It is apparent that you don't like Google. That's fine. However, that is beside the point.
"You just don't like me!!!" No; I don't like what Google's doing, and I've provided some reasons.
A search query with Google is my business and Google's business. Not the ISP's, not Phorm's, not a MITM watching the traffic go by.
No-one disagrees that it's Google's business from the PoV of delivering search results. But from the PoV of storage and datamining, it's as much Google's business as it is Phorm's.
(Hey, at least an former elected MP and senior civil servant are on Phorm's board, individuals whose careers have been advanced directly and indirectly by the prol^Wpeople rather than venture capitalists and advertisers. A pox on everyone!)
I once misspelled "harass" as "harrass". I fixed this by recalling that I should not "har-ass her-ass". This has both everything and nothing to do with embarrassment, so embarrassment works the other way.
All and all, the good guys benefit here. Google doesn't have ISPs modifying their ads in transit,
Begging the question: Google are good because the good buys benefit and Google are good.
The user gets search results that have not been tampered with
You mean: Google gets a monopoly on the search results algorithm.
where a site for product "A" takes you to a different company
Ah, like all those ads with term X which lead you to company Y.
or associate IDs are replaced so different parties get credit for ad responses
I don't owe one sponsor any more than any other. As long as I'm not involved in paying for ads or providing ad space, it's not possible for me to engage in click fraud.
and have potentially malicious ads thrown in.
Have you seen some of the sites Google happily takes income from?
ISPs can't passively log the connection
They can and do passively log the "connection"; payload maybe not.
and sell the data
But Google can. How can I stop Google doing so? "Stop using Google". How can I stop my ISP doing so? "Stop using your ISP". What are my alternatives as far as ISPs go? Many. What are my alternatives as far as search engine & ad broker combinations go?
All useful sites offer complete SSL access, but I guess Google - as with IPv6 - gets to be congratulated when it makes a half hearted attempt to do what real technology pioneers have been doing for a good decade.
In other news, everything Apple's ever done is original.
If you have a multi-billion dollar budget, then seeming to duplicate some of the features of a non-profit (not the important ones, mind) is a good way to reduce interest in the non-profit.
You mean, it's a way of closing down Scroogle so they can ostensibly give you the protection of encryption while actually preserving the tracking abilities of a Google site.
Also, "rightfully"? I signed an agreement with Google to monetize stats about me in the same universe in which I signed an agreement with any other party analysing my traffic to do so.
I couldn't agree more with your posts. Every second rate developer today is so fucking happy that he is riding the New Wave[tm] of hired mainframe^W^Wcloud computing that he will do anything to sing praise for its convoluted bullshit. Our new profession has become just another conspiracy against the laity, and none more than Google likes to act as the provider of/gatekeeper to such exclusive brilliance.
Xerox had it right in the '70s: the programming environment was just another part of the general UI. If a 10 year old kid couldn't cope with writing apps as easily as he could use apps, the environment was a failure. If the API wasn't intuitive as the rest of the UI was intuitive, the environment was a failure. But Google would never dream of Xerox's level of code openness and simplicity because it makes its money from secrecy of its information and promiscuity of yours. Google would be nothing if it didn't jealously guard its AdWords, PageRank, distributed storage, etc. algorithms; it would be nothing if you didn't give so much information to Google while expecting none of Google's information in return. Remember, you're just too stupid to understand it anyway.
Hm, Google and Apple really need to merge... although at least Apple fanboys tend to like what Apple provides rather than what Apple merely promises. I practically fell over laughing when I saw Amazon S3's pricing, especially having found out first and second hand just how reliable their cloud really isn't - what is the appeal of this rubbish? No, I think I understand it: developers don't understand how to build a system themselves, but no-one ever got fired from buying from the large corporation, so you shift the blame to them... and then, when you're implicitly admitting to ignorance and the need to outsource, you're ostensibly claiming how smart you are that you understand how to call a web service.
When you express yourself in a rational manner (i.e. at the level of human discourse rather than a scream of pain, say), it is implied that you care about how people react to your expressions. Why else would you be expressing them?
(1). Freedom of speech flows from freedom of thought which flows from an individual man's rational and free mind.
