Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Tuesday February 25 2014, @09:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the Take-my-data-and-go-home dept.
c0lo writes: "Reuters reports

(Reuters) Brazil and the European Union agreed on Monday to lay an undersea communications cable from Lisbon to Fortaleza to reduce Brazil's reliance on the United States after Washington spied on Brasilia.

At a summit in Brussels, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff said the $185 million cable project was central to "guarantee the neutrality" of the Internet, signaling her desire to shield Brazil's Internet traffic from U.S. surveillance. According to other sources, the construction is scheduled to begin in July.

A joint venture between Brazilian telecoms provider Telebras and Spain's IslaLink Submarine Cables would lay the communications link. Telebras would have a 35 percent stake, IslaLink would have a 45 percent interest and European and Brazilian pension funds could put up the remainder.

So it has come to this"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hatta on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:18PM

    by hatta (879) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:18PM (#6583)

    Until the people of those countries are prepared to take to the streets to get their governments under control, they are complicit in the errors of that government.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=5, Overrated=1, Total=6
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:47PM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:47PM (#6598) Journal

    I cannot agree with you. You are entitled to your opinion, but if you really think so... beware, that's quite a dangerous path you are stepping on.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hatta on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:59PM

      by hatta (879) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @01:59PM (#6601)

      Not nearly as dangerous as continued mass apathy.

      • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:58PM

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday February 25 2014, @03:58PM (#6686) Homepage Journal

        I don't think it's apathy so much as a feeling of helplessness. After all, PATRIOT, DMCA, Bono Act, etc -- all the things corporations want and voters don't, got passed with overwhelming majorities from both parties. Meanwhile, there isn't a single person I know of in the House or Senate who wants pot legalized, even though more than half of all voters want it legal.

        --
        mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
        • (Score: 5, Interesting) by frojack on Tuesday February 25 2014, @06:46PM

          by frojack (1554) on Tuesday February 25 2014, @06:46PM (#6824) Journal

          Meanwhile, there isn't a single person I know of in the House or Senate who wants pot legalized

          You probably just don't know of them, its not that they don't want it legalized.

          http://rt.com/usa/lawmakers-demand-reclassify-mari juana-legal-926/ [rt.com]
          http://swampland.time.com/2014/02/12/marijuana-leg alization-california-congress-obama/ [time.com]
          http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/02/pot-l egalization-goes-federal/ [go.com]

          Probably at least half of them have at one time, or currently use it, in the privacy of their own home, because no one is going to arrest a Congressman or Senator when they can just hold that over their heads for small favors. (You just about can't arrest a member of congress while congress is in session. Its a big deal if you try).

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:42PM

            by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday February 25 2014, @07:42PM (#6870) Homepage Journal

            Probably at least half of them have at one time, or currently use it, in the privacy of their own home

            Almost certainly, since almost every boomer I've ever met has at least tried pot, and most of the government guys are boomers. But hypocricy abounds in congress, how many anti-gay legislators were cought sucking off some guy? How many bible thumpers were caught in adultery? Look at Seven of Nine's husband, Illinois politician Jack Ryan, bible-thumping tea partier who got caught lying to Republican hacks about his wanting to take his Borg wife to sex parties and watch other guys bang her (which is why she divorced him)?

            How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips move. A politician will vote against his own (other) wishes as well as his constituents' wishes if he thinks it will get him reelected.

            Hypocrites.

            --
            mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2014, @09:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 25 2014, @09:30PM (#6957)

    "Until the people of those countries are prepared to take to the streets to get their governments under control, they are complicit in the errors of that government."

    I'm American and I fully support such activities. Unfortunately, I've stopped trying to explain the reasoning and logic for my opinion because any contrarian opinions on this subject get savagely modded down to -1 troll. I only post anonymously on these stories now. It's just too dangerous to post contrarian opinions that go against the groupthink on Slashdot and here.

  • (Score: 1) by HiThere on Wednesday February 26 2014, @02:55AM

    by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 26 2014, @02:55AM (#7083) Journal

    That attitude might make you feel good and righteous, but it doesn't accomplish anything else.

    People react strongly against things that affect them strongly. Weakly against things that affect them weakly. And unless it is extremely detrimental to them, they, in mass, tend to go along with the accepted authorities. (Of course, different groups select different authorities, and I don't quite understand the basis for that selection, but it's clearly not wisdom.)

    Also people's social structures tend to be hierarchical. This is probably a bad choice, particularly when so many accepted authorities are malign, but to counterbalance this they also usually have multiple hierarchies that they accept.

    You are asking mass rejection of multiple levels of hierarchical authority on multiple different hierarchies for matters that don't strongly affect them. You aren't going to get any large response to this, except possibly among the age groups of 15-23, and mainly males. And small responses aren't going to be effective. (There have been protests, but they've been largely ignored.)

    A part of the problem is that the bulge of the population is no longer in the late-teens through early-adult age group, it's mainly older now. Another problem is that there has been corporate buy-outs of most channels of media. And things that are not acceptable to the owners are strongly downplayed...or even just not mentioned. So even among those likely to respond, the news just doesn't get out in a synchronized manner, as it did in the 1960's-1980's.

    --
    Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.