is only logical that it convey powerful negative messages.
What you should be asking is, why are anti-social games so popular? Developers choose their projects and releases. The public chooses to make certain products popular. The success of Grand Theft Auto rests entriely upon the public at large.
There has been fraud, corruption, and all manner of crap going on in elections in the US since the beginning of time. (And, might I add, consider the source.)
This hasn't change since Bush took office, and won't be any different in 2008. It's not just Republicans that do it, nor is is just Democrats. (Witness the decades-old joke from Democratic stronghold cities: "Why did the Democrat walk into the cemetery? To thank his voters.")
So because it's always happened, that makes it okay? Ridiculous. One of the reasons Rolling Stone published this story is because the majority of the American people believe in the general integrity of the electoral process.
We need a branch or office of government meant to not only insure the fairness of elections, but to also choose the best method of calculation.
No wait, you're right. The winner of a US election has always been, and should always be, the best cheater.
I sorta explored some of the same territory in a post some time ago (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=172759&cid=14 381297). It's interesting to see how slowly, little by little, the very concepts of "knowledge" and "facts" are changing due to Internet technology.
But after using the Wikipedia for a couple of years, I can't see why people level so many criticisms. It works. It's chock full of relevant info. And not only info, but links to relevant sources. Maybe the critics just don't use it? (Makes sense.)
I'm kind of sick of seeing the argument, "But I checked the entry on Pez dispensers. The Alfred E. Neuman was manufactured in 1973 *and* 1974. Wikipedia only lists 1973. And you fools take this thing seriously?"
The Britannica messes up too. But I guess when they mess up it's not due to any faults of their system. To what should we attribute the Britannica's errors? Aren't their editors "experts"? How could they possibly make mistakes?
If we don't train the soldiers of tomorrow to kill, the terrorists will win. Guidry, are you on Osama bin Laden's payroll? You sir, are a traitor. I am disgusted and outraged. You should be put on trial for your traitorous actions.
I don't think that's accurate. Laden wanted 9/11 to provoke the US into escalating war in the middle east therby ensuring continued support for his cause. I believe he's said as much. GWB has done everything Laden wanted. GWB is Laden's puppet.
Kudos. I'm tired of people "not getting it". Look, the Wikipedia is a wikipedia, not an encyclopedia. Not only that, but don't they teach kids to distinguish fact from opinion in about the fourth grade? What am I missing here? Apparently this is one of those articles where the author is primarily concerned with protecting all the "dumb" people in the world.
Used to happen to me too. After I cleared the list of files previously downloaded, the problem went away. That list, if allowed to grow without pruning, can grow infinitely. You need to delete all the entries.
I completely agree. The US censors too just for different reasons. But we here in the states like to think we're superior. Our ruling institutions exercise just as much control as China's. China is demonized because it makes a good story in the media.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe subterfuge? Have a fake, front-end desktop environment for those pesky inspectors. But the real data is hidden away only findable after certain keystrokes and innocuous-looking codes are entered. I'm surprised no one has thought of this. Even simpler: have a second drive that holds only data hidden away in your laptop. You activate the connection with a hidden, physical switch. If they ask where the D: drive is, just say, oh that's an external drive I use at work. Or, that's the network drive at work.
For the love of God...YouTube!
The history of journalism is not one of "ideals" and "integrity". The days of Hearst and yellow journalism are not too far in the past. In fact, the reason journalists had to clean up their acts is because of its ugly early history. But most changes were cosmetic. Just open up your local paper and tell me what you see. Is it ads about new products and movies and well-funded political campaigns? Well there you go.
Don't worry, there will always be "independent" sources of news and "independent" blogs. Some people will always want to know the truth instead of reading about new products (the minority).
Sorry if I sound arrogant but obviously we both have strong opinions on the subject. In an ideal world, you would be right. But the way I see it, the world of blogs is going to be just as messy as the world of journalism. As readers migrate to the Internet it'll just get worse. The money will follow the eyeballs. It'll be interesting to see if the bloggers with the most integrity win out. So far I think they have and I feel optimistic for the future.