In this case, to argue that a particular word is offensive "no matter what the context" is denying the possibility of a rational difference between the methods of expression of one man's thoughts and another man's thoguhts, which comes down to a denial of the possibility of a rational difference between your thoughts and another man's thoughts. Such a denial is the genesis of censorship ("you can't say that - it's wrong!").
You have the right to be offended by absolutely anything, but it irrational and unproductive to be so. In this case, it is irrational and unproductive to be offended by a word based on the assumption that the word has the same meaning to all people as it does to you.
(2) What does it even mean to be offended by speech? And if you are offended, is there ever any reason to declare it except to indicate that you need to deal with your own emotional responses? If you disagree with something, argue your case or let it be, no?
Ah, the white knight effect. When I speak in straight terms to someone who identifies as a woman, some guy inevitably crawls out to criticise me for being too harsh. Yet when I speak to someone who identifies as a man or who does not identify their gender, it's much more likely that the argument proper is tackled.
To address your one, weak point: no-one's using the term "cunt" in a medical sense, so while I'm sure it gives you the opportunity for prurient debate, it usually doesn't really matter how many folds we're counting when we say "cunt" rather than "vagina". Similarly, do you worry about where the base of the penis is when you talk about "muh dick", or is the general specification of cock usually sufficient for the argument?
When making a non-specific reference to the lady garden and its underground, "cunt" is a much more pleasant word because it refers to the part without implying a role. But that's my preference, and you are welcome to use the word you like best: this is the main message of my whole argument.
Answer: They don't. I find it quite offensive to be called a girl no matter what the context.
That's where your understanding of communication and the concept of freedom of speech fails. Without context, it is entirely irrational to find a naming offensive. Take nigger, cunt and moron: the words all have baggage, but "nigger" is an entirely friendly greeting among some groups; "cunt" is infinitely less "offensive" than "vagina", which reduces the definition of the cunt to a receptacle for a man's penis; and "moron" can be anything from a clinical diagnosis to a humorous self-deprecation: "I'm a moron, sorry".
Let's take some examples. I might greet you, "Hey, girl!" If you find that offensive, you have issues. I might be meeting a group of women including you after work: "I'm meeting the girls." If you find that offensive, you have issues. I might be a 90 year old woman seeing you (accurately) chronologically closer to a 5 year old than myself, and refer to you as, "the you girl over there". If you find that offensive, you have issues.
Finally, fuck you and your whining at being offended. You can call me whatever you want without intending to harm me and I'll either take it as you meant it, laugh at the double entendre, or ignore you. But god knows I don't care whether you call me boy, girl, dude, sweetie, babe, hunk, chickadee, Mr Universe, Miss Universe or even use my real name. And even if you are trying to insult me, I won't bitch about "being offended": I'll consider your comment and either work on the underlying criticism, or ignore you for being a tart.
My four year old is a girl, I am not (any more and haven't been in along time).
Uhuh, you get to choose what words mean when you're referring to others; but others must choose your meaning when they're referring to you. Don't think so, toots.
On that note, I am not 'Miss' either. I am a grown woman who happens to be good with computers.
The use of gender-specific titles is a bit silly, but who cares? Feel free to call me Mr, Mrs, Miss, Reverend, Sir, Lord or Generalissimo. Whatever floats your boat.
Only to the extent that I'm saying all straight men are straight.
IOW, all straight men will treat particular women in a way that they'd never treat any man, by definition. A man never has the opportunity to be treated that way by a straight man, because he is a man. For example, if you were a straight woman and I were a straight woman, there'd no chance that you'd treat me 'specially nice because you feel romantically/sexually inclined toward me; but if you were a man, you might do such a thing. In this latter case I thus have a potential advantage over men when it comes to getting what I want from you - but I can't gain that advantage unless you're aware of (1) my gender; (2) things about me that make me attractive to you.
The same applies for straight women to men, and gays to etc. How to act to elicit that response depends on biological and cultural factors.
It is for attention, of course; but it works, so I'm not sure how stupid it is. You might say, "It's not the right sort of attention!" but this is Earth, we are humans, and most people are influenced by sexuality. IOW, if you're going to get a little more of what you want - whether that's money, employment prospects, miscellaneous favours or simply admirers - from pointing out that I'm a girl, then you might do so.
Meanwhile, if you're a straight male - no matter how "intelligent" - you might be just a little bit nicer to the skirt than the fat greybeard. Doing so (or wanting to do so, even if you try and fail at repressing it) is what defines you as heterosexual rather than homosexual or asexual, after all.
