I searched for his name for a 'vile childish "definition"' once and got exactly what I was looking for. Those who wanted to see the guy's website should just click the link below it.
As for Obama, there are many people who have spent a good deal of effort to link his name to all kinds of things. None the less, when I search for 'Obama' I don't get a website about Socialist Muslims as my top link. The difference is that Obama is a generally respectful human being as politicians go. Santorum brought this on himself in a way that someone like Obama simply never will. If more people rolled their eyes at the definition, than those who gave it a nod, it wouldn't be #1.
Movies have the advantage of being able to show you a story the same way every time, and they can refine every piece. Thats a big advantage.
Videogames put you into situations and give you a practical connection to what is going on. Its an advantage, but its more difficult to utilize.
I'll never forget Final Fantasy VII, the first RPG where a party member dies. People die in movies all the time, but in a game, it actually effects you on a practical. You can't play that character any more. You won't get to use her future abilities, you won't be able to take advantage of her stats, and nothing you can do will change that. Sure, thats nothing compared to an actual person dying, but having even a small amount of actual loss gives you a different perspective, in a way non-interactive media cannot.
Well I would say if the person playing is having fun, the developers are doing it right.
Its like pitting SWTOR against Minecraft.
SWTOR is a story driven game taken up in large part with interactive cut scenes, sitting ontop of a standard MMO.
Minecraft is an endless world to explore and develop, relying on the player to simply enjoy and manipulate the enviorment.
I like them both, and twisted metal was fun, but I have spent more time player SWTOR.
This didn't happen because some guy did it to Santorum. This happened because Santorum attacked a portion of the population and was refuted in a way that was both graphic and spoke to the nature of Santorum's bigotry. Sure the racists on the far tip of the right wing could make all kinds of vulgar depictions of obama and put them on the internet, (and they have,) but when people see them they roll their eyes and move on. When people see spreading santorum, they don't roll their eyes, they nod.
People have tried to do this to Obama and they can't, because no such protest exists.
In no way am I saying there aren't legitimate protests about Obama, but nothing that would make America as a whole decide a website like this one was fitting.
Shopping physically has limited anonymity. But why shouldn't anonymity grow> as technology progresses. The ability to shop, and generally interact commercially, anonymously is a good thing. Beyond what's needed for fraud prevention, and the ability to outlaw selling some things, what possible moral good can come from the government or my neighbors knowing what I'm buying. High fences really do make for good neighbors.
Technology does exist to help anonymity, if that is what you want from it. Those tools exist and Google will be none the wiser so long as you don't want services that rely on their ability to know who you are.
I just think its strange people seem to think that others have moral obligation to ensure your privacy when using their services. (assuming there is not part of the agreement of course)
Sure. Still doesn't stop someone from physically seeing you at the store. You could wear a mask and sunglasses, but it may attract more attention than it helps prevent.
You do realize there are other search engines out there, some of which at least purport to respect privacy?
Sure, and that's a policy. You chose to use one that promises to forget things after you leave. Whats your point? There is no moral obligation to have such a policy, just like there is no moral obligation for a small store owner to not notice that you like to buy a particular brand of pretzels.
When your gov't is telling its people that normal, everyday practices used by millions of average, law abiding citizens are suspicious activities denoting terrorist activities, the gov't is out of control in its quest for control/power over the populace.
I think you misspelled atrocious, infuriating, insulting, insane, or something.
Whoa there, you seem upset. This flier isn't a law, they just want people to point out things. If you want to protest the ability to hold people without due process, be my guest, but honestly this is just a silly over reaction.
It is important to remember that just because someone’s speech,
actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not
mean that he or s he is suspicious.
Alright, they at least have the arbitrary discrimination disclaimer. Lets take this one step at a time. Slow but sure...
Its all tradeoffs. When you go to the store to buy something, people have an opportunity to notice your activities. If you use Google, its absurd to demand they forget what you tell them to of the encounter. The government should have certain limits, because we cannot chose to not do business with them, but to pretend that perfect anonymity will exist just seems silly.
