the only reason we stopped clubbing girls over the head and dragging them back to our cave for a bit of the old in-out is because we've been encouraged to feel guilty about it and will get criminally prosecuted if we did it.
they don't block all child porn, but they do attempt to remove it from auto-complete.
the argument is valid in a sense that if they are doing something about A they should do something about B.
the argument could be invalidated depending on the reason for removing it from auto-complete. it may be because of a belief that users don't want to see "child porn" halfway through typing in "children's books"
actually, the child porn argument was perfectly valid.
Topolsky said: Google are not the police so they should not try to stop people from finding content that would be illegal for them to access Emanuel replied: They already try to stop people from finding content that would be illegal for them to access, therefore the people with the power to make such decisions, do not believe what you are saying to be true.
The above are not direct quotes, they are what i believe to be meaning of what was said.
i personally don't fell that they should be forced to block child pornography, but if they choose to do so themselves it doesn't really bother me 'cause i'd rather not click on a link to a site that i did not know contained child porn and then have to deal with the consequences if that information made it to the police, and i don't believe i will miss any content unrelated to child porn. I'm not saying that non-CP doesn't get filtered but it probably wasn't going to be on the first page of any of my searches anyway.
if they were to choose to block infringing sites, i may choose to use a different search engine depending on the effect it has on the quality of their results
in my opinion they definitely should not be forced to block anything - same goes for ISPs.
i think it was something about someone uploading child porn to Wikipedia to get it taken down. that is quite different to adding checksums of things you don't like into the banned list.
one is kinda like someone coming into your house and planting drugs so that cops will come and arrest you the other is like cops coming to your house and arresting you because they don't like the colour of your carpet.
Given that the cast of characters demanding control of the internet I would have to agree
that would be because it's a biased statement specifically listing nations that should invoke ill feelings when used in a discussion about the internet.
it's not like they combine to form a controlling vote.
oed.com seems to require an account to search, however oxforddictionaries.com seems to be okay.
1 kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of: the inhabitants of the country had been decimated
- drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): public transport has been decimated
2 historical kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group: the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers
it also has the following to say under origins:
Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is ‘kill one in every ten of (a group of people)’. This sense has been more or less totally superseded by the later, more general sense ‘kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of’, as in the virus has decimated the population. Some traditionalists argue that this is incorrect, but it is clear that it is now part of standard English.
You get 6 hours out of a +1GHz multicore computer with +1GB of RAM and a screen bright enough to overpower the sun? I completely fail to see how battery life needs addressing.
He gets 6 hours use out of a device that would be a lot more useful to him if it had longer battery life. As it would be a better device with longer battery life then battery life is something to be addressed.
Increasing display will further reduce battery life (possibly quite drastically) while probably providing zero benefit as human eyes are unlikely to be able to discern the difference.
There's a reason the site is still operating and and has just been banned in other countries instead of completely shut down. that reason pretty much invalidates your point for the owners/operators of the site.
it is however worthy advice for someone living/operating within juridstiction of the court order, and it would indeed be unwise for somene there to openly disregard the ruling and set up public circumvention methods.
when i first added my facebook account to my android it imported all contacts who had shared their phone number with me.
if i go into contacts and type the first few letters of their name(usually takes about 3 to get them to the top of selected list) then i can just hit call if i want to call them.
overall, some 270 million people people died in the Muslim jihads - and that was before9/11. and that source isn't even including 9/11, add that in and you'd be looking at 270.003 Million
just because you have already read the series and know what is going to happen does not mean that there are other people that exist who have not. who would like to watch the series now, before everyone else sees it and talks about the plot around them making it incredibly difficult for them to not know future plot events.
yes one could find the spoilers already if he went looking for them, but once they happen in the show, it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid hearing them as many people around talk about the show.
if he hadn't had an accident or hit anyone and was simply observed by a cop as having been using his phone whilst driving would you still feel the same way?
I don't think anyone was trying to claim that he intentionally ran them over. By my understanding of the word and many of the definitions , this would be correctly classed as an accident.
That's not how advertising works. there have been numerous studies into the effectiveness of advertising - generally all stating that it works
On the other hand, most of these studies were likely done by advertising companies/marketing divisions who stand to profit in people believing they are effective.
Overall i'd say the evidence points towards advertising having an effect.
Why aren't people who pay for cable TV being taxed (so to speak) twice? Once for the subscription and once again for the fucking ads?
one would assume they are taxed on their net profits, which would include the revenue from both these sources. i haven't actually lookid into this though.
Slashdot Mirror
the only reason we stopped clubbing girls over the head and dragging them back to our cave for a bit of the old in-out is because we've been encouraged to feel guilty about it and will get criminally prosecuted if we did it.
they don't block all child porn, but they do attempt to remove it from auto-complete.
the argument is valid in a sense that if they are doing something about A they should do something about B.
the argument could be invalidated depending on the reason for removing it from auto-complete. it may be because of a belief that users don't want to see "child porn" halfway through typing in "children's books"
why would it need a blue-ray player?
actually, the child porn argument was perfectly valid.