Yeah, that's just a mixture between your and Google's incompetence. If you put it in quotes, nearer 383,000. If you browse to the last page of results, about 199.
Yes, never mind that Microsoft had an office suite for a good decade before Google even existed, and that its offline version has always had and continues to have a mound more useful features than Google Docs, and that its launched web version has many more features than Google Docs.
You Google fanboys are tedious. You don't even know why you like them.
Argh, you're missing the point: designing a novel structure in a CAD tool optimised for some known series of simulations (i.e. knowing which parameters are relevant to each simulation and adjusting for them) is not the same as proposing a design which can be prototyped, built, tested, flown... and paid for.
The fact that you're uncomfortable explaining some simple words to your son doesn't mean you get to stop me saying them in public. Fuck you and your child - or, rather, fuck you for fucking your child up with your fucked up irrationality. Let me tell you how I learnt "fuck": on an aeroplane as a precocious little fuck I was lacking things to do and asked my father, "What's the rudest word in the English language?" (his mother tongue isn't English) "Fuck," he replied. "What does it mean?" "Sex." "Oh." So easy! and I knew what sex was biologically, even though it was way before I cared about it beyond knowing it's how babies are made.
You know why kids like swearing a lot? Because you tell them IT'S NAUGHTY HEHE. It's like drinking, soft drugs, casual humping or rock'n'roll: try to ban something, and it'll be done badly; be open and casual about it, and it'll be done with due care.
The cynic in me indicates that it's in the interest of anyone in power to make sure as many people fuck up as possible, of course. Each balanced, educated kid is a greater threat to your tenuous position. Ostensible prudishness is just a way of competing.
Slashdot Mirror
You had me until:
Slashdot is a first tier news site, where not just any incoherent sentence fragments are acceptable.
3/10. Maybe if Google didn't put Wikipedia at the top of all search results, you'd understand your fallacies.
It is apparent that you don't like Google. That's fine. However, that is beside the point.
"You just don't like me!!!" No; I don't like what Google's doing, and I've provided some reasons.
A search query with Google is my business and Google's business. Not the ISP's, not Phorm's, not a MITM watching the traffic go by.
No-one disagrees that it's Google's business from the PoV of delivering search results. But from the PoV of storage and datamining, it's as much Google's business as it is Phorm's.
(Hey, at least an former elected MP and senior civil servant are on Phorm's board, individuals whose careers have been advanced directly and indirectly by the prol^Wpeople rather than venture capitalists and advertisers. A pox on everyone!)
I once misspelled "harass" as "harrass". I fixed this by recalling that I should not "har-ass her-ass". This has both everything and nothing to do with embarrassment, so embarrassment works the other way.
All and all, the good guys benefit here. Google doesn't have ISPs modifying their ads in transit,
Begging the question: Google are good because the good buys benefit and Google are good.
The user gets search results that have not been tampered with
You mean: Google gets a monopoly on the search results algorithm.
where a site for product "A" takes you to a different company
Ah, like all those ads with term X which lead you to company Y.
or associate IDs are replaced so different parties get credit for ad responses
I don't owe one sponsor any more than any other. As long as I'm not involved in paying for ads or providing ad space, it's not possible for me to engage in click fraud.
and have potentially malicious ads thrown in.
Have you seen some of the sites Google happily takes income from?
ISPs can't passively log the connection
They can and do passively log the "connection"; payload maybe not.
and sell the data
But Google can. How can I stop Google doing so? "Stop using Google". How can I stop my ISP doing so? "Stop using your ISP". What are my alternatives as far as ISPs go? Many. What are my alternatives as far as search engine & ad broker combinations go?
Tell me that you believe Google doesn't offer security agencies black-box connectivity to its storage / routers.
All useful sites offer complete SSL access, but I guess Google - as with IPv6 - gets to be congratulated when it makes a half hearted attempt to do what real technology pioneers have been doing for a good decade.
In other news, everything Apple's ever done is original.
Agreed, we all know that in a free market economy
Where?
It's what we'd all do if given the chance.
Speak for yourself.
Why would this close down scroogle?
If you have a multi-billion dollar budget, then seeming to duplicate some of the features of a non-profit (not the important ones, mind) is a good way to reduce interest in the non-profit.
