Look, who gives a flying fuck if the government knows? I certainly don't. In fact, I'd rather they didn't.
This government is getting way to nosy, IMHO. I don't care what the reason is, I'm sick and fucking tired of being saved from myself. Let me smoke my cigarette in my bar, and masturbate the Islamic terrorist porno, leave me ALONE.
Hey old white bastards, how about a law that requires me to be informed when my companies data has been hacked? Or better yet, why don't you worry about things like maintaining roads. Why is it that the NSA knows what sort of hemorrhoid creme I prefer, and when my girlfriend's periods are, but I can't drive down I-20 for more than 3 hours without needing a new wheel alignment for my car?
How about a fucking law that says I get to be informed every single time my personal information is accessed by the government? Every time I turn on the news I seem to be reading about how the Department of Homeland Security is making sure I'm following the latest terror alerts and that I'm not cooperating with al-Qaida via Xbox Live. I mean, Jesus, what the hell.
Even better, the slashdot summary makes it sound like they can circumvent state legislation. Um, my constitutional skills may be a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure that's what the 10th Amendment was all about.
While we're on the subject, what about the 9th Amendment? I'm pretty sure that that one said that we have rights that may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and thus, we reserve those rights. It seems like America is serving up it's rights like a Shoney's smorgasbord. It's like 8.99 all-you-can-give-away at the Patriot Act Red Lobster. Jesus.
Douglas Adams once said (forgive my horrible paraphrasing, as I don't have my copy of Salmon of Doubt with me) that Australians often say "We're the last place left mate," and it made him nervous because of the confidence with which he said it. Makes me wanna see if they're right, cuz quite frankly I'm sick of this place. It's not just the politicians, it's the people. How can my vote count if I realize for every vote I cast with some knowledge of the issues, there's fifty people are are being exploited by like-minded zealots whose sole purpose is to acquire power, and seek to retain that power.
Madison, in Federalist 9 & 10, argued that mutual self-intrest will keep the 'factions' in line, draw them towards a central, middle ground, and thus make decisions that are best for everyone. The problem seems to be that no all 'factions' are allowed into the game. At this point, I've got to request that I be allowed to collect my chips and move to another table, cuz I think I'm getting screwed, and all I see is more Dick coming.
~a
As you may or may not know my small African nation Qwyyygk has recently come under Civil War. I have a lot of money, but I cannot get to it where I'm at. I'm in hiding because I'm the, um, prince of the nation. I've need your help. I've authorized you to take possession of my vast fortune (a bazillion gagillion dollars), and all I need is your consent and personal banking information to transfer the money to you. Please help me, as you are my only last hope.
~Prince Omboubada
Wow, I'm genuinely forced to recant that 'no one' knows what they're talking about here. Yeah, the queue the Machus imposed was shaved head with the long braided pony tail. I'm not familiar with the Stephenson work, but I can completely understand the 'Mao Dynasty' simply prima facia. The Communist regime continually spouted off their glorious revolution, and the moving away from Confucian values, etc.. and pretty much didn't change a damn thing. China's a hard place to change. Ask the British in the 1700 and 1800s. Mao could say whatever he wanted, and China was going to smile and nod and act like it was paying attention, and then it was going to go and do whatever the hell it though was best, Mao be damned. It's a Confucian attitude. The Chinese, particularly in business, rarely tell someone 'No.' Oh sure they deny you things, and end up having the effect of 'No,' but they get really edgy about actually saying it. I love watching it.
The Yuan (Mongol) and Qing (Manchu) dynasties, while foreign dynasties, there was so little altering of the fundamental conduct of Chinese behavior (aside from the slapping on of a layer of Manchus and Mongols on top, and snagging a layer of the dough) that I feel they maintain, not contradict, the 'unbroken history.' Maybe the Manchus and Mongols would agree with me, but they maintained the civil service exams, the currency, the prestige of the Dragon Throne, and typically appealed to the Confucian political structure to derive their strength.
A break would be a collapse, much like the Roman Empire, which saw it's total reign and social structure completely disintegrate. There's no way that Emperor Kangxi or Kublai Khan can be compared with Alaric when it comes to their approaches in taking over an empire.
Exactly my point, from OUR perspective. In order to understand China, you can't compare it with a successful Eastern European paradigm. I citied one of the differences (the 3000+ years of unbroken history), how many more exist, I can't imagine, but when someone doesn't 'respect' China because the E. Euros did something the Chinese didn't, doesn't make any sense. I'm glad you're coming with me on this;-)
Okay, lemme tone it down then... See, you criticize people for forcing their beliefs on someone else. However, you fall into a circular argument because you believe something (that people shouldn't criticize people for having different beliefs), and yet you also criticize people who believe something different (that, oh, say, when a government starts censoring information about its activities to its people, it's bad).
Relativism, the belief that these sorts of things are relative to the person and don't exist independently of that person's thoughts, gets you no where, except suicide of the insane asylum.
1.) As a previous poster noted, Chinese citizens are DENIED access to Wikipedia, hence the need for the service.
2.) Look at the content of censorship they are talking about and ask yourself, seriously, if that goes on at slashdot. Does slashdot pull it's punches to avoid critical remarks about the Bush Administration? NO!