If you want a newspaper (from the biggest to the smallest) to review your movie, play, product, etc., you have to buy advertising in that paper.
I've worked in promotions. I have the experience of calling a major paper up and asking if we could get our play reviewed. "If you buy an ad, we'll consider it," is their answer.
I've also worked in the editorial department. If you think that ad buying doesn't influence editorial, then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
This is nothing new. There's nothing to see here, move along.
What this does show is that blogging is maturing as an industry. Advertisers are willing to invest in ads. This is a good thing. (Unless you think the way all major newspapers do business is unethical as well.)
Amen brother. I tried to watch one episode of 24 recently. Jack ripped some guy's throat out with his teeth. Sickened, I turned the channel. That is by far the most violent thing I've ever seen in primetime. And yet, you don't hear conservatives get in a stink. No, it's Janet Jackson and Timberlake. Maybe that incident had more to do with miscegenation rather than sex.
Censorship is about inventing an enemy or censoring political speech you don't like. The US religious right hates fornication so no "sex" on TV.
Back in the 20s 30s 40s 50s, film producers got away with showing pornos by couching them as "educational" films for married people. Same crap, different ideology.
Playboy magazine promoted casual sex. Heffner even wrote a "Playboy Philosophy". No wonder the right hated them.
You overestimate youth. They neither care about nor are capable of understanding these things.
"systematically"? In China, the government censors. In the US, the government censors as well, but the largest censor is monied interests. In China, the politicians have all the power. In the US, it's those with money. This is why Google censors political sites in China, and censors sites that infringe on "property rights" or other business interests in the US.
It's Capitalism vs. Socialism. Different words, same crooked ass-wipes up at the top. The US was founded by a bunch of rich businessmen who wondered, why can't *we* run the country instead of kings? And that US tradition continues today. There are small advantages and disadvantages comparing a business-run country with a totalitarian dictatorship, but honestly, I have yet to see many differences. Different words, same result: Everyone on top lives like kings. Everyone on the bottom works really hard to make sure the ones at top live like kings.
As for a system, yes, power is slightly more distributed in the US as compared to China. But there are advantages and disadvantages for the masses in both scenarios. At least the Chinese government seems to have some sense of noblesse oblige when it comes to helping their people. In the US, our overlords seem to have no such sympathies with the common man.
Most of the stories coming out of China are FUD, BTW.
(And Scientology is a business, as are all religions.)
I'm glad someone bothered to point this fact out and I hope someone takes the same pains on every Google-censorship-in-China story.
It's absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical for so many on Slashdot to criticize Google's China policy and make no mention of their US censorship policy. Google has to censor results in *every* country to comply with each nation's laws. If there's a country where results *don't* have to be filtered, I want to hear about it.
Sorry, but there's no such thing as free speech anywhere in the world. Get off your high horses Slashdotters.
You've summed up the entirety of Hollywood!
Uh, can we get a consensus that this is the greatest Slashdot comment evar?
Please! How much of the "horrible", "terrible" things done to people in these countries are propaganda? The US has the highest number of inmates as a proportion of population than any country in the world. Many of those are minorities. We treat certain minorities in this country as bad as Saddam treated the Kurds. Hello? Tuskegee Syphilis Study anyone?
So they don't have freedom of speech - so what? Neither does the US. In the US political speech is free, but commercial speech is not. The reverse is true in China. Obviously this is because in China the aristocracy is made up of the political class while in the US the Aristocracy is made up of the business class. You can go to prison in the US for piracy. Does anyone else not see just how unjust such a thing is? Yeah, fines, okay, but imprisonment? Cruel and unusual punishment for sure, but I suppose when business and making money is what's sacred, no punishment can be severe enough when violating that sanctity.
