Google - by itself, as a word - implies nothing about internet search. Ostensibly, it's a number ( in fact it's a homonym of googol, coined to mean 10^100).
If the summary is correct, essentially they're arguing that Google's market success means they lose their trademark ala generification like kleenex, xerox, etc. But it doesn't make any sense at all to assert "There is no single word other than google that conveys the action of searching the Internet using any search engine" without intrinsically crediting the entity Google with the credit for it meaning that.
It seems like a pretty arbitrary taking to simply de-list their owned trademark by government fiat, PARTICULARLY when it's not like they're abusing it.
....isn't the goofball woman that takes nearly 2 hours to get ready in the morning, lives in an odd place, or tolerates a ridiculous commute for a barely-subsistence wage job in the MOST EXPENSIVE place in the US.
It's that the NYT can cheerfully describe her as " Ms. James is a standard American office worker" and nobody calls them on their complete bullshit.
...Hollywood is about money, and money is about reality, not advancing Social Justice.
Being fat (and I am) is objectively BAD.
It's bad for your health, it's bad for your life. And mostly, it's due to choices made.
More importantly (from Hollywood's point of view) is that, fetishists aside, nobody finds fat people sexy. Hollywood is about putting beautiful (to the point of being frankly almost inhuman) idealized people on the screen. Fat people are not that, not matter how many times you INSIST it.
"She may be 300 lbs but she's beautiful" You may even be right, she might be objectively beautiful, but: - it's DESPITE her weight, not because of it, and - I pretty nearly guarantee that she would be MORE beautiful if she wasn't fat. Not concentration-camp skinny, but not fat.
....can we please be sure we're actually talking about what he wrote, and not what "everyone says he wrote"?
It seems there's a pretty sizable difference. Gizmodo stripped all links, charts, footnotes, and data from the document before tearing it apart. Other sources (including the Economist & the BBC) blithely go with the 'he stated women aren't capable of doing the work' which is complete bullshit.
I've wondered for years why theaters keep raising ticket prices - it's like a MAJOR disproportional disincentive to go, when (as you say) all their revenue is from concessions anyway.
Hell, they could even say "free entry, if you buy the big pop/popcorn" and really make a killing. NO fee to the studio, 99% profit on popcorn, 98.5% profit on pop.
Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites? Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?
I'm guessing not.
In any case, I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...
I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom...like this.
...all you want, but don't pretend you understand what Free Speech is about.
It's the most odious, most repellent, most hateful speech that we MUST protect. It doesn't mean that we listen politely, it doesn't mean that we must give it a fair listen at all.
But to shut it down completely? You're going to a dangerous, dangerous place.
You know what? As kids, we all try looking at the sun once or more. And our eyes didn't melt, nor did we go blind.
Occasionally in life, we are dazzled by a blindingly bright light. Life goes on.
I've got glasses. They seem pretty good. I'm going to use them. I genuinely don't know that they are certified. It's literally impossible to tell...and really, I don't care.
I'm not saying it's not worth being careful. I'm saying that I'm not going to cringe in terror at the idea of looking through only-90%-good-enough lenses for a moment or two at a time. (shrug)
I laugh at the people getting in a massive twist over "OMG, are my solar shades actually perfect?"...while destroying their hearing playing music 24/7 too loud, or who drive 10-20mph over the speed limit regularly.
"This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change,..."
Not even sure what that means in english, but yes, of course, there must be some way to connect volcanic eruptions (handwaving) & climate change, right?
The point (from the seller) is that he is selling (he says) completely authentic, legit glasses and provided proof of such to Amazon.
As a consumer, there is almost no way to prove it. Anyone can print whatever the hell they want on the glasses, all the certifications, link to authentic websites, etc - nobody would catch that in time. They can take the EXACT text from legit glasses and print them there.
We bought some months ago (not from this guy). They said on Amazon that they were certified, which is probably the reason for the sudden decertification by Amazon, trying to shore up their legal defenses when a bunch of counterfeits hurt peoples eyes, and while a bunch of morons (with otherwise good glasses) use them poorly and hurt their eyes.