3.) Anyone censoring POLITICAL SPEECH is in violation of what the United States Supreme Court considers the MOST SACRED of ALL forms of expression.
4.) Of course you can say "Just don't use it... nah nah nah" but then that throws the baby out with the bathwater. Even extreme Marxists didn't want the industry to go away, they just wanted it to harmonize with the people. So too, can the internet.
I mean, do you just not care? That it's okay that people in that country have no recourse to politically criticize their government? Is that alright with you? Is that alright with all the effing slashdotters that post here? Jesus, I'm spent. I hate articles about China, because quite frankly no one here seems to admit that they don't know what they're talking about.
Then clearly you haven't read much on China, except perhaps, with regards to current events.
You see, China has the longest unbroken history of any current civilization. The principles of Confucius, among others, I won't deny the effect of Siddartha or Lao Tzu however their focus was spiritual and Confucius was political (although that in and of itself is a misnomer, because a truly Confucian political system is one in which subtle, yet totalitarian control is exercised from the divine Father, through rites), still linger today.
I mean, if you think these sort of cultural bonds are easy to free yourself from, then try and figure out why English speakers still refer to the sun as 'rising.' I don't *think* people still believe it's a geocentric universe, but that leftover cultural and historical background is exerting pressure on the citizenry.
Now, compare China's 3000+ years of unbroken history with the fragmented mess that is Eastern Europe and you're talking about analogizing teflon fibers with yarn. Yes, I'm proud of the Czechs, they did a grand job, and the Chinese could take a page from their book, no doubt. The point is that until you can UNDERSTAND the Chinese perhaps you shouldn't bandy your 'respect' around like it was God's gift to give.
The Chinese piss me off all the time, but I understand how and why they get there, and trust me, they are deserving of our respect.
Riiiiiight... Would you like to buy a bridge from me? Great deal, supplies are limited...
Seriously, you can't honestly believe that the reason that this is being censored is in no way related to China's policy regarding information dissemination? Granted the company is choosing to go along with it, a morally repugnant stance IMHO, but the Chinese government IS responsible.
You realize, of course, that people are criticizing a government that is absolutely convinced that the values and beliefs they hold are the ones that should be universally observed, and they WILL KILL YOU for it?
I think you can see the difference here... Besides until you can tell me you've read the Analects, as well as the various other works of classical Chinese scholasticism, I don't believe you're in ANY position to claim an understanding of Chinese ways. Period.
~a - b.a. History, focus: China.
I'm just waiting for the day when I'm in the middle of sex and my condom reminds me that a wide variety of complementary lubes, toys, emergency contraceptives, massage oils, sheets, mattresses, and porn are available.
I think based on the comments I'm reading here that there is a missing point. If I may, I'd like to include that point...
87 F. Supp. 2d 30 This is the case citation. I recommend reading it if you have access to lexis nexis. Here's ONE relevant snippet:
[*38] If the evidence reveals a significant exclusionary impact in the relevant market, the defendant's conduct will be labeled "anticompetitive" - and liability will attach- unless the defendant comes forward with specific, procompetitive business motivations that explain the full extent of its exclusionary conduct. See Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 483 (declining to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment because factual questions remained as to whether defendant's asserted justifications were sufficient to explain the exclusionary conduct or were instead merely pretextual); see also Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 605 n.32, 86 L. Ed. 2d 467, 105 S. Ct. 2847 (1985) (holding that the second element of a monopoly maintenance claim is satisfied by proof of "'behavior that not only (1) tends to impair the opportunities of rivals, but also (2) either does not further competition on the merits or does so in an unnecessarily restrictive way'") (quoting III Phillip E. Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Antitrust Law P 626b, at 78 (1978)).
If the defendant with monopoly power consciously antagonized its customers by making its [**12] products less attractive to them - or if it incurred other costs, such as large outlays of development capital and forfeited opportunities to derive revenue from it - with no prospect of compensation other than the erection or preservation of barriers against competition by equally efficient firms, the Court may deem the defendant's conduct "predatory." As the D.C. Circuit stated in Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co.,
***Please note the above paragraph... 'with no prospect of compensation other than the erection of preservation of barriers agsint competittion by equally efficient firmw'***
Please be aware slashdotters, you're views, however well formulated they may be, ARE NOT THE LAW. Please check the relevant laws and cases. As you can see, clearly there is precedent in the Neumann case, reafirmed in the Microsoft case, that THIS IS MONOPOLY ABUSE.
Granted arguments can be made in Microsoft's favor, but I find this a trouble precedent for corporate behavior. Usually when you're found GUILTY of a CRIME you should lay low and NOT COMMIT the SAME CRIME AGAIN!
Sorry, I guess I didn't elucidate my point clearly enough. Really what I think is that it's going to promote unhealthy attitudes by throwing our hands up and saying, 'we can't do anything about it, so I guess we should X. (where X is an unknown action, as I mentioned, either let Yahoo! do this without telling them we think its wrong, or X is quit posting it on Slashdot because businesses always get away with things and its taking away our valuable Linux time here, I don't know what people who claim anything with regards to X in this case)'
For my less rhetorical and more pertinent position: If you are a business, you shouldn't do this. Consumers shouldn't buy from this business if they are doing it. Governments shouldn't support businesses that continue to do this.
