I think at issue is whether she confiscated CDs before fully understanding whether they were illegal or not. The article doesn't quite make that clear (taking action? Meaning legal action or confiscation action?). If she did, then that's kinda like giving somebody a ticket for speeding without having any idea what the speed limit is.
If not, well she may be a bit braindead IMHO, but she gets kudos for at least contacting Mozilla.org about it before doing anything 'rash.'
No, that's the others. The violent ones. The minority. Yes, a loud and vocal minority, that gets lots and lots of air time.
The ones that democratically voted a terrorist group to the majority of parliment rule you mean? That minority? I'm sorry, but it's becoming harder and harder to say it's a lunatic fringe...
As are some europeans. And some americans. In those cases, we consider them lunatics, lone offenders. Even when a nation's war machinery wreaks havoc on some foreign country, we make a difference between that and that nation's people. And yet with the arabs, we call them all terrorists (or at least potential terrorist, or terrorist suspects) because a bunch of them actually are?
Which embassies did americans and europeans storm over which cartoon? How many people are killed over a GWB caricature? Who's being bombed over the darwinism vs. crationism debate?
It's not so much the existance of terrorists, as number of them and what they fight for that makes it different.
You mean they're not charging more for features you want? It's all a matter of perspective I guess... Which sounds more like what a savvy businessman would do?
This is a false choice though. Artificially created to give the illusion of choice.
You're just deciding on how crippled you want your OS to be. Choice would be asking the user at install "which of the following apps do you want installed?"
Why aren't the muslims cleaning up their own house rather than attacking the media? Do they ever stop to think that *maybe* there is a large number of islamic terrorists? And that perhaps *that* is what is destroying their image and *not* the US press? One Arab released video tape of a beheading is worth a *million* cartoons as far as 'islam image' is concerned.
These people are killing innocent people in the name of their religion! Where are the large Muslim protests against the terrorists? Where are the outreach programs in Iraq and Iran to stop the killing? Why do they only protest against the US and Europe?
It's so much easier to blame the US, Europe, England, and Israel than it is to take responsibility. Say what you want about Rumsfeld, Bush, and the media - I know it's fashionable to pick on them. But the real problem is with the arab muslims. When they decide that foreigners being kidnapped, beheaded, and tapes of the events being released is too much, then we'll see change. Until then it's quiet acceptance of those acts (read: they don't really care).
I can totaly sympathise. I was in a RS purchasing an audio extension cable for something I was tinkering with. Not an imporant job I wanted it for, just something to work. The sales guy pushed the "gold tipped costs 4 times as much" cable on me about 5 times while ringing me up. I got so frustrated I just turned and walked out.
The amazing part is the guy followed(!) me into the mall trying to get me to come back! I was *furious*! I haven't bought anything in that store since, though I do go in from time-to-time just to browse and to piss off the employees.
Hrm... Kayne West on the cover of Rolling Stone depicted as Jesus Christ. Cartoons printed of Muhammad. I don't see Christians rioting and storming embassies.
I'm not typically one to paint with a broad brush, but it's becoming more and more difficult *not* to do so. The biggest threat to Islam these days is Muslims.
Hrm. I suppose you're right. They are a bit more similar that I was thinking. I was looking more from a "government forces Google's hand" vs. "Nike takes advantage of local laws" standpoint, but the end result is arguably similar.
The Google scenario in my mind is a bit less black and white though. Google would *like* to not be doing what they're doing, but they need to in order to compete in China. 'Course Nike could also make a strong argument that in order to remain competitive with others they needed to do what they did, but in the end the decision was all theirs.
That situation is completely different (company exploiting country - rather than country restraining a company). Though I'm not saying the government shouldn't have been involved, just that they two are not directly comparable.
"Bullshit they did "what they had to do". If they wanted to take a moral stand they'd refuse to sell their product in China. Ditto for all American companies. They need us just as badly as we need them."
You don't see the contradiction there? Let me point it out for you. You claim Google didn't have to do what they did. Then you state that "they need us as badly as we need them."
A large company from *any* country will have trouble ignoring 1.whatever billion customers. And if you ignore them, but your competition doesn't, how long do you think you'll last? I know it's fun to say "But they said 'don't be evil!'" and laugh smugly as they do things that are less than desierable, but the company also must be realistic.
My opinion on this is that the US government needs to intervene a bit here (which it looks like is happening). Normally I would detest government intrusion, but when it comes to international trade I think it's one of the few areas that the government must be involved.
My god your right! I just tried searching for George Bush Sucks and got nothing! Nor does there seem to be any entries for George bush is a terrorist! This blatant censorship must stop!
