Google Local enables you to search the entire web for just the stores and businesses in a specific neighborhood. Get the name, address and phone number of a business near you or in any zip code across the US.
So, nope. Looks like it's only for the US at the moment.
Google seems to be entering just about every area.
Maybe their idea is to make sure that they are well established in several areas in a way that they are indispensable - the best search engine, good e-mail service, business tools and what not.
That way, even if Google did risk crashing down, or if something did happen, people would like not that happening. That, and the benign image they portray, may work to their favour.
'Third world is a term originally used to distinguish those nations that neither aligned with the capitalist West, the "First world", nor with the Socialist East, the "Second world".'
Third world has nothing to do with development, it refers to whether you were with the Capitalistic (US) or Communistic (USSR) blocks.
What they probably fail to mention is that this would work only for those places that they have "mined" beforehand.
So, if you are going to a new place, do not expect to have this information - if it's a well known or big place that people frequent and the like, you would have information. Else nothing.
Good idea, but if it's a well known place you would not really need this thing, anyway.
Did anyone else think of Snowcrash when they saw this? It's almost like the world of Snowcrash super-imposed on reality with all the cool stuff.
However, this is also ripe for abuse. I can think of so many people who'd want to "hack" into what you see and do weird things (make you see a fire in places where there is not).
Already, the latest JPEG exploit makes me think of hacking into a system by merely viewing an image - this would make it closer to that reality;-)
Consider how air-travel started out - there were quite a lot of crashes initially, and it took a while before things stabilized. And in the process, we learnt a lot on how things worked.
See, until mistakes are made, there is no scope for us to learn and improve. The safest paths always lead down to stagnation:)
Ofcourse, I'm not saying that we need to go and let people die in the process - merely that unless we try, we would not know. Maybe we will fail occasionally, maybe we will not - but there can be no progress without effort, and no success without the occasional failure.
"...and you don't hint pretentiously that you may be speaking for dozens of other people instead of just yourself."
As a matter of fact, I do happen to know quite a lot of people who consider Mac OS and OSX's UI to be despicable, quite unintuitive and awfully painful to use.
*shrug*
Just because you do not agree with my point of view need not mean there aren't others who don't.
I, for one, do not quite like the inerface of MacOS or OSX. But when I get the opportunity to buy cheap hardware, I would not like to let it pass.
Often, cheap Macs come off for sale on the university's mailing lists. In such cases, I find it easier to just buy these and install Linux on them. It's also easier for me simply because it's an interface I'm quite familiar and comfortable with.
I'm sure there are quite a few users like me out there. Not to beat the looks I get when I show Mac fanatics ppcs running Linux - and besides, a Mac looks cool;-)
As another poster has pointed out in response to the previous two responses, Saddam was acting out of an interest to protect Iraqi oil production and prices, which was being driven down by Kuwait -- at the behest of the US, btw.
So, Iraq attacked Kuwait to protect its interests. And got stabbed in the back. I have no lost love for Saddam, mind you, but unfortunately winners write the story and at times, it is so completely wrong and misinterpreted.
Saddam was acting like he had weapons because no country would like to look defenseless. The UN weapon inspectors were treated badly because they had no business being in a sovereign nation - maybe if EU sent in observers to inspect the US industrial establishments you'd understand.
And oh, Iraq invaded Kuwait *because* Kuwait was the first aggressor in the Gulf War. They were merely trying to protect their interests.
It's sad that a nation trying to protect its interests could be attacked by another on false pretexts, and even get away with it:-/
What's ironic (and sad) is the fact that the US spends so much on war and military, when just a fraction of that would help the UN a real lot.
Unfortunately, the present administration seems more interested in arm-wrestling the UN into accepting it's decisions, at the risk of losing the money that the US owes the UN.
What I meant to highlight was that the UN is unable to solve it's own problems, and has a limited impact on most of the issues that really trouble the world, and has therefore not quite done its job.
The League of Nations failed in stopping WW2, while the UN could do absolutely nothing about the Cold War - agreed, it did not fully escalate into a war - but it was still a very genuine threat. That it did not manifest itself into a war is something we should count as a blessing, and not something I would credit to the UN.
And yeah, while you are right in saying that countries like China should have no right telling you what to read, be aware that a lot of people in the world are feeling the same way about the US, too (am not taking sides here, merely highlighting the fact) -- that's what makes it all the more trickier.
That's mostly a problem of the participating countries which do not want to solve it.
And that was exactly my point.
The UN is helping in this. But you expect it to happen overnight. That's not going to happen.
Nope. People have been "expecting" it to happen for 65 years. My point was merely that the UN has been powerless to stop aggression or the genuine problems that threaten us.
The UN is a global organisation which can survive empires, which can survive governments and which can survive empires because they are not one. As long as the participating countries want it, it can exist.
