Doonesbury Say What?

"I know you never liked me, Mr. Secretary-General. Well, I never liked you, either...I don't really like him [UN official Bob Orr]. He's an American, and I really don't like Americans."
-- top China UN diplomat Sha Zukang during dinner at a UN retreat

BWAHAHAHA! A diplomat who says what he thinks and believes, is that allowed? How long before he's recalled and replaced? Or promoted?

I wonder if he was drunk, and if so, how many sheets to the wind?

Software piracy complains from Microsoft help Russia quash political opposition

"The New York Times reports that Russia selectively pursues software piracy complaints from Microsoft in order to suppress the opposition — confiscating computers for evidence, searching offices, and the like. Microsoft lawyers usually back the authorities in such cases, even when cases such as that of the environmentalist group Baikal Waves, which went out of its way to buy licenses to prevent police harassment and nevertheless had its offices raided, and its computers confiscated. Microsoft participated in this legal process. Published alongside this story, under the same byline, is a related piece on the collusion of Microsoft lawyers with corrupt Russian police in extorting money from the targets of software piracy investigations. In a responding press release, the company states, 'Microsoft antipiracy efforts are designed to honor both [antipiracy concerns and human rights], but we are open to feedback on what we can do to improve in that regard.'"

Pretty much every corporation has evil bits. Apple does, Google does. I'd like to think that Ben & Jerry's, under the original ownership, didn't. But this really takes the cake, right up there with revealing political dissident blogger identities.

I wonder how long before we see such political/corporate/legal activity over here?

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/09/12/131247/Microsoft-Complaints-Help-Russian-Govt-Pursue-Political-Opposition-Groups

A woman sues the wrong web site for libel and wins

"It appears that Cincinnati Bengals cheerleader Sarah Jones and her lawyer were so upset by a comment on the site TheDirty.com that they missed the 'y' at the end of the name. Instead, they sued the owner of TheDirt.com, whose owner didn't respond to the lawsuit. The end result was a judge awarding $11 million, in part because of the failure to respond. Now, both the owners of TheDirty.com and TheDirt.com are complaining that they're being wrongfully written about in the press — one for not having had any content about Sarah Jones but being told it needs to pay $11 million, and the other for having the content and having the press say it lost a lawsuit, even though no lawsuit was ever actually filed against it."

Teh stupid wins again! You'd think both sites could counter-sue, and I hope they do. Their lawyer needs a serious whap upside the head by a clue-by-four.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100831/18025610848.shtml

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/09/02/1250224/Woman-Wins-Libel-Suit-By-Suing-Wrong-Website

Can YouTube's TOS drive you insane?

According to this 9 minute movie, yes.

It features the terms of service being read by a text-to-speech synthesizer. The point of the film, at least as I took it, being that it's impossible to understand a TOS and that they're always changing and that EVERY SITE (or nigh unto) that you go to has a similar and equally incomprehensible TOS.

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/09/youtube-tos/