Definitely... taking the water taxi from Embankment to Greenwich is something my mother always does when she visits. It's a great way to see the sites of London.
It's sad that employees have to complain to get computer equipment that will obviously carry healthier benefits for them regardless of whether or not they're suffering now.
It's like saying all employees should get cheap, shitty chairs until they complain about back problems.
Surely better productivity outweighs the cost of getting these screens?
So I'd say, 1,000 years translates to about a hundred years, tops.
Don't worry, we've been told by some futurists and scientists that people born today will be able to defeat ageing, so it's likely that in 1,000 years someone, somewhere, will be able to sue them for false advertising when their Britney Spears album stops playing correctly.
What I think he wants to do is clarify the law, not just in his favour (even though it would be, obviously). He is not talking about the law and its applicability with regards to his own news organisations. He's talking fundamentally about how Google uses all news sites, and how fair use actually works. In other words, he's talking about the law as it applies to all news organisations. It wouldn't help him if he managed to succeed in getting Google to treat his sites differently, because then he would lose out to all his competitors. What he probably wants is a ruling that states that Google cannot do XYZ with regards to all news websites, unless they pay money to each organisation in question, or get an explicit waiver of that right from the organisation.
Of course, it may be the case that some will say, "Hey, we don't mind if you take it for free", but that remains to be seen; what news organisation wouldn't want fingers in Google's money pie, especially if the default law applies to everyone?
What I'd like to know is, if he sincerely believes that "search engines cannot legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results", then what makes him think that he has a legal right to appear in search results at all? I don't think Google should even bother waiting for him to do something; just remove him from Google and Google News completely.
Actually, if you'll see what I said, I specifically said "Bush". Bush thinks that. America doesn't think that. There is a difference. I'd call you an idiot for not understanding that difference, but would it really make any difference?
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people resort to branding someone an anti-Semite because they point out that the state of Israel has a rather dubious history, just like any other nation state pursuing its own interests, and cannot be trusted.
(For the record, I don't trust Iran, either; it's certainly in their self-interest to pursue the bomb. The point of my original piece was to point out that it is folly to think that we should somehow trust Israel because it's more deserving.)
One is a country with a form of democracy, voting, women's rights, and many different peoples and religions. The other is a hardcore extremist Islamic state where they have openly promised to wipe us off the map (in Arabic of course), and they are controlled by a lunatic dictator who believes a world war will usher in the messiah... but you don't see me comparing Israel to Iran.
In case you didn't notice, that was a comparison.
Regardless, how you got modded insightful is beyond me. The only reason you want to say they cannot be compared is because it's the only way your arguments can stand up on their own.
Israel is a "form of democracy". Yes, that's right. It's a democracy that recognises Jewish people as being the citizens of Israel, no-one else. I suppose South Africa was a democracy under apartheid, then. There are various mechanisms in place that relegate non-Jews to a second class status. Hardly a model democracy, certainly not one we should idolize.
By the way, just because a state is a democracy doesn't mean it behaves the right way, or somehow is more trustworthy. The so-called first democracy is instructive. The Greeks were a bunch of blood-thirsty maniacs that regularly invaded and enslaved its neighbours. Come forward to the present day, and we have the role model of the United States that launches wars of aggression against other countries. Not much has changed, then. I suspect you'll brand me anti-American now.
The note about having "different peoples and religions" implies that Iran has a problem with other peoples and religions. You'd think they'd treat Jews really badly since it's a "hardcore extremist Islamic state", right?
Well, they treat them so badly that they're officially a protected religious minority group in the country, have a seat allocated to them in parliament, and Jews are allowed self-administration. Jewish law for divorce etc. is recognised in Iranian law. Jews sometimes suffer from anti-Semetic attacks, and Iranian Guards often protect them.
Hardly the seething hatred you seem to think Iranians have against Jews. Don't get me wrong, it's far from perfect, and there have been various incidents over the years, but if you like we can compare them to the number of incidents against Arabs in Israel and/or the occupied territories, and see how they compare.
And let me just ask, when Bush decided to invade Iraq, were you up in arms about a lunatic who was now head of the United States on the back of suspected voter fraud, and claimed he was doing it because he saw "Gog and Magog at work" in the Middle East, and that "The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled... This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins"?
The only bias I have is I don't trust Israel any more than I trust Iran, and believe they should both be treated in the same equal-handed manner. The rule of law demands it, and is weakened without it.
As does both Lebanon's Prime Minister, and President, so unless you're claiming that they're representing Hezbollah, and not Lebanon, that's false.
Lebanon claims it is part of Syria, but SYRIA is totally silent.
