Is there a mandate that search engines must index everything? If I don't want to pay the levy for watching TV I just avoid having a TV. What is it with this "leave the country" nonsense? You decline to pay a levy on blank DVDs by not buying them. Google does not need to index these sites, your need for blank media is apparently greater though.
"Atheist" is not a synonym for "scientist" so why do you theists always erect that strawman?
Anyway, to address your derailing: New scientific discoveries are tested all the time, and if they are substantiated they join the current sets of assumptions. Singular articles like the fraudsters you dug up are rapidly debunked, and science prevails.
People questioning religious dogma have traditionally been killed instead. Do you see the large, gaping difference between the two?
You seem to believe that the point of science is to find one truth only, and misunderstand the term "theory" as many theist choose to do. Misunderstanding is not understanding, especially when it is blatant. Try again: and now focus on the "absence of a belief in gods" part.
Ah, it's the atheist=scientist fallacy. Never mind then. Anyway, science never stops asking questions about reality, while the entire point of religions is to provide fairytale-based non-answers.
Apples and oranges time again I see, so: pointless. That said, if French sites want to start charging for Google's news aggregation then of course Google should have the option of declining that "purchase" by not indexing that content.
So what? You have no right to be indexed by Google, if you want to start charging them to do so then Google has the option of not "buying" your "goods". And reflexive of that, if you want to not be indexed by them that is also easy to do. But keep in mind there is a reason there is an entire business sector dedicated to maximize the benefits to your site from search engines...
Oh they did worse than that: they added the 'native' keyword and only much later specified JNI, at a point where the licensees had made their own proprietary support for the keyword, e.g. Microsoft's J/Connect. Then they made JNI a requirement, making the licensees scramble to put that in.
That could be because all the rumors leading up to the launch assumed it would run the desktop OS because that was what the existing Windows tablets did.
Windows 98 did not have the OS X concept of full-screen apps. If you never use st feature in Lion you will not have multiple monitor problems there, either.
I'll just assume you have a broken Bible that lacks John 1:18 then. Just because you hallucinated does not mean us rational people cannot try to cure your delusions.
So why is it not also part of e.g. Christianity? "Christians believe in their God and do not believe in Odin, Zeus, Amaterasu, Horus, Vishnu, Aharu-Mazda,..." It would be a long list if you had to list all the gods Christians do not believe in...
I know plenty of people who are not drivers. Who happily live their lives without a car. And others like me are happy without believing in some desert fairy tale.
No, the assumption that there is "an" atheist religion is wrong. Not believing in gods is part of marterialism, humanism and plenty of other views that do not reqire gods. Gods are just anthromorphizing of natural forces not yet understood. Gods are irrational and thus not necessary for "rational beings". When we discovered the Sun was a hot ball of gas, neither Ra nor Helios ran away or transformed into that ball: They did not exist but were anthromorphisms created by people who were unable to observe the ball of gas.
An atheist is someone for whom gods do not exist. The very notion that we need a term for it is weird since we do not have particular names for people for whom unicorns do not exist (well, apart from "adult"). There is no activity called "not believing", no matter how much believers want there to be. Or do Christians wake up every day and actively disbelieve in the hundreds of other gods?
Google is not a monopoly. There are shed-loads of search engines and news aggregators out there, Google is just the biggest and most popular. Search is the main service provided, and sites are free to block it if they do not want to show up in search results but instead rely on the off chance that someone types their address into the adress bar.
If I have a concert venue and people drive there by car, then gas stations profit from my shows. Would it make sense for me to demand a share in these profits?
Exactly: newspapers are not news sources, the events they report on are. So I am curious if the people involved in a car crash can demand a percentage of the revenue from ads placed next to the article about the crash?
In that case they can just add a simple robots,txt to tell the "parasite" to go away. And then start waving their fucking magic wand around to make people discover the site directly.
So when SNL web episodes are blocked in my country that is due to censorship. Nice to know. I always thought it was because a private entity made rules for their service.
They are not censoring the group but the potential audience. A big difference. Censorship is preventing all audiences.
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a mandate that search engines must index everything? If I don't want to pay the levy for watching TV I just avoid having a TV. What is it with this "leave the country" nonsense? You decline to pay a levy on blank DVDs by not buying them. Google does not need to index these sites, your need for blank media is apparently greater though.
Justifying murder is a hobby of yours?
Thanks, then you have proven to have a too wide and thus completely useless definition of censorship. Good luck with that.