When the US takes over Iraq, the supposed worst thing committed by Saddam becomes the worst thing committed by US soldiers: torture. Gassing the Kurds? What about Waco? Maybe you don't think they're comparable, but think about the spin someone could put on Waco to try and make the US government look evil (and people have). So what are we supposed to believe? The reality is Saddam took care of Iraq better than the US has. Saddam's Iraq, even under sanctions, at least had electricity and running water. The US has managed to kill far more Iraqis than Saddam ever did.
How are we different? How is the US different when it comes to human rights abuses than any other nation? All this propaganda regarding China, N. Korea, Iraq, Cuba, is just FUD. Look at the US' history of imperialism. You get a clearer picture then.
For every "horrible" thing China does to their people, I could come up with a counterexample from the good old US of A.
I would love for someone to make the case of why China is so evil. I'd really like to hear it. What? They're not a representative democracy? Neither is the US. The US practices winner-takes-all elections. (And if you ask Chomsky the US isn't even a representative democracy.) Plus, the US political system is paid for by corporate money so corporations end up having complete control of the system. It's exactly the way our entreprenurial founding fathers wanted things to be. The US has repeatedly engaged in military action inspired by business interests. How is that less evil than current Chinese policy?
I just wish next time someone wants to describe some state as doing horrible things to their people, they would make a coherent case. There are a lot of countries in the world that truly are run by malicious despots (most African and poor so no one gives a crap).
Actually, that's not true. We've been raising the average IQ for years. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect.
Wow, you really feel that way? It's nice to hear.
So uh, I was wondering, could you lend me a few hundred to get through the rest of the month? I'll pay you back...
What you should be asking is, why are anti-social games so popular? Developers choose their projects and releases. The public chooses to make certain products popular. The success of Grand Theft Auto rests entriely upon the public at large.
So because it's always happened, that makes it okay? Ridiculous. One of the reasons Rolling Stone published this story is because the majority of the American people believe in the general integrity of the electoral process.
We need a branch or office of government meant to not only insure the fairness of elections, but to also choose the best method of calculation.
No wait, you're right. The winner of a US election has always been, and should always be, the best cheater.
But after using the Wikipedia for a couple of years, I can't see why people level so many criticisms. It works. It's chock full of relevant info. And not only info, but links to relevant sources. Maybe the critics just don't use it? (Makes sense.)
I'm kind of sick of seeing the argument, "But I checked the entry on Pez dispensers. The Alfred E. Neuman was manufactured in 1973 *and* 1974. Wikipedia only lists 1973. And you fools take this thing seriously?"
The Britannica messes up too. But I guess when they mess up it's not due to any faults of their system. To what should we attribute the Britannica's errors? Aren't their editors "experts"? How could they possibly make mistakes?
If we don't train the soldiers of tomorrow to kill, the terrorists will win. Guidry, are you on Osama bin Laden's payroll? You sir, are a traitor. I am disgusted and outraged. You should be put on trial for your traitorous actions.
I don't think that's accurate. Laden wanted 9/11 to provoke the US into escalating war in the middle east therby ensuring continued support for his cause. I believe he's said as much. GWB has done everything Laden wanted. GWB is Laden's puppet.
Kudos. I'm tired of people "not getting it". Look, the Wikipedia is a wikipedia, not an encyclopedia. Not only that, but don't they teach kids to distinguish fact from opinion in about the fourth grade? What am I missing here? Apparently this is one of those articles where the author is primarily concerned with protecting all the "dumb" people in the world.
As a writer of fiction and screenplays, I would say that's true of art and the creative process as well. It's something I've believed for awhile.
Used to happen to me too. After I cleared the list of files previously downloaded, the problem went away. That list, if allowed to grow without pruning, can grow infinitely. You need to delete all the entries.
Beautifullllllll......
I completely agree. The US censors too just for different reasons. But we here in the states like to think we're superior. Our ruling institutions exercise just as much control as China's. China is demonized because it makes a good story in the media.
The US was the first country to censor Google.
I don't either :( I have to open Outlook and look at that bloat.