The problem is that so few people realize this issue. I've spoken with my mother and wife many times about a 'nasty email' they received from somebody. They would get all worked up over it. When I asked specifically what was said, the statement was typically very benign. But the *tone* of the email, they would say, is just mean! "No it isn't" I would say, it's actually rather "emotionless." But they don't see it.
I think that most email comes across much more 'sternly' than it is intended.
What the *hell* are you doing posting on slashdot?!?! Where's the "land of the free" twist? The attack on Bush? The tying in of the Iraq war? The inevitable doomsday conclusion?
Please, if you can't whine like a teenager about the state of the world, don't post.
Give it a rest. She was already doing that outside. The SotU address is not the place to do it at. She doesn't have the right to protest in the presidents bedroom if she wants to you know. And telling her she can't isn't revoking her freedoms. This was an invite-only affair, not a public corner.
Survivor Man. The most "realistic" and interesting reality show on TV. It's basically what "Survivor" *should* have been, without the stupid voting or morons with larger chest sizes than IQs.
Most people murdered are also killed by somebody they know. Does this mean that we don't need the police? After all, the provisions are there to defend yourself (guns), and you could just hire a PI to find the murderer of your Sister! And think of the arsenal you could afford to defend yourself if you no longer pay taxes to support the police!
The State can (and used to) handle pretty much everything that the feds do now...
Until the 1930's or so when organized crime figured out that state run police was terrible at tracking them across borders. The FBI was formed for a reason. Whether or not they've over-stepped their bounds I'm not arguing however.
Slashdot Mirror
Shouldn't the cop know that before pulling you over?
I think at issue is whether she confiscated CDs before fully understanding whether they were illegal or not. The article doesn't quite make that clear (taking action? Meaning legal action or confiscation action?). If she did, then that's kinda like giving somebody a ticket for speeding without having any idea what the speed limit is.
If not, well she may be a bit braindead IMHO, but she gets kudos for at least contacting Mozilla.org about it before doing anything 'rash.'
Your post reads like a really bad movie plot. Seriously, picture "that guy" who does movie trailers reading your post. Hysterical.
No, that's the others. The violent ones. The minority. Yes, a loud and vocal minority, that gets lots and lots of air time.
The ones that democratically voted a terrorist group to the majority of parliment rule you mean? That minority? I'm sorry, but it's becoming harder and harder to say it's a lunatic fringe...
As are some europeans. And some americans. In those cases, we consider them lunatics, lone offenders. Even when a nation's war machinery wreaks havoc on some foreign country, we make a difference between that and that nation's people. And yet with the arabs, we call them all terrorists (or at least potential terrorist, or terrorist suspects) because a bunch of them actually are?
Which embassies did americans and europeans storm over which cartoon? How many people are killed over a GWB caricature? Who's being bombed over the darwinism vs. crationism debate?
It's not so much the existance of terrorists, as number of them and what they fight for that makes it different.
You mean they're not charging more for features you want? It's all a matter of perspective I guess... Which sounds more like what a savvy businessman would do?
This is a false choice though. Artificially created to give the illusion of choice.
You're just deciding on how crippled you want your OS to be. Choice would be asking the user at install "which of the following apps do you want installed?"
Mmmm, European arrogance (Intelligent papers indeed). I love it.
If Bush has an image problem, it's his fault. If muslims have an image problem, it's Bush's fault, as well as that of the US media. Interesting. I can't *imagine* why some people may think poorly of arab muslims...
Why aren't the muslims cleaning up their own house rather than attacking the media? Do they ever stop to think that *maybe* there is a large number of islamic terrorists? And that perhaps *that* is what is destroying their image and *not* the US press? One Arab released video tape of a beheading is worth a *million* cartoons as far as 'islam image' is concerned.
These people are killing innocent people in the name of their religion! Where are the large Muslim protests against the terrorists? Where are the outreach programs in Iraq and Iran to stop the killing? Why do they only protest against the US and Europe?
It's so much easier to blame the US, Europe, England, and Israel than it is to take responsibility. Say what you want about Rumsfeld, Bush, and the media - I know it's fashionable to pick on them. But the real problem is with the arab muslims. When they decide that foreigners being kidnapped, beheaded, and tapes of the events being released is too much, then we'll see change. Until then it's quiet acceptance of those acts (read: they don't really care).
I can totaly sympathise. I was in a RS purchasing an audio extension cable for something I was tinkering with. Not an imporant job I wanted it for, just something to work. The sales guy pushed the "gold tipped costs 4 times as much" cable on me about 5 times while ringing me up. I got so frustrated I just turned and walked out.
