This would be like my mom telling me she can do computer support better then me. She's a smart lady, but her KNOWLEDGE level when it comes to Computers is low.
Sounds like she'd be perfect for the job. Does she live in India?
I agree that traditional animation would be costly - I was thinking more along the lines of Flash or something similar. I found something called "Neo-Bender" which is Flash or Shockwave (not really my field, sorry) - I believe that if someone had more skill, they might do a creditable short with those tools. I've seen a few clever South Park animations - granted probably one of the easiest to copy. I haven't thought through all of the animated series I enjoy, but I see your point - I have watched closely to see how much actual animation is involved and it does vary widely - I believe you are correct about Family Guy - it's got a Hanna-Barbera quality, but in a good way.
As far a comments re: the kids putting on costumes and using MovieMaker to hack together a week-end ST project - I was actually thinking about the "big budget" stuff that gets linked on Slash occasionally. I don't recall the names of the groups that do these, but they're full-length features or continuing half hour series. I believe that at least one of them takes more than 12 people and a year to put together an ep. That's the kind of commitment I was thinking of.
I don't recall seeing any fan created versions of Futurama, Family Guy, etc. after they left the air - it seems to me that it would be easier to create an animation homage than do live action movies (like Star Trek). Have there been any home-grown versions of animated series?
Google sells ads. Thast's their business and they never denied it - this is reiterated clearly in the quoted paragraph. They aren't in the business of making things better for the Chinese people - they're in the business of selling advertising to the Chinese people.
Google never offered to provide to China a search engine and other services free of advertising "for the good of the Chinese people". If you responded "Of course not, there's no money in that for them." then you get it.
China said "Not welcome".
Google said "But you have so much target marketing potential. What can we do to make money advertising to you via our search engine?"
China said "Censor your searches and you can cultivate this lucrative market."
Google said "Hmmm. Well, what the fuck, business is business. We'll happily censor our.cn searches for you in return for the opportunity to pick up the Chinese market."
Google tried to convince people that they were different than other companies by adopting a slogan - "Don't be evil" then found themselves in a sticky situation. Walk away from a pantload of money in China when asked to compromise the "Don't be evil" principle (and probably piss off a lot of shareholders) or try to spin it so it looks like they're doing something honorable by censoring.cn searches but notifying users about it - but that isn't the case. The case is, they decided to make money by deliberately censoring search results.
Google would have been better off not trying to claim the higher moral ground with their "Don't be evil" slogan. They didn't last too long.
The day I heard about this decision I talked to my broker about divesting myself of Google stock.
Google could have decided not to take the money when given the deal - they could have left it to MSN and Yahoo!. But greed won out.
It doesn't matter that other companies have sold out, or that MSN and Yahoo! are also there. Google fronted themselves as an honorable company. They are now a company without honor. And as another poster pointed out, no one is suprised or gives a shit.
Eventually, you will find out that the only thing you really have to lose is your honor and reputation and you will do everything you can to keep that intact. At least this has been my life experience. I'm no Pollyanna or Boy Scout, just a past middle-aged guy who believes that we all need to be the best humans we can be and not be motivated by greed.
"He said the decision of how to act in China was "one of the most controversial decisions the company has ever made," and it took over a year of internal arguments before the company came out with its policies. "It is a hard call, but it is a clear call" to do business in China, he said, and do as the Chinese government requires it to."
And again, greed wins out over morality. Do business, no matter what the cost. What a sad fucking state of affairs.
"Would Google's absence make things any better in China?"
This is not the question. The question is, "Am I willing to take money if I have to support the repression of truth?" Google said yes. Anything after that (justification, better if they're there, etc.) is bullshit. They have compromised themselves for money. While this wouldn't be a big deal for most corporations, Google was trying to get folks to believe that they were different - not "evil".
It's a matter of personal integrity. You either have it or you don't.
"Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it an invalid argument.... They do not deserve the bad wrap this community gives them, as if they are enjoying the fact they have to censor."
They made a decision to compromise their personal integrity for financial gain but they still want to be thought of as not an "evil" company by users. It doesn't cut both ways. This is the reason I (and possibly this community) disrespect them. They lied, and it wasn't even for a good reason - it was for money.
"This is probably the absolute best of a really bad situation."
The absolute best of this really bad situation is not accepting censorship requirements from any government in order to make a buck in the first place. How about "Don't Be Greedy" as a new Google slogan?
"Had he contacted any one of a dozen agencies to handle the complaint, he'd be in no legal trouble. The whisteblower(sic) law would protect him."
If I came across information like this a government agency is the last place I would contact. Giving the information to the media is no guarantee that it would get out fast and clean, but if it goes to a "government agency" you have no guarantee that it will ever see the light of day, and if so, be unspun, or conveniently not addressed until after the next election. I believe it's a moral choice and I'm very sorry to say that I don't trust this administration to behave morally.
