As much as the Murdoch and Reinheart papers would like to pretend, Abbott got in by a narrow margin and if minor parties end up ruling a hostile senate he's already promised a Double Dissolution (wikipedia link) which typically does not bode well for the government that calls it.
Essentially this is just a threat to the minors that hold the balance of power in the senate to vote to repeal the carbon tax. They will now have to will vote in favour of scrapping the tax as they're the most likely to lose their position in the event that we go back to the polls.
some people have time syncing with network turned off. i do, mostly because i live in my own time, which is about 5 minutes off the networks. (at least with my old provider, i haven't checked my new one)
well considering your project is free/open you have one of two options. 1. not care - think of it as some sort of cross-licence deal. 2. get upset that someone is using what is your intellectual property, despite the fact that you are also using theirs. stop using theirs and then sue them.
I've even seen polls where the same people agree that the rich aren't paying enough and then when asked what percentage, collectively, the top 10% should be paying the usual response is 40% - 50%.
well considering the top 10% of US income earners earn somewhere between 40 and 50% percent of the income and have over 50% of the wealth. i'd say that 40 to 50% is lower than they should be paying - a lot of people who don't understand a progressive tax system would think it's about right,
not sure if you meant 40 - 50% of their income or 40 - 50% of the nations total income tax. the above assumes the latter however i also agree with both.
These wild partying kids have no jobs, no responsibilities, no children, and their parents clean up and pay for them.
you don't actually know anyone in any music scene do you?
and go outside to observe what real people are actually like in reality. They are working, and they are tired.
you should do the same. here's a hint. lots of 'real' adults with 'real' jobs drink. a lot. they also take drugs. sometimes a lot. they then go to work the next day and function perfectly fine as this is kind of their natural state. unless you're in some incredibly tiny organisation there are people that you know at your work that do this too. you live in your bubble. other people live in theirs. no one's is more real than anyone elses.
At the end of December, the country had 513 million Internet users...This puts the country's total Internet penetration at 38.3 percent...Analysts, however, have said the statistics provided by the CNNIC are inflated. The CNNIC defines users as people, ages 6 and above, who have connected to the Internet in the past six months.
so it's probably above 10%. but also probably lower than you would have expected.
Seriously. I've been to both countries, and I think you're making shit up.
i'm guessing you've been to some areas of both countries and thus witnessed what life is like for a small percentage of their total populations. hell even in my own country my experience would tell me there are a lot more internet users than there actually are - that's because i experience a very small subsection of what life is like in my country.
No, what got me was Googles change of privacy policy linking all the data together... the way I can't like a site using a gmail account unless I agree to sign up to G+
so you're upset that you can't use features of G+ without signing up to G+ and wish you could just use your gmail account. you think it would be better if they just merged the two into say, one single account?
to all those saying this is meaningless, don't trust them, they could revoke this so don't rely on it. why not just request a license for $0 under these exact terms if you wish to use any of these patents in your project? then there will be no question of this being legally binding and u can use the contents of these patents freely.
i can draw a picture of you having sex with a goat. it wouldn't mean you had sex with a goat. a drawing may be recognizable, but it is essentially meaningless in this context.
It's completely out of context. He didn't go bankrupt from being sued by patients. He didn't go bankrupt by gambling his money at the casino
no one is saying he went bankrupt, had a gambling problem, or is a bad doctor. all that is said is that if you're searching for his name, it's likely that you are searching about his bankruptcy issues. which is probably true, that's how google's auto-complete algorithm is meant to work, and i've personally found it to be quite accurate. the context is his name, bankruptcy is within that context.
the guy is being punished needlessly.
he's not being punished. punishment is a negative reaction to something one does not like. honestly i really doubt most people at google even know who this guy is, let alone crafted this auto-complete to appear when his name was typed in, they don't have some ventedda against people that have gone bankrupt.
You should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me" and Google decides whether or not it makes sense to remove said autocomplete. It shouldn't be hard. Simple common sense.
making such a decision would mean that someone has specifically decided it is relevant. leaving it up to machine is fairer, tweaking the algorithm as such cases come up if required.
