This is the same factory where Wisconsin was giving them $3 billion in subsidies? Yeah, I remember that screwy deal. The Americans who put it together gave Foxconn a sweetheart deal because they couldn't do math, and so they gave them massive subsidies that didn't even make economic sense for Wisconsin. And that's why they won the contract for the new manufacturing plant. Of course, Trump took credit for it, because he knows it looks good to voters, even though Wisconsin taxpayers will end up in the hole because of the deal.

The difference is that when US companies hand over data, companies fight against it and we hear about it. In China, the government has so much control, that the companies won't even admit the government has access to everything. There's a long list of companies that have been bullied into giving up user data to China in exchange for access to their market. Just lookup "Google" and "Dragonfly project" for an example. The game has always been "play by our rules or else" in China.

Google was playing nice with the music/film companies and was willing to take stuff down. Megaupload was being really shifty and trying to avoid taking down content. Case in point: "When a file is uploaded to Megaupload and another file with the same hash is already found to exist, the uploader is asked if they would like to link to the already existing file. Therefore, a single file may contain multiple links to it. This has caused some controversy, since when a DMCA takedown notice is issued only the link that was provided is removed; not necessarily the file itself." and "Prosecutors claimed in the indictment that Megaupload was not DMCA compliant, and cited the example of an alleged infringer on the site known as "VV." Over six years, VV had allegedly uploaded nearly 17,000 files to Megavideo.com, resulting in more than 334 million views. According to prosecutors, although numerous takedown e-mails had been sent, none of the files had been deleted."

Basically, Megaupload was trying it's best to keep serving up pirated content by doing as little as possible in response to a takedown notice.

You know how Shazam will tell you what song you're hearing? Music companies use that technology. It's possible that YouTube is running the Shazam-like algorithm to find infringing content.

Technically, he never said it started with Islam.

> BTW, has anyone considered that it might be preferable to address their grievances rather than just bomb them?

You're right! Truckloads of sex slaves and a caliphate to rule the entire Middle East, coming right up!

Here you go: https://www.youtube.com/playli...

Here's a video on the subject of 1970s "global cooling" for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Studies of the scientific literature in the 1970s reveal 7 papers suggesting global cooling (but not an ice age). They also found 44 papers suggesting global warming.

If you don't watch the video, then it proves that you are deliberately remaining ignorant on the subject. And if you're going to remain deliberately ignorant on the subject, then you should stop talking about it.

One you read what the facts really are, you realize just how much climate deniers are lying about the facts. Why would they do that? Because the right-wing media hates democrats, and the oil companies are giving them a global warming conspiracy story to legitimize their hatred. Why would oil companies do that? Because there's trillions of dollars of oil reserves still in the ground, and if people keep pumping it, they're going to be very, very rich - like trillions of dollars rich.

> CETA contains provisions that would compel countries to implement Internet censorship through site blocking, anti-circumvention laws as seen in the US, and compel border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement.

I believe that trade agreements would include clauses about site blocking. I do not believe that they include clauses compelling border security guards to check for copyright infringement. There's no way that would be practical. This makes me think that the slashdot summary writer is trying to get everyone angry and afraid, rather than reporting the facts. How would that possibly work? Sir, ma'am, please unlock your phones and allow us to spend ten minutes looking through each and every phone as you disembark from the airplane.

So, I looked it up in the article: "As we noted earlier, CETA would, among other things, force anti-cricumvention laws onto other countries, bring in site blocking, allow for statutory damages for non-commercial infringement, and force border security to destroy your cell phone if they find copyright infringing material on it." Interesting that there's nothing about security guards being compelled to seize digital devices and searching them for copyright infringement. It sounds more like - if security detains someone for some other reason, gets them to unlock their phones, and happen to find copyright violations, then, in theory, they're supposed to destroy the phone. Nevermind the part about the fact that guards are in no position to figure out what material is legal versus pirated. How would they determine that anyway? This makes me think it wouldn't work, regardless of what they found. Yeah, that's not good, but it a far cry from "compelling border security to seize digital storage devices (i.e. cell phones) at the border for the purpose of looking for copyright infringement".

What a sucky summary. I think Slashdot wants the community to get out their torches and pitchforks.

I hope they crash and burn hard. I'm sure they're loving all the traffic they're getting from Slashdot now.

Hey Cory: if you're such a big free speech advocate, then why does your website censor people who argue against your pro-piracy ideas? Are you afraid that your readers will get exposed to ideas that actually contradict your poorly thought-out ones?

I'd vote you up if I had points. I got banned from BoingBoing for arguing against one of his stupid pro-piracy/anti-copyright rants. I love how "free speech" advocates become little dictators when there's a possibility that their readers might get exposed to an actual rebuttal of his dumb ideas. I've seen other people's comments censored away, as well.

Men and women have different advantages and disadvantages in life. Men's Rights groups, while it's true that they are often filled with men who have gotten burned in divorces and child-custody battles (and therefore biased and angry), they do actually have a point with regard to certain issues. It's nice and easy to pretend that men have all these advantages over women and no disadvantages, but that's simply not the case. For example, did you know that in France and Germany it is illegal for a man to test the paternity of his children? Courts have ruled that it might cause a man to find out that "his children" aren't actually his biological children, and therefore abandon his wife and the children that aren't his. France and Germany decided they don't want that to happen, so men who attempt to get paternity tests on their children can be thrown in prison and hit with a fine. Men commit suicide at four times the rate of women. Men are the victims of 80% of homicides. Men are far more likely to suffer workplace fatalities. Studies have shown that men get prison sentences 60% longer than women for the same crime, and women are much more likely to serve no time at all in prison after being convicted of a crime ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... ). Men who are victims of domestic abuse or rape are taken much less seriously than women. Men are far more likely to end up homeless than women. Men are scared of the idea pushed forward by feminist groups that, when it comes to sexual assault, you should always believe the woman rather than giving due process and trying to get the facts.

There's a variety of bad feminist statistics which serve to help reinforce the "female victim" status, but it's annoying when you find out that it's not the truth. Some articles to read:
"Economist’s Glass Ceiling Index Distorts Reality" - an example of biased reporting about women's equality in the workplace http://www.feministcritics.org...
"When Is 19 More Than 940?" - regarding workplace deaths, where the white-latino gap is talked about but the male-female gap is ignored http://www.feministcritics.org...
"Yet Another Example Where Equality Isn’t Equality" - An example of biased lifespan data being used to paint women as oppressed - http://www.feministcritics.org...
"More Workplace Gender Lies From HuffPo" - regarding workplace deaths, where HuffPo pretends that women die as often as men on the job: http://www.feministcritics.org...

TLDR: It's silly to say that men have the best of everything in life.

> Did people not enjoy the Matrix because Trinity kicked a bunch of ass?

That's a poor example. A better one would be if "The Matrix" was titled "Neo" and then involved Trinity kicking a lot more ass and being the main character, rather than Neo.

Why is this on Slashdot? Has Slashdot become this clickbaity? Secondly, Charlize Theron has said herself that Mad Max is "an incredibly feminist action film" and "It's a total empowerment of women,". Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wir...

I've also heard the synopsis of the film, and it sounds like Charlize Theron's character is the main character in the film and women come to the rescue in the film. It sounds like it really sidelines Mad Max in an attempt to push a political agenda, I liked the Aliens movies, but it wasn't a bait and switch like Mad Max appears to be -- we knew that Sigourney Weaver was the star.

I think you meant "free marketing courtesy of Slashdot".