Your comment has been saved.
It may take a moment for your comment to appear on the site at the original post.
It may take a moment for your comment to appear on the site at the original post.
Post a Comment On: The Emoluments of Mars
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Monday, June 18, 2012
Google reports 'alarming' rise in government censorship requests
 |
Google says government requests to take down content are up compared with last year.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Google says government requests to remove Web content are way up
- In last half of 2011, U.S. agencies asked Google to remove 6,192 pieces of content
- That's up 718% compared with the previous six-month period
- Google released its biannual transparency report Sunday night
"It's alarming not only
because free expression is at risk, but because some of these requests
come from countries you might not suspect -- Western democracies not
typically associated with censorship," Dorothy Chou, a senior policy
analyst at Google, wrote in a blog post on Sunday night.
"For example, in the
second half of last year, Spanish regulators asked us to remove 270
search results that linked to blogs and articles in newspapers
referencing individuals and public figures, including mayors and public
prosecutors. In Poland, we received a request from a public institution
to remove links to a site that criticized it. We didn't comply with
either of these requests."
In the last half of 2011,
U.S. agencies asked Google to remove 6,192 individual pieces of content
from its search results, blog posts or archives of online videos,
according to the report. That's up 718% compared with the 757 such items
that U.S. agencies asked Google to remove in the six months prior.
Fighting the great firewall
Overall, Google received
187 requests from United States law enforcement agencies and courts to
remove content from its Web properties from July to December, up 103%
from the 92 requests the Mountain View, California, company received in
the previous reporting period.
In one incident cited in
the report, a U.S. law enforcement agency asked Google to take down a
blog that "allegedly defamed a law enforcement official in a personal
capacity." The company did not comply with that request.
In another, a separate
law enforcement group asked Google to take down 1,400 YouTube videos
(Google owns YouTube) because of "alleged harassment."
And in Canada, the
passport office asked Google to delete a YouTube video "of a Canadian
citizen urinating on his passport and flushing it down the toilet,"
according to the report.
The tech company did not
oblige either of those requests but did comply at least in part with 42%
of the removal requests from the United States in the last half of
2011, the report says.
That number is down considerably compared to previous reports; In the
latter half of 2010, for example, Google said it complied with 87% of
U.S. requests to remove content.
The biannual
transparency report, which includes data to July 2009, also indicates a
rise in world governments' requests to take a look at the data Google
collects about its users. And with those requests, Google tended to be
much more likely to comply.
In the last half of
2011, Google received 6,321 requests for user data from government
agencies in the United States and complied at least in part with 93% of
them, according to data released in the report.
Those requests for
information about Google users come as part of criminal investigations,
Google says, and are not unique to the company.
Google complied more
frequently with U.S.-based requests for information about users than
with requests from other countries, according to the report. It complied
or partially complied with only 24% of such requests from Canada, 44%
from France and 64% from the United Kingdom, for example.
The number of user data
requests Google received from the United States was up 6% over the
previous six-month period and 37% compared with the last half of 2010.
Google says this
increase "isn't surprising, since each year we offer more products and
services, and we have a larger number of users." In the report, the company adds:
"We review each request to make sure that it complies with both the
spirit and the letter of the law, and we may refuse to produce
information or try to narrow the request in some cases."
Writing at Forbes.com, tech columnist Andy Greenberg says
that Google "should be applauded for taking a strong stand against
censorship" but that "the government's increasingly sticky fingers in
Google's databases comes at a sensitive time."
"Google has been
criticized for failing to reveal much about its reported partnership
with the National Security Agency following a Chinese attack on its
systems in 2010," he writes. "And the company has yet to take a stand on
the House's recently-passed Cyber Infrastructure Security and
Protection Act or its equivalents in the Senate, which are designed to
give companies far more leeway to hand data over to government agencies
for security purposes."
At Politico, blogger Dylan Byers says the report "will certainly challenge any notions you might have about a free and unregulated Web."
Google says it hopes the data will offer a "small window into what's happening on the Web at large."
