The government does not classify documents simply to hide information from the general populace
In theory.
In practice well... read this:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/07/09/alharamain_lawsuit/
At first I was confused how you couldn't get it and then I realized the browser wars were more than 10 years ago now. Basically the point is that there is a reason almost all browsers are now based on open source, the one thing Microsoft can't destroy financially or snuff out. You could rightfully say the intervention comes too late but that's just the EU's way of saying they may be slow but they don't forget (unlike the US DOJ.)
Would you prefer that the torture at Guantanamo had been kept secret?
A NOP a program does not make.
Yes, he did. He wanted to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an Atheist society. Nitpicking about the cause when you're quite happy to ignore historical context for religious abuses of power suggests a double standard on your part.
Funny. Then why was Stalin declared "the divinely anointed leader of [Russia's] armed and cultural forces leading us to victory over the barbarian invasion" by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1942? You'd think that if his goal really was to destroy religion in the Soviet Union and build an atheistic society, he wouldn't have negotiated with the church like that.
Or maybe Stalin just wanted power and control, regardless of its source?
What did the TV stations do?
According to the story the website was calling for the VIOLENT overthrow of the government. That would be illegal in most countries.
As for holding forums responsible for postings, it sounds a lot like the recent Italian case against Google, or British libel law which makes web hosts responsible for the content of sites they host, or bookseller responsible for libelous content in books.
Funny how all this is terrible when Venezuela or Iran does it , but it is apparently fine for Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan to do much worse.
Ooo... thanks. I don't really need this sort of thing (I often use command line instead of Synaptic anyway) but it still makes me happy.
Not to mention Verizon was (is?) rather famous for locking features down.
Two 'identical' phones on Verizon & AT&T would have Bluetooth turned off on Verizon so you had to send files through their '$1/picture' service.
One thing is to use your freedom of speech to oppose the government and another is to push for a coup, that is what those tv companies did. Even in the USA, if you publicly express your desire to kill the president you could end with a visit from the US Secret Service, and you could bet that if a TV station repeatedly called for the overthrow of Bush on his time or Obama now, they would end with their broadcasting license revoked by the FCC.
Glenn Beck seems to still be ok and he calls for secession and rejects the governments authority.
Bachmann hasn't been arrested despite her belief that Washington is "enemy territory".
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200904140032
In any case the website in question did none of those things: some forum users posted a rumor that some ministers had been assassinated.
That isn't calling for the overthrow of the country or the murder of chavez.
http://votewatch.eu/cx_vote_details.php?id_act=456&lang=en#1
votes by members. surprisingly, the votes are also in line with their national party lines.
What about the Apache? or Sun? Or Apple licenses?
Personally I write stuff to the Beerware license. I really don't give a flying fuck what you do with code I write because I normally write it for me. If you find it handy, congrats. If you turn it into a multi billion dollar industry, congrats. I don't care.
How long though until some major pension fund or investment house files a lawsuit citing that by pulling out of the largest potential market in the 21st century is a fiduciary breach of responsibility to make money for the shareholder?
But it’s only a competitive advantage if our companies know that someone else can’t just steal that idea and duplicate it with cheaper inputs and labor.
Look at the Free Culture/Software movement, Obama. There's people all over the place "stealing other people's ideas", except it isn't stealing. When you steal something, you take it from them without their permission. Should you need permission to make a program that does the same thing as another program? Should you need permission to cover, adapt, or remix something someone else did? It's not like you can just sue random people off the street for singing a song you "own" (Oh wait, that happened quite a few times already. Nevermind). None of these uses of our culture should ever be thought of as infringing; doing so practically removes our right to say as we please (then again, people over the years have stated that we have never had "free speech" anyways).
"Fair Use" has produced millions of dollars, and you dare imply that it didn't? By supporting the ACTA/RIAA/MPAA, you're supporting concentration of wealth (which just so happens to be concentrated towards the few companies that are trying to control our culture), which is never a good thing. "Intellectual Property" doesn't need to be "protected" in this matter at all, and these ideas are just getting more and more absurd. Things aren't going to get better if we have people like Obama supporting these crazy ideas.
"There is such a fine line between genius and stupidity." - David St. Hubbins, "Spinal Tap"
