I will agree that regulating the content of ads can be the function of government* but regulating how they appear on a web-page? Nah.
*I believe it is in the public interest to use the force of law and threat of imprisonment or wealth confiscation to reduce outright lies from being in advertising. I'm not wholly convinced that outlawing the advertising of legally sold products is in the public interest (FYI, I am an adherent of a religion that frowns upon the use of tobacco). Placing ads in newspapers that are styled identically to the actual news articles and read like the actual news articles? That is a bit dodgy but if there are no outright falsehoods, then what does it really matter?
If it relates to your search then it is relevant to your search and following the link will give you information you were looking for.
If it isn't relevant to your search you should be able to notice that and ignore it. If you can't notice that your searched for "naked cats" and aren't sure whether a link to the local Chevy dealer might have pictures of ugly felines, then I'm not sure why you bothered typing words into a search page anyway.
If you aren't bright enough to notice that an "ad" is not related to what you were searching for and ignore it, then you have more serious problems than worrying about whether the government is adequately protecting you from Google.
If the ad is related to your search, why do you care if Google got paid to display it or not. You asked Google to give you information related to a bunch of words and they did.
if you aren't bright enough to not click on links that don't interest you, then you have more serious problems than worrying about whether the government is adequately protecting you from Google.
Yes, this is an exact duplicate of my previous comment but this guy actually admitted to being that "not bright" so I couldn't resist.
Shocked, I tell. Just shocked. Shocked and dismayed, I am, that an AC on slashdot would suggest that Microsoft was behaving in a manner less socially acceptable to said poster than Google.
If you aren't bright enough to notice that an "ad" is not related to what you were searching for and ignore it, then you have more serious problems than worrying about whether the government is adequately protecting you from Google.
If the ad is related to your search, why do you care if Google got paid to display it or not. You asked Google to give you information related to a bunch of words and they did.
if you aren't bright enough to not click on links that don't interest you, then you have more serious problems than worrying about whether the government is adequately protecting you from Google.
Never safe to cross US borders? I'll be the first to admit that I don't do it often as I don't have the funds but I have done it a few times (once each direction a few months ago) and all 5 people in my party made it across safely. I guess you could say we are so naive that we didn't even realize were were risking life or limb to do so. As far as I could tell, the thousands of others doing so on the same day also made it safely across.
I distrust the media quite a bit and wholeheartedly believe there are some stories they are simply sitting on or not even looking for but, honestly, I cannot even imagine the level of paranoia it takes to believe how many billions or trillions* of deaths, maimings and/or incarcerations are happening each year at the borders and being swept under the rug to make those millions of successful ones that we do know about seem insignificant in comparison.
Of course they want you to pass the driving test to get the license. They need to make sure you've figured out that both interpretations of "right side of the road" mean the same thing.
My guess is that every doctor is licensed for it. At least every doctor (MD, DO) in the US gets a DEA number that allows them to prescribe (and dispense if they want that hassle) controlled substances.
Rights in Europe most definitely are based on current law AKA what the relevant government currently says you have. The notion of rights being endowed by a creator and an inalienable part of being alive never really caught on over there.
Unfortunately, that notion is fast disappearing here in the States as well.
Really. If that were the case, then the whole thing behind this thread wouldn't exist as you wouldn't be asking Google to remove what someone else posted.
And even in America that consent is required for commercial uses. News reporting and such are not considered commercial.
I would argue that your acquaintances posting photos of you at a party (or wherever) is micro-journalism while still supporting limits such as bathroom, changing room, etc.
"You have the right to bear arms, I have the right to not allow your weapons in my store/on my property." That depends on which state you live in. Some states are hypocritical in saying that as a proprietor you have given up your first amendment right of assembly with like-minded individuals (by not allowing you to not associate with non-like-minded ones) but have granted you the right to discriminate based on the level of self-protection your customer wants to have. Other states are using the same legal argument that takes away the first amendment right to also restrict the other one.
Not agreeing or disagreeing on the patent side of things but I think that China had some other issues going on that might have something to do with their level of innovation. Instead of risking starting a flame war by suggesting that Chairman Mao's policies might have had something to do with innovation, especially in the technical arena, I'll just let the honest reader ponder that possibility quietly.
