The article is full of crap:

Some systems operate at more than 235 decibels, producing sound waves that can travel across tens or even hundreds of miles of ocean

BS. 235 decibels is louder than almost all volcanos. That's essentially a 31megaton explosion. The navy has tested ship based sonar of that power but only experimentally. No submarine has every carried anything remotely like that. Sonar in use on subs maxes out at around 180 dB, which is still about the equivalent of a 1lb explosion but nowhere near 235.

You are the reason environmentalism gets discredited. Of course our needs are a consideration. The oceans must exist for future generations to do what for them? Fulfill their needs. The first imperative of every species is survival, that is nature. We can talk about balance or relative cost, but there is no way that humans are going to agree to extinct themselves.

Notice that the guy who said it is an advertising guy. That's his whole worldview. That's the way he thinks it is and the way he thinks it should be. Meanwhile for the rest of us, we have lots of alternatives. Paid sites, community-supported sites, ad-blocked sites, sites run by people who love what they are running a site about.

Basically this is a little advertiser wanting us to support clubbing a big advertiser, Google. He'd like us to get mad at his competition. What he wouldn't like is for us to start noticing just how much what he is advocating is in his self-interest.

I recommend we all switch to ad-block and screw them all. If some sites die or have to switch funding models, works great for me.

As a guy with two masters in math who knows 15 languages... I also disagree. There are some languages that are mathematical (like Haskell) but most programming has more in common with cooking (sequencing the application of resources) than math.

Exactly what is this "war on Scientology"?

1) State organized hate campaigns designed to encourage private discrimination. This lead to multiple incidents of bomb threats, broken windows and violent harassment at events.

2) Attempts to apply anti drug-addict rules to Scientologists i.e. not consider them of sound mind and thus denied many of the normative protections under law.

3) Work with state sponsored employment unions to work to deny Scientologists employment
3') Often making them ineligible for government jobs.

4) Incidents of refusing to educate the children of Scientologists in public schools for fear of them spread Scientology to other students.

5) Denial of commercial permits that would normally be granted because of associations with Scientology
etc..

It at least isn't obvious that Scientology is definitely a religion.

Scientology promotes the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power through rituals of faith and worship. How is that not a religion?

Ownership has legal authority under international treaty. The Irish government recognizes that. MIOL is responsible under law to do what Round Island tells them to do. Now of course they can't be ordered to do something illegal. Which is slightly different.

MIOL exists as part of a global system. They do not run their own services. They aren't a fully independent entity in their operations structures and the services they do offer are run by the USA entity. Your side keeps ignoring this and pretending that MIOL is more than a shadow company. The setup on Azure services is a question of fact not a question of law. And a fact you keep ignoring. Today: July 17, 2014, MIOL is selling services in Europe structurally incapable of fulfilling European privacy laws. The reasons for those structural deficiencies are fully public to the extent they are part of the very agreements their customers sign. They are shown clearly on the website. Yet Azure in Europe is operating freely. So evidently the European privacy laws aren't as aggressive as you believe them them to be.

Because of ownership were MIOL to take steps to enforce European privacy laws they would institutionally fail because the employees involved would be fired. MIOL doesn't have to fulfill USA law directly. But they can't prevent the law from being obeyed. They just participate in a global system and allow others to fulfill the law.

Moreover, there can't be a divestment for MIOL, If Europe were to force the issue MIOL simply shuts down and Europeans don't have access to the global system, same as people in North Korea or Iran. Which won't happen because Europe participates in the global internet. In the same way the United States government can't fully regulate Airbus, even though Airbus does some business in America; Europeans cannot fully regulate Azure. They can choose to allow the service to exist or not. They can shutdown MIOL but all that's going to do is force higher latencies and higher network costs for European companies using products deployed on Azure.

Yes, that's true. Given the alternatives people do freely choose Fox News. I'm ok with that. The cost of freedom is the freedom to say things I don't like, and that includes Fox News.

No. When I grew up we used to have something very much like the BBC, PBS. They pay for the BBC which is why it exists. If we paid for PBS we would have an excellent system. I'm happy to defend our freedoms, but their spending priorities are far better.

That's one of the huge advantages of Apple's model. Applications can't demand access to too much or they don't get pass the app store. They have to work well with privacy setting or they don't pass....

Edward Snowden is so lucky to live in such a country!

Edward Snowden is not in trouble for his political opinions. Lots of people share his opinions and write about them freely. Snowden is in trouble for leaking intelligence information to foreign governments. I don't agree with Snowden but that has nothing to do with censorship of opinion.

I thought the French court specifically argued that the information was knowingly false,

The court argued that "the place to avoid" (the title) was too prominent. That's not knowingly false that's just the judge disagreeing with her assessment. Something that in America they would be prohibited from doing.

this was a court of first instance, so there's no reason to assume the thing is settled.