IIRC, (it's been a long time since school) the currents are produced by temperature gradients. It seems to me that as long as the temperature gradient exists, currents will be produced. I don't think that water's temperature moving through a tiny turbine will be moderated enough to even be detectable. Even if you had 1000 of these things, let's say we're taking about a total cubic footage approximately 1.2MCF (given a base radius of 50' and a height (length) of 150') for each, which means we have a total of 1.2TCF. The volume of the Pacific ocean is 674,052,000,000,000,000 cubic meters - if we convert 1.2TCF to cubic meters we get 33,960,000CM which is a negligable percentage of the total volume. I really can't see (even at a factor of 1000) this volume (even if it was a wall in the ocean, not turbines the water passes through) having any slowing or warming effect on the ocean currents. This is just my opinion and my rusty high school math with a bit if googling tossed in.
I spent a year of my life creating technology plans that never got implemented for a company in the Pacific - it was one of the most frustrating years of my working life. After about 9 months it became obvious that no one on the board that ran the operation was willing to commit to any of the ideas they asked for - if something didn't work as planned they would lose major face. They still refused to implement after a consultant from the US mainland came in and evaluated the much revised plan and suggested that it was too conservative but should still be started immediately.
Life is too short to let people that can't give up control or don't really trust you to do a job they hired you to do wear you down. Cut your losses and find a place to work that is looking for someone with your skill set - you can lose time and skills trying to teach a pig to sing.
Yah, if you're a twenty or thirty something. Not if you're an old man who grew up on Popular Science "Your Very Own Personal Commuter Jetpack!", "Honeymoon On The Moon By 1975!" and "Amazing Car That Converts To A Rocket Ship!" articles and has patiently waited to see the empty promises of NASA fulfilled. NASA - Feh!
Slashdot Mirror
jesusdot - Sweet! I'm still laughin'
ah.clem
This would be like my mom telling me she can do computer support better then me. She's a smart lady, but her KNOWLEDGE level when it comes to Computers is low.
Sounds like she'd be perfect for the job. Does she live in India?
ah.clem
Sigh. Slash-meggers...
ah.clem
It is Controller, yes?
ah.clem
Mike shot first.
ah.clem
Thanks for the laugh, a really, really nice catch. No mod points or I'd mod you up.
Good on ya, though!
ah.clem
Tax Maaaaaaannnnnn! If you walk, I'll tax your feet.
Nice pull, but too obscure for most 20-somethings.
ah.clem
Pretty much puts all this self-righteous finger-pointing/name calling in the proper perspective. Thanks for the mid-morning laugh.
ah.clem
Your new MacBook Pro is in the mail, along with a complementary gift basket.
ah.clem
they'd come up with a portable way to block fucking cellphones.
ah.clem
I agree that traditional animation would be costly - I was thinking more along the lines of Flash or something similar. I found something called "Neo-Bender" which is Flash or Shockwave (not really my field, sorry) - I believe that if someone had more skill, they might do a creditable short with those tools. I've seen a few clever South Park animations - granted probably one of the easiest to copy. I haven't thought through all of the animated series I enjoy, but I see your point - I have watched closely to see how much actual animation is involved and it does vary widely - I believe you are correct about Family Guy - it's got a Hanna-Barbera quality, but in a good way.
As far a comments re: the kids putting on costumes and using MovieMaker to hack together a week-end ST project - I was actually thinking about the "big budget" stuff that gets linked on Slash occasionally. I don't recall the names of the groups that do these, but they're full-length features or continuing half hour series. I believe that at least one of them takes more than 12 people and a year to put together an ep. That's the kind of commitment I was thinking of.
Interesting reply. Thanks.
ah.clem
I don't recall seeing any fan created versions of Futurama, Family Guy, etc. after they left the air - it seems to me that it would be easier to create an animation homage than do live action movies (like Star Trek). Have there been any home-grown versions of animated series?
ah.clem
Google sells ads. Thast's their business and they never denied it - this is reiterated clearly in the quoted paragraph. They aren't in the business of making things better for the Chinese people - they're in the business of selling advertising to the Chinese people.
.cn searches for you in return for the opportunity to pick up the Chinese market."
.cn searches but notifying users about it - but that isn't the case. The case is, they decided to make money by deliberately censoring search results.
Google never offered to provide to China a search engine and other services free of advertising "for the good of the Chinese people". If you responded "Of course not, there's no money in that for them." then you get it.
China said "Not welcome".
Google said "But you have so much target marketing potential. What can we do to make money advertising to you via our search engine?"
China said "Censor your searches and you can cultivate this lucrative market."
Google said "Hmmm. Well, what the fuck, business is business. We'll happily censor our
Google tried to convince people that they were different than other companies by adopting a slogan - "Don't be evil" then found themselves in a sticky situation. Walk away from a pantload of money in China when asked to compromise the "Don't be evil" principle (and probably piss off a lot of shareholders) or try to spin it so it looks like they're doing something honorable by censoring
Google would have been better off not trying to claim the higher moral ground with their "Don't be evil" slogan. They didn't last too long.
The day I heard about this decision I talked to my broker about divesting myself of Google stock.