And all that Teamster nonsense was not in play back in the 80s. i worked summers during high school going out on routes for a company Hostess (ITT-CBC at the time) had contracted to manage deliveries to Southern Utah and parts of Arizona and Nevada. It made economic sense because we were also delivering potato chips for a regional company and canned goods, etc. to restaurants. The Teamster demands shut that down so Hostess immediately lost access to a small portion of their market as I am certain we weren't the only company doing that.
And the union workers chose to go on unemployment. So yeah, why lose another few percentage points of pay when I can collect my paycheck for doing nothing?
45 days? they must have added some preservatives since I was delivering them n the mid-80s. We missed rotating a couple once and 4 days after their expiration date, they were covered with green not-goodness.
Well... If all you do-gooder types would stop asking to pay for everyone's healthcare, maybe you wouldn't have to complain so much about everyone's lifestyle.
Speaking of having to pay for healthcare being an excuse to control lifestyles... I hear that certain lifestyles run a much higher risk of contracting diseases that are long-term and costly to treat. Maybe we should outlaw such lifestyles on the pretext of not wanting to pay for the downstream healthcare costs. Just saying.
Would it be a good law if it discussed the size of your hard drive or ram sticks or monitor or whatever other piece of electronic/computer geear you want to substitute?
Would it be a good law if it discussed the absolute size of engine in your car (or electric motor as the case may be)?
Also, why would it have been acceptable to sell 18 ounces of soda with 2 ounces of rum mixed in but not 20 ounces of soda? Are those 2 ounces of rum really that much better for me than an extra 2 ounces of soda?
If it was so good, why could they sell me a 2-liter bottle but not a 64 ounce cup? Are the extra ~3.6 ounces really better for me as long as they are sealed in plastic?
Slashdot Mirror
I will agree that regulating the content of ads can be the function of government* but regulating how they appear on a web-page? Nah.
*I believe it is in the public interest to use the force of law and threat of imprisonment or wealth confiscation to reduce outright lies from being in advertising. I'm not wholly convinced that outlawing the advertising of legally sold products is in the public interest (FYI, I am an adherent of a religion that frowns upon the use of tobacco). Placing ads in newspapers that are styled identically to the actual news articles and read like the actual news articles? That is a bit dodgy but if there are no outright falsehoods, then what does it really matter?
If it relates to your search then it is relevant to your search and following the link will give you information you were looking for.
If it isn't relevant to your search you should be able to notice that and ignore it. If you can't notice that your searched for "naked cats" and aren't sure whether a link to the local Chevy dealer might have pictures of ugly felines, then I'm not sure why you bothered typing words into a search page anyway.
If you aren't bright enough to notice that an "ad" is not related to what you were searching for and ignore it, then you have more serious problems than worrying about whether the government is adequately protecting you from Google.
If the ad is related to your search, why do you care if Google got paid to display it or not. You asked Google to give you information related to a bunch of words and they did.
if you aren't bright enough to not click on links that don't interest you, then you have more serious problems than worrying about whether the government is adequately protecting you from Google.
Yes, this is an exact duplicate of my previous comment but this guy actually admitted to being that "not bright" so I couldn't resist.
Shocked, I tell. Just shocked. Shocked and dismayed, I am, that an AC on slashdot would suggest that Microsoft was behaving in a manner less socially acceptable to said poster than Google.
If you aren't bright enough to notice that an "ad" is not related to what you were searching for and ignore it, then you have more serious problems than worrying about whether the government is adequately protecting you from Google.
If the ad is related to your search, why do you care if Google got paid to display it or not. You asked Google to give you information related to a bunch of words and they did.
if you aren't bright enough to not click on links that don't interest you, then you have more serious problems than worrying about whether the government is adequately protecting you from Google.
That last sentence is sound advice in general, not just for flying.
Never safe to cross US borders? I'll be the first to admit that I don't do it often as I don't have the funds but I have done it a few times (once each direction a few months ago) and all 5 people in my party made it across safely. I guess you could say we are so naive that we didn't even realize were were risking life or limb to do so. As far as I could tell, the thousands of others doing so on the same day also made it safely across.