Why is it that every time this issue comes up someone pops up with a supposed 'realistic worldview' defense of these companies?
Everytime I read through another instance of China putting the kibosh on freedom and liberty, people here start picking up the "businesses make money, China has money, therefore businesses will screw anyone and everyone to make money" line of reasoning? Businesses aren't some unnatural entity that sprang forth, they are a collection of man-power, and resources, working towards a common goal. There is a *person* somewhere, saying "Toss the guy to the Chinese authority."
The more people blindly accept the justification that "that's just how it is, I can't change anything," the less you ACTUALLY can change things. Don't give your power away to multi-national corporations, don't give it away to the goverment.
I guess I just don't see what your policy advocacy says. Do we let Yahoo! off the hook for hosing people? Are you saying this just isn't newsworthy? That too much of your valuable time has been wasted or learning that Yahoo! is pulling some shady deals in China? Just let them get away with it, and stop talking about it because we're wasting our breath?
Can't people speak out against a perceived injustice and have it mean more than a wasted breath? Sheesh, usually I'm considered the cynically one, but next to the average Slashdotter, I'm dancing in the land of fairies and make-believe and butterflies and rainbows.
Quit shrugging your shoulders about a problem as fundamentally restrictive as this. The more people speak, the more can be done.
Perhaps you should quit hanging out with Hollywood types, women, and metrosexuals then.
A nice blanket statement like that flies really well out in Georgia (USA), particularly about black people. That's why we still have KKK rallies.
I don't know what you're *looking* at because if that's what you *see* I recommend a vision check. Do those three types use Macs? Quite possibly, and I can see reasons why. I see students buying them, parents buying them, and perhaps I'm the only one that read the news but universities buy them, secondary school systems buy them, crazy people buy them, and, oh yeah, even MICROSOFT buys them.
I'd like to point to my own rabid Apple fanboy-ism as the bias for writing this, but clearly I keep seeing instance after instance of people buying Apple, or buying into Apple. Perhaps you should consider what your perceptions are filtering out if that is *normally what you see*
OMG, speaking of drinking the kool-aid, did you even READ his Apple/Intel switch argument?
First of all, you'll recall that the IBM -> Intel switch was necessitated by TIMING. Dvorak's article, here, was written in March of 03. There was no G5 then. In fact, it was announced in June '03.
Also, consider, that his ENTIRE ARGUMENT is built using Motorola's processors. Once the IBM 970 took over the entire lineup, 2004(re: previous link for source), his reasoning became invalid, no matter what outcome was observed. His problem was not with the PPC architecture, but rather their availability, a problem unique to Motorola. Apple's switch to Intel processors had more to do with power-consumption, and a shift towards laptops, which I notice Nostradamus neglects to mention... Dvorak might as well have said Apple will be switching to Intel because their current processors continue to generate excess peanut butter in their cases. He doesn't EVEN consider the third memeber of the PowerPC alliance, who, I might add was spanking serious tookus with their Power server architecture.
Dvorak gets no break, no slack. He proposes a dual-architecture chipset for backwards compatibility; I'm no programmer, but I'm pretty sure that's gotta be hella difficult to accomodate, if not impossible. He also advocated a switch to the Itanium processor. Now, I'm no expert, but if Apple moved to Intel to supply their laptops with plenty of powerful chips, and Dvorak recommends Itanium, why can't I FIND ANY.
Remember, "waiting until 2004 might be a bit risky," Dvorak's analysis: Comdex 2003. Right under the section marked "Timing is everything."
Well, I agree with most of that, but I think, at least in terms of minutiae, your last line is off the mark.
A free society must choose NOT to be free.
Ideally the works of Franklin and Paine and Jefferson and Locke and Hobbes and those cats says that we're FREE people, naturally. Freedom is a natural right. They said, and I agree, that we're free, without choosing anything, and it is the choice to give those freedoms away which constitutes government. People today feel that their freedoms are allowed. No one allows my freedom. My freedom IS.
What frightens me more is not that we've said almost the same thing, but that most people think they ARE the same thing. This seems to me a subconscious shift regarding the nature of Freedom. AT&T and the U.S. Government do not *GIVE* freedom. They attempt to manipulate it, often successfully it would seem.
When need a return to revolutionary ideas concerning free peoples. At the very least, when we casually end a comment our natural inclination is to denote freedom is not being a regulatable entity.
Freedom's a lot like the weather. You can stay indoors, you can put on a coat, change your outfit, genetically enhance yourself to cope with it better, but it EXISTS, naturally, and no matter what comes on the Weather Channel, the weather keeps on doing what it is doing. Freedom is a realistically natural provision, not a construct created from a system.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but it was such a good post, I couldn't help nitpick something.
Look, I'll agree the patent system needs a major overhaul, in fact, most people well versed in patent law feel the same way.
RIM did not lose this case because of bad patent law. They lost the case because they made really bad decisions.
Their two major arguments (that the Intel processor in the BB was the mobile device, not the BB itself; that RIM's Canadian servers weren't subject to US patent law) were BLATANTLY contradicted by US Patent law precedent and by the U.S.C. (US Code of Law).
