I feel as though I'm being misunderstood here... I don't blame Google for the deaths until now, but would blame them going forward if, given this opportunity to prevent future issues, they clung to their idealism and continued to broadcast it to these people knowingly.
Also, hanging blame and these continuous religious pissing contests (including the producer of the movie, who looking back on previous such incidents of Islamic blasphemy could have predicted such an outcome) is only adding fuel to the fire. Instead, if we as a culture understood the moral need to not egg angry people on (I realize that, by expressing an opinion that opposes your own, that I'm doing that very thing right now), there might be far fewer such incidents.
If that's all it was (a few people getting pissy over their precious whatever-it-may-be being mocked), then censorship is bad. However, I anticipate that had Google not pulled this down, they would have to live with the knowledge that there are people who will DIE because of this movie (and already have).
It's one thing to preach an "information deserves to be free" ideal, but when forced to choose between Internet Ethics and the lives of actual people, I don't see how Google could have done differently.
I don't necessarily disagree with the disparity issue (in fact, I think it's atrocious, but if the 99% proved anything, it's that calling attention to it has no real and lasting effect).
What I do think is wrong, though, is to make your satisfaction and happiness relative to those around you. Why is it that, assuming you (the collective "you," not specifically Desler) are paid $50,000 per year, that you're perfectly content working side-by-side with people making 30k, yet hopping mad when the guy two cubicles down makes $60k? It's still the same $50k either way, and if you get bent out of shape simply because of the pay disparities within your workplace, you'll die a miserable and bitter person who can never be satisfied with what he does have. (Okay, so I laid the hyperbole on a bit thick there, but it gets the point across)
That's why I suggest lowering of standards. The "American Dream" was flawed from the beginning, as it assumed that all people had equal opportunity. As long as we live in a "corporations are people too, friend" kind of environment, it will never be anything more than a dream. That doesn't mean we're doomed to wallow in despair.
I think this problem is less systemic at the small-business level (though they're not categorically blameless), and far more prevalent in the corporate environment. That very same mercenary culture is the reason I refuse to jump ship where I work, as I am confident that moving from a small business environment (a "comfortable rut") to Corporate Hell would dump me into that particular dynamic.
Or, perhaps people need to lower their standards a bit (and mine might very well be quite low already). Too many people seem to think that they're SUPPOSED to own a house or a fancy car, or that they're a failure if they don't hobnob with The Joneses at the country club.
Hey, if I'm an American, I deserve extra money (at least, that's what JG Wentworth keeps telling me). That was why I decided to be born in the United States after all.
Darn immigrants, bringing in their tapeworms and stealing our jobs! Why, it's so bad now that they'll wait for you outside of where you work, beat you up, and STEAL your job! (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=walmart).
We, as a collective America (the country, not the continent), need to put our foot down and tell them to Get Off Our Lawn (the grassy parts of America, which probably excludes Texas).
Does the expand feature (the opposite of the pinch motion) count towards the same patent? I'm pretty sure goatse demonstrated the stretch-to-expand feature LONG before iPhone, a.k.a. "prior art."
Looking back at what a perv I was for so many years, I blame my avid fascination with the Xanth books as a pre-teen up until late high school -- precisely the most impressionable years of my life. Imagine the difficulties my mom must have had when she had to explain to the clerk why she was buying her son a copy of "The Color of her Panties"...
Is there such a thing as an EM Interference Throwie (I'm thinking something you could make dozens of for super cheap)? Maybe calibrate it to work at Wi-Fi frequencies...
I for one would like to see you connect the dots here regarding the DOE. To quote Google (when searching for "doe"): "Governmental department whose mission is to advance energy technology and promote related innovation in the United States." Digging deeper, in About Us, I find: "The Energy Department is working to ensure America's Energy Future, Scientific & Technological Leadership, Nuclear Security and to resolve the environmental legacy of the cold war."
I did some more looking, but found no official reference to a mission of energy isolationism. Perhaps you were there for some backroom discussion before its formation, or maybe I missed a news conference or some official documentation somewhere.
If what you say is true, and their true purpose is to ensure that we never buy energy from another country, then perhaps they did fail. I am curious how they were supposed to go about this mission... Taxation (akin to that of Europe)? Making it illegal to trade with foreign nations?
What somebody chooses to call it doesn't actually change what it is. If in your heart of hearts that hunk of space debris is a planet, then so be it. There's no reason your satisfaction should be so strongly tied to what somebody else thinks, unless that's how you get your jollies.
If history has anything to say about suspicious bills, it's that they usually come labeled with a horrid acronym (ACTA, CETA, UaSAbPATRtIaOT a.k.a. Patriot Act). If they instead chose to call it something with a little more heart (e.g. "The Europeans For Acquiescing to Government Supplicants Act"), or attach a famous name to it (e.g. "The George Washington CETA Act"), it would have far greater likelihood of appealing to the voting public.
Highly cost effective ("Buses could be retrofitted and modernized for as little as $40"), and their business class seats are better than you'll find on any airline.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel as though I'm being misunderstood here... I don't blame Google for the deaths until now, but would blame them going forward if, given this opportunity to prevent future issues, they clung to their idealism and continued to broadcast it to these people knowingly.
