Coincidentally, the very same movie that talks about President Schwarzenegger and the amendments to the Constitution made to allow him to run for President of the USA.
If your content shows up in Google's results and they make any money off it, then you as the creator of that content should get a portion of that money. Otherwise why do we have copyright laws at all? In a fair world, google and bing should need to set up accounts for each website and pay back a portion of their revenue each time that site's contents appears in a search result with ads in it.
If your content shows up in Google's results, then Google is giving you advertising and publicity. Would you rather pay for that? Is your perfect model that Google pays you for indexing your data, and then you pay Google for offering that content in their searches?
Additionally, if you don't want to show up on their results because it's unfair that your website is making them so much money, I have a robots.txt to sell you, Mr Murdoch...
First, you can go ahead and sleep soundly, safe in the knowledge that I can't vote in your country.
Second, it frightens me that people like you, people unable to see that I was drawing a parallel between his statemen and mine to show how his point of view was wrong by reductio ad absurdum, can vote in any country whatsoever.
The fact that you thought I actually meant literally what I said boggles the mind.
(the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse).
And the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that classify as libel/slander, so I don't see why the cops shouldn't be able to force you to say good things about specific people/companies.
They don't expect you to pay for the chance to talk to clergy..
Some of the clergy. I only know examples from the catholic church (and it may be different depending on the country), but you definitely have to pay for the privilege of talking to the Bishop most of the times (i.e. in case you want to be removed from the church's database, but also for religious reasons). Some archbishops will charge you, too. And it only gets more expensive as you go up the pyramid.
Not to mention the charges for funerals, weddings, first communion, and other sacraments. And I won't even get into the common practice of marriage annulment in which first money changes hands, then some reason for the annulment is decided and the marriage is magically no more, because no one needs to do it to get salvation (unless they want a new spouse!).
I consider marriage, for example, to be a pretty basic practice of the church. But, if your intention was to say that the catholic church is not a legitimate religion, be my guest...
So you are telling me that I DO actually disagree with your post? And telling me what I would have said if I didn't disagree? Whatever rocks your boat, I guess. Another example of ignoring reality to make up facts that fit your view of the universe. Oh, arguing on the Internet, I missed you so much.
So tell me, what part of my original post was insulting your idea? The part where I said it was fueled by intelligence? The part where I said it was anti-sports? Or is it the fact I called it a diatribe? I'm actually curious about what part you found insulting, really.
As for "atrocious spelling", I recomend reading on the meaning of hyperbole. Heck, apply it to the whole post if you want!
I find your post extremely cute, given that you make a pile of assumptions that happen to be false and use them to "attack" me (a not uncommon event on the internet).
I have always disliked sports, especially team sports, and I can't find anything more boring than watching 40 year old men smack each other on the butt and hit balls with a stick. Of course, had you used any kind of scientific approach to your statements instead of simply jumping to the conclusions that fit your argument better, disregarding even the basic fact that I already told you that the only reason I said anything was because it's a pet peeve of mine, maybe you would be able to feel morally superior to the people you are so cleverly attacking. As it is, you are only doing the exact same thing they do, and making a fool of yourself.
I don't even disagree with your original post, imagine that!
Or, if everyone were to preview their messages before submitting, especially when trying to sound like an avant-garde child of intellectual elitism!
I am the king of misspellings when it comes to it, but one of my pet peeves is people trying to sound superior to others due to intelligence while failing basic tasks like, I don't know, proofreading their text.
Slashdot Mirror
You're just missing the previous 200 comments.
You need to update your copyright, son.
Coincidentally, the very same movie that talks about President Schwarzenegger and the amendments to the Constitution made to allow him to run for President of the USA.
"Slim waste, wide hips and a round, firm behind.
You know you're been around the internet for too long when part of what you consider sexually arousing is how slim a woman's waste is...
see the kind of reactions such a post, made with an open-mind, would get as replies.
You must be... know what, nevermind.
If your content shows up in Google's results and they make any money off it, then you as the creator of that content should get a portion of that money. Otherwise why do we have copyright laws at all? In a fair world, google and bing should need to set up accounts for each website and pay back a portion of their revenue each time that site's contents appears in a search result with ads in it.