Not only that, their courtroom and executive behavior was asinine. They infuriated the Judge (District court Judge James Spencer), may have been lying in their testimony (about procedure MANDATED by US federal law!), and filed the SAME motion FOUR TIMES (it was beat 4 times, by the same argument; James Spencer began to wonder if there was something wrong with his hearing).
RIM had an easy win, but lack of technical expertise in their legal decisions (lawyers usually know the LAW, not technology) and simple good corporate behavior, and NTP would likely have been sent packing.
I also theorize that a critical argument could be made regarding obviousness, but it would require examining the fundamental precedent that NTP used, and judging its usefulness. Alas, that is another topic for another day (and hopefully a scholarly publication for myself, but I digress...).
Patent Law would have protected RIM, if they hadn't shot themselves in the foot. Patent law was not the problem here.
Ahhh, it's always nice to know America's on the forefront of technology. I love this place.
What? You mean it's only in Europe?
What do you mean T-Mobile doesn't have UMTS in the states?
As a former employee, all you business-suited technocrat wannabes can sit back down, because it takes FOREVER for T-Mobile (DT) to translate to T-Mobile (USA). In fact, if you RTA, you'll see that Nortel doesn't provide any infrastructure in the USA (though perhaps the article doesn't mention any either because it's beyond the scope of an article that is Euro-centric, or because Nortel doesn't provide their American infrastructure, I'm not sure).
Frankly, T-Mobile USA and DT might as well be seperate companies, with the exception of where the money goes (TM USA provides quite a bit of capital for the DT folk, who last time I checked were struggling), which is to the DT execs, and where the marketing paraphanelia comes from (i.e. the big pink T).
T-Mobile's (US) UMA plans have been sidetracked for more than a year now, with a planned launch initially scheduled for 2005. UMA= universal mobile access, the seamless handoff between Wifi and Cellular networks. Good luck to anyone who wants to see this stateside, the FCC, lack of sufficient political and financial capital, and internal company shenanigans will keep this on the other side for a while.
Yes. As James Spencer has said, repeatedly, he, quite frankly my dear, doesn't give a damn.
The USPTO is just another element of our lovely government. RIM pushes lobbyists, lobbyists push USPTO, USPTO does a review, USPTO invalidates patents. Done, right? Wrong.
NTP has successfully (as in the Judges buys it) argued that they have every right to an appeals process, which they are, and they claim it could take several years before the dust settles (doesn't really matter since the patents expire in 2012 anyways).
Quotes from Judge Spencer: "I don't tell the [USPTO] how to do their job, they don't tell me how to do mine" "I've spent enough of my life on RIM and NTP."
I've been saying it on/. for ages, but no one listens. RIM's screwed, they're going to pay a ton of money or implement their 'workaround' (which will shake investor confidence), and NTP wins. RIM did a horrible job of litigating the case, made numerous tactical and rhetorical blunders, including but not limited to a legally mandated internal investigation (for infringement) that resulted in testimony so conflicting the Judge actually stated he believes RIM is lying about conducting aforementioned investigation.
Several of their legal tactics are simply WRONG. They attempted to argue that it was the Intel processor that contained the RF device, not the Blackberry, therefore RIM wasn't liable. It is common practice in both legal precedent *AND* U.S.C. governing patent law that using a device that infringes in your 'whole widget' (as it were) still infringes. They also attempted to pursuade the Judge that because the servers are in Canada, that they weren't liable for US patent charges. This is also absolutely ridiculous. It clearly states in the U.S.C. that any business being conducted (i.e. sending and recieving e-mails) in the US falls under U.S.C. Patent jursidiction. Any patent lawyer should know this stuff.
Not to mention the fact that they've submitted the same motion to stay pending USPTO review no less than FOUR times. Spencer took it personally. He's actually said he does don't understand why RIM continues to submit the same motion over and over, but he's happy to deny it over and over.
I wish people would listen to me. I've followed this case. I've followed it very well. RIM will pay. NTP will likely make a ton of money. If NTP doesn't make money, then it means RIM will lose investor confidence, because frankly 'workarounds' make everyone edgy.
Um, I don't often respond to inflammatory posts like this, but I do feel the need to point out that like religion, the United States of America has NO national language. In fact, you've described some of the most crucial factors of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. 1.) There IS no national language. You are free to speak whichever one you'd like. (however, I agree that I should not be forced to accommodate languages I don't speak, if I miss an opportunity, I'll take responsibility, but I don't speak it, and probably never will, so I can't help ya). 2.) In fact, you can gather freely in groups, and live in communities, and they can be created from WHATEVER you'd like. Quite frankly, if it didn't violate the First Amendment, I'd kindly ask you to step outside... my country.
In the immortal words of Dennis Miller "Lighten the FUCK up!"
Slashdot Mirror
Look, who gives a flying fuck if the government knows? I certainly don't. In fact, I'd rather they didn't.
This government is getting way to nosy, IMHO. I don't care what the reason is, I'm sick and fucking tired of being saved from myself. Let me smoke my cigarette in my bar, and masturbate the Islamic terrorist porno, leave me ALONE.