Not that Google's done anything else to bother Scroogle this month.
You mean, it's a way of closing down Scroogle so they can ostensibly give you the protection of encryption while actually preserving the tracking abilities of a Google site.
Also, "rightfully"? I signed an agreement with Google to monetize stats about me in the same universe in which I signed an agreement with any other party analysing my traffic to do so.
I couldn't agree more with your posts. Every second rate developer today is so fucking happy that he is riding the New Wave[tm] of hired mainframe^W^Wcloud computing that he will do anything to sing praise for its convoluted bullshit. Our new profession has become just another conspiracy against the laity, and none more than Google likes to act as the provider of/gatekeeper to such exclusive brilliance.
Xerox had it right in the '70s: the programming environment was just another part of the general UI. If a 10 year old kid couldn't cope with writing apps as easily as he could use apps, the environment was a failure. If the API wasn't intuitive as the rest of the UI was intuitive, the environment was a failure. But Google would never dream of Xerox's level of code openness and simplicity because it makes its money from secrecy of its information and promiscuity of yours. Google would be nothing if it didn't jealously guard its AdWords, PageRank, distributed storage, etc. algorithms; it would be nothing if you didn't give so much information to Google while expecting none of Google's information in return. Remember, you're just too stupid to understand it anyway.
Hm, Google and Apple really need to merge... although at least Apple fanboys tend to like what Apple provides rather than what Apple merely promises. I practically fell over laughing when I saw Amazon S3's pricing, especially having found out first and second hand just how reliable their cloud really isn't - what is the appeal of this rubbish? No, I think I understand it: developers don't understand how to build a system themselves, but no-one ever got fired from buying from the large corporation, so you shift the blame to them... and then, when you're implicitly admitting to ignorance and the need to outsource, you're ostensibly claiming how smart you are that you understand how to call a web service.
Many men have little problem in making a clear distinction between future partners and other people.
Even if this were true, no men have no problem, so the advantage stands.
When you express yourself in a rational manner (i.e. at the level of human discourse rather than a scream of pain, say), it is implied that you care about how people react to your expressions. Why else would you be expressing them?
(1). Freedom of speech flows from freedom of thought which flows from an individual man's rational and free mind.
In this case, to argue that a particular word is offensive "no matter what the context" is denying the possibility of a rational difference between the methods of expression of one man's thoughts and another man's thoguhts, which comes down to a denial of the possibility of a rational difference between your thoughts and another man's thoughts. Such a denial is the genesis of censorship ("you can't say that - it's wrong!").
You have the right to be offended by absolutely anything, but it irrational and unproductive to be so. In this case, it is irrational and unproductive to be offended by a word based on the assumption that the word has the same meaning to all people as it does to you.
(2) What does it even mean to be offended by speech? And if you are offended, is there ever any reason to declare it except to indicate that you need to deal with your own emotional responses? If you disagree with something, argue your case or let it be, no?
Ah, the white knight effect. When I speak in straight terms to someone who identifies as a woman, some guy inevitably crawls out to criticise me for being too harsh. Yet when I speak to someone who identifies as a man or who does not identify their gender, it's much more likely that the argument proper is tackled.
To address your one, weak point: no-one's using the term "cunt" in a medical sense, so while I'm sure it gives you the opportunity for prurient debate, it usually doesn't really matter how many folds we're counting when we say "cunt" rather than "vagina". Similarly, do you worry about where the base of the penis is when you talk about "muh dick", or is the general specification of cock usually sufficient for the argument?
When making a non-specific reference to the lady garden and its underground, "cunt" is a much more pleasant word because it refers to the part without implying a role. But that's my preference, and you are welcome to use the word you like best: this is the main message of my whole argument.
Gender-non-specific Marianne,
Answer: They don't. I find it quite offensive to be called a girl no matter what the context.
That's where your understanding of communication and the concept of freedom of speech fails. Without context, it is entirely irrational to find a naming offensive. Take nigger, cunt and moron: the words all have baggage, but "nigger" is an entirely friendly greeting among some groups; "cunt" is infinitely less "offensive" than "vagina", which reduces the definition of the cunt to a receptacle for a man's penis; and "moron" can be anything from a clinical diagnosis to a humorous self-deprecation: "I'm a moron, sorry".