Looking through a number of sites, pretty much all you find on the official ones is "buy them from these (10, 15, 20) official sites"...useless, because they're all sold out.
What I can find is that if, on a bright day, you can still see NOTHING through the glasses except the sun or extremely bright lights, they're probably ok. That's what we're going with, and common sense: we're not going to stare unblinking at the sun (through glasses) for minutes on end. Look, see how far it's gotten, then look away for a while. If your eyes hurt, stop.
Disney is FAMOUS for their shitty media delivery decisions.
They are always late to a new tech, after castigating it for years as a new way for pirates to steal their crap.
Then they come out with a particularly crappy version of whatever the new tech is, crippled from an iteration about 4 years previous, in order to 'prevent piracy' but which is really a naked grab for more revenue.
I'm genuinely curious how people keep saying "solar is competitive now" when it's getting something like 35x-40x the subsidies per megawatt hour than things like coal?
Are you not aware of that difference, or doesn't it really matter to you?
Is it really "average Americans" dying younger, or is it the boat-anchor of a certain demographic having a misleadingly disproportionate impact from their shitty lives, as they do on murder, other crime, infant mortality, and a host of other social quantifiers?
Erase that demographic Job, and the USA suddenly measures comparably to its European ancestor-states.
We need to decide as a society if women are delicate snowflakes that constantly need protection and whose inviolability is paramount. In this world, we
Or, women are just PEOPLE. A picture of them is no different than say a picture of a man... you know, also a PERSON. *Nobody* in their right might would assert that a clothed picture of a man would ever be "victimizing" them. So why are women particularly vulnerable?
Even an upskirt shot with undies is simply showing a piece of her body with clothing. How is that intrinsically different than their foot with a sock, or a shoulder with a sleeve over it?
Unless, of course, you're asserting that the vagina and breast are somehow magically special and require special treatment?
You cannot insist simultaneously that women are "special" when you want them to be, but demand that they be treated "like everyone else" when you want them to be.
Well, you CAN demand it - but you're simply a hypocrite.
PS thanks for the site suggestion. Will be reviewing and doing disgusting things while doing it, because "victims" turn me on. If they were just people that didn't give a shit? Not so much.
Leaked, in this case, means leaked 'around' the Trump administration.
As the draft report (I understand) would require the last "OK" from the White House before becoming a final report, it's widely understood that this wouldn't be forthcoming from the current administration so (as is the practice in Washington) it was 'leaked' in really its final version pursuant to its authors' or the leakers' personal agenda, not really as a "government" report (insofar as the "government" is those elected to office).
I suspect that this practice - widely regarded as reasonable and fair during this administration considering the scathing disregard held for the President by many of the mandarins in Washington and the Press Corps - is going to become the norm that will eventually come back around and bite them in the ass.
I really don't care if there's an ideological echo chamber at Google. I'd guess he's probably right, but if it pisses him off so badly, he doesn't have to work there either.
However, we can't be hypocrites.
If we are ok with Google stomping its ideology into its employees, then we should be equally ok with other ideologues pushing their private causes onto their employees, or inviting them to leave if they don't like it, such as Chik Fil A.
If it's ok for Google, it should be ok for Hobby Lobby, no?
Slashdot Mirror
...mightn't it be useful somewhere to list the apps that were pulled, and or their authors?
"People often ask me, do you intimidate people with your knowledge," says Monkman
So, not so much an expert in basic human interaction, then?
Honestly that was the point of my comment, but I fear Poe's Law got in my way.
I just got torched for insisting that Google de-listing 'hate sites' is a dangerous slippery slope, prompting my post here.
Google - by itself, as a word - implies nothing about internet search.
Ostensibly, it's a number ( in fact it's a homonym of googol, coined to mean 10^100).
If the summary is correct, essentially they're arguing that Google's market success means they lose their trademark ala generification like kleenex, xerox, etc. But it doesn't make any sense at all to assert "There is no single word other than google that conveys the action of searching the Internet using any search engine" without intrinsically crediting the entity Google with the credit for it meaning that.
