Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (352470)	9/27/2007 7:15:09 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

"Goals are derived from ideologies." Possibly. However, in this case, Al Qaeda goal is to strike at the West and attempt to restore the Caliphate. The Taliban seems content on torturing people in their own country. Rather divergent goals for the allegedly same ideology. I am sure you can nuance and spin it so it winds up the same, though. "Capabilities, whether from within or without, allow said ideologues to achieve said goals." Which differ. Different goals, different capabilities. "You want to draw a distinction between the terrorists who attacked us and the ideologues who harbor them" Well, they are different. "sympathize with them" Well, you just left reality behind. Zooming right off into fantasy. "and actively assist them in their jihad" Say hello to Shorty when you get there. "That distinction is a real sorry excuse for your unwillingness to face the real problem." You are the one who isn't facing reality. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are two different problems. They require different approaches. We had a chance to get rid of the Taliban for good. But Smirk had to tackle Iraq and didn't do what was promised to get Afghanistan on their feet. Instead, he turned it over the the warlords. When caused exactly the same set of conditions that saw the Taliban rise to power in the first place. You don't want to invest the time and energy to understand the situation. Neither did Smirk. Which is why those missionaries got killed.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (352470)	9/28/2007 11:17:22 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575421

Verizon Reverses Itself on Abortion Messages By ADAM LIPTAK Reversing course, Verizon Wireless announced yesterday that it would allow an abortion rights group to send text messages to its supporters on Verizon’s mobile network. “The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect,” said Jeffrey Nelson, a spokesman for Verizon, in a statement issued yesterday morning, adding that the earlier decision was an “isolated incident.” Last week, Verizon rejected a request from the abortion rights group, Naral Pro-Choice America, for a five-digit “short code.” Such codes allow people interested in hearing from businesses, politicians and advocacy groups to sign up to receive text messages. Verizon is one of the two largest mobile carriers. The other leading carriers had accepted Naral’s request for the code. In turning down the request last week, Verizon told Naral that it “does not accept issue-oriented (abortion, war, etc.) programs — only basic, general politician-related programs (Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, etc.).” In yesterday’s statement, Mr. Nelson called that “an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy” that “was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.” The policy, Mr. Nelson said, had been developed “before text messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages.” But the program requested by Naral would have sent messages only to people who had asked to receive them. Nancy Keenan, Naral’s president, expressed satisfaction yesterday. “The fight to defeat corporate censorship was won,” she said. But Ms. Keenan added that her group “would like to see Verizon make its new policy public.” Verizon did not respond to repeated requests for copies of the policy or an explanation for why it is withholding it. Text messaging is an increasingly popular tool in American politics and an established one abroad. In his statement, Mr. Nelson acknowledged that the technology is “being harnessed by organizations and individuals communicating their diverse opinions about issues and topics.” He said Verizon has “great respect for this free flow of ideas.” But the company did not retreat from its position that it is entitled to decide what messages to transmit. Legal experts said Verizon’s position is probably correct under current law, though some called for regulations that would require wireless carriers of text messages to act like common carriers, making their services available to all speakers on all topics. “This incident, more than ever, shows the need for an open, nondiscriminatory, neutral Internet and telecommunications system that Americans once enjoyed and took for granted,” said Gigi B. Sohn, the president of Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group. Some of Verizon’s customers said they were outraged by the company’s initial stance. Gary Mitchell, a lawyer in New Jersey, said he called a Verizon customer sales representative yesterday morning to cancel his wireless service in protest. After spending a few minutes on hold, he said, the representative read him an e-mail message that she said all the customer service representatives had just received. The message instructed representatives to tell callers that the policy had been reversed. Verizon kept Mr. Mitchell’s business but lost some of his respect. “It was an incredibly foolish corporate decision,” he said. Wyn Hoag, a photographer in California, said he was still mulling whether to cancel his Verizon service. “I’m a supporter of abortion rights, but I could be a Christian-right person and still be in favor of free speech,” Mr. Hoag said. “If they think they can censor what’s on my phone, they’ve got another thing coming.” Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company