Yes, as long as the participating countries are themselves not a part to the atrocities. That is not the case today.
There is utter disregard for International Law and sovereignity, human rights and what not. While the UN (or it's "member countries") are powerless to stop it -- or they simply couldn't care less.
You're mostly right, but you're forgetting an important point -- UN is useless if it is powerless against powerful agressors.
Germany grew to be powerful, and when it attacked, most countries did nothing to stop it. You may go ahead and draw the analogy.
Sure, the UN does a lot of other things, such as provide aid and what not. Mind you, so did the League of Nations - which was founded after WW-1 to prevent agressors. UN could no do anything to prevent the Cold War, and neither can it stop aggression today.
It's quite pointless when you are not solving the bigger problems -- Dictatorships across the world, Human Right abuses in a nation that's a member of the Security Council and aggressive nations that attack soveriegn nations with no respect to International borders on various pretexts.
So yes, although the UN indeed *does* do a lot of things, it is quite useless in my eyes.
The UN was created to unite countries, but it's largely ignored by powerful countries *cough* Iraq *cough* - and the Internet is beginning to being largely controlled by big corporations.
The goals of the UN are laudable, but quite honestly they are powerless to do just about anything substantial, except humanitarian and aid-work. What is the use of an International Body when you cannot keep aggressors at check?
From the Blog -
Then bride and groom would unite their virtues and overcome those gloomy vices gnawing at their vitals.
Hmm, what if it happened the other way around? Both of their negatives brought each other down?
Powerful corporations exist in powerful countries whose governments are controlled by powerful corporations.
It also provides for a single point of failure, if the so-called union did happen.
Well, atleast it's being used on something substantial like space travel, rather than on military funding some of the other countries.
Or, are you too blinded by your own prejudice to notice that development is development, no matter what? People need to be motivated, and this is just a means of doing it.
I guess you would rather spend it on conquering some poor nation for it's oil and natural resources, and brand it progress, rather than have a developing nation take steps to not merely enhance the quality of living of its people, but also it's science. FYI -- any progress is progress. NASA isn't going to give the blueprints of its flights to India tomorrow, and the only way that they are going to progress is to do it on their own.
Do you have any suggestions? Or would you rather suggest that until all of the billion people are given television sets and fat burgers so that they can sit on their couches, there should be no progress at all? They're trying to catch up with the rest of the world, give them a break and give credit where it's due.
Well said, but I would like to rephrase your comment as - "Religious education in moderation need not necessarily be harmful" - rather than, "Religious education in moderation is good".
Ofcourse, I do realize that this is more of an opinionated and personal topic, but religion often tends to bring out an Us vs. Them attitude. I could see several problems with religion, but that's something that one can go on harping for ad infinitum, so I'll just say that teaching religion at an impressionable age imposes prejudices that a lifetime of science cannot quite cure.
I personally have nothing against belief in God - but I would not consider religion to be a means to that belief. The problem with religion is not violence, or even cultural beliefs - it's the way it is organized on the pretext of God:)
Ofcourse - it's again a question of such things as upbringing, beliefs and cultural factors - and it is something that people usually tend to be quite strongly prejudiced about (I'm too, so I do know!). But I just wanted to let you know that the statement that, "religious education is good" is not quite something that can be broadly claimed to be true - I'm sure you can appreciate where I'm coming from in making such a statement.
Just my two cents, and cheers! (btw, I spent half my childhood in Tvm, so I do know!:)
Hmm, you've apparently not been to a developing country.
In most developing countries, there are adult literacy programs that people attend -- and force their children to attend. Why? For the simple reason that they do not want their kids to lead the same shitty life that they do.
This is a wide-spread phenomenon, and something that quite correlates to a large chunk of the population from the underdeveloped areas moving into the cities.
And btw, electric power is provided FREE of cost to most farming communities in some states in India -- to help them with things like running the irrigation pumps and the like, as well as to encourage them to start using things like the radio and television.
Progress and better living for your progeny can be a very motivating thing. Especially in a closely family-knit culture like India.
Slashdot Mirror
From the website (emphasis mine)-
Google Local enables you to search the entire web for just the stores and businesses in a specific neighborhood. Get the name, address and phone number of a business near you or in any zip code across the US.
So, nope. Looks like it's only for the US at the moment.
Google seems to be entering just about every area.
Maybe their idea is to make sure that they are well established in several areas in a way that they are indispensable - the best search engine, good e-mail service, business tools and what not.
That way, even if Google did risk crashing down, or if something did happen, people would like not that happening. That, and the benign image they portray, may work to their favour.
I'm talking through my hat, ofcourse.
The original poster was right, you are wrong.
As bluFox pointed out, 3d world refers to Non-Aligned nations.
