This is a valid news story and Amnesty International is widely regarded as an NGO with a high international and domestic standing and an impeccable reputation. Are you trying to imply that censorship of the internet is a good thing?
This is a valid news story and Amnesty International is widely regarded as an NGO with a high international and domestic standing and an impeccable reputation - more than you could say about The New American. Are you trying to imply that censorship of the internet is a good thing?
You make two good points, one of them somewhat involuntarily.
First, you're correct in asking why C-Net would promote a group that absolutely despises America, calls us "war criminals" for the deplorable way we treat the prisoners at Guantanamo (3 hot meals a day, fresh clothing & bedding weekly, exercise in the fresh air and sunshine, warm cells in winter, cool cells in summer, etc), likens Guantanamo to the gulags of the old Soviet Union, and openly calls on foreign governments to seize and prosecute American officials traveling abroad.
While AI's motives in this article are admirable, what's "deplorable" here is C-Net acting like they're one of the good guys. There are lots of groups opposing Internet censorship these days. Let's hope C-Net picks somebody else next time.
The second point you make is a little more oblique: Internet censorship is a political issue, not a technological issue. So why is it here on a supposed "tech site"?
The answer, of course, is that, just like Wired News, C-Net has 'gone political' over the past six months. Note how they've jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon, which is also a political issue, not a tech issue.
Now, in all fairness to C-Net, they never actually say "We're a tech site" anywhere on the site when you start looking around.
We just kind of assumed it.
The closest they come is their "Business Tech" page, which really isn't saying much. The Wall Street Journal could have a "Business Tech" page and nobody would think twice about it. It just means "business and the computer industry."
They are, of course, more than welcome to continue posting political articles, and we, the actual techies in the group (as opposed to the editors, apparently) are welcome to continue shredding the articles to pieces.
It's basicly a site filled with ultra-conservative rhetoric and conspiracy theories, as you'd expect from anything that can be connected to John Birch.
This is a valid news story and Amnesty International is widely regarded as an NGO with a high international and domestic standing and an impeccable reputation. Are you trying to imply that censorship of the internet is a good thing?
This is a valid news story and Amnesty International is widely regarded as an NGO with a high international and domestic standing and an impeccable reputation - more than you could say about The New American. Are you trying to imply that censorship of the internet is a good thing?
You make two good points, one of them somewhat involuntarily.
First, you're correct in asking why C-Net would promote a group that absolutely despises America, calls us "war criminals" for the deplorable way we treat the prisoners at Guantanamo (3 hot meals a day, fresh clothing & bedding weekly, exercise in the fresh air and sunshine, warm cells in winter, cool cells in summer, etc), likens Guantanamo to the gulags of the old Soviet Union, and openly calls on foreign governments to seize and prosecute American officials traveling abroad.
While AI's motives in this article are admirable, what's "deplorable" here is C-Net acting like they're one of the good guys. There are lots of groups opposing Internet censorship these days. Let's hope C-Net picks somebody else next time.
The second point you make is a little more oblique: Internet censorship is a political issue, not a technological issue. So why is it here on a supposed "tech site"?
The answer, of course, is that, just like Wired News, C-Net has 'gone political' over the past six months. Note how they've jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon, which is also a political issue, not a tech issue.
Now, in all fairness to C-Net, they never actually say "We're a tech site" anywhere on the site when you start looking around.
We just kind of assumed it.
The closest they come is their "Business Tech" page, which really isn't saying much. The Wall Street Journal could have a "Business Tech" page and nobody would think twice about it. It just means "business and the computer industry."
They are, of course, more than welcome to continue posting political articles, and we, the actual techies in the group (as opposed to the editors, apparently) are welcome to continue shredding the articles to pieces.
It's basicly a site filled with ultra-conservative rhetoric and conspiracy theories, as you'd expect from anything that can be connected to John Birch.
Persecutions of Fulong Gong & Christians in China, slavery persisting in No Africa, political opression in Iran and throughout the Arab world, Anti-semitism on the rise in Europe...internet repression?
Persecutions of Fulong Gong & Christians in China, slavery persisting in No Africa, political opression in Iran and throughout the Arab world, Anti-semitism on the rise in Europe...internet repression?
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
them a plug.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/exec/search.cgi" target="_newWindow">http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/exec/search.cgi</a>
First, you're correct in asking why C-Net would promote a group that absolutely despises America, calls us "war criminals" for the deplorable way we treat the prisoners at Guantanamo (3 hot meals a day, fresh clothing & bedding weekly, exercise in the fresh air and sunshine, warm cells in winter, cool cells in summer, etc), likens Guantanamo to the gulags of the old Soviet Union, and openly calls on foreign governments to seize and prosecute American officials traveling abroad.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rivkin_casey200505270804.asp" target="_newWindow">http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rivkin_casey200505270804.asp</a>
While AI's motives in this article are admirable, what's "deplorable" here is C-Net acting like they're one of the good guys. There are lots of groups opposing Internet censorship these days. Let's hope C-Net picks somebody else next time.
The second point you make is a little more oblique: Internet censorship is a political issue, not a technological issue. So why is it here on a supposed "tech site"?
The answer, of course, is that, just like Wired News, C-Net has 'gone political' over the past six months. Note how they've jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon, which is also a political issue, not a tech issue.
Now, in all fairness to C-Net, they never actually say "We're a tech site" anywhere on the site when you start looking around.
We just kind of assumed it.
The closest they come is their "Business Tech" page, which really isn't saying much. The Wall Street Journal could have a "Business Tech" page and nobody would think twice about it. It just means "business and the computer industry."
They are, of course, more than welcome to continue posting political articles, and we, the actual techies in the group (as opposed to the editors, apparently) are welcome to continue shredding the articles to pieces.
It makes for a good pastime. :)
them a plug.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/exec/search.cgi" target="_newWindow">http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/exec/search.cgi</a>
First, you're correct in asking why C-Net would promote a group that absolutely despises America, calls us "war criminals" for the deplorable way we treat the prisoners at Guantanamo (3 hot meals a day, fresh clothing & bedding weekly, exercise in the fresh air and sunshine, warm cells in winter, cool cells in summer, etc), likens Guantanamo to the gulags of the old Soviet Union, and openly calls on foreign governments to seize and prosecute American officials traveling abroad.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rivkin_casey200505270804.asp" target="_newWindow">http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/rivkin_casey200505270804.asp</a>
While AI's motives in this article are admirable, what's "deplorable" here is C-Net acting like they're one of the good guys. There are lots of groups opposing Internet censorship these days. Let's hope C-Net picks somebody else next time.
The second point you make is a little more oblique: Internet censorship is a political issue, not a technological issue. So why is it here on a supposed "tech site"?
The answer, of course, is that, just like Wired News, C-Net has 'gone political' over the past six months. Note how they've jumped on the "global warming" bandwagon, which is also a political issue, not a tech issue.
Now, in all fairness to C-Net, they never actually say "We're a tech site" anywhere on the site when you start looking around.
We just kind of assumed it.
The closest they come is their "Business Tech" page, which really isn't saying much. The Wall Street Journal could have a "Business Tech" page and nobody would think twice about it. It just means "business and the computer industry."
They are, of course, more than welcome to continue posting political articles, and we, the actual techies in the group (as opposed to the editors, apparently) are welcome to continue shredding the articles to pieces.
It makes for a good pastime. :)