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/18/tech/web/google-transparency-report/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
"I never said Elenin was a nit-pick"
68 Comments - Show Original Post Collapse comments
noun \ˈkraft\
5
plural usually craft a : a boat especially of small size b : aircraft c : spacecraft
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/craft
__________________________________
ship
noun, often attributive \ˈship\
1
a : a large seagoing vessel b : a sailing vessel having a bowsprit and usually three masts each composed of a lower mast, a topmast, and a topgallant mast
2
: boat; especially : one propelled by power or sail
3
: a ship's crew
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ship?show=0&t=1339643968
Hoagland is SUCH a weasel - an oily weasel trying to wriggle and squirm his way out of BEING WRONG. If his giant, self-adulating ego wasn't the size of 19.5 jupiter's he would just just admit he made a mistake, but we know that will never ever happen.
Even his most loyal of sheep would surely know "spacecraft" or "spaceship" to mean exactly what we ALL think of by those very words.
This is a guy who is an "expert" at connecting the dots and reading between the lines, and yet has to argue over the possible meanings of words to avoid being shown to be a liar?!?... I mean, it's not like time and time again he said how "interesting" it was that YU55 was described as 'aircraft-carrier size' instead of "big"; and that the folk at NASA used the words 'structures' when reporting on photos of YU55/Vesta etc. (As we all know, 'structures' can ONLY mean artificial buildings built by lifeforms and has no other possible geological meaning whatsoever).
I wonder what Dick's definition of the word "science" or "scientists" is, or "proof", or "hyper-dimensional"?... (hopefully we can purchase Dick's Dictionary to supplement the third book?)
Blanche DuBois,Dire Straits...Nice touch.;)
That's the thing. If you picked the random Hoagland fan and asked him/her if a spacecraft is a spaceship, they'd say yes. In fact, most people (in and out of the business) would say yes. Hoagland is making an artificial distinction to cover the fact that he lied to a national audience to get rid of a nasty question about how he wasted weeks of his fans' lives with this nonsense. His only defense of the act is a "it depends on what the meaning of the word is is" one. Pathetic.
Would you be so daring as to try again, and see if you can get an explanation for his 'stunning' silence following the Venus Transit, and his plans for refunding the funds donated by his fans? Even some of those docile creatures are starting to get restless!
How big is big? How small is small?
The Starship Enterprise, is a Spaceship. The Shuttlecraft Galileo, is like a boat.
The big man, Professor, Richard C Hoagland, may be full of ship, but Dick's just a little dinghy.
4 minutes ago · Like
I'm cartoonishly startled that you managed to solicit a response from Hoagland without offering him money and, incredulously, without being labelled an MI6 operative.
I'm unsurprised by the reply. Hoagland (to my knowledge) has never admitted to being wrong about anything. Ever. I knew what he would say before I read his reply. Both he and Bara play the same word games when it suits their agenda. Just as NASA can be trusted when the "Big Man" decrees it so.
I wonder, regarding the recent cutoff you had on a radio show. Where Bara was guest, and you asked, "how many shuttle launches fitted with his ritual alignment model ?" If he spawned a litter of kittens whilst making the throat-cut gesture to the host.
I also wonder if you have a link to the broadcast.
Next, and continuing on the agenda will be; The John Carter movie, the Prometheus movie, and the narrowing of the proposed landing ellipse of Curiosity. And of course whatever the HD "model" predicted this week.
I'd easily wager fifty new pence (remember I'm a Scot) that the juggernaut of contemporary science is, as I write, honing his photoshop skills.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/brightside1/2012/05/27/the-bright-side-show
When that announcement doesn't happen, of course, he'll drop the subject. Not a chance he'll ever say "I guess I was wrong, then."
So let me get this right, the RITUAL DRIVEN NASA - the people who cannot "go to the bathroom without the right celestial alignment, George", the people who have managed humanity and hidden knowledge for years in accordance with ritual, have now just suddenly decided to speed-up Curiosity's mission and forget all about ritual timings and alignments, because re-incarnated sphinx pharaoh emperor king barry is going to seal an election victory by announcing to the world life has been found on mars???? (You know, just in case his political policies on the wars or the economy or healthcare don't seal a win).
