Comment Fair Wage (Score 1) 123
Comment Re:Why not Chinese prisoners? Even cheaper! (Score 1) 123
Comment Re:solve capcha api? (Score 1) 123
Comment Re:Great unless... (Score 1) 123
Comment Re:Why not Chinese prisoners? Even cheaper! (Score 1) 123
Comment Re:Why not Chinese prisoners? Even cheaper! (Score 1) 123
Comment Re:Why not Chinese prisoners? Even cheaper! (Score 3, Informative) 123
Comment Re:Why not Chinese prisoners? Even cheaper! (Score 5, Informative) 123
Comment Mark Zuckerberg (Score 5, Interesting) 317
If he is the face of the next generation entrepreneurs, then god saves the industry.
Comment Re:How much free speech do you need at aged 6? (Score 5, Insightful) 368
Comment Re:State vs Internet (Score 2, Informative) 186
BTW, for this reason, hawala transfers are illegal in India and have come under heavy fire.
Comment Re:A games worth (Score 1) 188
how many times it has gotten you laid
I am not what you call a player but I think you might be looking at the wrong places man !!
Comment Re:Apple is just trying not to appear weak (Score 1) 374
Looking at valuation, Apple could probably buy Nokia if they decided to, but that's not in the least bit likely. Apple's not big into the low end.
Nokia is as big as apple in terms of total assets. They are equal in terms of annual income and bigger in terms of revenue. Nokia equally matches Apple in terms of finances and has more employees. Just because Apple has more presence in US, doesn't mean it can just buy it out.
Comment Re:Not a good source (Score 1) 689
I'd probably consider myself right of center, but I also don't think World Net Daily is a very unbiased source.
The list of theories following that are just some of the theories they mention in the early part of the article; that's not a list of theories they explicitly say should be "banned".
From the academic paper
Some conspiracy theories create serious risks. They do not merely undermine democratic debate; in extreme cases, they create or fuel violence. If government can dispel such theories, it should do so. One problem is that its efforts might be counterproductive, because efforts to rebut conspiracy theories also legitimate them. We have suggested, however, that government can minimize this effect by rebutting more rather than fewer theories, by enlisting independent groups to supply rebuttals, and by cognitive infiltration designed to break up the crippled epistemology of conspiracyminded groups and informationally isolated social networks. 29
In fact, on the contrary it says the the governments should rebutt as many conspiracy theories it can instead of banning them. It never talks about banning any websites. That's just a loads of BS.The article does not say that the theories or the websites need to be banned. It does talk of cognitive infiltration. Which the author feels is justified given the problems conspiracy theories can lead to. It might be right or wrong, in your opinion, however, it is definitely not an encroaching on any freedom of expressions