I not worried about Uncle Sam pulling my files off of Google. Hell, if they suspect me, they could just pop in and take my computer with a warrant, so my files are just as susceptible to government seizure as they ever were. And as much as I would like to count on formatting my hard drive 7 times, I would be surprised if that would even delete the records beyond what the DEA could recover. Not to mention that the point of the warrant is that they notify you why they are seizing it, not that they tell you ahead of time so you can prepare yourself for seizure.
That said, I am much more worried about what the more nefarious web denizens intend to do with my information. In all honesty, I don't stand to lose much if the government looks at my files (not to be confused/flamed for 'I don't care if...). But if some balding 35 year old hacker wants to buy a new Capt. Kirk doll to adorn his mom's basement, I may be in trouble. It is for that reason that I do not use Google desktop.
I don't know if China signed the Declaration of Human Rights. Regardless, I put as much faith in the UN as I do body-thetans being attached to me causing me psychological harm (hat tip Tom Cruise).
As to companies and people being obliged to demand China live up to it (assuming they are committed), I think although it is a noble ideal, the reality is that men are not angels (...John Locke...) and Yahoo will not be able to implant social change with one political stand. I think for the time being that it pissing into the wind.
This is a good point. I never argued Yahoo's morality. I do think that the Chinese government would have gotten those records by hook or by crook, regardless of the bad press they received (Tiananmen, anyone?).
So their option are:
1)Don't offer email service. This doesn't stick it to the man- email service is easy to come by, and Yahoo's absence wont hurt the Chinese anymore than yahoo shutting down would kill people over here that could easily shift to gmail/hotmail/buy a friggin servermail.
2)Refuse to hand over the records. Probably would end in the records being seized anyway and some Yahoo exec in a reeducation camp.
3) Give in the Chinese. It lets the Chinese get easy email and keeps your executives from the gulag.
I know it sucks that this guy got shafted for believing in a dream, but he knew what he was doing. Nobody in China defies the government without knowing the potential consequences. Would it have been a swell act for the Yahoo guy to throw down for this guy? Sure.
But it is really easy for us to say 'I would gladly lose my life for someone else's free speech!' from behind our keyboards on US soil.
Let us not get carried away here. As much as I become furious with politicians, most of them still have best intentions. Pat Robertson actually thinks that homosexuals will be the undoing of the country. The 700 Club is filmed less than an hour away from me. Trust me, he may be loony, but a phony he is not.
That said, I don't think its right to simply crucify them for wanting to edit their own bios. I would certainly want a say in what is the new ultimate source of information (think, in the stone age, we used to use Google and read up to five articles to learn all we needed to know about a subject).
That said, changes to factual integrity (voting records, historical records, etc.) would be a immoral act. But if he is going to edit his purported 'political views' - those are naturally a PR item anyway, and his camp is more entitled than any other to state what his views or platform really are.
As much as I love free speech, we must remember that the US Constitution, and all that is wonderful about it, does not exist in China. As much as it appalls us, the fact is that this man broke Chinese law and is going to get punished for it.
That sucks.
But- it is also the law. Saying Yahoo is evil for obeying the laws in the country which they serve I think is short sighted. Were Yahoo to balk the Chinese, they could be told to pack up shop and leave, which would do nothing to promote free speech for the Chinese people. China is getting better, slowly. For now, they will have to rely on the tools of all freedom fighters: obfuscation and anonymity. It worked for the Apostle Paul and for Harriet Tubman.
The war for free speech in China is good, but this battle isn't going to have a meaningful result.
Um... I think I speak for all of the Department of Obvious Assholes when i say:
Monkey -> Human makes sense. We look alot alike, and I bet many/.ers still drag their knuckles .
Shark -> Human = rediculous. If we do share similar genes, they probably come from a mutual protozoa, making them our great great great.......... cousins.
Not to fanboy for big G, but I dont think the internet would be nearly as widespread if Google hadn't made it so accessable. I mean, Google is a fucking verb. And its all my non-geek friends know.
