It didn't say that 100k terms returned no results at all. It said that 100k terms returned no child abuse results.
Wait... Google has EVER returned results with pictures of child sex abuse?!
I suppose I'm lucky in that for the past 15 years I've never accidentally entered the wrong terms, because I've never seen anything I'd regard as an image of child abuse.
Given this, my concern is what new things they are doing - particularly (see above) re manipulation of text results.
That's not the impression the BBC article gives me. Indeed, it says:
Typing "child pornography" in to Google's search engine now brings up a set of search results that include warnings that child abuse imagery is illegal.
The first three links are all related to reporting disturbing images or seeking help if you think you or someone you know has a problem with child porn.
The first link is an advert that links to a Google statement about protecting children from sexual abuse. The next link directs you to the Internet Watch Foundation, where you can report criminal online content, and a link to Stop it Now advises users how they can get help and advice.
The remaining search results are mainly news stories from around the world reporting on child pornography.
So Google are now engaging in government-directed manipulation of search results covering the discussion of child sex abuse images.
1) Redirecting resources away from finding abusers;
2) Giving the impression that "something is being done already" so resources don't need to be reviewed;
3) Misidentifying abuse as something which is caused by the availability of images of abuse, when in fact almost all child sex abuse occurs within families or thanks to trusted acquaintances for various complex reasons which require careful analysis rather than knee-jerk political reactions.
Please search for and compile the list of 100,000 terms.
Which will inevitably all: - Have double meanings; - Be likely to be used by victims of abuse who are looking for help; - Be useful for legitimate research; - Be searched for by people looking for news or discussion on censorship; - End up with a lot of political hot topics thrown in.
Google doesn't give you "an entire functional open source OS" either - it gives you patches to GNU/Linux to enable an already "functional open source OS" to work better on mobile devices. But it leaves out the apps which make it "entire". And denies access to the one of the most valuable features of any Linux distro - the official software repository. Oh, and there's usually a pesky binary driver problem, but perhaps we can blame device manufacturers for that.
MS meanwhile builds its own operating systems from scratch and allows you access to the source for the base OS on its own semi-useful terms, e.g. Windows Embedded Compact. Also crippled in the sense that you don't get the source for higher level stuff.
Line for line, MS is offering you access to more of its own code than Google, if you want to look at it like that. But Google is bound (luckily!) by a more open licence. On balance, they're equally crappy.
You're arguing that profit is one method of amassing the capital to start or expand a business under capitalism. This is not the same as arguing that profit is necessary.
To answer your question: 1) One might start up a business because they want a job and they want to be their own boss. That's why I did it; 2) To start up this business, I used savings from wages from working as a regular employee; 3) I've never needed a loan, 'cos I'm awesome, but if I did, I'd take it from my local credit union, which merely has to break even by setting interest rates to offset the cost of defaulters.
1) Non-interventionism was US foreign policy for most of its life - this means not preemptively collecting data about millions of foreigners to use against them;
2) Reciprocal agreements mean the US is effectively spying on its own people.
In case you didn't remember what that whole American Revolution was about, the US was supposed to be better. It was supposed to be about not having a bunch of unaccountable rulers and their lackeys monitoring and controlling society.
Snowden's revelations confirm that the Old World is as bad as expected, and that the New World is just as bad as the Old.
It is common to regard the progress of technology over the past decade as magnificent.
But all the ingredients are much older than this. For the last decade of progress, all we really have are: 1) Apple, not for inventing usability, but for merely realising that it is important; 2) Chinese sweatshop labour for their undying devotion to increased efficiency.
All the current ideas had already been envisioned by the '70s, prototyped by the '80s, and implemented by the '90s. Today we just have a bunch of consolidated wankers shoving it down our throats.
I expect it depends a lot on your physiology/psychology. I don't really get any kick at all out of extreme physical experiences, or anything material - and I've had lots of opportunity.
Solving a complex mathematical problem is an immense thrill for me, however. Or figuring out a clever algorithm.
You can get thousands of e-mail addresses for free, and one 'phone number for $40 which is almost free. Therefore you can get thousands of 'phone numbers for nearly free.
FTFY. And you made me almost crack a smile - bravo.
Doesn't everyone use Asterisk to troll the telemarketers?
These are some of the clearer signs yet that these companies have reached a point where they're no longer willing to be participants
Or, before they were willing to hide their complicity, but now they're willing to both hide it and lie loudly about it.
Hypocritical Google engineers probably wouldn't have their job if their company hadn't been so compliant, as Google wouldn't have grown to the behemoth it is today.