Obviously those evil republicans would cover up such information (unless Mitt is a Hawaiian Mormon) and so all those NASA heads are only too happy to help out barry - or perhaps they're all on his drone list and are being forced to speed up the mission or else!... Makes perfect sense if you're as good at reading between the lines as Captain Enterprise is!
Then again... Surely the REAL powers behind the scenes that have been keeping secrets for 70 years (if not thousands), have "star trek technology" beyond anything we can imagine, might just have something to say about this??? (after all, this is one of those times we CAN trust NASA, right?!) Wait, hang on a minute, what am I doing applying logic to show how ridiculous Dick's notion is - back to the fantasy thinking.......
Imma have to find that C2C clip - tis the most wonderfully absurd thing I've heard in a while! Classic Dick!
And yes, not a word will be said about such "non-prediction" when alien life is NOT announced to the world... unless Dick is right for once - in which case, I sure hope barry has his teleprompter switched on or he'll have to leak the announcement in his next christmas card secret message - and I for one would love to see our economy increase 17x (obviously 16x and 18x is just ludicrous) because of the golden age that will happen instantly. What channel is The View on again? I want to stay tuned so I don't miss the most important event in human history!!!! (Obviously that's the logical place he'd announce it, right?!)
Here's hoping Curiosity has some pretty big buckets attached to pick up extra campaign funds from those martians - or we might never know the truth, and Hoagie might miss his chance to go down in history as the greatest scientist of all time.......
Obviously he doesn't do predictions, but it certainly sounded like one... but we all know how slimey Dick is with words and meaning and inferences. (I wonder what he means by "announce" and "will" and "biological life"? I thought Curiosity was nuclear powered so it could go inside the apartment blocks of our ancestors? Or does "methane sources" mean a martian donkey has been discovered and nasa needs more money to go get it?... It would be wrong for me to assume the meaning of such a statement without Dick's Dictionary.
He said this on Jun-13 C2C's - does anyone know if this has been discussed on his FB page since? I don't see any sign of it - surely this is exactly the sort of thing his legion of sheep would be facebook-fapping to non-stop?!
Sarah Bilgri: "Look, there is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box. Contrary to what Hoagland seems to believe, many great scientists have made many great discoveries by doing just that. But this is a joke. Hoagland solicited a ridiculous amount of funds for an expedition that could have cost much less, and where is he with the stunning results-any results-that many of you had directly contributed to? A week and more of complete and utter silence. Pay attention, guys-nobody's suppressing these "amazing discoveries". You've got a senior citizen who (unlike a real scientist) can't afford ANY logical questions regarding his methods to remain. Read this carefully before it disappears. This guy's an old clown with shattered dreams of being a respected scientist. The only ones not laughing are you guys. 32,000 people in the whole world-many who are friends only out of casual interest-for a lifetime of work. Take a look at Paris Hilton's friends and then ask yourself what kind of impact this crap will ever have on the world. Well done, Hoagie. I'm sure your legend will only grow."
Teddy Kidd: "What's age got to do with it?"
Sarah Bilgri: "Age is not an issue in itself; but it illustrative in this case of Hoagland's lack of penetration despite more than two decades of "stunning results". His life has been so completely wasted. He likes to reference his more than 30,000 Facebook friends, as if such a biased audience indicates that he's getting anywhere with anyone of importance. He's gone from brief appearances on "real" programs like CNN and semi-real presentations at venues such as the UN to preaching to the choir at like-minded conferences and counting his fans on Facebook, a venue where people who already know about him seek him out. In all, it's not a bad thing that he's old; my Grandpa is more than twenty years older and can look back on a life of service to his country and raising a loving and successful family. Hoagland will bleat out his nonsense for another decade or two and then be forgotten except by those who don't know how to draw logical conclusions."