As a recovering WoW player, I find it interesting how many players found it interesting that the 'oversexed bimbo elf huntress' they were playing with was in actuality a guy. I should qualify that: The females realized this within at least 5 minutes, in addition to normally recognizing that I did it to get free items, favor, protection, and easy to come by parties. Great is the power of the giggle.
Occasionally one of the girls would forget to/tell and my cover would be blown in a party, and some male players that were shamefully hitting on me earlier would become enraged and ask for their (quite expensive) items back. Then they would regail me, accusing me of being gay... odd, considering they never objected to my 'girlfriend' coming along (who was indeed Brian, my very awesome, very straight roommate)
I hardly think that a change of Blizzard's policy is going to fix the social problem that permiates much of nerdom as thick as it does Alabama. Play who you want. On planet Warcraft, homosexuality is discriminated against. That is a role you choose to play or not.
Speaking of which, would a handsome man like you like to escort me as I try to find my epic?
As much as I love technology, I think i would like a little more biting approach to our war on the radical boogyman. We know these guys are insanely religious . I am a big proponent of going to Smithfield and using the old pig carcasses to pack the bombs in. That way the fuckers die covered in pig fat, so they can explain that to their 40 virgins.
Have you guys seen the new lego Mindstorms that are supposed to come out in Fall? They have some really cool stuff on them, not the least of which is Bluetooth connectivity. Seems like some logic could be written for beer fetching ability, and just in time for football season next year.
I also realize that many of you will say, "Are you ill? Any slashdotter worth his salt would build his own robot..." So sue me.
If it is true that this woman has never used a computer, it is clear that this woman must be a cyborg. How else could she have downloaded all these songs and reproduce them in all that analog bliss with a 3-note range? *She* must be the computer doing all the downloading and redistributing, causing the decline of capitalism and the rise of Godless comunism.
I advise that we send her ass to GitMo or Area 49 (used for cyborgs, not aliens, located in California, of course) for some serious probing- let Congressmen Conyers and Sensenbrenner plug her analog hole for a little while!
Alot of people have problems with the military using the technology, and I think that they are projecting their disdain for the current war on all war. War should certainly be a last resort (I am *not* arguing either way on Iraq right now for the sake of sanity...) but certainly we would of appreciated these unmanned robots in Normandy. And how many of you would argue that World War 2 was a useless war?
I think its short-sighted to think that all war is bad. And there are many dangerous people in the world that that would be Alexander the Great. Think about that two-bit midget man from North Korea, Kim Jong-Il. He's certifiably nuts! Even though the Chinese have let him fly off on a tangent in recent years, they are still in bed together, and one's war could easily pit us against both. In that engagement, I think we need to have every bit of strength we have, Linus approved or not.
Last I checked, 'evil Bill Gates' does give quite a bit of money away to the poor. Certainly he is no pauper for it, but he is socially conscious. Now, before you flame this post, please seperate your opinion of his firm's software with what he does with his money. He may the head of a lousy software company, but he is also a good philanthropist.
Slashdot Mirror
I think alot of their intended listeners will get it turned off from their evil SysAdmin...
That said, I am much more worried about what the more nefarious web denizens intend to do with my information. In all honesty, I don't stand to lose much if the government looks at my files (not to be confused/flamed for 'I don't care if...). But if some balding 35 year old hacker wants to buy a new Capt. Kirk doll to adorn his mom's basement, I may be in trouble. It is for that reason that I do not use Google desktop.
As to companies and people being obliged to demand China live up to it (assuming they are committed), I think although it is a noble ideal, the reality is that men are not angels (...John Locke...) and Yahoo will not be able to implant social change with one political stand. I think for the time being that it pissing into the wind.
So their option are:
1)Don't offer email service. This doesn't stick it to the man- email service is easy to come by, and Yahoo's absence wont hurt the Chinese anymore than yahoo shutting down would kill people over here that could easily shift to gmail/hotmail/buy a friggin servermail.
2)Refuse to hand over the records. Probably would end in the records being seized anyway and some Yahoo exec in a reeducation camp.