If all they are asking is for Google to optimize its network usage, as the article seems to imply, go all out.
If its telling Google to try and control the amount of bandwidth the users decide to use, well, I think they are going to have a little trouble getting that done.
Depends on what you are doing. Want a warent to force someone to take a DUI test? Easy. Body turns up in someone's back yard? Easy. Placing GPS on someone, a tad more time consuming.
Though from the length they were tracking, I am betting waiting a few days wouldn't have killed them.
An important thing to note that this case was obvious to the justices because a tracking device was placed on the suspects private property. This ruling is very limited in time constraints, and methodology. Can they use GPS tracking on things already present on the vehicle? No answer on that yet.
So when someone gets cancer are you going to tell them to workout more, or do you want to test their gene expression profile and match it against a drug that targets a suggested pathway?
Good to hear. I know plenty of my professors stopped asking for textbooks at all and used more online resources (or just expected us to look up those kinds of things ourselves)
I still worry about the administrators though. Bet a lot of money is running through those bookstores.
In effect our consitution protects the press, which was a technology to bring about free speech. I doubt anyone would object that the internet is an extension of that. But then again, that doesn't demand that the government build you a press.
We should just subsidize adding more supplemental material to wikipeida, and then making an app to collect it for review, then compile it into book form.
In the case of textbooks, its not the schools robbing the students so much as publishers robbing students. I am sure there are kickbacks involved to keep the whole thing rolling, but cutting out the middleman is probably in the student's best interests.
Slashdot Mirror
I searched for his name for a 'vile childish "definition"' once and got exactly what I was looking for. Those who wanted to see the guy's website should just click the link below it.
As for Obama, there are many people who have spent a good deal of effort to link his name to all kinds of things. None the less, when I search for 'Obama' I don't get a website about Socialist Muslims as my top link. The difference is that Obama is a generally respectful human being as politicians go. Santorum brought this on himself in a way that someone like Obama simply never will. If more people rolled their eyes at the definition, than those who gave it a nod, it wouldn't be #1.
Santorum's problem, not Google's.
Different mediums provide different advantages.
Movies have the advantage of being able to show you a story the same way every time, and they can refine every piece. Thats a big advantage.
Videogames put you into situations and give you a practical connection to what is going on. Its an advantage, but its more difficult to utilize.
I'll never forget Final Fantasy VII, the first RPG where a party member dies. People die in movies all the time, but in a game, it actually effects you on a practical. You can't play that character any more. You won't get to use her future abilities, you won't be able to take advantage of her stats, and nothing you can do will change that. Sure, thats nothing compared to an actual person dying, but having even a small amount of actual loss gives you a different perspective, in a way non-interactive media cannot.
huh? Google hasn't manipulated anything. You sound confused
No one has been silenced. Anyone who wants to actually see Santorum's web page can just click on that next link.
Well I would say if the person playing is having fun, the developers are doing it right.
Its like pitting SWTOR against Minecraft.
SWTOR is a story driven game taken up in large part with interactive cut scenes, sitting ontop of a standard MMO.
Minecraft is an endless world to explore and develop, relying on the player to simply enjoy and manipulate the enviorment.
I like them both, and twisted metal was fun, but I have spent more time player SWTOR.
This didn't happen because some guy did it to Santorum. This happened because Santorum attacked a portion of the population and was refuted in a way that was both graphic and spoke to the nature of Santorum's bigotry. Sure the racists on the far tip of the right wing could make all kinds of vulgar depictions of obama and put them on the internet, (and they have,) but when people see them they roll their eyes and move on. When people see spreading santorum, they don't roll their eyes, they nod.
People have tried to do this to Obama and they can't, because no such protest exists.
In no way am I saying there aren't legitimate protests about Obama, but nothing that would make America as a whole decide a website like this one was fitting.
There is really no evidence that any 'gaming' is going on.
On the internet, the website defaming his name is simply more popular than he is.
Yes, I believe you have happened over a bit of sarcasm. Note the distinguishing language, such as the use of 'of course'
You can draw Drew Barrymore doing anything you want, so long as you aren't trying to tell people its true.