I distrust the media quite a bit and wholeheartedly believe there are some stories they are simply sitting on or not even looking for but, honestly, I cannot even imagine the level of paranoia it takes to believe how many billions or trillions* of deaths, maimings and/or incarcerations are happening each year at the borders and being swept under the rug to make those millions of successful ones that we do know about seem insignificant in comparison.
*don't even start on that absurdity.
Of course they want you to pass the driving test to get the license. They need to make sure you've figured out that both interpretations of "right side of the road" mean the same thing.
If only they watched Glenn Beck. They might then figure out that they aren't actually doing the job they were supposedly* hired to do.
*As in the job that actually fits the name and as opposed to the job according to how the current administration wants it done.
My guess is that every doctor is licensed for it. At least every doctor (MD, DO) in the US gets a DEA number that allows them to prescribe (and dispense if they want that hassle) controlled substances.
If anybody seriously thinks customs agents are searching everybody's ipods and such to see, then they are simply delusional.
Rights in Europe most definitely are based on current law AKA what the relevant government currently says you have. The notion of rights being endowed by a creator and an inalienable part of being alive never really caught on over there.
Unfortunately, that notion is fast disappearing here in the States as well.
Really. If that were the case, then the whole thing behind this thread wouldn't exist as you wouldn't be asking Google to remove what someone else posted.
And even in America that consent is required for commercial uses. News reporting and such are not considered commercial.
I would argue that your acquaintances posting photos of you at a party (or wherever) is micro-journalism while still supporting limits such as bathroom, changing room, etc.
"You have the right to bear arms, I have the right to not allow your weapons in my store/on my property." That depends on which state you live in. Some states are hypocritical in saying that as a proprietor you have given up your first amendment right of assembly with like-minded individuals (by not allowing you to not associate with non-like-minded ones) but have granted you the right to discriminate based on the level of self-protection your customer wants to have. Other states are using the same legal argument that takes away the first amendment right to also restrict the other one.
Probably but he would only get lumped in with every left- and right-wing nutjob (extreme ends) wanting to burn everything they disagree with.
Well, it was meant to be a circular reference to the GP post's definition of a meter.
Maybe you have not sufficiently convinced them that you won't be printing those awful guns (shudder!!!) with them.
Not agreeing or disagreeing on the patent side of things but I think that China had some other issues going on that might have something to do with their level of innovation. Instead of risking starting a flame war by suggesting that Chairman Mao's policies might have had something to do with innovation, especially in the technical arena, I'll just let the honest reader ponder that possibility quietly.
And all that Teamster nonsense was not in play back in the 80s. i worked summers during high school going out on routes for a company Hostess (ITT-CBC at the time) had contracted to manage deliveries to Southern Utah and parts of Arizona and Nevada. It made economic sense because we were also delivering potato chips for a regional company and canned goods, etc. to restaurants. The Teamster demands shut that down so Hostess immediately lost access to a small portion of their market as I am certain we weren't the only company doing that.
And the union workers chose to go on unemployment. So yeah, why lose another few percentage points of pay when I can collect my paycheck for doing nothing?
but have you tried them deep-fried at the county fair?
45 days? they must have added some preservatives since I was delivering them n the mid-80s. We missed rotating a couple once and 4 days after their expiration date, they were covered with green not-goodness.
Well... If all you do-gooder types would stop asking to pay for everyone's healthcare, maybe you wouldn't have to complain so much about everyone's lifestyle.
Speaking of having to pay for healthcare being an excuse to control lifestyles... I hear that certain lifestyles run a much higher risk of contracting diseases that are long-term and costly to treat. Maybe we should outlaw such lifestyles on the pretext of not wanting to pay for the downstream healthcare costs. Just saying.
Would it be a good law if it discussed the size of your hard drive or ram sticks or monitor or whatever other piece of electronic/computer geear you want to substitute?
Would it be a good law if it discussed the absolute size of engine in your car (or electric motor as the case may be)?
Also, why would it have been acceptable to sell 18 ounces of soda with 2 ounces of rum mixed in but not 20 ounces of soda? Are those 2 ounces of rum really that much better for me than an extra 2 ounces of soda?
If it was so good, why could they sell me a 2-liter bottle but not a 64 ounce cup? Are the extra ~3.6 ounces really better for me as long as they are sealed in plastic?
A second is how much time elapses as light travels exactly 299792458 meters through a vacuum.