I don't know what the case here is, but if he did try to contact Google then I'm sure they ignored him completely as they are wont to do.
maybe next time i contact them and state whenever anyone types in the letter 'T' auto-completer should show 'The awesomeness of psiclops' you will complain when they ignore me? sometimes requests don't warrant an answer. if they got one such request a year, sure they should respond, thousands a day, considering his requests is invalid - probably not.
Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous.
True. being that this isn''t something google is trying to express.
Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator?
difficult question. in short my beliefs are that no they shouldnt be able to and at the same time, noone should be able to stop them from doing so. i realise these are contradictory, that's what happens when you you try and put everything into black and white.
Option A) Bookmark IMDB for future use. when i want to IMDB a movie: i use that bookmark. -> click in IMDB search box on the site -> type in the movie i want -> click on result.
Option B) don't bother with the bookmark. when i want to IMDB a movie: click on the URL/search bar in my browser -> type in the name of the movie -> click on the link to that movies page within IMDB from the search results.
it's just easier for me to google it than go to IMDB and search from there.
wtf are bookmarks for anyways?
finding your way back to a website that looks interesting but you don't feel like/have time for reading right now. sites that i commonly visit i already know the URL of, i can type the first letter or three in the URL bar and my browser knows what i'm after. e.g. if i click in my URL bar then press 's' followed by 'enter' i will be taken to the front page of slashdot, 'm' will take me to my email account
noone insinuated they were an American company or that others would think they were. There was a statement that they wouldn't have been treated as harshly if they were an American company - which was replied with a statement that all the majors are multinationals and not American so there would be little difference had they originated elsewhere.
Variations on the original: * Electrified Third Rail: tested with an electric fence instead and found that an electric fence can shock you if you pee on it. confirmed
I bet that rather conveniently doesn't include the 'civil rights' of non-whites to FORCE themselves into the living space and lives of white people who don't want to live with them, does it.
that's the equivalent of saying that your right to a peaceful life interferes with my right to murder you. you have it backwards.
White people don't have the right to simply associate with ONLY their own kind.
yes they do, don't leave your house and don't invite any non-whites in and your dillema is solved.Unless you believe that not to be sufficient and wish not only to avoid associating with non-whites but also wish for them to be completely removed from anywhere which you may wish to travel to.
Can any Slashdot idiots tell me why?
while i would not consider myself an idiot the answer is actually rather simple - consider this scenario:
Point 1: 'Person A' is a white person who wishes to only associate with whites and have no non-whites be allowed in any areas he frequents Point 2: 'Person B' is a white person who wishes to only associate with whites and have no non-blacks be allowed in any areas he frequents Point 3: Both 'Person A' and 'Person B' like to frequent 'Area Z'
There are only two solutions to solve this dillemma to keep the rights of both 'Person A' and 'Person B' Solution 1: Neither 'Person A' not 'Person B' are allowed to enter 'Area Z' Solution 2: Both 'Person A' and 'Person B' are allowed to enter 'Area Z'
Solution 1 forces the ruling that ones 'right' to never associate with people of other races trumphs the 'right' to enter 'Area Z' Solution 2 gives both 'Person A' and 'Person B' the choice as to whether they feel the right to enter 'Area Z' is more important than their 'right' to not associate with people of other races.
How I laugh at your so-called 'critical thinking' skills. 99% of you are morons who can't think for yourselves, and I could easily prove that by destroying you in an anonymous online debate.
Slashdot Mirror
wouldn't CX be Mhammed taking it balls deep up the ass.
X3 appears to be Mohammed regurgitating cock.
Hear hear
Say someone else did it
As much as the Murdoch and Reinheart papers would like to pretend, Abbott got in by a narrow margin and if minor parties end up ruling a hostile senate he's already promised a Double Dissolution (wikipedia link) which typically does not bode well for the government that calls it.
Essentially this is just a threat to the minors that hold the balance of power in the senate to vote to repeal the carbon tax. They will now have to will vote in favour of scrapping the tax as they're the most likely to lose their position in the event that we go back to the polls.
no i don't need to be contactable 24/7. the thing is, i'm not psychic and do not know in advance when people might need to contact me
some people have time syncing with network turned off. i do, mostly because i live in my own time, which is about 5 minutes off the networks. (at least with my old provider, i haven't checked my new one)
well considering your project is free/open you have one of two options.