It seems like a pretty arbitrary taking to simply de-list their owned trademark by government fiat, PARTICULARLY when it's not like they're abusing it.
That's a relief.
I was afraid Elon was going to join the "pro killer robot" faction.
...so this means that people like the KKK and white supremacists can finally avoid being censored?
That's good, right?
I'm wondering if the "issue" had more to do with a missed deadline for a customer than an actual problem with the software...
So you're saying that bakers don't HAVE to provide wedding cakes to gay couples because they disagree with their ideology?
Funny, the Colorado district court disagrees with you.
http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...
....isn't the goofball woman that takes nearly 2 hours to get ready in the morning, lives in an odd place, or tolerates a ridiculous commute for a barely-subsistence wage job in the MOST EXPENSIVE place in the US.
It's that the NYT can cheerfully describe her as " Ms. James is a standard American office worker" and nobody calls them on their complete bullshit.
...Hollywood is about money, and money is about reality, not advancing Social Justice.
Being fat (and I am) is objectively BAD.
It's bad for your health, it's bad for your life. And mostly, it's due to choices made.
More importantly (from Hollywood's point of view) is that, fetishists aside, nobody finds fat people sexy. Hollywood is about putting beautiful (to the point of being frankly almost inhuman) idealized people on the screen. Fat people are not that, not matter how many times you INSIST it.
"She may be 300 lbs but she's beautiful"
You may even be right, she might be objectively beautiful, but:
- it's DESPITE her weight, not because of it, and
- I pretty nearly guarantee that she would be MORE beautiful if she wasn't fat. Not concentration-camp skinny, but not fat.
....can we please be sure we're actually talking about what he wrote, and not what "everyone says he wrote"?
It seems there's a pretty sizable difference.
Gizmodo stripped all links, charts, footnotes, and data from the document before tearing it apart. Other sources (including the Economist & the BBC) blithely go with the 'he stated women aren't capable of doing the work' which is complete bullshit.
I've wondered for years why theaters keep raising ticket prices - it's like a MAJOR disproportional disincentive to go, when (as you say) all their revenue is from concessions anyway.
Hell, they could even say "free entry, if you buy the big pop/popcorn" and really make a killing. NO fee to the studio, 99% profit on popcorn, 98.5% profit on pop.
Would you be so cheerful if ISPs refused to say, host LGBTQ sites?
Or, say, a "private business" refusing to rent an apartment to a black family?
I'm guessing not.
In any case, I'm pretty sure that it was settled that NO, private businesses do not get to pick and choose who they serve when the court determined the bakery DID have to make a wedding cake for the gay marriage: http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...
I believe that was widely hailed as a precedent setting verdict that would stop those 'closed minded' businesses from constraining people's freedom ...like this.
...all you want, but don't pretend you understand what Free Speech is about.
It's the most odious, most repellent, most hateful speech that we MUST protect. It doesn't mean that we listen politely, it doesn't mean that we must give it a fair listen at all.
But to shut it down completely? You're going to a dangerous, dangerous place.
You know what?
As kids, we all try looking at the sun once or more.
And our eyes didn't melt, nor did we go blind.
Occasionally in life, we are dazzled by a blindingly bright light. Life goes on.
I've got glasses. They seem pretty good. I'm going to use them. I genuinely don't know that they are certified. It's literally impossible to tell...and really, I don't care.
I'm not saying it's not worth being careful. I'm saying that I'm not going to cringe in terror at the idea of looking through only-90%-good-enough lenses for a moment or two at a time. (shrug)
I laugh at the people getting in a massive twist over "OMG, are my solar shades actually perfect?" ...while destroying their hearing playing music 24/7 too loud, or who drive 10-20mph over the speed limit regularly.
"This is in addition to 47 already known about and eruption would melt more ice in region affected by climate change,..."
Not even sure what that means in english, but yes, of course, there must be some way to connect volcanic eruptions (handwaving) & climate change, right?