Since both the Prime Minister and the President of Lebanon have stated Lebanon has a claim to the area, the first part of the statement is completely incorrect. And as for Syria being totally silent, that's crap. They've not been "totally silent", they've been contradictory in their statements, at times agreeing to Lebanon's claim, at other times not.
Syria doesn't really recognize Lebanon as an independent nation
Except that Syria does formally recognise Lebanon: Syria formalised diplomatic ties, opened an embassy in Beirut, and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem stated explicitly that this signified recognition of Lebanon's independence.
It's far from clear that Hezbollah started the war (and even less to suggest that it was done because of Iran's insistence), unless you discount repeated, almost daily, incursions by the Israeli military into Lebanese territory, repeated violations of Lebanese airspace, and Israel's occupation of the Shebba farms.
Israel deserves more trust than Iran? Are you serious?
Iran has not, in recent military history, conducted a single war of aggression against its neighbours, even Israel. Israel, on the other hand, have conducted wars of aggression against its neighbours.
Iran's real leaders (i.e. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) support a doctrine of "no first strike". Israel, on the other hand, have no such doctrine, and history demonstrates they have adopted a first strike policy.
Iran has been co-operating with the IAEA - not flawlessly, and there are problems, but they have been co-operating. Israel has never co-operated with them, never admitted to having nuclear weapons, and has never admitted inspectors. It's also not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran does not deny the holocaust took place. That's just pure propaganda bullshit. That idiot Ahmadinejad denied it took place. I'm sure there are some others who agree with him, but there are plenty who accept the holocaust took place. The former president Mohammad Khatami is one of them, and he has spoken openly against Ahmadinejad's views. So what if Holocaust deniers were invited there? The Institute for Historical Review is well known for holocaust denial, and it's based in the United States! Holocaust deniers are alive and well in many countries around the world. I don't particularly care for shutting them up because I tend to believe in freedom of speech.
The reference to Ghost in the Shell is tempting, but unfortunately, the "Japanese Miracle" from GitS involved using nanomachines for radiation clean-up. Still, pretty interesting.
The article says it can clean up nuclear waste. Does this mean it can clean up sites where a nuclear explosion has taken place? (Sorry if that's a dumb question, I'm not that knowledgeable on this). If so, I am more interested in what this will mean politically: does this mean using nuclear weapons has become a much easier option? Does having a nuclear weapon now become less of a deterrent?
Or you get as confused as Dark Helmet in Spaceballs...
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I playing? When does this happen in the game?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
It reminds me of when Adam Smith rallied against the mercantile system: "It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it." (Chapter VIII, Book IV, The Wealth of Nations)
Actually, no. I would say, even if you are guilty, don't talk to the police. Everybody wants guilty people punished, as do I, but admitting you are guilty will not give you any benefit, and will not mean you will get treated fairer under the law. If you are guilty, and keep your mouth shut, you will ensure fair treatment under the law. Also, statistics demonstrate that 25% of people exonerated by DNA evidence actually gave outright confessions or plead guilty.
Even more reason why he's an idiot. With that much money, he could afford a decent lawyer, and shut the hell up. But now, he's waved his rights, and who knows what they now have on record that can implicate and convict him. Remember: the cops will use whatever they can against you, not for you, in a court of law. Plus, if he gets found guilty (and he just significantly increased his chances of this happening), he could end up ruining his career, loosing his current job, getting fined, and/or going to jail. Bye bye $1.2 million pay cheque, and no company at that level is going to want to hire someone convicted of stealing propriety code.
Mr. Aleynikov waived his rights against self-incrimination, and agreed to allow agents to search his house.
He's a f*cking idiot, and probably watched too much CSI and other cop shows where they always show people talking without their lawyer. Don't talk to the police, or the FBI, or any authority without your lawyer. Doesn't matter if you are innocent, doesn't matter if you have an explanation, an alibi, whatever. Just don't do it, because you can and will say something that can be used against you in a court of law.
Slashdot Mirror
Definitely ... taking the water taxi from Embankment to Greenwich is something my mother always does when she visits. It's a great way to see the sites of London.
I'll add my voice to the chorus for the Science Museum, and also the Natural History Museum. No geek should avoid going to these two! The British Museum is great fun, too.
Overall, it largely depends on what sort of geeky things you go for. Check out Pollock's Toy Museum if you're into games and construction toys. If you're into trains, check out the London Transport Museum. If you're into military, there's the Imperial History Museum, or the Royal Air Force Museum. The Design Museum is pretty cool, too. If you're into history, checkout the Museum of London, which is a history of the city. Also, the Victoria and Albert Museum is also pretty interesting. More about arts and crafts, though.
Otherwise, there's also loads of art stuff, like Tate Modern, the National Gallery ...
Have fun!