There's usually always people writing on his FB wall saying "Dick will be on C2C news tonight"; and his name is indeed listed right there on the C2C website for Jun13's show - I can't believe his fans aren't all over this in a frenzy...
It's almost as if every one of those 32,580 "fans" he loves to reference so much aren't actually hanging on his every word with baited breath as much as they used to... (or as much as he thinks!!)
By the way, I have it on good authority that Mae Naught never did get nuked. She moved to another town, and didn't want to be asked by facebutt for a cell phone number. That's what happens if they think somebody has attempted to hack your account.
The French aren't the only ones who do not see the difference Hoagland is trying to create. In Carl Sagan's book Pale Blue Dot there is a chapter named "The Triumph of Voyager". In that chapter, Sagan uses the terms craft and ship to describe Voyager interchangeably. At one point in fact, he compares the two Voyagers to the Nina, the Pinta, and the Santa Maria, vehicles even Hoagland would call ships. So in this case, Hoagland is attempting to be pseudo-pedantic (pseudo because his point is based on false knowledge).
Think about it. He had his followers talking about this nonsense for weeks on end. He made use of it in a paid video performance (that he suggested one reader skip a meal to buy, it was that important apparently). He made it the center of the Hoagland universe, then when it didn't turn out the way he predicted, he pretended it never happened.
Then when by some happenstance he gets a question about it on C2C, he shouts the caller down with a lie. It was the act of a bully and a coward (he knew Noory would back him up no matter what he did) and his response to Expat is disingenuous at best. If he really believed that nonsense, he'd have made the distinction while on the air. He didn't, because he doesn't. He just wanted the caller to go away.
Bien merde alors !
Is the closest expression of which I can think
Nevertheless, Sagan's comment is still relevant, because while he undoubtedly realized the distinction between unmanned spacecraft and manned ships, he considered the distinction to be so negligible as to be irrelevant.
Exactly. Sagan used the words interchangeably ("Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 are the ships that opened the Solar System to the human species, trailblazing a path for future generations.") because he saw no difference. He saw no difference because there is no difference.
The splitting of hairs that Hoagland is attempting is for the purpose of explaining a lie he said on C2C. He knew what the caller meant and could have offered the same explanation he gave Expat that very night. He didn't because it didn't occur to him just then. He just wanted the caller gone and knew Noory would back his play. He got rid of the question and the C2C audience was spared the experience of Hoagland admitting that another one of his wild spaceship chases ended up being a big fat nothing.
Misti, if you are really going to use size as a criteria (that's not Hoagland's excuse, but whatever) consider that Elenin was supposed to be a "craft" the size of a comet. Most people would consider that big enough to rate the term "ship".
I agree that the distinction is invalid, not just because of the formal definition of the terms, but also because of the way in which the terms are colloquially used. Since some terms are used in the real world in very different ways than their formal definition would imply (for example, submariners referring to their vessels as "boats" when the subs' sizes would lead many to refer to them as "ships"), Hoagland's very suggestion that the terms "spacecraft" and "spaceship" have anything other than a highly subjective, individualistic definition is laughable. Just another example of RCH's "my definition is correct, for I am a SCIENTIST!" syndrome.
Again, nobody here is criticizing Hoagland for using one specific word when he should have used another specific, very similar word; he would have been spectacularly wrong in either event. Indeed, HE'S the one who seems to be implying that he's speaking with the precision of a dissertation whenever he talks about anything, telling us he very specifically meant to say craft instead of ship for a specific reason. What everybody here is pointing out is that such an insignificant distinction is a cheap sidestep to avoid admitting that the speaker is a moron.
Hoagland tried to obfuscate the point to cover the fact that he lied to shut down a line of questioning he wasn't prepared to deal with. Remember, at the time Hoagland (who has used both words himself, as Expat pointed out) did not make such a distinction on air. He simply shouted the guy down.
Sagan wasn't making the distinction because he didn't see one to make. If asked, he probably (since that's how he behaved) would have said they are equivalent terms. A spaceship is a spacecraft.