I don't think that's the point, actually.
The point (from the seller) is that he is selling (he says) completely authentic, legit glasses and provided proof of such to Amazon.
As a consumer, there is almost no way to prove it. Anyone can print whatever the hell they want on the glasses, all the certifications, link to authentic websites, etc - nobody would catch that in time. They can take the EXACT text from legit glasses and print them there.
We bought some months ago (not from this guy). They said on Amazon that they were certified, which is probably the reason for the sudden decertification by Amazon, trying to shore up their legal defenses when a bunch of counterfeits hurt peoples eyes, and while a bunch of morons (with otherwise good glasses) use them poorly and hurt their eyes.
Looking through a number of sites, pretty much all you find on the official ones is "buy them from these (10, 15, 20) official sites"...useless, because they're all sold out.
What I can find is that if, on a bright day, you can still see NOTHING through the glasses except the sun or extremely bright lights, they're probably ok. That's what we're going with, and common sense: we're not going to stare unblinking at the sun (through glasses) for minutes on end. Look, see how far it's gotten, then look away for a while. If your eyes hurt, stop.
Disney is FAMOUS for their shitty media delivery decisions.
They are always late to a new tech, after castigating it for years as a new way for pirates to steal their crap.
Then they come out with a particularly crappy version of whatever the new tech is, crippled from an iteration about 4 years previous, in order to 'prevent piracy' but which is really a naked grab for more revenue.
Anyone remember the original DivX?
I'm genuinely curious how people keep saying "solar is competitive now" when it's getting something like 35x-40x the subsidies per megawatt hour than things like coal?
Are you not aware of that difference, or doesn't it really matter to you?
Is it really "average Americans" dying younger, or is it the boat-anchor of a certain demographic having a misleadingly disproportionate impact from their shitty lives, as they do on murder, other crime, infant mortality, and a host of other social quantifiers?
Erase that demographic Job, and the USA suddenly measures comparably to its European ancestor-states.
I don't particularly want to work for Apple, but goddamn do I want to work for Johny Srouji.
Really?
We need to decide as a society if women are delicate snowflakes that constantly need protection and whose inviolability is paramount. In this world, we
Or, women are just PEOPLE. A picture of them is no different than say a picture of a man... you know, also a PERSON. *Nobody* in their right might would assert that a clothed picture of a man would ever be "victimizing" them. So why are women particularly vulnerable?
Even an upskirt shot with undies is simply showing a piece of her body with clothing. How is that intrinsically different than their foot with a sock, or a shoulder with a sleeve over it?
Unless, of course, you're asserting that the vagina and breast are somehow magically special and require special treatment?
You cannot insist simultaneously that women are "special" when you want them to be, but demand that they be treated "like everyone else" when you want them to be.
Well, you CAN demand it - but you're simply a hypocrite.
PS thanks for the site suggestion. Will be reviewing and doing disgusting things while doing it, because "victims" turn me on. If they were just people that didn't give a shit? Not so much.
Leaked, in this case, means leaked 'around' the Trump administration.
As the draft report (I understand) would require the last "OK" from the White House before becoming a final report, it's widely understood that this wouldn't be forthcoming from the current administration so (as is the practice in Washington) it was 'leaked' in really its final version pursuant to its authors' or the leakers' personal agenda, not really as a "government" report (insofar as the "government" is those elected to office).
I suspect that this practice - widely regarded as reasonable and fair during this administration considering the scathing disregard held for the President by many of the mandarins in Washington and the Press Corps - is going to become the norm that will eventually come back around and bite them in the ass.
Well, he's not wrong is he?
I really don't care if there's an ideological echo chamber at Google. I'd guess he's probably right, but if it pisses him off so badly, he doesn't have to work there either.
However, we can't be hypocrites.
If we are ok with Google stomping its ideology into its employees, then we should be equally ok with other ideologues pushing their private causes onto their employees, or inviting them to leave if they don't like it, such as Chik Fil A.
If it's ok for Google, it should be ok for Hobby Lobby, no?