It's sad that employees have to complain to get computer equipment that will obviously carry healthier benefits for them regardless of whether or not they're suffering now.
It's like saying all employees should get cheap, shitty chairs until they complain about back problems.
Surely better productivity outweighs the cost of getting these screens?
Don't worry, we've been told by some futurists and scientists that people born today will be able to defeat ageing, so it's likely that in 1,000 years someone, somewhere, will be able to sue them for false advertising when their Britney Spears album stops playing correctly.
What I think he wants to do is clarify the law, not just in his favour (even though it would be, obviously). He is not talking about the law and its applicability with regards to his own news organisations. He's talking fundamentally about how Google uses all news sites, and how fair use actually works. In other words, he's talking about the law as it applies to all news organisations. It wouldn't help him if he managed to succeed in getting Google to treat his sites differently, because then he would lose out to all his competitors. What he probably wants is a ruling that states that Google cannot do XYZ with regards to all news websites, unless they pay money to each organisation in question, or get an explicit waiver of that right from the organisation.
Of course, it may be the case that some will say, "Hey, we don't mind if you take it for free", but that remains to be seen; what news organisation wouldn't want fingers in Google's money pie, especially if the default law applies to everyone?
What I'd like to know is, if he sincerely believes that "search engines cannot legally use headlines and paragraphs of news stories as search results", then what makes him think that he has a legal right to appear in search results at all? I don't think Google should even bother waiting for him to do something; just remove him from Google and Google News completely.
No, it doesn't.
Institutions want your information to be free for them to own.
And it still meant something when Kissinger won it?
Actually, if you'll see what I said, I specifically said "Bush". Bush thinks that. America doesn't think that. There is a difference. I'd call you an idiot for not understanding that difference, but would it really make any difference?
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly people resort to branding someone an anti-Semite because they point out that the state of Israel has a rather dubious history, just like any other nation state pursuing its own interests, and cannot be trusted.
(For the record, I don't trust Iran, either; it's certainly in their self-interest to pursue the bomb. The point of my original piece was to point out that it is folly to think that we should somehow trust Israel because it's more deserving.)
In case you didn't notice, that was a comparison.
Regardless, how you got modded insightful is beyond me. The only reason you want to say they cannot be compared is because it's the only way your arguments can stand up on their own.
Israel is a "form of democracy". Yes, that's right. It's a democracy that recognises Jewish people as being the citizens of Israel, no-one else. I suppose South Africa was a democracy under apartheid, then. There are various mechanisms in place that relegate non-Jews to a second class status. Hardly a model democracy, certainly not one we should idolize.
By the way, just because a state is a democracy doesn't mean it behaves the right way, or somehow is more trustworthy. The so-called first democracy is instructive. The Greeks were a bunch of blood-thirsty maniacs that regularly invaded and enslaved its neighbours. Come forward to the present day, and we have the role model of the United States that launches wars of aggression against other countries. Not much has changed, then. I suspect you'll brand me anti-American now.
The note about having "different peoples and religions" implies that Iran has a problem with other peoples and religions. You'd think they'd treat Jews really badly since it's a "hardcore extremist Islamic state", right?
Well, they treat them so badly that they're officially a protected religious minority group in the country, have a seat allocated to them in parliament, and Jews are allowed self-administration. Jewish law for divorce etc. is recognised in Iranian law. Jews sometimes suffer from anti-Semetic attacks, and Iranian Guards often protect them.
Hardly the seething hatred you seem to think Iranians have against Jews. Don't get me wrong, it's far from perfect, and there have been various incidents over the years, but if you like we can compare them to the number of incidents against Arabs in Israel and/or the occupied territories, and see how they compare.
And let me just ask, when Bush decided to invade Iraq, were you up in arms about a lunatic who was now head of the United States on the back of suspected voter fraud, and claimed he was doing it because he saw "Gog and Magog at work" in the Middle East, and that "The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled ... This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people's enemies before a New Age begins"?
The only bias I have is I don't trust Israel any more than I trust Iran, and believe they should both be treated in the same equal-handed manner. The rule of law demands it, and is weakened without it.
As does both Lebanon's Prime Minister, and President, so unless you're claiming that they're representing Hezbollah, and not Lebanon, that's false.
Since both the Prime Minister and the President of Lebanon have stated Lebanon has a claim to the area, the first part of the statement is completely incorrect. And as for Syria being totally silent, that's crap. They've not been "totally silent", they've been contradictory in their statements, at times agreeing to Lebanon's claim, at other times not.
Except that Syria does formally recognise Lebanon: Syria formalised diplomatic ties, opened an embassy in Beirut, and Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem stated explicitly that this signified recognition of Lebanon's independence.