Oh and to add to the confusion and show how meaningless these distinctions can be, there is an interesting example from modern Naval terminology. The average nuclear attack submarine is both very large and has a crew. This craft is a very capable warship by anyone's imagination. Yet the term for such a craft is 'boat'. Now I suppose you could claim that the Navy is wrong and Hoagland is right, but that wouldn't be very convincing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmFRvpwVSwo
;)
Hoagland tried to say that a spaceship is manned, and a spacecraft is unmanned, which is not necessarily right or wrong; it depends, but you guys here went off on a tangent about the proper definition. So far, I'm the only one who has given the correct usage, you feckless bunch of Bozos.
The words are seen as equivalent by those who are actually in the field of space flight. Apollo 11 may not be Mariner 9, but they are both considered spacecraft and spaceships. Hoagland is trying to promote a difference that does not exist in common usage, in an effort to avoid admitting he lied in order to not explain why he blew it again. He wanted the C2C audience to forget the weeks leading up to the broadcast where he was comparing Elenin to the ship in Rendezvous With Rama (which was also unmanned).
No, Hoagland was not trying to promote what he says is the proper use of words, if he were, he'd have actually mentioned it at that time. He only mentions it now when people ask him about the lie. It's called an excuse and has no basis in reality. Then again, nothing else Hoagland talks about does either.
However, I do recall an interview with either a NASA engineer or maybe even an astronaut, back during Apollo, where the expert was saying that the Apollo capsule was almost more of a spaceship than the Mercurys, because it had some measure of piloted control.
Actually, that would tend to support Hoagland's argument.
It's a dead hulk like all of Misti's blogs. HHMSS Sword. Misti is this liar SwArd.
Richard C Hoagland also broadcast to Art Bell's audience of 20,000,000 listeners, that Comet Hale-Bopp had a piloted companion. The Heaven's Gate cult refers to this on their website, which still functions. I do wonder who pays the bill to the webhost for that?
Chuck Shramek's Hale-Bopp Companion Page Hale-Bopp Companion
The Art Bell Web Page #1 Late Night Talk Radio Program
NASA Images from NASA
Whitley Strieber UFO News!
Phobos is, indeed ... "an artificial spaceship!"...
3 sentences later:
Phobos could be an "intelligently-created, giant spacecraft"
Steins also turned out to be a ship ... a 3-mile-wide, ancient spaceship orbiting the sun...
Next sentence:
A giant spacecraft shaped, ultimately ... like a truncated "double tetrahedron!"
This is what I mean about the Roosters and the Owls. Hoagland spins the truth and so do you posers. The only difference being you own respective agendas, neither which are benevolent.
One side claims the most outrageous bullshit as factual, and the other side throws the baby of facts out with the bath water.
Both sides working together to cover up the truth.
If the shoe fits, Cinderella, delete it.
I personally say that Hoagland has supported his position better than you have, because I personally witnessed an expert from NASA say that the Apollo capsule was more like a Spaceship than a Spacecraft because it had some measure of manned, pilot control. Whereas Carl Sagan apparently used the terms interchangeably.
At the very least, Hoagland is on at least as firm a ground as Sagan on this subject. That's a far cry from intellectual dishonesty.
The topic of intelligent control of large objects in Space is far more fair game for you to criticize, for the very fact that you say it isn't worth mentioning. Hoagland makes the extraordinary assertion on simple observation.
Troll Alert!
I don't recall him ever saying if they were biological, but from what I gather, his view seems to be that they must be human ancestors from Orion or more specifically, Sirius, perhaps.
What does that do to your guys nit picking?
Sphincter Boy
Brutal austerity + toxic levels of government debt + rising bond yields + a lack of confidence in the financial system + banks that are massively overleveraged + a massive credit crunch = A financial implosion of historic proportions.
There is nothing planned that could get anywhere in 10 THOUSAND years.
AND
Zero-Gee kills in two years.
They plan to go at night.