Slashdot Mirror
Google vs. Evil
wideangle writes "'The world's biggest, best-loved search engine owes its success to supreme technology and a simple rule: Don't be evil. Now the geek icon is finding that moral compromise is just the cost of doing big business. Take Brin's decision to refuse all alcohol and tobacco advertising. The fact that Google accepts advertising for adult content sites is an intriguing commentary on Brin's morality: Cigarettes and booze are evil; porn is not. It's a policy that would become progressively harder to defend were Google to go public.'"
Speaking of Google, Froogle is soon to be released, watch out eBay...
..do your own front end to google and filter for all your hearts content. http://www.google.com/apis/
it's fun and geeky to play around too..
the free key allows up to 1000 searches/person per day using googleapi..
i experimented with it to filter out some linkfarm-sht-sites while looking for *cough*roms. happily the same authors linkfarm sites shared quite a bit of content(and linked to eachother of course)..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
You're calling for a Google boycott with the only base of your own wild extrapolation. Google is only refusing some advertising, not turning into some kind of censorware. To this day Google has not given the slightest indication that they will do something so grave as deliberately omitting sites from their index because of their ideology. Your reaction is ridiculous and exaggerated.
"Guns are like cigarettes and booze in that way -- they're a real viceral thrill, and they're not a really good thing in the long haul."
y year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals-or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
Well, the Resistance in France, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union really thought guns were helpful against the Nazis. The Viet Cong used them to good effect against the French, Japanese, Americans and Republic of Vietnam. In 1989 guns were quite helpful dealing with Nicolae Ceausescu.
Guns helped the SAS and Norwegian Resistance in stopping the Nazi heavy-water production.
http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/stats.htm
"Ever
Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.
(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker."
Mind you, Christianity is not the only religion which states that you're not to defile the body: The Hindus and Muslims have this very same belief.
It can't be stopped. Moderators are truely idiots. You have posted almost non-stop for three days karma whoring, google trolling (whoever came up with that term should be commended) and baiting like crazy and continue to be modded up, no matter what. You've probably been capped by now. I don't know if you've bribed an editor or what, but man...
So, this is my last time (other ACs feel free) - hey everyone, SteweyGriffin is none other than ekrout, a known troll who often contradicts his own statements in the same thread, whores fans to have a large pool of moderators who see him at a +? score, trolls and will undoubtedly sweep the trollback for the weekend (links under his other posts can be found, including his post that proudly shows his reply and moderation amounts - look here you fools (wow - never noticed that the sid for trolltalk was 31337... that's funny). Stop modding him up. Or don't, I don't care anymore. Color me impressed, I surrender.
Not really. Most guns manufactured are sold for the purpose of a) making holes in paper b) making holes in animals. Their ability to kill people is a side-effect of b.
There are far more incidents where people use guns to ward off attackers then there are of people who kill people with. (IIRC someone posted numbers above)
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
The reason these two commission disagreed was largly to do with what they were studying. Pornography changed drastically between 1970 and 1986. In 1970 full frontal nudity was a rarity while in 1986 close-ups of anatomy were common and visible penetration could be found in hard-core magazines at adult stores. The 1970 commission was also railed on for failing to research violent pornography. By 1996 this research hole was filled and the findings were that it led to agression against women (in laboratory test conditions) and the acceptance of the rape myth that women secretly want it.
Later in 1986, a Surgeon General's Workshop on Pornography and Public Health met and found that "pronography does stimulate attitudes and behavior that lead to gravely negative consequences for individuals and society."
Since 1986 numerous meta-studies has supported the Surgeon General findings too. A 1994 meta-study titled "A Systematic Review of the Effects of Aggressive and Nonagressive Pornography" included 81 original studies, a 1995 meta-study "A Meta-ananysis Summerizing the Effects of Pornography" included 33 original studies, another 1995 study "Exposure to Pornography and Acceptance of Rape Myths" included 24 orignial studies all support that violent and non-violent pornography increase the likelihood of rape, sexual callousness, violence, and violent attitudes towards women. Even stepping outside the US, a study in 1989 by the Canadian government comes to the same conclusion, saying that after viewing pornography men were twice as likely to rape women after viewing pornography.
In 1989 "Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations," by Zillerman and Bryant, found that over a period of time viewing pornography are "at a greater risk of becoming callous" towards women.
In "Pornography's Effects on Adults and Children" Dr. Victor Cline of the University of Utah delineates four phases of pornography addiction: addiction, escalation, desensitization, and acting out.
Since mainstream pornography has become more hard-core the preponderence of evidence is that it does adversely effect our behavior.
[This has been taken from excepts from an article that I am currently writing for Kuro5hin.org, but it will not be done for a few months, until I have some more time to spend at the library.]
Some minor corrections...
The real story isn't exactly "family values", but that's the point. It's about how David screwed up big time.
The actual story's in II Samuel 11-12:
God does forgive David when David sincerely repents, but He still makes David deal with the (pretty nasty) consequences of this whole episode for the rest of his life (and explicitly forbids David from building a temple).
The point being that even someone in a position of authority isn't magically allowed to do what he wants with people.
DNA just wants to be free...