1. not care - think of it as some sort of cross-licence deal.
2. get upset that someone is using what is your intellectual property, despite the fact that you are also using theirs. stop using theirs and then sue them.
Well since you have planned and invited many to your event, you have already conspired to commit a crime
inviting people to my house is a crime now?
I've even seen polls where the same people agree that the rich aren't paying enough and then when asked what percentage, collectively, the top 10% should be paying the usual response is 40% - 50%.
well considering the top 10% of US income earners earn somewhere between 40 and 50% percent of the income and have over 50% of the wealth. i'd say that 40 to 50% is lower than they should be paying - a lot of people who don't understand a progressive tax system would think it's about right,
not sure if you meant 40 - 50% of their income or 40 - 50% of the nations total income tax. the above assumes the latter however i also agree with both.
These wild partying kids have no jobs, no responsibilities, no children, and their parents clean up and pay for them.
you don't actually know anyone in any music scene do you?
and go outside to observe what real people are actually like in reality. They are working, and they are tired.
you should do the same. here's a hint. lots of 'real' adults with 'real' jobs drink. a lot. they also take drugs. sometimes a lot. they then go to work the next day and function perfectly fine as this is kind of their natural state. unless you're in some incredibly tiny organisation there are people that you know at your work that do this too.
you live in your bubble. other people live in theirs. no one's is more real than anyone elses.
citation needed.
the time and address of the next concert you are going to should be sufficient.
one doesn't need to physically have a service revolver next to them to want to use it on themselves.
China's Internet Users Cross 500 Million (article from January 2012)
At the end of December, the country had 513 million Internet users...This puts the country's total Internet penetration at 38.3 percent...Analysts, however, have said the statistics provided by the CNNIC are inflated. The CNNIC defines users as people, ages 6 and above, who have connected to the Internet in the past six months.
so it's probably above 10%. but also probably lower than you would have expected.
Seriously. I've been to both countries, and I think you're making shit up.
i'm guessing you've been to some areas of both countries and thus witnessed what life is like for a small percentage of their total populations.
hell even in my own country my experience would tell me there are a lot more internet users than there actually are - that's because i experience a very small subsection of what life is like in my country.
No, what got me was Googles change of privacy policy linking all the data together ...
the way I can't like a site using a gmail account unless I agree to sign up to G+
so you're upset that you can't use features of G+ without signing up to G+ and wish you could just use your gmail account. you think it would be better if they just merged the two into say, one single account?
to all those saying this is meaningless, don't trust them, they could revoke this so don't rely on it. why not just request a license for $0 under these exact terms if you wish to use any of these patents in your project? then there will be no question of this being legally binding and u can use the contents of these patents freely.
i can draw a picture of you having sex with a goat. it wouldn't mean you had sex with a goat.
a drawing may be recognizable, but it is essentially meaningless in this context.
when you buy a subsidized phone on a plan you are still buying the phone. the only difference is you are buying it as part of a package.
Kind of like if how I bought two suits in a 2 for 1 sale, i should be able to take both of them to the alterations shop.
so unmute them.
i've done my part. it's now got top two results leading to slashdot.
It's completely out of context. He didn't go bankrupt from being sued by patients. He didn't go bankrupt by gambling his money at the casino
no one is saying he went bankrupt, had a gambling problem, or is a bad doctor. all that is said is that if you're searching for his name, it's likely that you are searching about his bankruptcy issues. which is probably true, that's how google's auto-complete algorithm is meant to work, and i've personally found it to be quite accurate. the context is his name,
bankruptcy is within that context.
the guy is being punished needlessly.
he's not being punished. punishment is a negative reaction to something one does not like. honestly i really doubt most people at google even know who this guy is, let alone crafted this auto-complete to appear when his name was typed in, they don't have some ventedda against people that have gone bankrupt.