Hey old white bastards, how about a law that requires me to be informed when my companies data has been hacked? Or better yet, why don't you worry about things like maintaining roads. Why is it that the NSA knows what sort of hemorrhoid creme I prefer, and when my girlfriend's periods are, but I can't drive down I-20 for more than 3 hours without needing a new wheel alignment for my car?
How about a fucking law that says I get to be informed every single time my personal information is accessed by the government? Every time I turn on the news I seem to be reading about how the Department of Homeland Security is making sure I'm following the latest terror alerts and that I'm not cooperating with al-Qaida via Xbox Live. I mean, Jesus, what the hell.
Even better, the slashdot summary makes it sound like they can circumvent state legislation. Um, my constitutional skills may be a little rusty, but I'm pretty sure that's what the 10th Amendment was all about.
While we're on the subject, what about the 9th Amendment? I'm pretty sure that that one said that we have rights that may not be explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and thus, we reserve those rights. It seems like America is serving up it's rights like a Shoney's smorgasbord. It's like 8.99 all-you-can-give-away at the Patriot Act Red Lobster. Jesus.
Douglas Adams once said (forgive my horrible paraphrasing, as I don't have my copy of Salmon of Doubt with me) that Australians often say "We're the last place left mate," and it made him nervous because of the confidence with which he said it. Makes me wanna see if they're right, cuz quite frankly I'm sick of this place. It's not just the politicians, it's the people. How can my vote count if I realize for every vote I cast with some knowledge of the issues, there's fifty people are are being exploited by like-minded zealots whose sole purpose is to acquire power, and seek to retain that power.
Madison, in Federalist 9 & 10, argued that mutual self-intrest will keep the 'factions' in line, draw them towards a central, middle ground, and thus make decisions that are best for everyone. The problem seems to be that no all 'factions' are allowed into the game. At this point, I've got to request that I be allowed to collect my chips and move to another table, cuz I think I'm getting screwed, and all I see is more Dick coming. ~a
As you may or may not know my small African nation Qwyyygk has recently come under Civil War. I have a lot of money, but I cannot get to it where I'm at. I'm in hiding because I'm the, um, prince of the nation. I've need your help. I've authorized you to take possession of my vast fortune (a bazillion gagillion dollars), and all I need is your consent and personal banking information to transfer the money to you. Please help me, as you are my only last hope. ~Prince Omboubada
Wow, I'm genuinely forced to recant that 'no one' knows what they're talking about here. Yeah, the queue the Machus imposed was shaved head with the long braided pony tail. I'm not familiar with the Stephenson work, but I can completely understand the 'Mao Dynasty' simply prima facia. The Communist regime continually spouted off their glorious revolution, and the moving away from Confucian values, etc.. and pretty much didn't change a damn thing. China's a hard place to change. Ask the British in the 1700 and 1800s. Mao could say whatever he wanted, and China was going to smile and nod and act like it was paying attention, and then it was going to go and do whatever the hell it though was best, Mao be damned. It's a Confucian attitude. The Chinese, particularly in business, rarely tell someone 'No.' Oh sure they deny you things, and end up having the effect of 'No,' but they get really edgy about actually saying it. I love watching it.
The Yuan (Mongol) and Qing (Manchu) dynasties, while foreign dynasties, there was so little altering of the fundamental conduct of Chinese behavior (aside from the slapping on of a layer of Manchus and Mongols on top, and snagging a layer of the dough) that I feel they maintain, not contradict, the 'unbroken history.' Maybe the Manchus and Mongols would agree with me, but they maintained the civil service exams, the currency, the prestige of the Dragon Throne, and typically appealed to the Confucian political structure to derive their strength.
A break would be a collapse, much like the Roman Empire, which saw it's total reign and social structure completely disintegrate. There's no way that Emperor Kangxi or Kublai Khan can be compared with Alaric when it comes to their approaches in taking over an empire.
Exactly my point, from OUR perspective. In order to understand China, you can't compare it with a successful Eastern European paradigm. I citied one of the differences (the 3000+ years of unbroken history), how many more exist, I can't imagine, but when someone doesn't 'respect' China because the E. Euros did something the Chinese didn't, doesn't make any sense. I'm glad you're coming with me on this ;-)
Well, this is going to be one of THOSE posts eh?
Okay, lemme tone it down then... See, you criticize people for forcing their beliefs on someone else. However, you fall into a circular argument because you believe something (that people shouldn't criticize people for having different beliefs), and yet you also criticize people who believe something different (that, oh, say, when a government starts censoring information about its activities to its people, it's bad).
Relativism, the belief that these sorts of things are relative to the person and don't exist independently of that person's thoughts, gets you no where, except suicide of the insane asylum.
Clear enough?
What in the name of HELL are you talking about???
1.) As a previous poster noted, Chinese citizens are DENIED access to Wikipedia, hence the need for the service.
2.) Look at the content of censorship they are talking about and ask yourself, seriously, if that goes on at slashdot. Does slashdot pull it's punches to avoid critical remarks about the Bush Administration? NO!
3.) Anyone censoring POLITICAL SPEECH is in violation of what the United States Supreme Court considers the MOST SACRED of ALL forms of expression.
4.) Of course you can say "Just don't use it... nah nah nah" but then that throws the baby out with the bathwater. Even extreme Marxists didn't want the industry to go away, they just wanted it to harmonize with the people. So too, can the internet.
