Should Google Be Forced To Pay For News?
From Slashdot:
Barence writes "The Guardian Media group is asking the British government to investigate Google News and other aggregators, claiming they reap the benefit of content from news sites without contributing anything towards their costs. The Guardian claims the old argument that 'search engines and aggregators provide players like guardian.co.uk with traffic in return for the use of our content' doesn't hold water any more, and that it's 'heavily skewed' in Google's favour. It wants the government to explore new models that 'require fair acknowledgement of the value that our content creates, both on our own site (through advertising) and "at the edges" in the world of search and aggregation.'"
Well, it seems clear what should be done, then: Forbid Google to link to any newspapers and websites that do not wish to be "taken advantage of" by Google (or other search engines or aggregators).
There's no need to involve the government in creating a monster of regulations and shackles. Just forbid Google from using their copyrighted material—as is their "right" in our flawed system. This "copyright angle" won't work for all aggregators—sites such as Slashdot and a majority of bloggers can claim that their use is covered under fair use, at least in U.S., since they are commenting on the news, as well as taking excerpts, etc.—but it sure will "crush Google".
I mean, if the old model of quid pro quo is truly no longer working, they wouldn't have problem with Google not indexing their precious website, right?
Greenland ice tipping point 'further off than thought'
From Guardian:
The giant Greenland ice sheet may be more resistant to temperature rise than experts realised. The finding gives hope that the worst impacts of global warming, such as the devastating floods depicted in Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, could yet be avoided.
In other words, these people have worse record in predicting anything than me throwing a dice in the air and they want out. Furthermore, it doesn't sound like there is a scientific consensus even among "experts" (that is, not counting atomic physicists like Will Happer of Princeton). So, exactly why are we throwing money at this non-existent problem?
Maybe I should get a grant to look for a bogeyman in my bedroom—that would be at least as useful as what these climatologists do, looking for Al Gore's manbearpigs.
TIME = Liberal propaganda front, now working for the Feds
So, according to The O'Reilly Factor and other news sources, last week (and the week before) has been a fairly interesting week. Obama had a press conference that he didn't fare too well (at least in comparison with his usual relationship with the liberal media), and White House Secretary had a blunder improperly responding to criticisms from Cheney.
But, guess what's on TIME's "Top 10" articles this week: inane, international and/or entertainment news. Non-news, I should say, here's the list of the headlines:
- The End of Excess: Is This Crisis Good for America?
- Juarez: Running the Most Dangerous City in the Americas
- Ian McKellen: The Player
- Celebrity Twittering: Is That Really You, Shaq?
- Want to Save Money? Carry Around $100 Bills
- The World's Cheapest Car Debuts in India
- Is the Economy Starting to Recover? Or Just Less Bad?
- A Blacklist for Websites Backfires in Australia
- Germany's Phantom Serial Killer: A DNA Blunder
- Are 3-D Movies Ready for Their Closeup?
There's the liberal, yellow journalism for you. Is your favorite guy not doing too well? Don't cover it. Is he taking a drop in the polls? Don't mention it. Is he making bad decisions? Don't comment.
If I were reading just TIME, I would still have this mistaken impression that people are still in love with his O-ness, crying at his rallies (or press conferences, I guess), singing hymns and odes to him. And that's the exact impression TIME undoubtedly wants to maintain, given that Obama represents liberal socialism's grasp at last straws before finally dying.
Thank God for FOX, and Thank God for the Internet (... which is apparently not just for porn).
UN Attacks Free Speech
From Slashdot:
newsblaze writes "The UN Human Rights Council assaulted free expression today, in a 23-11 vote that urges member states to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions. The proposal came to the UN from Pakistan on behalf of the Organization for the Islamic Conference. There were 13 abstentions. South Korea, Japan, India, Mexico and Brazil, all strong democracies, allowed this to pass by abrogating their responsibility. While the resolution doesn't mention the online world, where does this subject get mentioned most, if not online?"
World War II is long over, and frankly, we haven't had any world wars for some good time. Can't we get rid of these freedom-abridging (not to mention sovereignty-infringing) organizations?
U.N. is powerless where it matters (such as making Iraq comply with weapons inspection), but irritatingly influential where it shouldn't be (such as abridging fundamental rights in the name of "preventing hate crime", as if "hate crime" outrage weren't just a leftist propaganda tool). U.S. should stop giving support to U.N., financially and politically, and let it die—after all, U.N. doesn't seem to be doing U.S. any good these days. Or in the future.
