Censorship of the press, even for only one seemingly narrow reason, is a slippery slope to additional censorship. If one such reason is deemed sufficient for it to occur, then the threshold for other reasons is correspondingly lowered. For instance, if censorship is allowed on materials allegedly supporting terrorism, then why not materials that could conceivably be used by terrorists (i.e. histories of terrorist attacks and tactics, information about military firearms or explosives, etc.)? As a matter of fact, why not ban anything pertaining to fundamentalist Islam - histories, biographies, books of religious rites and practices, all of it? And on a different note, why not things potentially harmful to children, like violent video games or potentially racist books like To Kill a Mockingbird or The Catcher in the Rye for instance? After all, the article mentioned specifically that the censored materials above were racist and seemed to draw the conclusion that this was more a reason to censor them.
I'm sure you personally wouldn't support much if any of this, but I guarantee that someone else does, and if one category of material is censored, then it is all the more likely that others will follow. Arguments in favor of extending the censorship will hold more ground than those for beginning it ever did. Please do keep in mind that freedom is much more easily lost than gained.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~ Benjamin Franklin
Isn't that just the sad truth - throughout history, Russia has been a great could-have-been. The country has vast deposits of natural resources, the largest amount of land of any country in the world, and a reputation for brilliance in engineering and critical thinking, to mention just a few assets. But time and time again, its oppressive government, in incarnations ranging from the czars to the Soviet Union to Vladimir Putin, continues to plunder and steal until there is barely anything left for the people. Russia's past is truly one of history's great tragedies.
And why isn't this article tagged "censorship" again? This is just another example of the power of the few over the many, regardless of the means employed.
The internet as it currently stands is a triumph of the free market and individual liberty - there are no unusurpable kings, no all-encompassing gatekeepers, and no omniscient spies. The beauty of the internet is in the power of individual choice coupled with as little centralized regulation and oversight as possible. No one person, whether a media executive or Big Brother, should be able to take control over all of it, and anyone can enter it. To allow this beautiful system to be destroyed and rebuilt with the intent of subverting all that it stands for now would be nothing short of a travesty.
before someone beats me to it (unless it has already happened).... Truecrypt hidden volumes? I doubt that the average airline security thug knows enough about the method to find anything, and one could always encrypt practically everything on the drive regardless of whether one had anything to hide - it's the principle of it! When Congress and the Constitution fail to protect digital privacy, perhaps it is better to take matters into one's own hands.
But that would be subject to draconian licensing restrictions and fees. Unless of course you mean streaming from your own computer, and even that would probably be billed at a monthly fee.
You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs!
Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person!
I blow my nose at you!
I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper!
I fart in your general direction!
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
I agree - to all outside observers, the duplicated person would be identical to their former self. However, the chemical reactions and physical processes defining their consciousness would have ceased when they died. The copy would look, act, and behave exactly like them, but once they were dead, they wouldn't just become the copy. The copy is merely that, an exact copy and not the original.
What's ironic is that if someone professing a belief that they would become the copy were to die and be respawned from a copy, the copy would believe that it was the actual person - the actual person, however, would be dead and not believe anything.
Well, the solution to this issue seems pretty simple. If you don't want to deal with the nickel-and-dime fees (or rather, "microtransactions"), then don't buy the software. It's that simple - if you, as a customer, are offered something that you don't want, you don't A. Gripe about it, or B. Buy it anyway and then gripe about it. You just don't buy it. That way, companies get the message that they need to change their products to appeal to consumers and make money. If you want to be active about it, then organize a boycott or whatever. That's how capitalism is supposed to work, anyway.
As a side note, if the only products available are objectionable in this regard, then a host of new problems are raised. But inter-corporational cooperation to limit consumer choice is something that seems, for the moment, to be limited mostly to the music industry and DRM.
Hint: it's the DRM - if you're looking into subscription services, why not use eMusic? From what I've heard, they sell unrestricted mp3s, though I'm not sure how many songs are available in comparison to iTunes or Napster.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
How long before we finally admit that Google is just as evil as any other multi-billion dollar technology/media company? Their products and services have become more and more invasive (all in the name of targetted advertising) as time has gone on, and it seems as if the mission statement of the company is slowly changing to something more on the lines of "Don't miss any valuable data." And on a completely unrelated side note, has anyone read Feed lately?
People desire what is familiar to them or already owned by them over something similar/identical but unfamiliar (it's called the endowment effect in psychology). If the mass media pushes somebody who's reasonably good to the point of familiarity with the masses, then the consumer base is instantly and firmly established. At that point, it doesn't matter if the person isn't as good as a less well-known actor/actress/musician, just so long as they continue to appeal to their consumer base and don't run afoul of politics or popular belief (a la Tom Cruise). It might be arbitrary and unfair, but that's life.
Putting the life of some stupid test animal above scientific advancement - deplorable. These "activist" groups are no better than the close-minded terrorists of the Middle East. Freedom of speech is all well and good (and deserves the best of protection), but violence as a form of protest should be obliterated. And what this this poor guy's family have to do with the animals, anyway? The doorstep bombings on colleagues and relatives sound like something out of a bad Mafia movie. Message to activists: next time you feel the urge to do something violent and irrational, go back home, eat some tofu, and chill!
Slashdot Mirror
"In Putinist Russia, journalist assassinates YOU!!'" ~ Russian Reversal on Soviet Russia
Nice point - but the language is a little repetitive.
"We won't accept chemicals that build up in our bodies and our children."
And that's why we urge you to join the coalition to ban dihydrogen monoxide from industrial and commercial use. Just think of the children!