Google could have decided not to take the money when given the deal - they could have left it to MSN and Yahoo!. But greed won out.
It doesn't matter that other companies have sold out, or that MSN and Yahoo! are also there. Google fronted themselves as an honorable company. They are now a company without honor. And as another poster pointed out, no one is suprised or gives a shit.
Eventually, you will find out that the only thing you really have to lose is your honor and reputation and you will do everything you can to keep that intact. At least this has been my life experience. I'm no Pollyanna or Boy Scout, just a past middle-aged guy who believes that we all need to be the best humans we can be and not be motivated by greed.
ah.clem
"He said the decision of how to act in China was "one of the most controversial decisions the company has ever made," and it took over a year of internal arguments before the company came out with its policies. "It is a hard call, but it is a clear call" to do business in China, he said, and do as the Chinese government requires it to."
And again, greed wins out over morality. Do business, no matter what the cost. What a sad fucking state of affairs.
ah.clem
"Would Google's absence make things any better in China?"
... They do not deserve the bad wrap this community gives them, as if they are enjoying the fact they have to censor."
This is not the question. The question is, "Am I willing to take money if I have to support the repression of truth?" Google said yes. Anything after that (justification, better if they're there, etc.) is bullshit. They have compromised themselves for money. While this wouldn't be a big deal for most corporations, Google was trying to get folks to believe that they were different - not "evil".
It's a matter of personal integrity. You either have it or you don't.
"Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it an invalid argument.
They made a decision to compromise their personal integrity for financial gain but they still want to be thought of as not an "evil" company by users. It doesn't cut both ways. This is the reason I (and possibly this community) disrespect them. They lied, and it wasn't even for a good reason - it was for money.
ah.clem
"This is probably the absolute best of a really bad situation."
The absolute best of this really bad situation is not accepting censorship requirements from any government in order to make a buck in the first place. How about "Don't Be Greedy" as a new Google slogan?
ah.clem
"Will /.'er still call Google evil now? I think this is a nice compromise.
What compromise? According to TFA, Google is still censoring, just moving the logs out of the country.
Oh, wait. Now that Google is big like MS, there is nothing they can do to get the approval of this community.
Weak attempts at irony don't make up for not paying attention to the key issues - just my opinion.
ah.clem
"Had he contacted any one of a dozen agencies to handle the complaint, he'd be in no legal trouble. The whisteblower(sic) law would protect him."
If I came across information like this a government agency is the last place I would contact. Giving the information to the media is no guarantee that it would get out fast and clean, but if it goes to a "government agency" you have no guarantee that it will ever see the light of day, and if so, be unspun, or conveniently not addressed until after the next election. I believe it's a moral choice and I'm very sorry to say that I don't trust this administration to behave morally.
ah.clem
IIRC, (it's been a long time since school) the currents are produced by temperature gradients. It seems to me that as long as the temperature gradient exists, currents will be produced. I don't think that water's temperature moving through a tiny turbine will be moderated enough to even be detectable. Even if you had 1000 of these things, let's say we're taking about a total cubic footage approximately 1.2MCF (given a base radius of 50' and a height (length) of 150') for each, which means we have a total of 1.2TCF. The volume of the Pacific ocean is 674,052,000,000,000,000 cubic meters - if we convert 1.2TCF to cubic meters we get 33,960,000CM which is a negligable percentage of the total volume. I really can't see (even at a factor of 1000) this volume (even if it was a wall in the ocean, not turbines the water passes through) having any slowing or warming effect on the ocean currents. This is just my opinion and my rusty high school math with a bit if googling tossed in.
ah.clem
"Doesn't the field become richer when the wider spectrum of legal thought is explored and encouraged?"
No offense, but are you seriously this naive, or are you just trolling?
ah.clem
I spent a year of my life creating technology plans that never got implemented for a company in the Pacific - it was one of the most frustrating years of my working life. After about 9 months it became obvious that no one on the board that ran the operation was willing to commit to any of the ideas they asked for - if something didn't work as planned they would lose major face. They still refused to implement after a consultant from the US mainland came in and evaluated the much revised plan and suggested that it was too conservative but should still be started immediately.
Life is too short to let people that can't give up control or don't really trust you to do a job they hired you to do wear you down. Cut your losses and find a place to work that is looking for someone with your skill set - you can lose time and skills trying to teach a pig to sing.
ah.clem
"'I'm fuming mad, ... It's mind-boggling.'"
...she's got a great future writing for the "Weekly World News".
ah.clem
---
"I don't know, Jenny, I don't know."
It is a good time to be alive!
Yah, if you're a twenty or thirty something. Not if you're an old man who grew up on Popular Science "Your Very Own Personal Commuter Jetpack!", "Honeymoon On The Moon By 1975!" and "Amazing Car That Converts To A Rocket Ship!" articles and has patiently waited to see the empty promises of NASA fulfilled. NASA - Feh!
Not that I'm bitter or anything...
Catherine Mary Stewart. Yum!
IIRC, it will be available as a stream from the BBC for a week after the original airdate. Load up a recorder and listen at your leisure.