I mean, do you just not care? That it's okay that people in that country have no recourse to politically criticize their government? Is that alright with you? Is that alright with all the effing slashdotters that post here? Jesus, I'm spent. I hate articles about China, because quite frankly no one here seems to admit that they don't know what they're talking about.
Then clearly you haven't read much on China, except perhaps, with regards to current events.
You see, China has the longest unbroken history of any current civilization. The principles of Confucius, among others, I won't deny the effect of Siddartha or Lao Tzu however their focus was spiritual and Confucius was political (although that in and of itself is a misnomer, because a truly Confucian political system is one in which subtle, yet totalitarian control is exercised from the divine Father, through rites), still linger today.
I mean, if you think these sort of cultural bonds are easy to free yourself from, then try and figure out why English speakers still refer to the sun as 'rising.' I don't *think* people still believe it's a geocentric universe, but that leftover cultural and historical background is exerting pressure on the citizenry.
Now, compare China's 3000+ years of unbroken history with the fragmented mess that is Eastern Europe and you're talking about analogizing teflon fibers with yarn. Yes, I'm proud of the Czechs, they did a grand job, and the Chinese could take a page from their book, no doubt. The point is that until you can UNDERSTAND the Chinese perhaps you shouldn't bandy your 'respect' around like it was God's gift to give.
The Chinese piss me off all the time, but I understand how and why they get there, and trust me, they are deserving of our respect.
Riiiiiight... Would you like to buy a bridge from me? Great deal, supplies are limited...
Seriously, you can't honestly believe that the reason that this is being censored is in no way related to China's policy regarding information dissemination? Granted the company is choosing to go along with it, a morally repugnant stance IMHO, but the Chinese government IS responsible.
You realize, of course, that people are criticizing a government that is absolutely convinced that the values and beliefs they hold are the ones that should be universally observed, and they WILL KILL YOU for it?
I think you can see the difference here... Besides until you can tell me you've read the Analects, as well as the various other works of classical Chinese scholasticism, I don't believe you're in ANY position to claim an understanding of Chinese ways. Period. ~a - b.a. History, focus: China.
Are you serious? Is this a registered running website that does nothing more than show the pic of Kirk screaming "Khaaaaaan"? I love the internet
I'm just waiting for the day when I'm in the middle of sex and my condom reminds me that a wide variety of complementary lubes, toys, emergency contraceptives, massage oils, sheets, mattresses, and porn are available.
This is of course assuming I can get laid...
I think based on the comments I'm reading here that there is a missing point.
If I may, I'd like to include that point...
87 F. Supp. 2d 30
This is the case citation. I recommend reading it if you have access to lexis nexis. Here's ONE relevant snippet:
[*38] If the evidence reveals a significant exclusionary impact in the relevant market, the defendant's conduct will be labeled "anticompetitive" - and liability will attach- unless the defendant comes forward with specific, procompetitive business motivations that explain the full extent of its exclusionary conduct. See Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 483 (declining to grant defendant's motion for summary judgment because factual questions remained as to whether defendant's asserted justifications were sufficient to explain the exclusionary conduct or were instead merely pretextual); see also Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 605 n.32, 86 L. Ed. 2d 467, 105 S. Ct. 2847 (1985) (holding that the second element of a monopoly maintenance claim is satisfied by proof of "'behavior that not only (1) tends to impair the opportunities of rivals, but also (2) either does not further competition on the merits or does so in an unnecessarily restrictive way'") (quoting III Phillip E. Areeda & Donald F. Turner, Antitrust Law P 626b, at 78 (1978)).
If the defendant with monopoly power consciously antagonized its customers by making its [**12] products less attractive to them - or if it incurred other costs, such as large outlays of development capital and forfeited opportunities to derive revenue from it - with no prospect of compensation other than the erection or preservation of barriers against competition by equally efficient firms, the Court may deem the defendant's conduct "predatory." As the D.C. Circuit stated in Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co.,
***Please note the above paragraph... 'with no prospect of compensation other than the erection of preservation of barriers agsint competittion by equally efficient firmw'***
Please be aware slashdotters, you're views, however well formulated they may be, ARE NOT THE LAW. Please check the relevant laws and cases. As you can see, clearly there is precedent in the Neumann case, reafirmed in the Microsoft case, that THIS IS MONOPOLY ABUSE.
Granted arguments can be made in Microsoft's favor, but I find this a trouble precedent for corporate behavior. Usually when you're found GUILTY of a CRIME you should lay low and NOT COMMIT the SAME CRIME AGAIN!
Maybe I'm just crazy...
Sorry, I guess I didn't elucidate my point clearly enough. Really what I think is that it's going to promote unhealthy attitudes by throwing our hands up and saying, 'we can't do anything about it, so I guess we should X. (where X is an unknown action, as I mentioned, either let Yahoo! do this without telling them we think its wrong, or X is quit posting it on Slashdot because businesses always get away with things and its taking away our valuable Linux time here, I don't know what people who claim anything with regards to X in this case)' For my less rhetorical and more pertinent position: If you are a business, you shouldn't do this. Consumers shouldn't buy from this business if they are doing it. Governments shouldn't support businesses that continue to do this.