It's far from clear that Hezbollah started the war (and even less to suggest that it was done because of Iran's insistence), unless you discount repeated, almost daily, incursions by the Israeli military into Lebanese territory, repeated violations of Lebanese airspace, and Israel's occupation of the Shebba farms.
Israel deserves more trust than Iran? Are you serious?
Iran has not, in recent military history, conducted a single war of aggression against its neighbours, even Israel. Israel, on the other hand, have conducted wars of aggression against its neighbours.
Iran's real leaders (i.e. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) support a doctrine of "no first strike". Israel, on the other hand, have no such doctrine, and history demonstrates they have adopted a first strike policy.
Iran has been co-operating with the IAEA - not flawlessly, and there are problems, but they have been co-operating. Israel has never co-operated with them, never admitted to having nuclear weapons, and has never admitted inspectors. It's also not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iran does not deny the holocaust took place. That's just pure propaganda bullshit. That idiot Ahmadinejad denied it took place. I'm sure there are some others who agree with him, but there are plenty who accept the holocaust took place. The former president Mohammad Khatami is one of them, and he has spoken openly against Ahmadinejad's views. So what if Holocaust deniers were invited there? The Institute for Historical Review is well known for holocaust denial, and it's based in the United States! Holocaust deniers are alive and well in many countries around the world. I don't particularly care for shutting them up because I tend to believe in freedom of speech.
From what I've read they're many years away from perfecting this, it's too full of bugs.
The reference to Ghost in the Shell is tempting, but unfortunately, the "Japanese Miracle" from GitS involved using nanomachines for radiation clean-up. Still, pretty interesting.
The article says it can clean up nuclear waste. Does this mean it can clean up sites where a nuclear explosion has taken place? (Sorry if that's a dumb question, I'm not that knowledgeable on this). If so, I am more interested in what this will mean politically: does this mean using nuclear weapons has become a much easier option? Does having a nuclear weapon now become less of a deterrent?
... will likely be to further the power of its creator, not of the AI.
FamilySafe: Protecting your kids, but not from us!
Then making it a configurable option: Enable/disable. Or am I missing something?
Or you get as confused as Dark Helmet in Spaceballs ...
Dark Helmet: What the hell am I playing? When does this happen in the game?
Colonel Sandurz: Now. You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now, is happening now.
Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
Colonel Sandurz: We passed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now. We're at now now.
Dark Helmet: Go back to then.
Colonel Sandurz: When?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: Now?
Dark Helmet: Now.
Colonel Sandurz: I can't.
Dark Helmet: Why?
Colonel Sandurz: We missed it.
Dark Helmet: When?
Colonel Sandurz: Just now.
Dark Helmet: When will then be now?
Colonel Sandurz: Soon.
It reminds me of when Adam Smith rallied against the mercantile system: "It cannot be very difficult to determine who have been the contrivers of this whole mercantile system; not the consumers, we may believe, whose interest has been entirely neglected; but the producers, whose interest has been so carefully attended to; and among this latter class our merchants and manufacturers have been by far the principal architects. In the mercantile regulations, which have been taken notice of in this chapter, the interest of our manufacturers has been most peculiarly attended to; and the interest, not so much of the consumers, as that of some other sets of producers, has been sacrificed to it." (Chapter VIII, Book IV, The Wealth of Nations)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Actually, no. I would say, even if you are guilty, don't talk to the police. Everybody wants guilty people punished, as do I, but admitting you are guilty will not give you any benefit, and will not mean you will get treated fairer under the law. If you are guilty, and keep your mouth shut, you will ensure fair treatment under the law. Also, statistics demonstrate that 25% of people exonerated by DNA evidence actually gave outright confessions or plead guilty.
Even more reason why he's an idiot. With that much money, he could afford a decent lawyer, and shut the hell up. But now, he's waved his rights, and who knows what they now have on record that can implicate and convict him. Remember: the cops will use whatever they can against you, not for you, in a court of law. Plus, if he gets found guilty (and he just significantly increased his chances of this happening), he could end up ruining his career, loosing his current job, getting fined, and/or going to jail. Bye bye $1.2 million pay cheque, and no company at that level is going to want to hire someone convicted of stealing propriety code.
So, yes: he's an idiot.
He's a f*cking idiot, and probably watched too much CSI and other cop shows where they always show people talking without their lawyer. Don't talk to the police, or the FBI, or any authority without your lawyer. Doesn't matter if you are innocent, doesn't matter if you have an explanation, an alibi, whatever. Just don't do it, because you can and will say something that can be used against you in a court of law.
Wait ... there are useful Facebook apps?? ;)
The link I posted is actually meant as a joke. :)
Why don't they just use Google's opt-out feature.