You should be able to fill out a form saying "Google autocomplete is being mean to me" and Google decides whether or not it makes sense to remove said autocomplete. It shouldn't be hard. Simple common sense.
making such a decision would mean that someone has specifically decided it is relevant. leaving it up to machine is fairer, tweaking the algorithm as such cases come up if required.
I don't know what the case here is, but if he did try to contact Google then I'm sure they ignored him completely as they are wont to do.
maybe next time i contact them and state whenever anyone types in the letter 'T' auto-completer should show 'The awesomeness of psiclops' you will complain when they ignore me? sometimes requests don't warrant an answer. if they got one such request a year, sure they should respond, thousands a day, considering his requests is invalid - probably not.
Anyone who claims this is about freedom of speech are being ridiculous.
True. being that this isn''t something google is trying to express.
Should people be able to buy billboard space around the world and declare to the world that you are pedophile? Or something true, a compulsive masturbator?
difficult question. in short my beliefs are that no they shouldnt be able to and at the same time, noone should be able to stop them from doing so. i realise these are contradictory, that's what happens when you you try and put everything into black and white.
What makes a Google autocomplete any different?
maliciouse intent.
Option A)
Bookmark IMDB for future use.
when i want to IMDB a movie: i use that bookmark. -> click in IMDB search box on the site -> type in the movie i want -> click on result.
Option B)
don't bother with the bookmark.
when i want to IMDB a movie: click on the URL/search bar in my browser -> type in the name of the movie -> click on the link to that movies page within IMDB from the search results.
it's just easier for me to google it than go to IMDB and search from there.
wtf are bookmarks for anyways?
finding your way back to a website that looks interesting but you don't feel like/have time for reading right now.
sites that i commonly visit i already know the URL of, i can type the first letter or three in the URL bar and my browser knows what i'm after. e.g. if i click in my URL bar then press 's' followed by 'enter' i will be taken to the front page of slashdot, 'm' will take me to my email account
noone insinuated they were an American company or that others would think they were.
There was a statement that they wouldn't have been treated as harshly if they were an American company - which was replied with a statement that all the majors are multinationals and not American so there would be little difference had they originated elsewhere.
You mean the show that confirmed it as possible.
Variations on the original: * Electrified Third Rail: tested with an electric fence instead and found that an electric fence can shock you if you pee on it. confirmed
advanced tactics like due process you know evidence, trial, judgement - you know that sort of thing, yeah they would be warranted.
I bet that rather conveniently doesn't include the 'civil rights' of non-whites to FORCE themselves into the living space and lives of white people who don't want to live with them, does it.
that's the equivalent of saying that your right to a peaceful life interferes with my right to murder you. you have it backwards.
White people don't have the right to simply associate with ONLY their own kind.
yes they do, don't leave your house and don't invite any non-whites in and your dillema is solved.Unless you believe that not to be sufficient and wish not only to avoid associating with non-whites but also wish for them to be completely removed from anywhere which you may wish to travel to.
Can any Slashdot idiots tell me why?
while i would not consider myself an idiot the answer is actually rather simple - consider this scenario:
Point 1: 'Person A' is a white person who wishes to only associate with whites and have no non-whites be allowed in any areas he frequents
Point 2: 'Person B' is a white person who wishes to only associate with whites and have no non-blacks be allowed in any areas he frequents
Point 3: Both 'Person A' and 'Person B' like to frequent 'Area Z'
There are only two solutions to solve this dillemma to keep the rights of both 'Person A' and 'Person B'
Solution 1: Neither 'Person A' not 'Person B' are allowed to enter 'Area Z'
Solution 2: Both 'Person A' and 'Person B' are allowed to enter 'Area Z'
Solution 1 forces the ruling that ones 'right' to never associate with people of other races trumphs the 'right' to enter 'Area Z'
Solution 2 gives both 'Person A' and 'Person B' the choice as to whether they feel the right to enter 'Area Z' is more important than their 'right' to not associate with people of other races.
How I laugh at your so-called 'critical thinking' skills. 99% of you are morons who can't think for yourselves, and I could easily prove that by destroying you in an anonymous online debate.
please respond.