See Wikipedia's definition.
'Third world is a term originally used to distinguish those nations that neither aligned with the capitalist West, the "First world", nor with the Socialist East, the "Second world".'
Third world has nothing to do with development, it refers to whether you were with the Capitalistic (US) or Communistic (USSR) blocks.
Man, Slashdot. Sheesh.
What they probably fail to mention is that this would work only for those places that they have "mined" beforehand.
So, if you are going to a new place, do not expect to have this information - if it's a well known or big place that people frequent and the like, you would have information. Else nothing.
Good idea, but if it's a well known place you would not really need this thing, anyway.
That is a really cool idea.
;-)
Did anyone else think of Snowcrash when they saw this? It's almost like the world of Snowcrash super-imposed on reality with all the cool stuff.
However, this is also ripe for abuse. I can think of so many people who'd want to "hack" into what you see and do weird things (make you see a fire in places where there is not).
Already, the latest JPEG exploit makes me think of hacking into a system by merely viewing an image - this would make it closer to that reality
Hmm, ofcourse accidents can and will happen.
:)
Consider how air-travel started out - there were quite a lot of crashes initially, and it took a while before things stabilized. And in the process, we learnt a lot on how things worked.
See, until mistakes are made, there is no scope for us to learn and improve. The safest paths always lead down to stagnation
Ofcourse, I'm not saying that we need to go and let people die in the process - merely that unless we try, we would not know. Maybe we will fail occasionally, maybe we will not - but there can be no progress without effort, and no success without the occasional failure.
Just my opinion, ofcourse.
That was bcaus the -ky on my kyboard was not working as it should in thos days.
Looks to me like it's got a mind of it's own.
You do realize that the has an e, right?
It also happens to be the name of my school, you insensitive clod! x-(
I did get the point of your rant - I was merely pointing out that maybe it does have a point, atleast in some cases.
I, for one, think thou art taking this far too seriously =)
"...and you don't hint pretentiously that you may be speaking for dozens of other people instead of just yourself."
As a matter of fact, I do happen to know quite a lot of people who consider Mac OS and OSX's UI to be despicable, quite unintuitive and awfully painful to use.
*shrug*
Just because you do not agree with my point of view need not mean there aren't others who don't.
That is not entirely true.
;-)
I, for one, do not quite like the inerface of MacOS or OSX. But when I get the opportunity to buy cheap hardware, I would not like to let it pass.
Often, cheap Macs come off for sale on the university's mailing lists. In such cases, I find it easier to just buy these and install Linux on them. It's also easier for me simply because it's an interface I'm quite familiar and comfortable with.
I'm sure there are quite a few users like me out there. Not to beat the looks I get when I show Mac fanatics ppcs running Linux - and besides, a Mac looks cool
Nope, this is not true.
As another poster has pointed out in response to the previous two responses, Saddam was acting out of an interest to protect Iraqi oil production and prices, which was being driven down by Kuwait -- at the behest of the US, btw.
So, Iraq attacked Kuwait to protect its interests. And got stabbed in the back. I have no lost love for Saddam, mind you, but unfortunately winners write the story and at times, it is so completely wrong and misinterpreted.
There *were* no WMDs.
:-/
Saddam was acting like he had weapons because no country would like to look defenseless. The UN weapon inspectors were treated badly because they had no business being in a sovereign nation - maybe if EU sent in observers to inspect the US industrial establishments you'd understand.
And oh, Iraq invaded Kuwait *because* Kuwait was the first aggressor in the Gulf War. They were merely trying to protect their interests.
It's sad that a nation trying to protect its interests could be attacked by another on false pretexts, and even get away with it
Damn! My bad. Am just as anal myself, do not know how that got by :-/ Thanks.
What's ironic (and sad) is the fact that the US spends so much on war and military, when just a fraction of that would help the UN a real lot.
Unfortunately, the present administration seems more interested in arm-wrestling the UN into accepting it's decisions, at the risk of losing the money that the US owes the UN.
And we ask where the problems are. Eh.
Well said.
There is only so much far you can go with technology, especially when there are easier ways of getting the job done.
At some point or the other, pragmatism butts in.
Well said, and I completely agree with you.
What I meant to highlight was that the UN is unable to solve it's own problems, and has a limited impact on most of the issues that really trouble the world, and has therefore not quite done its job.
The League of Nations failed in stopping WW2, while the UN could do absolutely nothing about the Cold War - agreed, it did not fully escalate into a war - but it was still a very genuine threat. That it did not manifest itself into a war is something we should count as a blessing, and not something I would credit to the UN.
And yeah, while you are right in saying that countries like China should have no right telling you what to read, be aware that a lot of people in the world are feeling the same way about the US, too (am not taking sides here, merely highlighting the fact) -- that's what makes it all the more trickier.
