But this wasn't a new "feature" it was purely an aesthetic look. You are going to get pretty similar search results with Bing, Yahoo, Google, Live, etc. lately but its mostly the look and feel that is different. Of course, there is some difference in search results put its generally so minimal you can find the same site within a few pages on Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc on the same search term.
There is a reason why few people use Bing, Yahoo!, Live, Ask, etc. if Google wants to branch out in different directions, do it under a different banner other than Google search.
People like the way Google is/was, if they didn't, there would be a flood of people going to Bing, Yahoo!, Ask, and all the other search engines. Because there isn't, you can pretty easily realize that people like the way Google is.
The ruling does not make sense. Please tell me how warrantless searches of computers are legitimate to begin with.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'd say searching anyone's laptop as an unreasonable search and seizure, unless someone beat someone's head with the laptop and the laptop in question becomes a murder weapon.
We need judges who uphold the constitution and which deliver practical rulings to make us safer. All this does is further "legitimize" what should be an illegal practice by the DHS.
See, thats what I don't like. I really have no desire to have anything other than bookmarks appear in the search bar and really would like to disable history altogether (I never understood the point of it to begin with) and Chrome doesn't give that option.
I enjoy the ability to actually customize my browsers to get them how I like them to work. Even basic settings like history are not available in Chrome!
You know though, that isn't too wild of a suggestion. I hate the Chrome interface but I really like the Chrome rendering engine, something like Chrome Frame for Firefox makes sense, especially since Firefox is getting a bit behind the times lately.
You know, Google should really make a Firefox equivalent, I like Chrome's rendering engine but hate the interface. There is no ability to customize anything, I have custom CSS that I use on a few sites to block ads and to make the site look nicer, with Chrome there is no default option to do it, in Firefox there is, in IE there is, not in Chrome. Plus, no control over simple things like history, is it too much to ask that Chrome keeps cookies and such but just doesn't keep a history? I'm not paranoid about someone looking through my history, its just annoying to have it there, I never use it so why have it?
In short, I really, really like Firefox but its rendering engine is getting behind on the times when compared to Chrome. It would be nice if there was a feature like Chrome Frame for Firefox so I could use the nice Chrome rendering engine without having to adapt to the terrible interface of Chrome.
Except for the fact that the "crime" can be eliminated by simply increasing speed limits.
The fact is, the law should conform to the will of the people, not the people to the will of the law. Such is democracy, such is liberty, such is freedom. If enough people are "speeding" on a road to "need" a speed camera, either do improvements on the road to make people be able to drive how they want to on there safely, or consider just raising the speed limit.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by Turkey in 1948.
But hasn't Turkey been trying to get into the EU for ages now though? Won't this set them back a whole lot? I mean, honestly, economically there is no point trying to convince the islamic states to become major allies, their economy is based purely on oil which once economies of scale start taking off in solar/nuclear/wind/hydro/etc power, better batteries and such the economy of the Islamic states, already poor will simply collapse.
NATO doesn't care about dictators, look at how many right-wing military coups we've supported. Heck, look at how most of NATO supported just about everyone who was anti-Soviet. They don't care about human rights, just as long as they aren't communist or allied with Russia.
All NATO stands for is opposing Russia and its allies, if you think it stands for human rights or anything you should look at the conflicts in the cold war and which side the US supported.
No doubt that Turks can get around it by using a proxy or something but I don't think that is Turkey's goal. I think the main thing is to remove Turkey from western media so the government can increase tyranny.
If I was a freedom-minded Turk, I'd get out of there as soon as possible before things get worse, especially since I would imagine relations between Turkey and Europe haven't deteriorated too much... yet.
The Great Depression was caused mostly by A) Fractional Reserves Lending (something that makes no sense in a fully deregulated economy) B) The Fed creating money essentially out of nothing creating an unsustainable financial boom C) The WWI powers unable to repay debt.
Had it not been for the fed, chances are we wouldn't have had either the current financial crisis or the great depression.
Like I said in an earlier post, markets work under -complete- deregulation, you can't half regulate and half deregulate something and expect it to work. Capitalism, communism, socialism and fascism can all work when -always- held to, when you mix them you get a complete mess.
The problem wasn't the lack of regulations but rather the presence of some regulations and the relaxation of others. Either have it be fully regulated and have it work 90% of the time, or have it be unregulated and have it work 100% of the time. When you mix them, you get disaster. Always.