3) Give in the Chinese. It lets the Chinese get easy email and keeps your executives from the gulag.
I know it sucks that this guy got shafted for believing in a dream, but he knew what he was doing. Nobody in China defies the government without knowing the potential consequences. Would it have been a swell act for the Yahoo guy to throw down for this guy? Sure.
But it is really easy for us to say 'I would gladly lose my life for someone else's free speech!' from behind our keyboards on US soil.
Let us not get carried away here. As much as I become furious with politicians, most of them still have best intentions. Pat Robertson actually thinks that homosexuals will be the undoing of the country. The 700 Club is filmed less than an hour away from me. Trust me, he may be loony, but a phony he is not. That said, I don't think its right to simply crucify them for wanting to edit their own bios. I would certainly want a say in what is the new ultimate source of information (think, in the stone age, we used to use Google and read up to five articles to learn all we needed to know about a subject). That said, changes to factual integrity (voting records, historical records, etc.) would be a immoral act. But if he is going to edit his purported 'political views' - those are naturally a PR item anyway, and his camp is more entitled than any other to state what his views or platform really are.
That sucks.
But- it is also the law. Saying Yahoo is evil for obeying the laws in the country which they serve I think is short sighted. Were Yahoo to balk the Chinese, they could be told to pack up shop and leave, which would do nothing to promote free speech for the Chinese people. China is getting better, slowly. For now, they will have to rely on the tools of all freedom fighters: obfuscation and anonymity. It worked for the Apostle Paul and for Harriet Tubman.
The war for free speech in China is good, but this battle isn't going to have a meaningful result.
Um... I think I speak for all of the Department of Obvious Assholes when i say: Monkey -> Human makes sense. We look alot alike, and I bet many /.ers still drag their knuckles .
Shark -> Human = rediculous. If we do share similar genes, they probably come from a mutual protozoa, making them our great great great .......... cousins.
Not to fanboy for big G, but I dont think the internet would be nearly as widespread if Google hadn't made it so accessable. I mean, Google is a fucking verb. And its all my non-geek friends know.
Occasionally one of the girls would forget to /tell and my cover would be blown in a party, and some male players that were shamefully hitting on me earlier would become enraged and ask for their (quite expensive) items back. Then they would regail me, accusing me of being gay... odd, considering they never objected to my 'girlfriend' coming along (who was indeed Brian, my very awesome, very straight roommate)
I hardly think that a change of Blizzard's policy is going to fix the social problem that permiates much of nerdom as thick as it does Alabama. Play who you want. On planet Warcraft, homosexuality is discriminated against. That is a role you choose to play or not.
Speaking of which, would a handsome man like you like to escort me as I try to find my epic?
Or maybe I am just vindictive.
I also realize that many of you will say, "Are you ill? Any slashdotter worth his salt would build his own robot..." So sue me.
I advise that we send her ass to GitMo or Area 49 (used for cyborgs, not aliens, located in California, of course) for some serious probing- let Congressmen Conyers and Sensenbrenner plug her analog hole for a little while!
Alot of people have problems with the military using the technology, and I think that they are projecting their disdain for the current war on all war. War should certainly be a last resort (I am *not* arguing either way on Iraq right now for the sake of sanity...) but certainly we would of appreciated these unmanned robots in Normandy. And how many of you would argue that World War 2 was a useless war? I think its short-sighted to think that all war is bad. And there are many dangerous people in the world that that would be Alexander the Great. Think about that two-bit midget man from North Korea, Kim Jong-Il. He's certifiably nuts! Even though the Chinese have let him fly off on a tangent in recent years, they are still in bed together, and one's war could easily pit us against both. In that engagement, I think we need to have every bit of strength we have, Linus approved or not.
Last I checked, 'evil Bill Gates' does give quite a bit of money away to the poor. Certainly he is no pauper for it, but he is socially conscious. Now, before you flame this post, please seperate your opinion of his firm's software with what he does with his money. He may the head of a lousy software company, but he is also a good philanthropist.