Wikileaks?

There has been a flurry of news updates claiming that Wikileaks, a site that is created to uncover and reveal confidential information has managed to get their hands on very important and confidential diplomatic cables. Exactly what impact theses leaks will have on future diplomatic ties and such is currently unknown and their true nature is still being speculated. However, my problem with this is that the government has made these documents confidential for a reason, so that secrets are not leaked outside and create unnecessary problems. These documents should be kept as such and only when the government deems it appropriate to be released should it be released. Therefore I do not agree that this site should be allowed to leak out these files which will surely cause some problems with the other countries and their diplomatic ties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?_r=1&hp

Facebook claiming the word "face"

The New York Times reports that Facebook is close to trademarking the word "face" to stop any other telemarketing corporation from using it. This is ridiculous. The word "face" is a common word that is used by everyday people and to trademark it due to the fact that Facebook are worried people will try to leech of their fame by adding the word "face" to their sites. Although it may be true that certain websites will try to use "face" to add some popularity to their site. However, this hardly will affect Facebook a giant social networking site and who have no connection to the other sites. In fact, as the article points out almost every business has a webpage linked to it and this ownership of the word "Face" online will create problems for these sites. How exactly the Patents and Trademarks office will allow this to past is a mystery to me. Perhaps, next the word "book" will be trademarked too.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/24/with-facebook-claiming-the-word-face-some-alternatives/

"Facebook Killer"

Recently I stumbled upon and article that suggested that the website that topples facebook for the crown of social networking will not be a "Facebook with better features", but would rather be something entirely different. At the start of the article I was very skeptical about whether that would be the site that takes over Facebook, but at the end, I am inclined to accept that if history were to repeat itself as it so usually does, then the site that replaces Facebook will not be a site that tries to copy Facebook, but rather a site that comes up with a new innovation, that is entirely different, but renders Facebook redundant. The article provides examples of Digg.com, Myspace, Google and shows why the new social network Disapora is no threat at all to Facebook and will fail to overtake Facebook. As the article says one factor is frequently overlooked when trying to topple the web giants, the fact that the replacement must be radically different to the predecessor. People will not switch from one site to another just because the other site has one or two more better changes. They would rather stick to the same site and trust that eventually the site will update itself and make those changes. However, they wouldn't mind changing to another site which is radically different and offers a new approach to certain activities. Therefore I agree that when Facebook is toppled, it will be toppled by something entirely different from Facebook itself.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/social.media/11/26/cashmore.facebook.killer/index.html

Alcohol more harmful then drugs

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210

A recent study done by the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs shows that alcohol is in fact more dangerous then most drugs, and that tobacco or smoking was also one of the highly dangerous substances. However I completely disagree with this study and its conclusions that it draws. Firstly it is impossible to ever possibly compare alcohol with drugs. The reason being that alcohol is so widely spread due to its legal status that it is far more used and therefore its effects are far more evident. However, drugs is illegal and therefore its use is far less obvious and evident. The second problem, is the situation in which each is used. Alcohol can be used in a normal family gathering, or in a party in small amounts where everyone uses it as a mode of relaxing. However drugs is hardly ever used in that manner and most of the time it is used by people who are either at a very low point in their life or a very high point. In that sense drugs are far more dangerous then alcohol.

Former Guerilla to president

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/10/31/brazil.winner.profile/index.html?hpt=C2

Can people truly make comebacks from crime to do good? That remains to be seen in the case of Dilma Rousseff the first female president of Brazil. She was once a extremist left-wing Guerilla fighter who was tortured by the right wing party of Brazil. However, was it wise to elect a president who was a ex-guerilla warfare fighter and who had been tortured by the opposition side? Thinking about it carefully, there are many reasons as to why this could be a bad choice. Firstly, her past involvement will undoubtedly be criticized and harped upon by anyone who dislikes her. Secondly, being tortured by the opposition party would have left severe emotional tramau on her, possibly causing deep hatred towards the other side. Therefore would it be a good desicion to allow her to have a majority of the power? However, she also knows the needs of her people and she has shown that she is no afraid to get into business when it is needed, showing her mental and physical strength. Dilma Rousseff has a lot to prove to the world.

Women Rights

http://insidethemiddleeast.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/01/why-is-sexual-harassment-in-egypt-so-rampant/?hpt=C1

Glancing across the headlines on CNN, I couldn't help but notice that there was an article about women's right and protesting going on in Egypt. Upon reading more I realized that the writer of the article was bringing to light how women were being treated in the middle east and just how dire the situation of women's right was. In fact, what makes women any lower then men. Women are just as capable as men and in certain situations they are in fact more useful then men. Studies in New Zealand show that males were 2.4 times more likely to exhibit antisocial behavior, with the United States Department Of Justice giving statistics to prove that men were 8 times more likely to commit homicide then women. Other statistics also prove that women are less physically violent then men, and usually approach arguments with a rational mind. Therefore, these ways of treating women as though they were lesser then men and only sex objects are in my opinion ridiculous.