"Atheist" is not a synonym for "scientist" so why do you theists always erect that strawman?
Anyway, to address your derailing: New scientific discoveries are tested all the time, and if they are substantiated they join the current sets of assumptions. Singular articles like the fraudsters you dug up are rapidly debunked, and science prevails.
People questioning religious dogma have traditionally been killed instead. Do you see the large, gaping difference between the two?
You seem to believe that the point of science is to find one truth only, and misunderstand the term "theory" as many theist choose to do. Misunderstanding is not understanding, especially when it is blatant. Try again: and now focus on the "absence of a belief in gods" part.
Ah, it's the atheist=scientist fallacy. Never mind then. Anyway, science never stops asking questions about reality, while the entire point of religions is to provide fairytale-based non-answers.
Apples and oranges time again I see, so: pointless. That said, if French sites want to start charging for Google's news aggregation then of course Google should have the option of declining that "purchase" by not indexing that content.
So what? You have no right to be indexed by Google, if you want to start charging them to do so then Google has the option of not "buying" your "goods". And reflexive of that, if you want to not be indexed by them that is also easy to do. But keep in mind there is a reason there is an entire business sector dedicated to maximize the benefits to your site from search engines...
Are you in the wrong thread? This is not about the situation in France but newspapers in Brazil choosing to opt out.
Oh they did worse than that: they added the 'native' keyword and only much later specified JNI, at a point where the licensees had made their own proprietary support for the keyword, e.g. Microsoft's J/Connect. Then they made JNI a requirement, making the licensees scramble to put that in.
That could be because all the rumors leading up to the launch assumed it would run the desktop OS because that was what the existing Windows tablets did.
That should be "no longer called 'metro' but occasionally 'Modern UI'". And RT apparently has desktop mode except it's for Office only.
Windows 98 did not have the OS X concept of full-screen apps. If you never use st feature in Lion you will not have multiple monitor problems there, either.
Yeah, I am obviously One of Them, do you feel better now that the paranoid assumptions you build up around your cult has been strengthened?
I'll just assume you have a broken Bible that lacks John 1:18 then. Just because you hallucinated does not mean us rational people cannot try to cure your delusions.
So why is it not also part of e.g. Christianity? "Christians believe in their God and do not believe in Odin, Zeus, Amaterasu, Horus, Vishnu, Aharu-Mazda, ..." It would be a long list if you had to list all the gods Christians do not believe in...
I know plenty of people who are not drivers. Who happily live their lives without a car. And others like me are happy without believing in some desert fairy tale.
No, the assumption that there is "an" atheist religion is wrong. Not believing in gods is part of marterialism, humanism and plenty of other views that do not reqire gods. Gods are just anthromorphizing of natural forces not yet understood. Gods are irrational and thus not necessary for "rational beings". When we discovered the Sun was a hot ball of gas, neither Ra nor Helios ran away or transformed into that ball: They did not exist but were anthromorphisms created by people who were unable to observe the ball of gas.
An atheist is someone for whom gods do not exist. The very notion that we need a term for it is weird since we do not have particular names for people for whom unicorns do not exist (well, apart from "adult"). There is no activity called "not believing", no matter how much believers want there to be. Or do Christians wake up every day and actively disbelieve in the hundreds of other gods?
The readers refuse by using ad blockers. Can the newspaper sites hinder ad blockers? Probably not reliably.
The problem is that media dinosaurs are thrashing in their death throes and lashing out at anything that gets within reach.
It does not matter, what with everyone having those amoral ad blockers installed in their browsers anyway...
Google is not a monopoly. There are shed-loads of search engines and news aggregators out there, Google is just the biggest and most popular. Search is the main service provided, and sites are free to block it if they do not want to show up in search results but instead rely on the off chance that someone types their address into the adress bar.
If I have a concert venue and people drive there by car, then gas stations profit from my shows. Would it make sense for me to demand a share in these profits?
The search engine in question, Google, does.
If a title and excerpt is enough to get the whole story the journalist is a lazy sod who needs to write more.
Exactly: newspapers are not news sources, the events they report on are. So I am curious if the people involved in a car crash can demand a percentage of the revenue from ads placed next to the article about the crash?
In that case they can just add a simple robots,txt to tell the "parasite" to go away. And then start waving their fucking magic wand around to make people discover the site directly.
So when SNL web episodes are blocked in my country that is due to censorship. Nice to know. I always thought it was because a private entity made rules for their service.
They are not censoring the group but the potential audience. A big difference. Censorship is preventing all audiences.