Why is it that every time this issue comes up someone pops up with a supposed 'realistic worldview' defense of these companies?
Everytime I read through another instance of China putting the kibosh on freedom and liberty, people here start picking up the "businesses make money, China has money, therefore businesses will screw anyone and everyone to make money" line of reasoning? Businesses aren't some unnatural entity that sprang forth, they are a collection of man-power, and resources, working towards a common goal. There is a *person* somewhere, saying "Toss the guy to the Chinese authority."
The more people blindly accept the justification that "that's just how it is, I can't change anything," the less you ACTUALLY can change things. Don't give your power away to multi-national corporations, don't give it away to the goverment.
I guess I just don't see what your policy advocacy says. Do we let Yahoo! off the hook for hosing people? Are you saying this just isn't newsworthy? That too much of your valuable time has been wasted or learning that Yahoo! is pulling some shady deals in China? Just let them get away with it, and stop talking about it because we're wasting our breath?
Can't people speak out against a perceived injustice and have it mean more than a wasted breath? Sheesh, usually I'm considered the cynically one, but next to the average Slashdotter, I'm dancing in the land of fairies and make-believe and butterflies and rainbows.
Quit shrugging your shoulders about a problem as fundamentally restrictive as this. The more people speak, the more can be done.
Perhaps you should quit hanging out with Hollywood types, women, and metrosexuals then. A nice blanket statement like that flies really well out in Georgia (USA), particularly about black people. That's why we still have KKK rallies. I don't know what you're *looking* at because if that's what you *see* I recommend a vision check. Do those three types use Macs? Quite possibly, and I can see reasons why. I see students buying them, parents buying them, and perhaps I'm the only one that read the news but universities buy them, secondary school systems buy them, crazy people buy them, and, oh yeah, even MICROSOFT buys them. I'd like to point to my own rabid Apple fanboy-ism as the bias for writing this, but clearly I keep seeing instance after instance of people buying Apple, or buying into Apple. Perhaps you should consider what your perceptions are filtering out if that is *normally what you see*
OMG, speaking of drinking the kool-aid, did you even READ his Apple/Intel switch argument?
First of all, you'll recall that the IBM -> Intel switch was necessitated by TIMING. Dvorak's article, here, was written in March of 03. There was no G5 then. In fact, it was announced in June '03.
Also, consider, that his ENTIRE ARGUMENT is built using Motorola's processors. Once the IBM 970 took over the entire lineup, 2004(re: previous link for source), his reasoning became invalid, no matter what outcome was observed. His problem was not with the PPC architecture, but rather their availability, a problem unique to Motorola. Apple's switch to Intel processors had more to do with power-consumption, and a shift towards laptops, which I notice Nostradamus neglects to mention... Dvorak might as well have said Apple will be switching to Intel because their current processors continue to generate excess peanut butter in their cases. He doesn't EVEN consider the third memeber of the PowerPC alliance, who, I might add was spanking serious tookus with their Power server architecture.
Dvorak gets no break, no slack. He proposes a dual-architecture chipset for backwards compatibility; I'm no programmer, but I'm pretty sure that's gotta be hella difficult to accomodate, if not impossible. He also advocated a switch to the Itanium processor. Now, I'm no expert, but if Apple moved to Intel to supply their laptops with plenty of powerful chips, and Dvorak recommends Itanium, why can't I FIND ANY.
Remember, "waiting until 2004 might be a bit risky," Dvorak's analysis: Comdex 2003. Right under the section marked "Timing is everything."
Now, I agree, Slashdot's readers, myself included, can sometimes get swept up in a tide of zealotry, however, if you're going MOD up someone ACTUALLY defending Dvorak, I highly recommend reading his work first. You don't want to find yourself in an awkward situation, because you weren't entirely sure what cause you were supporting...
Well, I agree with most of that, but I think, at least in terms of minutiae, your last line is off the mark.
A free society must choose NOT to be free.
Ideally the works of Franklin and Paine and Jefferson and Locke and Hobbes and those cats says that we're FREE people, naturally. Freedom is a natural right. They said, and I agree, that we're free, without choosing anything, and it is the choice to give those freedoms away which constitutes government. People today feel that their freedoms are allowed. No one allows my freedom. My freedom IS.
What frightens me more is not that we've said almost the same thing, but that most people think they ARE the same thing. This seems to me a subconscious shift regarding the nature of Freedom. AT&T and the U.S. Government do not *GIVE* freedom. They attempt to manipulate it, often successfully it would seem.
When need a return to revolutionary ideas concerning free peoples. At the very least, when we casually end a comment our natural inclination is to denote freedom is not being a regulatable entity.
Freedom's a lot like the weather. You can stay indoors, you can put on a coat, change your outfit, genetically enhance yourself to cope with it better, but it EXISTS, naturally, and no matter what comes on the Weather Channel, the weather keeps on doing what it is doing. Freedom is a realistically natural provision, not a construct created from a system.
Sorry for the mini-rant, but it was such a good post, I couldn't help nitpick something.