Don't care. The case never should have been heard at all. The court shouldn't care whether a review is or is not damaging to a business. And the court shouldn't be ruling on what opinions of the author's aren't fair enough. The specifics of what opinions the state does or does not allow its people to hold aren't relevant to whether France has free speech. That's just a question of what state approved speech is permitted.

Have you read the original court proceedings? Because I haven't, so I don't feel qualified to state anything regarding how that matter was handled.

I don't need to read the proceedings. The ruling itself is prima facie evidence. The judge disagreed with an opinion so he fined the author.

You also originally mentioned calumny but then silently dropped it when I pointed out that this wasn't the case.

  That was the crime they were charged with. I'm not dropping it at all. That crime shouldn't exist. The existence of that crime implies that people do not have have freedom to express their disagreements with government officials.

how do we decide if it was or wasn't anything of the kind?

Because in America which has free speech such crimes don't exist. It doesn't matter whether the Italian police did or did not strike Amanda on the back of the head. Amanda Knox made a sworn in court statement that she was struck on the back of the head under oath. Thus anyone not present has reason to believe the it occurred and hence in countries that do have free speech slander or libel would be impossible. Period. There is no complex issue here. Your definition of free speech is no different than when Iranian government considers free speech, or what the Nazis considered free speech. Germans under Nazism were always free to come up with interesting ways to praise Hitler. What they weren't free to do was to disagree with his policy or mention the bad stuff he was doing.

Your link to Scientology was about a conspiracy involving leadership the 1970s, 50 years ago. So what? Lutherans started WWII that doesn't mean we ban the Lutheran church. The child abuse scandal was a conspiracy involving leadership possibly up to the Pope and certainly involving cardinals all over the planet. The situation is very similar. But even if they were different so what? Deciding to ban a faith because you don't like the leaders is the opposite of freedom of religion. I'm sure the Tzar's had specific gripes about members of the Jewish leadership but they didn't have audacity to claim they had freedom of religion while trying a persecute a religion into extinction. Freedom or Religion is the right of people to practice you don't like, not their Freedom to choose between state approved faiths.

I'm not applying different standards to France. I'm saying that the problems with European laws are differences in kind not just minor difference in policy. It would never occur to an American government official to do to a church they didn't like what France and Germany are doing to Scientology. I'd object equally if the American government were trying to ban a religion but they don't do that or anything like it.

Similarly with speech. Every American right to express any opinion about anything, period. Without any qualification what-so-ever and without any regulation what-so-ever. American defamation laws are designed to protect speech not to have state control of it. The only thing that defamation is America covers is knowingly conveying false information that is damaging. That's not remotely like the French situation where the state disagreed with her opinion and so fined thousands of Euros.

Apparently, the parents were actually charged with criminal defamation of Italian police regarding the treatment of Amanda Knox by police while in police custody. That seems like a completely different charge to me.

Yes it is. The parents spoke about official misconduct and were charged with a crime for doing so. That is America is 100% protected speech. I can freely talk about how much I dislike Obama making policy with the aliens from Jupiter and how that resulted in him assassinating Steve Jobs using cancer causing rays and no one could possibly touch me for that. That's what free speech means. Europeans just don't have it.

I don't think we disagree on the awkward spot. Let me add, it is worse then just contempt. Setting up a system to permanently hide data (i.e. allowing the Irish employees to obey European law) so that fulfilling a legal subpoena isn't possibly isn't merely contempt its obstruction of justice. That's a more serious charge.

Microsoft not handing over the data when asked = contempt
Microsoft making it impossible to hand over the data when asked = obstruction

Contempt can involve sanctions but you can't be convicted of contempt there is a very low ceiling or what can be done. They could be fined or jailed until they comply but that's about it. Obstruction on the other hand is open ended. If it obstruction people who attended meetings where they discussed ways of allowing the Irish employees to hide the data committed conspiracy even if they themselves had nothing to do with not handing over the date. In theory if this happened multiple times the courts could find that Microsoft Operations of Ireland is fundamentally a criminal enterprise and simply confiscate it under RICO. Microsoft doesn't want to go there.

But in practice what I would add is that MOIL doesn't have control of the data. So the Irish guys don't have a problem. They are unable to obey European privacy laws. Whether MOIL should be able to offer services in Europe which are structurally unable to comply with European law is then the actual question.

I don't know whether it is untrue.

But here is the Google translate of the article: Cape Ferret may be paradise, but it is clear that there is a place once charming, that hardly evokes neither Eden nor that of Epicurus: the little restaurant Il Giardino specializing in pizza (but not only!) as his Italianate name might assume, and where we used to make us once or twice a year. This year, not departing from this tradition now anchored in the course of our holiday, we went to dinner.

As the title of this article suggests, we were disappointed. For convenience, I'll leave it there for the simple past you narrate this adventure that does not lack spice, but which leaves against desired drink side and kindness.