If your content shows up in Google's results, then Google is giving you advertising and publicity. Would you rather pay for that? Is your perfect model that Google pays you for indexing your data, and then you pay Google for offering that content in their searches?
Additionally, if you don't want to show up on their results because it's unfair that your website is making them so much money, I have a robots.txt to sell you, Mr Murdoch...
You must be new here.
I”m no needy loser, who caves to every shit.
Like comma placement rules?
First, you can go ahead and sleep soundly, safe in the knowledge that I can't vote in your country.
Second, it frightens me that people like you, people unable to see that I was drawing a parallel between his statemen and mine to show how his point of view was wrong by reductio ad absurdum, can vote in any country whatsoever.
The fact that you thought I actually meant literally what I said boggles the mind.
It's never thick enough for some people...
(the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that endanger the public, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to force you to tell a dangerous crowd to disperse).
And the 1st amendment doesn't protect your right to say things that classify as libel/slander, so I don't see why the cops shouldn't be able to force you to say good things about specific people/companies.
They don't expect you to pay for the chance to talk to clergy..
Some of the clergy. I only know examples from the catholic church (and it may be different depending on the country), but you definitely have to pay for the privilege of talking to the Bishop most of the times (i.e. in case you want to be removed from the church's database, but also for religious reasons). Some archbishops will charge you, too. And it only gets more expensive as you go up the pyramid.
Not to mention the charges for funerals, weddings, first communion, and other sacraments. And I won't even get into the common practice of marriage annulment in which first money changes hands, then some reason for the annulment is decided and the marriage is magically no more, because no one needs to do it to get salvation (unless they want a new spouse!).
I consider marriage, for example, to be a pretty basic practice of the church. But, if your intention was to say that the catholic church is not a legitimate religion, be my guest...
If Z is left mapped to /, then a windows virus can run rampant all throughout your system.
... with your current user's permissions. Which I grant you is bad enough.
You must be... oh.
Sand wants to be free?
So you meant completely the opposite of what your sentence stood for?
You can't seriously compare a missing main clause (intentionally!) that can be easily deduced from context with the horrendous practice you describe.
And if you are, I weep for your sense of proportion and reading comprehension.
If you were to admit that you were wrong about "if everyone was", the conversation would be over. Or if I were to indulge you in your stubbornness.
Except that, you know, "if everyone were" is the present conditional, so you're totally wrong about that one.
So you are telling me that I DO actually disagree with your post? And telling me what I would have said if I didn't disagree? Whatever rocks your boat, I guess. Another example of ignoring reality to make up facts that fit your view of the universe. Oh, arguing on the Internet, I missed you so much.
So tell me, what part of my original post was insulting your idea? The part where I said it was fueled by intelligence? The part where I said it was anti-sports? Or is it the fact I called it a diatribe? I'm actually curious about what part you found insulting, really.
As for "atrocious spelling", I recomend reading on the meaning of hyperbole. Heck, apply it to the whole post if you want!
Thanks for your valuable contributions.
I find your post extremely cute, given that you make a pile of assumptions that happen to be false and use them to "attack" me (a not uncommon event on the internet).
I have always disliked sports, especially team sports, and I can't find anything more boring than watching 40 year old men smack each other on the butt and hit balls with a stick. Of course, had you used any kind of scientific approach to your statements instead of simply jumping to the conclusions that fit your argument better, disregarding even the basic fact that I already told you that the only reason I said anything was because it's a pet peeve of mine, maybe you would be able to feel morally superior to the people you are so cleverly attacking. As it is, you are only doing the exact same thing they do, and making a fool of yourself.
I don't even disagree with your original post, imagine that!
Or, if everyone were to preview their messages before submitting, especially when trying to sound like an avant-garde child of intellectual elitism!
I am the king of misspellings when it comes to it, but one of my pet peeves is people trying to sound superior to others due to intelligence while failing basic tasks like, I don't know, proofreading their text.
The only way you'll make science popular is to get society to quite worshiping brainless athletes.
Somehow, your intelligence-fueled anti-sports diatribe seems diminished by your atrocious spelling...
And of course, Michael Crichton was a man with a serious sense of debate and mature behaviour when it came to Global Warming.
Bonus points for reading the section above that one about Michael Crichton's misuse of Peter Doran's work, and similar issues with his "evidence".
Or you could just stop being a Coward.