Topolsky said: Google are not the police so they should not try to stop people from finding content that would be illegal for them to access
Emanuel replied: They already try to stop people from finding content that would be illegal for them to access, therefore the people with the power to make such decisions, do not believe what you are saying to be true.
The above are not direct quotes, they are what i believe to be meaning of what was said.
i personally don't fell that they should be forced to block child pornography, but if they choose to do so themselves it doesn't really bother me 'cause i'd rather not click on a link to a site that i did not know contained child porn and then have to deal with the consequences if that information made it to the police, and i don't believe i will miss any content unrelated to child porn. I'm not saying that non-CP doesn't get filtered but it probably wasn't going to be on the first page of any of my searches anyway.
if they were to choose to block infringing sites, i may choose to use a different search engine depending on the effect it has on the quality of their results
in my opinion they definitely should not be forced to block anything - same goes for ISPs.
i think it was something about someone uploading child porn to Wikipedia to get it taken down.
that is quite different to adding checksums of things you don't like into the banned list.
one is kinda like someone coming into your house and planting drugs so that cops will come and arrest you
the other is like cops coming to your house and arresting you because they don't like the colour of your carpet.
yeah well, TCP/IP is kinda useless without Maths. so i guess the greeks invented the internet.
Given that the cast of characters demanding control of the internet I would have to agree
that would be because it's a biased statement specifically listing nations that should invoke ill feelings when used in a discussion about the internet.
it's not like they combine to form a controlling vote.
oed.com seems to require an account to search, however oxforddictionaries.com seems to be okay.
1 kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of: the inhabitants of the country had been decimated
- drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something): public transport has been decimated
2 historical kill one in every ten of (a group of people, originally a mutinous Roman legion) as a punishment for the whole group: the man who is to determine whether it be necessary to decimate a large body of mutineers
it also has the following to say under origins:
Historically, the meaning of the word decimate is ‘kill one in every ten of (a group of people)’. This sense has been more or less totally superseded by the later, more general sense ‘kill, destroy, or remove a large proportion of’, as in the virus has decimated the population. Some traditionalists argue that this is incorrect, but it is clear that it is now part of standard English.
return (y+((x-y)*(x>y));
You get 6 hours out of a +1GHz multicore computer with +1GB of RAM and a screen bright enough to overpower the sun? I completely fail to see how battery life needs addressing.
He gets 6 hours use out of a device that would be a lot more useful to him if it had longer battery life. As it would be a better device with longer battery life then battery life is something to be addressed.
Increasing display will further reduce battery life (possibly quite drastically) while probably providing zero benefit as human eyes are unlikely to be able to discern the difference.
theres nothing wrong with the parts of america that aren't the US
nerds would be interested by it and it matters.
if you dont want to watch them anyway, then why do you care about their availability to download?
There's a reason the site is still operating and and has just been banned in other countries instead of completely shut down. that reason pretty much invalidates your point for the owners/operators of the site.
it is however worthy advice for someone living/operating within juridstiction of the court order, and it would indeed be unwise for somene there to openly disregard the ruling and set up public circumvention methods.
when i first added my facebook account to my android it imported all contacts who had shared their phone number with me.
if i go into contacts and type the first few letters of their name(usually takes about 3 to get them to the top of selected list) then i can just hit call if i want to call them.
i don't see how facebook could improve on this.
Can you support that 270 million claim (or even 100 millions of it) by referring to decent references? I'll accept even wikipedia from you.
plenty of highly reputable sources, such as Here
overall, some 270 million people people died in the Muslim jihads - and that was before9/11.
and that source isn't even including 9/11, add that in and you'd be looking at 270.003 Million
just because you have already read the series and know what is going to happen does not mean that there are other people that exist who have not. who would like to watch the series now, before everyone else sees it and talks about the plot around them making it incredibly difficult for them to not know future plot events.
yes one could find the spoilers already if he went looking for them, but once they happen in the show, it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid hearing them as many people around talk about the show.
if he hadn't had an accident or hit anyone and was simply observed by a cop as having been using his phone whilst driving would you still feel the same way?
I don't think anyone was trying to claim that he intentionally ran them over. By my understanding of the word and many of the definitions , this would be correctly classed as an accident.
You don't know innocence or guilt until a person is tried.
sometimes you do. like in this instance.
had she lost the case i would still know she was innocent.
That's not how advertising works. there have been numerous studies into the effectiveness of advertising - generally all stating that it works
On the other hand, most of these studies were likely done by advertising companies/marketing divisions who stand to profit in people believing they are effective.
Overall i'd say the evidence points towards advertising having an effect.
Why aren't people who pay for cable TV being taxed (so to speak) twice? Once for the subscription and once again for the fucking ads?
one would assume they are taxed on their net profits, which would include the revenue from both these sources. i haven't actually lookid into this though.
no. as he is talking abount one feature, he wouldn't use the plural 'they'. his post is more correct that you're correction.
how did they link the annonomously collected usage data to the students psychological tests?