Censorship of the press, even for only one seemingly narrow reason, is a slippery slope to additional censorship. If one such reason is deemed sufficient for it to occur, then the threshold for other reasons is correspondingly lowered. For instance, if censorship is allowed on materials allegedly supporting terrorism, then why not materials that could conceivably be used by terrorists (i.e. histories of terrorist attacks and tactics, information about military firearms or explosives, etc.)? As a matter of fact, why not ban anything pertaining to fundamentalist Islam - histories, biographies, books of religious rites and practices, all of it? And on a different note, why not things potentially harmful to children, like violent video games or potentially racist books like To Kill a Mockingbird or The Catcher in the Rye for instance? After all, the article mentioned specifically that the censored materials above were racist and seemed to draw the conclusion that this was more a reason to censor them.
I'm sure you personally wouldn't support much if any of this, but I guarantee that someone else does, and if one category of material is censored, then it is all the more likely that others will follow. Arguments in favor of extending the censorship will hold more ground than those for beginning it ever did. Please do keep in mind that freedom is much more easily lost than gained.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~ Benjamin Franklin
Obnoxious ad + other Firefox tabs + mute button + 30 seconds of reading something else = Problem solved
Behold the death of internet privacy.
Isn't that just the sad truth - throughout history, Russia has been a great could-have-been. The country has vast deposits of natural resources, the largest amount of land of any country in the world, and a reputation for brilliance in engineering and critical thinking, to mention just a few assets. But time and time again, its oppressive government, in incarnations ranging from the czars to the Soviet Union to Vladimir Putin, continues to plunder and steal until there is barely anything left for the people. Russia's past is truly one of history's great tragedies.
And why isn't this article tagged "censorship" again? This is just another example of the power of the few over the many, regardless of the means employed.
The internet as it currently stands is a triumph of the free market and individual liberty - there are no unusurpable kings, no all-encompassing gatekeepers, and no omniscient spies. The beauty of the internet is in the power of individual choice coupled with as little centralized regulation and oversight as possible. No one person, whether a media executive or Big Brother, should be able to take control over all of it, and anyone can enter it. To allow this beautiful system to be destroyed and rebuilt with the intent of subverting all that it stands for now would be nothing short of a travesty.
before someone beats me to it (unless it has already happened).... Truecrypt hidden volumes? I doubt that the average airline security thug knows enough about the method to find anything, and one could always encrypt practically everything on the drive regardless of whether one had anything to hide - it's the principle of it! When Congress and the Constitution fail to protect digital privacy, perhaps it is better to take matters into one's own hands.
But that would be subject to draconian licensing restrictions and fees. Unless of course you mean streaming from your own computer, and even that would probably be billed at a monthly fee.
You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs!
Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person!
I blow my nose at you!
I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper!
I fart in your general direction!
Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!
Good thing that was satire.... Very frightening.
9/11 deaths: 2,819
US soldier deaths (Afghanistan): 901 (total, fourth table)
US soldier deaths (Iraq): 2,823 (total, first table)
Iraqi Security Forces deaths: 15,249 (total, third table)
Iraqi civilian deaths: ~48,000
Afghan civilian deaths: 3,485
And this is just plain scary.
Do the math.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know how particle accelators are used in medine? It sounds interesting.
I agree - to all outside observers, the duplicated person would be identical to their former self. However, the chemical reactions and physical processes defining their consciousness would have ceased when they died. The copy would look, act, and behave exactly like them, but once they were dead, they wouldn't just become the copy. The copy is merely that, an exact copy and not the original.
What's ironic is that if someone professing a belief that they would become the copy were to die and be respawned from a copy, the copy would believe that it was the actual person - the actual person, however, would be dead and not believe anything.
Well, the solution to this issue seems pretty simple. If you don't want to deal with the nickel-and-dime fees (or rather, "microtransactions"), then don't buy the software. It's that simple - if you, as a customer, are offered something that you don't want, you don't A. Gripe about it, or B. Buy it anyway and then gripe about it. You just don't buy it. That way, companies get the message that they need to change their products to appeal to consumers and make money. If you want to be active about it, then organize a boycott or whatever. That's how capitalism is supposed to work, anyway.
As a side note, if the only products available are objectionable in this regard, then a host of new problems are raised. But inter-corporational cooperation to limit consumer choice is something that seems, for the moment, to be limited mostly to the music industry and DRM.
Hint: it's the DRM - if you're looking into subscription services, why not use eMusic? From what I've heard, they sell unrestricted mp3s, though I'm not sure how many songs are available in comparison to iTunes or Napster.
Let the blacklisting of RFID players begin!
Courtesy of the Ministry of Truth
Yet another good reason to use open source software.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
-Ayn Rand
How long before we finally admit that Google is just as evil as any other multi-billion dollar technology/media company? Their products and services have become more and more invasive (all in the name of targetted advertising) as time has gone on, and it seems as if the mission statement of the company is slowly changing to something more on the lines of "Don't miss any valuable data." And on a completely unrelated side note, has anyone read Feed lately?
People desire what is familiar to them or already owned by them over something similar/identical but unfamiliar (it's called the endowment effect in psychology). If the mass media pushes somebody who's reasonably good to the point of familiarity with the masses, then the consumer base is instantly and firmly established. At that point, it doesn't matter if the person isn't as good as a less well-known actor/actress/musician, just so long as they continue to appeal to their consumer base and don't run afoul of politics or popular belief (a la Tom Cruise). It might be arbitrary and unfair, but that's life.
Putting the life of some stupid test animal above scientific advancement - deplorable. These "activist" groups are no better than the close-minded terrorists of the Middle East. Freedom of speech is all well and good (and deserves the best of protection), but violence as a form of protest should be obliterated. And what this this poor guy's family have to do with the animals, anyway? The doorstep bombings on colleagues and relatives sound like something out of a bad Mafia movie. Message to activists: next time you feel the urge to do something violent and irrational, go back home, eat some tofu, and chill!