Look, I'll agree the patent system needs a major overhaul, in fact, most people well versed in patent law feel the same way. RIM did not lose this case because of bad patent law. They lost the case because they made really bad decisions. Their two major arguments (that the Intel processor in the BB was the mobile device, not the BB itself; that RIM's Canadian servers weren't subject to US patent law) were BLATANTLY contradicted by US Patent law precedent and by the U.S.C. (US Code of Law). Not only that, their courtroom and executive behavior was asinine. They infuriated the Judge (District court Judge James Spencer), may have been lying in their testimony (about procedure MANDATED by US federal law!), and filed the SAME motion FOUR TIMES (it was beat 4 times, by the same argument; James Spencer began to wonder if there was something wrong with his hearing). RIM had an easy win, but lack of technical expertise in their legal decisions (lawyers usually know the LAW, not technology) and simple good corporate behavior, and NTP would likely have been sent packing. I also theorize that a critical argument could be made regarding obviousness, but it would require examining the fundamental precedent that NTP used, and judging its usefulness. Alas, that is another topic for another day (and hopefully a scholarly publication for myself, but I digress...). Patent Law would have protected RIM, if they hadn't shot themselves in the foot. Patent law was not the problem here.
Ahhh, it's always nice to know America's on the forefront of technology. I love this place. What? You mean it's only in Europe? What do you mean T-Mobile doesn't have UMTS in the states? As a former employee, all you business-suited technocrat wannabes can sit back down, because it takes FOREVER for T-Mobile (DT) to translate to T-Mobile (USA). In fact, if you RTA, you'll see that Nortel doesn't provide any infrastructure in the USA (though perhaps the article doesn't mention any either because it's beyond the scope of an article that is Euro-centric, or because Nortel doesn't provide their American infrastructure, I'm not sure). Frankly, T-Mobile USA and DT might as well be seperate companies, with the exception of where the money goes (TM USA provides quite a bit of capital for the DT folk, who last time I checked were struggling), which is to the DT execs, and where the marketing paraphanelia comes from (i.e. the big pink T). T-Mobile's (US) UMA plans have been sidetracked for more than a year now, with a planned launch initially scheduled for 2005. UMA= universal mobile access, the seamless handoff between Wifi and Cellular networks. Good luck to anyone who wants to see this stateside, the FCC, lack of sufficient political and financial capital, and internal company shenanigans will keep this on the other side for a while.
How do you pronounce that, because I suspect I may be one already? ;-)
Yes. As James Spencer has said, repeatedly, he, quite frankly my dear, doesn't give a damn.
/. for ages, but no one listens. RIM's screwed, they're going to pay a ton of money or implement their 'workaround' (which will shake investor confidence), and NTP wins. RIM did a horrible job of litigating the case, made numerous tactical and rhetorical blunders, including but not limited to a legally mandated internal investigation (for infringement) that resulted in testimony so conflicting the Judge actually stated he believes RIM is lying about conducting aforementioned investigation.
The USPTO is just another element of our lovely government. RIM pushes lobbyists, lobbyists push USPTO, USPTO does a review, USPTO invalidates patents. Done, right? Wrong.
NTP has successfully (as in the Judges buys it) argued that they have every right to an appeals process, which they are, and they claim it could take several years before the dust settles (doesn't really matter since the patents expire in 2012 anyways).
Quotes from Judge Spencer:
"I don't tell the [USPTO] how to do their job, they don't tell me how to do mine"
"I've spent enough of my life on RIM and NTP."
I've been saying it on
Several of their legal tactics are simply WRONG. They attempted to argue that it was the Intel processor that contained the RF device, not the Blackberry, therefore RIM wasn't liable. It is common practice in both legal precedent *AND* U.S.C. governing patent law that using a device that infringes in your 'whole widget' (as it were) still infringes. They also attempted to pursuade the Judge that because the servers are in Canada, that they weren't liable for US patent charges. This is also absolutely ridiculous. It clearly states in the U.S.C. that any business being conducted (i.e. sending and recieving e-mails) in the US falls under U.S.C. Patent jursidiction. Any patent lawyer should know this stuff.
Not to mention the fact that they've submitted the same motion to stay pending USPTO review no less than FOUR times. Spencer took it personally. He's actually said he does don't understand why RIM continues to submit the same motion over and over, but he's happy to deny it over and over.
I wish people would listen to me. I've followed this case. I've followed it very well. RIM will pay. NTP will likely make a ton of money. If NTP doesn't make money, then it means RIM will lose investor confidence, because frankly 'workarounds' make everyone edgy.
TRUST ME.
~a
Look, a Yakov and a Jackoff in the same story... Sometimes these things just write themselves...
Homer says: There are 3 types of people in this world... those who can count, and those who can't....
Um, I don't often respond to inflammatory posts like this, but I do feel the need to point out that like religion, the United States of America has NO national language. In fact, you've described some of the most crucial factors of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. 1.) There IS no national language. You are free to speak whichever one you'd like. (however, I agree that I should not be forced to accommodate languages I don't speak, if I miss an opportunity, I'll take responsibility, but I don't speak it, and probably never will, so I can't help ya). 2.) In fact, you can gather freely in groups, and live in communities, and they can be created from WHATEVER you'd like. Quite frankly, if it didn't violate the First Amendment, I'd kindly ask you to step outside... my country. In the immortal words of Dennis Miller "Lighten the FUCK up!"