But had those things not been in place to begin with, sane fiscal policies would have been made by the banks because there would be no way they would be "bailed out". Had it not been for regulations, the banks would have failed before they became "too big to fail" thus eliminating the problem.
...and don't even get started with all the flaws in the Federal Reserve....
When was there deregulation of the financial system?
The financial system was, and has been the most regulated of all industries. There was a -bit- of deregulation, but had there be full dereglation and few regulations to start with, you can bet almost anything that we wouldn't have had a crisis because all the banks making stupid decisions would have already been forced to close.
Now if those little firms did not hold patents would the large companies just copy the little guy?
No, because the vast majority of patent cases are where there is little to no "innovation" or when the innovation is so generalized no one really knows what exactly they were trying to patent.
Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. don't go searching for patents to violate, they usually create innovations independently then pay protection money to the trolls and the small firms who sell unknown products.
But its a whole lot cheaper to buy cheap-as-free hardware and a lot easier to set up.
How many people realistically want to share a desktop with their parents? And how? I don't know about you but I really wouldn't want to be sitting next to my parents while using the computer. Unless we have insanely long cables running to each person's room, I just don't see that as feasible.
Lets just assume that each card costs ~$600 for the time being. Now, you can get several thin clients for that price, 2 decent desktops, or one really good desktop. Why would a school want to use a system that requires lots of maintenance, relies on a single, fail-able system, and isn't exactly cheap.
If one computer worth $300 completely fails, you are out $300 and one workstation. If this card fails you are out ~$600 with no salvageable parts (even on a totally broken motherboard you can usually salvage a HDD, any PCI cards and optical drives) and multiple workstations down.
Really, thin clients are the way to go, cheaper, replaceable hardware wins out over expensive, maintenance-prone hardware.
Plus, if the average person can't even get a network set up, how do you expect them to configure multi-user support?
Slashdot Mirror
But this wasn't a new "feature" it was purely an aesthetic look. You are going to get pretty similar search results with Bing, Yahoo, Google, Live, etc. lately but its mostly the look and feel that is different. Of course, there is some difference in search results put its generally so minimal you can find the same site within a few pages on Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc on the same search term.
Neither did people who used pre-release versions of Firefox like me
...But of course this means that people with ancient versions of IE didn't have to see it also...
There is a reason why few people use Bing, Yahoo!, Live, Ask, etc. if Google wants to branch out in different directions, do it under a different banner other than Google search.
People like the way Google is/was, if they didn't, there would be a flood of people going to Bing, Yahoo!, Ask, and all the other search engines. Because there isn't, you can pretty easily realize that people like the way Google is.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I'd say searching anyone's laptop as an unreasonable search and seizure, unless someone beat someone's head with the laptop and the laptop in question becomes a murder weapon.
We need judges who uphold the constitution and which deliver practical rulings to make us safer. All this does is further "legitimize" what should be an illegal practice by the DHS.
See, thats what I don't like. I really have no desire to have anything other than bookmarks appear in the search bar and really would like to disable history altogether (I never understood the point of it to begin with) and Chrome doesn't give that option.
But do all of them also use V8?
I enjoy the ability to actually customize my browsers to get them how I like them to work. Even basic settings like history are not available in Chrome!
You know though, that isn't too wild of a suggestion. I hate the Chrome interface but I really like the Chrome rendering engine, something like Chrome Frame for Firefox makes sense, especially since Firefox is getting a bit behind the times lately.
You know, Google should really make a Firefox equivalent, I like Chrome's rendering engine but hate the interface. There is no ability to customize anything, I have custom CSS that I use on a few sites to block ads and to make the site look nicer, with Chrome there is no default option to do it, in Firefox there is, in IE there is, not in Chrome. Plus, no control over simple things like history, is it too much to ask that Chrome keeps cookies and such but just doesn't keep a history? I'm not paranoid about someone looking through my history, its just annoying to have it there, I never use it so why have it?
In short, I really, really like Firefox but its rendering engine is getting behind on the times when compared to Chrome. It would be nice if there was a feature like Chrome Frame for Firefox so I could use the nice Chrome rendering engine without having to adapt to the terrible interface of Chrome.
Except for the fact that the "crime" can be eliminated by simply increasing speed limits.
The fact is, the law should conform to the will of the people, not the people to the will of the law. Such is democracy, such is liberty, such is freedom. If enough people are "speeding" on a road to "need" a speed camera, either do improvements on the road to make people be able to drive how they want to on there safely, or consider just raising the speed limit.