When we arrived, the first waiter asked, logically, if we wanted to eat outside or outside, and as there was a lot of wind, we opted for inside, and so went we install a table. Immediately, a harpy in fluorescent jacket on the coat stares us to scold to move us without authorization (while, and one, we had one, authorization, and two ... I do not yell at me too by servers in general - per person, however, but at least when I'm the customer). In short, it does not start very well, but the misunderstanding up, it slips through our menus. And the first fatal error which will result everything else: it does not ask us, as is the custom, if we want a drink. However, an appetizer, we wanted one (as very few customers obviously, but still, it is our right anyway). Comes a second waitress who took our order, but always ask us if we wanted a drink (logic: his colleague was supposed to have done), we are therefore obliged to ask (we wanted).

Ten minutes pass, and still no shade or our appetizer, or our bottle of wine elsewhere. So immediately after taking our order, the second waitress should have us prepare and serve us: the principle of appetizer, it is possible to quietly wait for his flat. Finally, it seems to me. So I hailed a third server (we will lower this thorny issue of web servers) and told him (kindly!) It would be nice to serve us a drink, because otherwise, our dishes will arrive before him . And bingo, while server # 3 brings us (finally! We started to dry us) as our appetizers desired (without peanuts. Was a long time ago, in this restaurant, we were given peanuts with an aperitif. Elsewhere, even gives us true tapas for not more expensive. Ta Panta Rei), our dishes come with waitress # 1. Dishes we refer because damn, suddenly we're only a drink (their fault) and the accompanying evil pastis steak-frites. The grumpy waitress.

And it continues. While we drank comes the boss, unfriendly despite what she will say well (next to the Café Marly servers deserve the Palme d'Or of courtesy), just tell us to let us know when we want our dishes because they already come to throw a steak and that if it should last 1/2 hour in our history, it would be nice to say. We try to explain our concern, and to point out that, for us and for many years, is the source of the problem in many restaurants that servers have more tables and FHLMC they vadrouillent in the wind, so it is no longer any order and reigns utter disorganization. But now she has an excuse (and, I swear I'm not making): it can not work its servers over 44h and it must give them days off, then understand my brave people, it would make it too personal to pay.

Stop! What? She has no right to work employees 24/24 7/7? But frankly, that's the world!

Brief. We brought our own wine (cold!) And our dishes, claimed twice. The steak was new, ok, that was not the case of pizza, dry around the edges. Good. We, nevertheless, a dessert (that were not the people of the next table, parties swearing they would not return). Ok, the ice balls were great. But good.

My mom will pay, and trying to get back on the incident, and is a patron send graze always foul-mouthed and dismissive. And paid aperitifs, source of conflict, then it is customary in restaurants, to offer customers when there is a concern (given the margin that are above, they can afford it).

Conclusion? A restaurant where we will go over because the boss thinks he's a diva (although, seriously, it is not the owner of Chez Hortense, either), one of the waitresses would be well advised never to work in London because it is not likely to be able to live his tips, and we care about the customer and the business sense is approximate. I urge you to note your blacklist if you're in the neighborhood!

(All for two appetizers ... what hold the wars)

That sounds like a standard restaurant review. She hated it. Most of it is opinion and thus in the USA wouldn't be libel. In the USA it is absolutely what you say, how you say it doesn't matter. You are free to offer whatever opinions you want about anything. Saying "don't eat here" can never be slander. Saying the owner has a bad attitude can never be slander. Saying the appetizer didn't have peanuts could be slander if:

a) The appetizer did have peanuts
b) The writer knew it had peanuts.

Parent or joint venture? Those aren't the same things. The parent company can ultimately walk away from the Chinese child.

But yes I think the China is within its rights to demand the parent hand over data as part of the terms under which the child is able to operate in China.

I agree it has been enshrined. But it is constantly undermined by the laws. For example to take your response to (2).

If a religious institution commits crimes you charge the individuals for the crime. You don't ban the religion. No one supports the Catholic church having engaged in child molestation, that doesn't mean the practice of the religion of Catholicism should be a crime. Your cavalier disregard for freedom of religion is precisely the point. The idea that you can casually support the use force, the criminal, and civil law system against the practitioners of Scientology because the church has done specific acts the government objects to is why Americans believe Europeans just don't have Freedom of Religion or even know what the concept of Freedom or Religion means. If there was Freedom of religion in France than any French or German person who wanted to congregate to discuss or practice the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics or any other leaders from the Religious Technology Center should be able to do so unmolested by the state. Period.

(1) shouldn't be about balance. The state shouldn't be regulating whether they agree with her assessment or not. Her claim was the service sucked and thus I don't think people should eat there. Whether bad service should or should be a reason people don't go to Il Giardino is not a matter for the state to decide. Again that's what freedom of speech means, the right of people to say and write things that the state disagrees with.

(4) you are just wrong. That's what for example Amanda Knox's parents were charged with and they even tried to go after a Seattle paper. So it absolutely happens.

(3) has gotten brought up all the time. The International Criminal Court (ICC) which is essentially a European institution being a great example which has upheld disagreeing with human rights law as a crime in and of itself.