 | | censoring —Scott Arthur
|
| | | It looks like we may be censoring again: (URL) A (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: censoring —Dan Boger
|
| | | | | (...) DanB (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: censoring —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) That is why I said *may* Dan. Did you read it all? ==+== However, the move by the Pentagon simply to resort to buying exclusive rights to all the Ikonos pictures could be something of a canny move. Had it just used its legal powers of shutter (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: censoring —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) The part that confused me was the "we". When did you get your green card? DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: censoring —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I neither have one, nor do I have any intention of getting one. When cities in the US start having castles like this in their city centre, I may consider getting one: (URL) neanderthalls say I am anti-US, I just like to make it clear that the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: censoring —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) It is indeed fortunate for your reputation that you said "may" (nice pre-weasel on your part) because it is in no way censorship to buy up all of some good under the terms of a previously negotiated contract. bin Laden, or the media, are (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: censoring —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | (...) Maybe we'll even sell them to him :) Of course the price may be non-monetary! And of course, no guarantees on picture quality, either :) DaveE (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: censoring —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Here's a hypothetical: what if some company sells bin Laden et al bogus but real-seeming photos giving false information? What if, afterward, bin Laden would seek damages from the company for its deceptive product? Dave! (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: censoring —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) The result of course would be that I wouldn't want the judge's job, nor any part in the jury :) Honestly, I think it would depend on the company's honest intent, the ability to prove that intent, the measurment of the damages resulting to bin (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: censoring —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) He'd have a case if the contract he signed guaranteed accuracy. But of course I suspect whatever court he tried to sue in would soon be host to a *host* of suits against HIM. Friedman tangentially touches on this in Machinery of Freedom, if (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: censoring —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) Larry, Read the article. Read my message. Then come back and tell me my description is inaccurate. Scott A (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: censoring —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | (...) If I remember right, these images may be released at a later date after the goverments use period is over (i.e. we are not at war). However, the article says: "According to reports, the decision to shut down access to satellite images was (...) (23 years ago, 19-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