It's the NATO and the arsenal of freedom, i.e. the U.S., that has prevented any world war since World War II (why make an open war that you will most definitely lose, probably in less than a month?), not U.N. U.N.'s utter inability to do anything about civil wars in Africa (the kind of job that should be right up its alley) is a good demonstration of this fact.
The Global Warming Heretic
From Slashdot:
theodp writes "In The Civil Heretic, the NYT Magazine takes a look at how world-renowned scientist Freeman Dyson wound up opposing those who care most about global warming. Since coming out of the closet on global warming, Dyson has found himself described as 'a pompous twit,' 'a blowhard,' and 'a mad scientist.' He argues that climate change has become an obsession for 'a worldwide secular religion' known as environmentalism. Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, calling him climate change's chief propagandist and accusing him of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models and promoting 'lousy science' that's distracting attention from more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet."
I'd say all this is academic. Certain climatologists have predicted—and the liberal media has hyped—that the polar cap will melt in 5 years.
The power of any science (or, for that matter, religion) is in the power of prediction. So, let's wait 5 years and see what happens. From what they have said, the "climate change" was too far gone was to reverse the trend in time—i.e. regardless of policies enacted and whatever "victories" global warming zealots can claim, this prediction must come true, if their model was worth anything.
So, let's wait 5 years and see if polar cap melts. If it does, maybe these guys know what they are talking about and we might need to listen to them. If it doesn't, there's your proof that these "climatologists" are crackpots with models that are worse than throwing a dice in the air.
Is the Food Industry Following Big Tobacco's Playbook?
From PRWatch.org:
... The strategy's main features include cultivating fears that government action infringes on personal freedom; focusing on personal responsibility as the sole cause of unhealthy diets; characterizing studies that hurt the industry as "junk science"; ...
I don't know about the rest of these "strategies", but the first two seem more than reasonable. Any government action infringes on freedom. It may not be the consumer's personal freedom in this case, but it does infringe on the entrepreneurs' (or, as liberals like to say with a little curl on their lips, "capitalists'") freedom here. What's so wrong to emphasize this plain, universal truth? The only reason we would have any governmental action given that this is true is because sometimes, by limiting someone's freedom (such as freedom of plantation owners to own slaves), you can vastly increase others' freedom (such as self-ownership and self-government for everyone). It's not the case when the government wants to regulate upon a free enterprise that is doing nothing illegal.
And, oh please, if unhealthy diet isn't personal responsibility, then whose is it? I mean, did someone take you, force your mouth open, and force food down your throat? I mean liberals might be open to doing such despicable things, given the many things they like to force down the people's throats, but this is still America, not U.S.S.R. We don't do that here.
McDonald's may make and sell unhealthy food—unhealthy, especially if you eat that every day. Nevertheless, they have done nothing illegal; they have been open about the nutritional content of their food (not that anyone with half a brain couldn't look it up and find it out), and from what anecdotal evidences I have, they are very careful about the food they sell (for one, what kind of meat; if there's a chance that the meat had gone bad, they would throw it out—me, I would probably just cook it extra well-done and eat it).
If making delicious food is a crime, well, then McDonald's is guilty, I suppose. But then, why don't you also jail Steve Jobs for making computers so ... attractive that people would buy them even though they are overpriced spec by spec? Or make Michael Dell pay for bringing low-cost PC to the masses?
Watching one's own diet and calorie intake is personal responsibility. And if you are so stupid that you can't see how much you are eating, well, maybe you shouldn't go out on your own—and may I suggest that the nanny state please assign a caretaker for him, because apparently he is a danger to himself and the society?
It's easy to get carried away when one thinks he is working for a "good cause", such as getting people to eat healthy or, well, breathe healthy. But there's a very clear line between, say, being a watchful, caring parent, and being an overbearing, overprotective jerk. Regulating an industry that does not need external regulation because some idiots couldn't watch what they eat is very clearly the latter.
New campaign to urge Londoners to report suspicious activity
On Metropolitan Police Service website, found via Chris Lamb's blog on Planet Debian:
Don't rely on others. If you supect it report it.
Londoners are being asked to trust their instincts and report suspicious behaviour to help combat terrorist activity.
Just one piece of information could be vital in helping disrupt terrorist planning and, in turn, save lives.
There is a very fine line between a "neighborhood watch" program and an authoritarian (often communist) state where neighbors are encouraged to report neighbors' devious behaviors (as well as brothers, brothers'; sons, fathers'; and fathers sons') that might "harm the state".