The amazing part is the guy followed(!) me into the mall trying to get me to come back! I was *furious*! I haven't bought anything in that store since, though I do go in from time-to-time just to browse and to piss off the employees.
Hrm... Kayne West on the cover of Rolling Stone depicted as Jesus Christ. Cartoons printed of Muhammad. I don't see Christians rioting and storming embassies.
I'm not typically one to paint with a broad brush, but it's becoming more and more difficult *not* to do so. The biggest threat to Islam these days is Muslims.
Hrm. I suppose you're right. They are a bit more similar that I was thinking. I was looking more from a "government forces Google's hand" vs. "Nike takes advantage of local laws" standpoint, but the end result is arguably similar.
The Google scenario in my mind is a bit less black and white though. Google would *like* to not be doing what they're doing, but they need to in order to compete in China. 'Course Nike could also make a strong argument that in order to remain competitive with others they needed to do what they did, but in the end the decision was all theirs.
That situation is completely different (company exploiting country - rather than country restraining a company). Though I'm not saying the government shouldn't have been involved, just that they two are not directly comparable.
The "censorship" itself is rather different too.
First, it was brought about be a private entity, not a government (Kazaa threatening Google).
Second, Google links to this page where you can see the request that was made, and which sites have been blocked.
This is much different. You're told content is missing, why, and what content it was.
they want a part of that market to maximize future returns for their shareholders.
Oh. My. God! Does anybody else know about this? I mean, this should hit the front page of every newspaper in the country!
"Bullshit they did "what they had to do". If they wanted to take a moral stand they'd refuse to sell their product in China. Ditto for all American companies. They need us just as badly as we need them."
You don't see the contradiction there? Let me point it out for you. You claim Google didn't have to do what they did. Then you state that "they need us as badly as we need them."
A large company from *any* country will have trouble ignoring 1.whatever billion customers. And if you ignore them, but your competition doesn't, how long do you think you'll last? I know it's fun to say "But they said 'don't be evil!'" and laugh smugly as they do things that are less than desierable, but the company also must be realistic.
My opinion on this is that the US government needs to intervene a bit here (which it looks like is happening). Normally I would detest government intrusion, but when it comes to international trade I think it's one of the few areas that the government must be involved.
I'm sorry? My post was refuting that censorship in the US can't be compared to censorship in China. It was not a personal oppinion about George Bush.
So get the fuck over it yourself.
My god your right! I just tried searching for George Bush Sucks and got nothing! Nor does there seem to be any entries for George bush is a terrorist! This blatant censorship must stop!
The problem is that so few people realize this issue. I've spoken with my mother and wife many times about a 'nasty email' they received from somebody. They would get all worked up over it. When I asked specifically what was said, the statement was typically very benign. But the *tone* of the email, they would say, is just mean! "No it isn't" I would say, it's actually rather "emotionless." But they don't see it.
I think that most email comes across much more 'sternly' than it is intended.
What the *hell* are you doing posting on slashdot?!?! Where's the "land of the free" twist? The attack on Bush? The tying in of the Iraq war? The inevitable doomsday conclusion?
:-)
Please, if you can't whine like a teenager about the state of the world, don't post.
But kidding aside, well done.
Give it a rest. She was already doing that outside. The SotU address is not the place to do it at. She doesn't have the right to protest in the presidents bedroom if she wants to you know. And telling her she can't isn't revoking her freedoms. This was an invite-only affair, not a public corner.
How has RedHat been cheating? What GPL source code do they distribute that you cannot get from their FTP site?
The editors have it in for you. Seriously, it's personal. They hate you. They told me.
Survivor Man. The most "realistic" and interesting reality show on TV. It's basically what "Survivor" *should* have been, without the stupid voting or morons with larger chest sizes than IQs.
Hmm. Some of those I can see as being a little "questionable" (at least for children - "The New Joy of Gay Sex" for instance).
But "Where's Waldo?" by Martin Hanford??? Is there a group of "Waldo Advocates" somewhere that objects to this?
Most people murdered are also killed by somebody they know. Does this mean that we don't need the police? After all, the provisions are there to defend yourself (guns), and you could just hire a PI to find the murderer of your Sister! And think of the arsenal you could afford to defend yourself if you no longer pay taxes to support the police!
The State can (and used to) handle pretty much everything that the feds do now...
Until the 1930's or so when organized crime figured out that state run police was terrible at tracking them across borders. The FBI was formed for a reason. Whether or not they've over-stepped their bounds I'm not arguing however.