Also, hanging blame and these continuous religious pissing contests (including the producer of the movie, who looking back on previous such incidents of Islamic blasphemy could have predicted such an outcome) is only adding fuel to the fire. Instead, if we as a culture understood the moral need to not egg angry people on (I realize that, by expressing an opinion that opposes your own, that I'm doing that very thing right now), there might be far fewer such incidents.
If that's all it was (a few people getting pissy over their precious whatever-it-may-be being mocked), then censorship is bad. However, I anticipate that had Google not pulled this down, they would have to live with the knowledge that there are people who will DIE because of this movie (and already have). It's one thing to preach an "information deserves to be free" ideal, but when forced to choose between Internet Ethics and the lives of actual people, I don't see how Google could have done differently.
It's Too Soon [1] to talk about the Steves. You might tarnish their memory or some such [2].
Sources:
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Has_Aides (the official timeframe within which an event may be referred to with any degree of humor is 22.3 years)
[2]: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/23/christie-chides-gun-debate-in-aurora-aftermath/ (in which it is determined that any position that challenges your own may not be brought in cases where you are forced to make a strong case to defend yours)
I don't necessarily disagree with the disparity issue (in fact, I think it's atrocious, but if the 99% proved anything, it's that calling attention to it has no real and lasting effect).
What I do think is wrong, though, is to make your satisfaction and happiness relative to those around you. Why is it that, assuming you (the collective "you," not specifically Desler) are paid $50,000 per year, that you're perfectly content working side-by-side with people making 30k, yet hopping mad when the guy two cubicles down makes $60k? It's still the same $50k either way, and if you get bent out of shape simply because of the pay disparities within your workplace, you'll die a miserable and bitter person who can never be satisfied with what he does have. (Okay, so I laid the hyperbole on a bit thick there, but it gets the point across)
That's why I suggest lowering of standards. The "American Dream" was flawed from the beginning, as it assumed that all people had equal opportunity. As long as we live in a "corporations are people too, friend" kind of environment, it will never be anything more than a dream. That doesn't mean we're doomed to wallow in despair.
I think this problem is less systemic at the small-business level (though they're not categorically blameless), and far more prevalent in the corporate environment. That very same mercenary culture is the reason I refuse to jump ship where I work, as I am confident that moving from a small business environment (a "comfortable rut") to Corporate Hell would dump me into that particular dynamic.
Or, perhaps people need to lower their standards a bit (and mine might very well be quite low already). Too many people seem to think that they're SUPPOSED to own a house or a fancy car, or that they're a failure if they don't hobnob with The Joneses at the country club.
Hey, if I'm an American, I deserve extra money (at least, that's what JG Wentworth keeps telling me). That was why I decided to be born in the United States after all.
Darn immigrants, bringing in their tapeworms and stealing our jobs! Why, it's so bad now that they'll wait for you outside of where you work, beat you up, and STEAL your job! (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=walmart).
We, as a collective America (the country, not the continent), need to put our foot down and tell them to Get Off Our Lawn (the grassy parts of America, which probably excludes Texas).
[/sarcasm]
If I could, I would mod this up as informative.
Does the expand feature (the opposite of the pinch motion) count towards the same patent? I'm pretty sure goatse demonstrated the stretch-to-expand feature LONG before iPhone, a.k.a. "prior art."
When you say "unfair labor conditions," the first thing I think of is Al Bundy.
Looking back at what a perv I was for so many years, I blame my avid fascination with the Xanth books as a pre-teen up until late high school -- precisely the most impressionable years of my life. Imagine the difficulties my mom must have had when she had to explain to the clerk why she was buying her son a copy of "The Color of her Panties"...
Is there such a thing as an EM Interference Throwie (I'm thinking something you could make dozens of for super cheap)? Maybe calibrate it to work at Wi-Fi frequencies...
I for one would like to see you connect the dots here regarding the DOE. To quote Google (when searching for "doe"): "Governmental department whose mission is to advance energy technology and promote related innovation in the United States." Digging deeper, in About Us, I find: "The Energy Department is working to ensure America's Energy Future, Scientific & Technological Leadership, Nuclear Security and to resolve the environmental legacy of the cold war."
I did some more looking, but found no official reference to a mission of energy isolationism. Perhaps you were there for some backroom discussion before its formation, or maybe I missed a news conference or some official documentation somewhere.
If what you say is true, and their true purpose is to ensure that we never buy energy from another country, then perhaps they did fail. I am curious how they were supposed to go about this mission... Taxation (akin to that of Europe)? Making it illegal to trade with foreign nations?
What somebody chooses to call it doesn't actually change what it is. If in your heart of hearts that hunk of space debris is a planet, then so be it. There's no reason your satisfaction should be so strongly tied to what somebody else thinks, unless that's how you get your jollies.
If history has anything to say about suspicious bills, it's that they usually come labeled with a horrid acronym (ACTA, CETA, UaSAbPATRtIaOT a.k.a. Patriot Act). If they instead chose to call it something with a little more heart (e.g. "The Europeans For Acquiescing to Government Supplicants Act"), or attach a famous name to it (e.g. "The George Washington CETA Act"), it would have far greater likelihood of appealing to the voting public.
Highly cost effective ("Buses could be retrofitted and modernized for as little as $40"), and their business class seats are better than you'll find on any airline.