Are you sure she was the party exhibiting bad judgement? I'm not. I'm of the opinion the "authorities" in this case were the ones guilty if poor judgement.

So "Intelligence" means don't take risk? Do only what is permitted?

"A competent board..." sounds wonderful, but I can't think of one anywhere in the tech industry. Some are less incompetent than others, but where is a good one? Apple? Oracle? Less competent boards, rather competent CEOs.

Control

If true, this is a great example of where the classification system fails. Why in hell would something like that need to be classified? Oh right, to save someone's reputation/feelings.

There is something to be done here, but banning things from China is a simplistic action that is more style than substance. “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them”. Of course, I've seen little evidence that solving the problem is the goal here.

hp isn't dead?

And you lose by being too simplistic and "solving" the wrong problem.

I thought the most insightful exchange was the one in the article - it isn't about ads. Ads, and ad blocking are merely symptoms. It's about choice, or control. I want a say in whether I see an ad or not. I'm a significant part of the interaction. The idea of consumer that holds in the world of TV doesn't map well to the online world.

I have the ability to block ads. Using that ability doesn't make me immoral, dishonest, or any other disparagement I've see thrown around. It levels the playing field. Advertisers, website owners and I are informally negotiating a partnership of sorts, and I have much more say in the negotiation online than I do in other mediums. I'd be a fool to not use that power. Most importantly, I (and many others like me) *will* use that power.

The sites that figure out how to balance the control/dignity equation between their advertising partners and their viewer partners will do well.

It's not an easy problem to solve, but it is *the* problem. Not ad blocking.

This I like. "You owe companies nothing".

This is /. -Not reading the article is always implied, if not outright assumed.

The Chinese aren't communists...

Social security is already ruined, and it wasn't the obese that did it.

That isn't clear at all. Could be an overreaction, or an outright publicity stunt.

The newspaper had a public forum that they controlled (or so they thought) and they could publish the "map" without a penalty. Well, turns out they weren't as insulated from their decision as they had hoped.

I'm enjoying the spectacle

Not quite. The Amedment doesn't grant a right - it prohibits the Government from infringing on a right we already posess. Much discussion on this matter sems to be from the unspoken point of view that we get rights from our government, like a gift. Our constitution was written to restrict the power of the federal government.