If you'd read the article, you'd know that sponsored ads are excluded from the ban; the cougar ads will not show up in the content network ads--e.g. in advertising space on other sites, such as (but not limited to) ask.com, YouTube, or MySpace. Apparently the policies for ads appearing on the so-called content network and for those appearing next to search results are separate.
That being said, even after CougarLife suggested changing the ad to use one that didn't show an older woman with a younger man (instead showing only a (presumably attractive) older woman), Google declined, asking whether 'the company would be open to changing “the ‘cougar’ theme/language specifically (including the domain if necessary)”' (from the NYT article).
Not clear whether they wanted this merely from the ad or from the whole site, however. If the former, it's fair to say the 'sugar daddy' sites are getting by via being surreptitious about language. If the latter, it's harder to defend them disallowing a cougar site but allowing the suggar daddy or 'arrangements' sites.
Not really familiar with the content network ads for the sugar daddy or 'arrangements' sites, but if GP is correct that 'sugar daddy' is not allowed but 'arrangements' is then it seems most likely that this is a matter of disallowing ads using the word 'cougar' in a sexual conquest sense rather than the concept of a cougar dating site.
The summary and the beginning few paragraphs of all three articles seem to be trying to draw attention with some misleading descriptions of what the experiment discovered. What they describe studying was not the ability to act morally, but to judge morality of a hypothetical scenario after the fact (i.e. with known outcomes). It might indicate the possibility of an effect on the ability to judge the morality of one's actions before performing them, but it doesn't really tell you what.
Moreover, the only portion of morality judgment it seems to affect is the consideration of intent. Essentially, they're saying people in their experiment no longer cared what an actor in their hypothetical scenarios was trying to do, but what happened. So, if you're trying to hurt someone and you fail, that's cool, but if you're trying to help someone and end up breaking their arm, that's not cool. It doesn't really have anything to do with the "inherent" moralness of an action, but only of the outcome.
So if you're saying, "My philosophy is if doesn't hurt anyone, it's cool to do", then as long as you successfully manage to never actually hurt anyone, a person affected by this alleged phenomenon would be cool with you, too. If, however, you're doing something that shouldn't hurt anyone as far as you know but, for whatever reason, ends up doing so, then they would judge it to be wrong.
Not border guards, but RCMP officers, a.k.a. Mounties. They're our federal police, and they've been having and getting into some trouble lately, and giving themselves a pretty bad image. Dziekanski's case is just one high-profile example.
"This shit" is also part of the reason you will not tend to see more female posters.
There are enough people who make comments like this, or comments that seem to reflect women's worths only in terms of how hot or fuckable or sexually willing they are, or that portray our abilities as likely to be exceptional only in trivial areas like remembering actors' names (not, I note, names in general), or our interests as limited to shoes and shopping, to make Slashdot unwelcoming.
Are they majority sentiments? Perhaps not, but they're certainly the noticeable ones.
On this note, it may not hurt to point out that the Voynich/Sherwood drawing (as previously linked) does more closely resemble these pictures (1, 2) of wild garlic I found with a quick Google Image search. Still not a perfect likeness, but the Voynich drawing might imperfectly depict something more closely related to that wild garlic than the grandparent post's modern cultivated garlic.
Slashdot Mirror
If you'd read the article, you'd know that sponsored ads are excluded from the ban; the cougar ads will not show up in the content network ads--e.g. in advertising space on other sites, such as (but not limited to) ask.com, YouTube, or MySpace. Apparently the policies for ads appearing on the so-called content network and for those appearing next to search results are separate.
That being said, even after CougarLife suggested changing the ad to use one that didn't show an older woman with a younger man (instead showing only a (presumably attractive) older woman), Google declined, asking whether 'the company would be open to changing “the ‘cougar’ theme/language specifically (including the domain if necessary)”' (from the NYT article).
Not clear whether they wanted this merely from the ad or from the whole site, however. If the former, it's fair to say the 'sugar daddy' sites are getting by via being surreptitious about language. If the latter, it's harder to defend them disallowing a cougar site but allowing the suggar daddy or 'arrangements' sites.
Not really familiar with the content network ads for the sugar daddy or 'arrangements' sites, but if GP is correct that 'sugar daddy' is not allowed but 'arrangements' is then it seems most likely that this is a matter of disallowing ads using the word 'cougar' in a sexual conquest sense rather than the concept of a cougar dating site.
The summary and the beginning few paragraphs of all three articles seem to be trying to draw attention with some misleading descriptions of what the experiment discovered. What they describe studying was not the ability to act morally, but to judge morality of a hypothetical scenario after the fact (i.e. with known outcomes). It might indicate the possibility of an effect on the ability to judge the morality of one's actions before performing them, but it doesn't really tell you what. Moreover, the only portion of morality judgment it seems to affect is the consideration of intent. Essentially, they're saying people in their experiment no longer cared what an actor in their hypothetical scenarios was trying to do, but what happened. So, if you're trying to hurt someone and you fail, that's cool, but if you're trying to help someone and end up breaking their arm, that's not cool. It doesn't really have anything to do with the "inherent" moralness of an action, but only of the outcome. So if you're saying, "My philosophy is if doesn't hurt anyone, it's cool to do", then as long as you successfully manage to never actually hurt anyone, a person affected by this alleged phenomenon would be cool with you, too. If, however, you're doing something that shouldn't hurt anyone as far as you know but, for whatever reason, ends up doing so, then they would judge it to be wrong.
Not border guards, but RCMP officers, a.k.a. Mounties. They're our federal police, and they've been having and getting into some trouble lately, and giving themselves a pretty bad image. Dziekanski's case is just one high-profile example.
I'm just worried they'll succeed in getting their drake-conian copyright enforcement laws passed in my country.
"This shit" is also part of the reason you will not tend to see more female posters. There are enough people who make comments like this, or comments that seem to reflect women's worths only in terms of how hot or fuckable or sexually willing they are, or that portray our abilities as likely to be exceptional only in trivial areas like remembering actors' names (not, I note, names in general), or our interests as limited to shoes and shopping, to make Slashdot unwelcoming. Are they majority sentiments? Perhaps not, but they're certainly the noticeable ones.
On this note, it may not hurt to point out that the Voynich/Sherwood drawing (as previously linked) does more closely resemble these pictures (1, 2) of wild garlic I found with a quick Google Image search. Still not a perfect likeness, but the Voynich drawing might imperfectly depict something more closely related to that wild garlic than the grandparent post's modern cultivated garlic.