India's Ambani hosts party for 'world's priciest home'.

Summery

The Indian billionaire, Mukesh Ambani has hosted a house-warming party for his new 27-story residence at Mumbai, India. Mukesh Ambani is believed to be one of the wealthiest people in the world, who earned his money with developing techniques for refining oil and gas. The house is so big that according to the Times of India it requires a staff of 600 people. Guest said that the party was fantastic and the residence is beautiful. There are is a swimming pool, theatre, library and even a Krishna temple. There has been some criticism about the contrast of his residence and the slums of Mumbai.

Opinion

A man who is this wealthy, is either a hard working man or a criminal, and we know in this case his is a hard working man. And because of that, I believe that he has the right to build a luxuries residence, if it is within the law. If the claim about a staff of 600 people is true, he provides jobs for 600, who might be living in the slums. The contrast between the slums and his residence may be big, but the people who live in the slums, might even get out of the slums because of his residence, and the jobs it provides. I will end with a question; If you had $29 billion, would you not build the house of your dreams?

Link

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11854177

Pirate Bay co-founders lose appeal.

Summery

Fredrik Neij, Peter Sunde and Carl Lundstrom remain guilty of illegal filesharing. The Pirate Bay’s co-founders appealed the ruling of the Swedish court of "assisting making available copyrighted content". The co-founders still believe that this is a political issue and should not fought in the court. They also believe that they are not guilty because the website itself does not contain any illegal content. The four co-founders were ordered to pay $6.5 million, for  damages to 17 different music and media companies and each have to serve between four and 10 months of prison. It is believed that the Pirate Bay won’t accept this charge and appeal the case to the European supreme court.

Opinion

I believe that the two are guilty of assisting making available copyrighted content, because although there was no illegal content on the site, the sites contains links to torrent servers which have. So the claim of assisting making available copyrighted content is true. On the other side, I think that the Pirate Bay is used to set an example of what can happen when you use the internet to share copyrighted content, and that is why the trail is not completely fair. The music and media companies should do more to encourage people to buy their content legally. For example, lower the prices and make it easier to access the content, using the ideal means, the internet.

Link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/nov/26/pirate-bay-founders-appeal

Somali 'pirates' go on trial in Hamburg.

Summery

Ten men accused of hijacking a German ship are brought up on trial, in the first piracy trial in 400 years. The ten men tried to capture a German container ship in the Gulf of Aden, but failed because the 15 crew members locked themselves in the ship’s security room for several hours and stopped the engine making it impossible to take the ship to their home port. After a couple of hours the Dutch anti-piracy unit captured the ten Somali men. The court was unable to establish the ages of the men but they are facing a 15 year sentence.

Opinion

I have watched an read a lot of articles about these kinds of crimes at the Gulf of Aden, and there are two sides of the story, which both are fascinating. The Somali pirates are very poor people who reside to piracy, to make a living. They use small wooden boats and bamboo sticks, to climb up the ship’s deck. I think this is very impressive and ingenious. Looking at the ship’s owner perspective these Somali pirates are criminals and of course they are right. They have no right to capture these ships.

Link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/22/somali-pirates-trial-hamburg

Catholics weigh significance of Pope's words on condom use.

Summery

For years the Catholic Church has a stance against the use of condoms. Now the Pope Benedict XVI has overturned this long-standing church ban on condoms by saying that their use is acceptable in exceptional circumstances. This statements has caused a lot of confusion. What does the pope mean with those exceptional circumstances? The pope still insist that condoms are not the main solution to the Aids epidemic. Apparently, the pope means that the use of condoms to prevent the spread of HIV, is only allowed, when it is used by homosexual man or homosexual prostitutes as a first step towards moralisation.

Opinion

This statement of the pope is obviously ridiculous in all kinds of ways. First of all, the church ban on the use of condoms, has caused a huge number of deaths in Africa, in which I believe the Catholic church is a large contributor. Second, the Catholic church knows, just like any well thinking person, that the use of condoms is the main solutions to the Aids epidemic. The problem is that they cannot change their opinion, because this would cause a lot of confusion. This is exactly what you see in this article, were the pope tried to change the opinion of the church, and immediately got shot down.

Link

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/catholics-weigh-significance-of-popes-words-on-condom-use-2140302.html

Phil Woolas ejected from parliament over election slurs.

Summery

Phil Woolas, now the former immigration minister has been rejected from parlement after lying about his opponent during the election. Phil Woolas lied about two thing; he misled voters in Oldham East to stir upreligous tensions and lied about Watkins’s intention to live in the constituency. The court rulled that Woolas had lied and he lost his seat and is barred for three years. He also is suspended by the labour party and is now a shadow member. Several experts say it will have great consequences for the following election campaigns because candidates will think twice before making statements about each other.

Opinion

I believe that lies and negative campaigns such as Phil Woolas’s are bad for the politics and bad for the country. This whole article reminds me of the politics in the United States, where negative campaigns are completely normal. An election should result in the instatement of the best candidate who uses solid arguments, and not the candidate who has uses negative campaigns to gain popularity. That is why I believe that the English court has ruled a good verdict to stop the spread of lies and negative campaigning.

Link 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/05/phil-woolas-ejected-parliament-election