Shopping physically has limited anonymity. But why shouldn't anonymity grow> as technology progresses. The ability to shop, and generally interact commercially, anonymously is a good thing. Beyond what's needed for fraud prevention, and the ability to outlaw selling some things, what possible moral good can come from the government or my neighbors knowing what I'm buying. High fences really do make for good neighbors.
Technology does exist to help anonymity, if that is what you want from it. Those tools exist and Google will be none the wiser so long as you don't want services that rely on their ability to know who you are.
I just think its strange people seem to think that others have moral obligation to ensure your privacy when using their services. (assuming there is not part of the agreement of course)
Use cash?
Sure. Still doesn't stop someone from physically seeing you at the store. You could wear a mask and sunglasses, but it may attract more attention than it helps prevent.
You do realize there are other search engines out there, some of which at least purport to respect privacy?
Sure, and that's a policy. You chose to use one that promises to forget things after you leave. Whats your point? There is no moral obligation to have such a policy, just like there is no moral obligation for a small store owner to not notice that you like to buy a particular brand of pretzels.
When your gov't is telling its people that normal, everyday practices used by millions of average, law abiding citizens are suspicious activities denoting terrorist activities, the gov't is out of control in its quest for control/power over the populace.
I think you misspelled atrocious, infuriating, insulting, insane, or something.
Whoa there, you seem upset. This flier isn't a law, they just want people to point out things. If you want to protest the ability to hold people without due process, be my guest, but honestly this is just a silly over reaction.
It is important to remember that just because someone’s speech,
actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not
mean that he or s he is suspicious.
Alright, they at least have the arbitrary discrimination disclaimer. Lets take this one step at a time. Slow but sure...
Its all tradeoffs. When you go to the store to buy something, people have an opportunity to notice your activities. If you use Google, its absurd to demand they forget what you tell them to of the encounter. The government should have certain limits, because we cannot chose to not do business with them, but to pretend that perfect anonymity will exist just seems silly.
That being said, this flyer is hilarious.
Suspicious communications using VOIP or communicating through a PC game
MMO Guilds, consider yourselves warned...
If all they are asking is for Google to optimize its network usage, as the article seems to imply, go all out.
If its telling Google to try and control the amount of bandwidth the users decide to use, well, I think they are going to have a little trouble getting that done.
Sure, its my signature, but I take no responsibility for any decisions.
Gotta love politics.
Which would lead to police breaking the rules regularly with policies to dampen the blow of punishment, or reimburse officers on big cases.
Sucks that he got away with it, but this is the only way.
Depends on what you are doing. Want a warent to force someone to take a DUI test? Easy. Body turns up in someone's back yard? Easy. Placing GPS on someone, a tad more time consuming.
Though from the length they were tracking, I am betting waiting a few days wouldn't have killed them.
An important thing to note that this case was obvious to the justices because a tracking device was placed on the suspects private property. This ruling is very limited in time constraints, and methodology. Can they use GPS tracking on things already present on the vehicle? No answer on that yet.
This was clearly intentional on Rand's part to get a photo-op. This doesn't prevent him from still being right, however.
So when someone gets cancer are you going to tell them to workout more, or do you want to test their gene expression profile and match it against a drug that targets a suggested pathway?
Good to hear. I know plenty of my professors stopped asking for textbooks at all and used more online resources (or just expected us to look up those kinds of things ourselves)
I still worry about the administrators though. Bet a lot of money is running through those bookstores.
In effect our consitution protects the press, which was a technology to bring about free speech. I doubt anyone would object that the internet is an extension of that. But then again, that doesn't demand that the government build you a press.
We should just subsidize adding more supplemental material to wikipeida, and then making an app to collect it for review, then compile it into book form.
In the case of textbooks, its not the schools robbing the students so much as publishers robbing students. I am sure there are kickbacks involved to keep the whole thing rolling, but cutting out the middleman is probably in the student's best interests.
So basically they want Wikipedia in a book form?