It looks like U.K. is about to cross that line. I am so glad that I don't live in U.K.
Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA
From Slashdot:
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Obama Administration's Department of Justice, with former RIAA lawyers occupying the 2nd and 3rd highest positions in the department, has shown its colors, intervening on behalf of the RIAA in the case against a Boston University graduate student, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, accused of file sharing when he was 17 years old. Its oversized, 39-page brief (PDF) relies upon a United States Supreme Court decision from 1919 which upheld a statutory damages award, in a case involving overpriced railway tickets, equal to 116 times the actual damages sustained, and a 2007 Circuit Court decision which held that the 1919 decision — rather than the Supreme Court's more recent decisions involving punitive damages — was applicable to an award against a Karaoke CD distributor for 44 times the actual damages. Of course none of the cited cases dealt with the ratios sought by the RIAA: 2,100 to 425,000 times the actual damages for an MP3 file. Interestingly, the Government brief asked the Judge not to rule on the issue at this time, but to wait until after a trial. Also interestingly, although the brief sought to rebut, one by one, each argument that had been made by the defendant in his brief, it totally ignored all of the authorities and arguments that had been made by the Free Software Foundation in its brief. Commentators had been fearing that the Obama/Biden administration would be tools of the RIAA; does this filing confirm those fears?"
Yay, CHANGE!
Change you can believe in! Change for the better! Thanks Obama and his faithful sidekick Biden for showing us the way! Yes, college (and high school) students are leeches and needs to be exterminated! We, or rather, RIAA, on the people's behalf, need to sue their asses off!
For once, the government is showing those rich college students where they can stick it and helping spread the wealth from the rich students to poor RIAA members.
I'm so glad that I voted for Obama.
... not.
The outrageous offenses against Richard Cheney
From Greenwald's Salon.com column:
Over the weekend, Dick Cheney -- at John King's prodding -- accused Barack Obama of, among other things, lying to the public about his proposed domestic policies, taking advantage of the financial crisis to foist enlarged government on unsuspecting citizens, and leaving us all more vulnerable to slaughter by the Terrorists.  When asked about those comments, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said:  "I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal. . . . Not taking economic advice from Dick Cheney might be the best possible outcome of yesterday's interview."
I'm not going to try to defend Dick Cheney, former VP of USA. God knows he doesn't represent the true conservative values (small government and balanced budget).
And I'm not going to attack the administration on their increasing display of arrogance and high-handedness, with their "I won" comment and what-not.
But I am going to say why the White House's response was inappropriate and wrong: Dick Cheney's criticism was specific, policy-oriented criticism. Answering that with either a joke (highly inappropriate in official communications, unless immediately followed by a serious answer), or an ad hominem attack (exactly what did Cheney and Bush administration do wrong that led to the recession? Nothing indicates that Cheney somehow lacks business acumen to tell a bad policy when he sees it; as for the recession, the federal reserve has more to do with the business cycle than the office of president and vice president), was cowardly and, well, evasive.
But then, you would expect that from liberals.
Who says sex workers want to be 'saved'?
From Guardian:
In these times of economic implosion, it seems there is one industry that the government is actually keen on crushing. The home secretary, Jacqui Smith, recently unveiled a proposal for new legislation aimed at bringing the sex industry to its knees (metaphorically speaking). If we tackle the demand, Smith proclaimed, then supply will diminish. In other words, Smith wants to penalise punters.
Maybe in U.K. things are different and prostitution is legal, but to characterize it as goverment "crushing" an "industry" seems, well, dishonest (but then, dishonesty is nothing new to the liberal media).
Perhaps in these hard economy times, the government should encourage and support, e.g. the nacotics market? What about gambling with no limits? What about the child labor market? Or the child pornography market?
While the "drug war" was sorely misguided, there is a reason (other than desire for fascistic government in statists, liberals and conservatives alike) that it had to be waged. These "industries" result in externalities whose effect range beyond that of their own market. A flourishing "narcotics market" would destroy the labor supply by making people unfit to work (see "Opium War"). The same could happen from "sex industry" (see how productive people with AIDS and other STDs are?). And let's not get into exploiting the children, the future engines of our economy, for our immediate gain.
Yes, these matters are delicate and we should try to avoid fiascos like "drug war" (or all the crimes committed by the government under the guise of preventing "child pornography"). But, all those issues are ... delicate and should not be brushed aside as "government crushing an industry", especially when the government is simply trying to mitigate the harmful effects of the said "industry".