Let's take some examples. I might greet you, "Hey, girl!" If you find that offensive, you have issues. I might be meeting a group of women including you after work: "I'm meeting the girls." If you find that offensive, you have issues. I might be a 90 year old woman seeing you (accurately) chronologically closer to a 5 year old than myself, and refer to you as, "the you girl over there". If you find that offensive, you have issues.
Finally, fuck you and your whining at being offended. You can call me whatever you want without intending to harm me and I'll either take it as you meant it, laugh at the double entendre, or ignore you. But god knows I don't care whether you call me boy, girl, dude, sweetie, babe, hunk, chickadee, Mr Universe, Miss Universe or even use my real name. And even if you are trying to insult me, I won't bitch about "being offended": I'll consider your comment and either work on the underlying criticism, or ignore you for being a tart.
My four year old is a girl, I am not (any more and haven't been in along time).
Uhuh, you get to choose what words mean when you're referring to others; but others must choose your meaning when they're referring to you. Don't think so, toots.
On that note, I am not 'Miss' either. I am a grown woman who happens to be good with computers.
The use of gender-specific titles is a bit silly, but who cares? Feel free to call me Mr, Mrs, Miss, Reverend, Sir, Lord or Generalissimo. Whatever floats your boat.
Only to the extent that I'm saying all straight men are straight.
IOW, all straight men will treat particular women in a way that they'd never treat any man, by definition. A man never has the opportunity to be treated that way by a straight man, because he is a man. For example, if you were a straight woman and I were a straight woman, there'd no chance that you'd treat me 'specially nice because you feel romantically/sexually inclined toward me; but if you were a man, you might do such a thing. In this latter case I thus have a potential advantage over men when it comes to getting what I want from you - but I can't gain that advantage unless you're aware of (1) my gender; (2) things about me that make me attractive to you.
The same applies for straight women to men, and gays to etc. How to act to elicit that response depends on biological and cultural factors.
It is for attention, of course; but it works, so I'm not sure how stupid it is. You might say, "It's not the right sort of attention!" but this is Earth, we are humans, and most people are influenced by sexuality. IOW, if you're going to get a little more of what you want - whether that's money, employment prospects, miscellaneous favours or simply admirers - from pointing out that I'm a girl, then you might do so.
Meanwhile, if you're a straight male - no matter how "intelligent" - you might be just a little bit nicer to the skirt than the fat greybeard. Doing so (or wanting to do so, even if you try and fail at repressing it) is what defines you as heterosexual rather than homosexual or asexual, after all.
Wasn't OP telling MS to leave Google alone?
Indeed. The desire for all information to go through one entity is very Borg-ish.
Yeah, that's just a mixture between your and Google's incompetence. If you put it in quotes, nearer 383,000. If you browse to the last page of results, about 199.
Yes, never mind that Microsoft had an office suite for a good decade before Google even existed, and that its offline version has always had and continues to have a mound more useful features than Google Docs, and that its launched web version has many more features than Google Docs.
You Google fanboys are tedious. You don't even know why you like them.
Argh, you're missing the point: designing a novel structure in a CAD tool optimised for some known series of simulations (i.e. knowing which parameters are relevant to each simulation and adjusting for them) is not the same as proposing a design which can be prototyped, built, tested, flown... and paid for.
It is now: you can print out that post and give it to him :-).
The fact that you're uncomfortable explaining some simple words to your son doesn't mean you get to stop me saying them in public. Fuck you and your child - or, rather, fuck you for fucking your child up with your fucked up irrationality. Let me tell you how I learnt "fuck": on an aeroplane as a precocious little fuck I was lacking things to do and asked my father, "What's the rudest word in the English language?" (his mother tongue isn't English) "Fuck," he replied. "What does it mean?" "Sex." "Oh." So easy! and I knew what sex was biologically, even though it was way before I cared about it beyond knowing it's how babies are made.
You know why kids like swearing a lot? Because you tell them IT'S NAUGHTY HEHE. It's like drinking, soft drugs, casual humping or rock'n'roll: try to ban something, and it'll be done badly; be open and casual about it, and it'll be done with due care.
The cynic in me indicates that it's in the interest of anyone in power to make sure as many people fuck up as possible, of course. Each balanced, educated kid is a greater threat to your tenuous position. Ostensible prudishness is just a way of competing.
with a very high level government security clearance
What part of that did you forget? The danger is rarely from without.