Yeah and GPS systems owe police millions of dollars in fines for helping criminals know a quick route out of town.
The US and most of the west don't have capitalism, or democracy for that matter.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by Turkey in 1948.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Declaration_of_Universal_Human_Rights#Adoption
But hasn't Turkey been trying to get into the EU for ages now though? Won't this set them back a whole lot? I mean, honestly, economically there is no point trying to convince the islamic states to become major allies, their economy is based purely on oil which once economies of scale start taking off in solar/nuclear/wind/hydro/etc power, better batteries and such the economy of the Islamic states, already poor will simply collapse.
They do not firmly condone nor accept the Armenian genocid.
I'm really, really hoping you don't want them to condone the Armenian genocide.
NATO doesn't care about dictators, look at how many right-wing military coups we've supported. Heck, look at how most of NATO supported just about everyone who was anti-Soviet. They don't care about human rights, just as long as they aren't communist or allied with Russia.
All NATO stands for is opposing Russia and its allies, if you think it stands for human rights or anything you should look at the conflicts in the cold war and which side the US supported.
No doubt that Turks can get around it by using a proxy or something but I don't think that is Turkey's goal. I think the main thing is to remove Turkey from western media so the government can increase tyranny.
If I was a freedom-minded Turk, I'd get out of there as soon as possible before things get worse, especially since I would imagine relations between Turkey and Europe haven't deteriorated too much... yet.
Seriously, what does this hope to accomplish other than drawing attention towards censorship?
The Great Depression was caused mostly by A) Fractional Reserves Lending (something that makes no sense in a fully deregulated economy) B) The Fed creating money essentially out of nothing creating an unsustainable financial boom C) The WWI powers unable to repay debt.
Had it not been for the fed, chances are we wouldn't have had either the current financial crisis or the great depression.
Like I said in an earlier post, markets work under -complete- deregulation, you can't half regulate and half deregulate something and expect it to work. Capitalism, communism, socialism and fascism can all work when -always- held to, when you mix them you get a complete mess.
The problem wasn't the lack of regulations but rather the presence of some regulations and the relaxation of others. Either have it be fully regulated and have it work 90% of the time, or have it be unregulated and have it work 100% of the time. When you mix them, you get disaster. Always.
But had those things not been in place to begin with, sane fiscal policies would have been made by the banks because there would be no way they would be "bailed out". Had it not been for regulations, the banks would have failed before they became "too big to fail" thus eliminating the problem.
...and don't even get started with all the flaws in the Federal Reserve....
Yeah because we all know that government-mandated software is always a good thing. It is -never- a good thing. Ever.
The deregulation of the financial system
When was there deregulation of the financial system?
The financial system was, and has been the most regulated of all industries. There was a -bit- of deregulation, but had there be full dereglation and few regulations to start with, you can bet almost anything that we wouldn't have had a crisis because all the banks making stupid decisions would have already been forced to close.
Now if those little firms did not hold patents would the large companies just copy the little guy?
No, because the vast majority of patent cases are where there is little to no "innovation" or when the innovation is so generalized no one really knows what exactly they were trying to patent.
Apple, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, etc. don't go searching for patents to violate, they usually create innovations independently then pay protection money to the trolls and the small firms who sell unknown products.
I kinda think the guy was going for a +5 funny mod though....
But its a whole lot cheaper to buy cheap-as-free hardware and a lot easier to set up.
How many people realistically want to share a desktop with their parents? And how? I don't know about you but I really wouldn't want to be sitting next to my parents while using the computer. Unless we have insanely long cables running to each person's room, I just don't see that as feasible.
Lets just assume that each card costs ~$600 for the time being. Now, you can get several thin clients for that price, 2 decent desktops, or one really good desktop. Why would a school want to use a system that requires lots of maintenance, relies on a single, fail-able system, and isn't exactly cheap.
If one computer worth $300 completely fails, you are out $300 and one workstation. If this card fails you are out ~$600 with no salvageable parts (even on a totally broken motherboard you can usually salvage a HDD, any PCI cards and optical drives) and multiple workstations down.
Really, thin clients are the way to go, cheaper, replaceable hardware wins out over expensive, maintenance-prone hardware.
Plus, if the average person can't even get a network set up, how do you expect them to configure multi-user support?