That's mostly a problem of the participating countries which do not want to solve it.
And that was exactly my point.
The UN is helping in this. But you expect it to happen overnight. That's not going to happen.
Nope. People have been "expecting" it to happen for 65 years. My point was merely that the UN has been powerless to stop aggression or the genuine problems that threaten us.
The UN is a global organisation which can survive empires, which can survive governments and which can survive empires because they are not one. As long as the participating countries want it, it can exist.
Yes, as long as the participating countries are themselves not a part to the atrocities. That is not the case today.
There is utter disregard for International Law and sovereignity, human rights and what not. While the UN (or it's "member countries") are powerless to stop it -- or they simply couldn't care less.
You're mostly right, but you're forgetting an important point -- UN is useless if it is powerless against powerful agressors.
Germany grew to be powerful, and when it attacked, most countries did nothing to stop it. You may go ahead and draw the analogy.
Sure, the UN does a lot of other things, such as provide aid and what not. Mind you, so did the League of Nations - which was founded after WW-1 to prevent agressors. UN could no do anything to prevent the Cold War, and neither can it stop aggression today.
It's quite pointless when you are not solving the bigger problems -- Dictatorships across the world, Human Right abuses in a nation that's a member of the Security Council and aggressive nations that attack soveriegn nations with no respect to International borders on various pretexts.
So yes, although the UN indeed *does* do a lot of things, it is quite useless in my eyes.
Exactly.
The UN was created to unite countries, but it's largely ignored by powerful countries *cough* Iraq *cough* - and the Internet is beginning to being largely controlled by big corporations.
The goals of the UN are laudable, but quite honestly they are powerless to do just about anything substantial, except humanitarian and aid-work. What is the use of an International Body when you cannot keep aggressors at check?
From the Blog -
Then bride and groom would unite their virtues and overcome those gloomy vices gnawing at their vitals.
Hmm, what if it happened the other way around? Both of their negatives brought each other down?
Powerful corporations exist in powerful countries whose governments are controlled by powerful corporations.
It also provides for a single point of failure, if the so-called union did happen.
And oh, this is my 1000th comment. Yay!
Thank you, just added you as a friend.
That was a...moving comment!
Well, atleast it's being used on something substantial like space travel, rather than on military funding some of the other countries.
Or, are you too blinded by your own prejudice to notice that development is development, no matter what? People need to be motivated, and this is just a means of doing it.
I guess you would rather spend it on conquering some poor nation for it's oil and natural resources, and brand it progress, rather than have a developing nation take steps to not merely enhance the quality of living of its people, but also it's science. FYI -- any progress is progress. NASA isn't going to give the blueprints of its flights to India tomorrow, and the only way that they are going to progress is to do it on their own.
Do you have any suggestions? Or would you rather suggest that until all of the billion people are given television sets and fat burgers so that they can sit on their couches, there should be no progress at all? They're trying to catch up with the rest of the world, give them a break and give credit where it's due.
Well said, but I would like to rephrase your comment as - "Religious education in moderation need not necessarily be harmful" - rather than, "Religious education in moderation is good".
:)
:)
Ofcourse, I do realize that this is more of an opinionated and personal topic, but religion often tends to bring out an Us vs. Them attitude. I could see several problems with religion, but that's something that one can go on harping for ad infinitum, so I'll just say that teaching religion at an impressionable age imposes prejudices that a lifetime of science cannot quite cure.
I personally have nothing against belief in God - but I would not consider religion to be a means to that belief. The problem with religion is not violence, or even cultural beliefs - it's the way it is organized on the pretext of God
Ofcourse - it's again a question of such things as upbringing, beliefs and cultural factors - and it is something that people usually tend to be quite strongly prejudiced about (I'm too, so I do know!). But I just wanted to let you know that the statement that, "religious education is good" is not quite something that can be broadly claimed to be true - I'm sure you can appreciate where I'm coming from in making such a statement.
Just my two cents, and cheers! (btw, I spent half my childhood in Tvm, so I do know!
Religious education is good, in moderation.
Eh? Care to explain that? Funny, for someone with a Carl Sagan quote on their profile to be making such a statement.
Hmm, you've apparently not been to a developing country.
In most developing countries, there are adult literacy programs that people attend -- and force their children to attend. Why? For the simple reason that they do not want their kids to lead the same shitty life that they do.
This is a wide-spread phenomenon, and something that quite correlates to a large chunk of the population from the underdeveloped areas moving into the cities.
And btw, electric power is provided FREE of cost to most farming communities in some states in India -- to help them with things like running the irrigation pumps and the like, as well as to encourage them to start using things like the radio and television.
Progress and better living for your progeny can be a very motivating thing. Especially in a closely family-knit culture like India.