1) Just where do you find all these strawmen? The problem is not that they're prevented from implementing a charitable network. The problem is that their marketing did not reflect their intention.
As for, "Why do you think charity+business is worse than just charity?" see a) and b). Again. b) should be obvious even to someone of evident low intelligence such as yourself: if you secretly patent something then you're both deliberately restricting how it can be applied AND deliberately delaying the dissemination of knowledge, slowing down implementation for competitive advantage. a) is maybe half an inch more subtle, but I've explained it to you maybe three times already. However, I've always been told to be patient with the slow, so here goes again...
It is dishonest to knowingly mislead. This is why you swear to tell "the truth, the WHOLE truth" in court, and why every academic analysis of capitalism requires a perfectly informed consumer. It is not up to either me or you whether the information is relevant. In particular, an "ethical consumer" may have seen Google in a better light after hearing about this project, which was presented as altruistic, not realising that they had in fact secretly patented the design for commercialisation. They might therefore choose Google over a competitor on the basis of Google's dishonest withholding of information. You might say, "Well, that shit wouldn't matter to me cuz all I care about is greens yo," but the whole point of a free society is that it's not for you (nor me) to choose other people's values.
2) You don't actually mean "meaningless", do you? You're just misusing that term to avoid having to answer my question.
What you're attempting to argue that my question is irrelevant. And you're doing that the same way every dullard tackles an analogy: by complaining that two scenarios aren't exactly equivalent.
1) "An optional facet of this system" - what is that supposed to mean, and why is it relevant?
Who said they were mutually exclusive?
n'th time: a) it is dishonest to knowingly withold relevant information about your intentions in order to paint them in a different light; b) It's even worse when you're announcing something altruistic but in fact asserting power over both commercial and charitable competitors behind the scenes using secret patents.
1) "...seems to be true for you and the OP..." - so we're going on your vibes, now? My problem is that they patent for one specific purpose, deliberately request that the publication describing that purpose be hidden, then go off announcing a different purpose which paints the company in a better light.
The immediate problem is obvious: they're undermining the patent system, a founding aim of which was to prevent companies from keeping secrets. And they're doing because it paints them in a better light - it's the psychological trickery on which marketing is based: present yourself in the best possible light rather than providing all the information available.
If you can't see how it's dishonest to hide some planned intention then announce a different intention, I can only assume you've been clinically diagnosed as slow. I'll therefore defer to the professionals responsible for your care.
2) If someone were to punch you in the face then give you a lollipop, would you keep your mouth shut because you'd been compensated for the punch? A simple yes or no will do.
Slashdot Mirror
"child abuse image filter"
Oh my! You were probably... trying to bypass it. Pedo!
Your name vill also go on ze list.
(To think we do with sincerity what we once saw as so wrong that we once mocked it...)
It didn't say that 100k terms returned no results at all. It said that 100k terms returned no child abuse results.
Wait... Google has EVER returned results with pictures of child sex abuse?!
I suppose I'm lucky in that for the past 15 years I've never accidentally entered the wrong terms, because I've never seen anything I'd regard as an image of child abuse.
Given this, my concern is what new things they are doing - particularly (see above) re manipulation of text results.
That's not the impression the BBC article gives me. Indeed, it says:
Typing "child pornography" in to Google's search engine now brings up a set of search results that include warnings that child abuse imagery is illegal.
The first three links are all related to reporting disturbing images or seeking help if you think you or someone you know has a problem with child porn.
The first link is an advert that links to a Google statement about protecting children from sexual abuse. The next link directs you to the Internet Watch Foundation, where you can report criminal online content, and a link to Stop it Now advises users how they can get help and advice.
The remaining search results are mainly news stories from around the world reporting on child pornography.
So Google are now engaging in government-directed manipulation of search results covering the discussion of child sex abuse images.
It's something to INCREASE abuse by:
1) Redirecting resources away from finding abusers;
2) Giving the impression that "something is being done already" so resources don't need to be reviewed;
3) Misidentifying abuse as something which is caused by the availability of images of abuse, when in fact almost all child sex abuse occurs within families or thanks to trusted acquaintances for various complex reasons which require careful analysis rather than knee-jerk political reactions.
Please search for and compile the list of 100,000 terms.
Which will inevitably all:
- Have double meanings;
- Be likely to be used by victims of abuse who are looking for help;
- Be useful for legitimate research;
- Be searched for by people looking for news or discussion on censorship;
- End up with a lot of political hot topics thrown in.
Thanks!
Google doesn't give you "an entire functional open source OS" either - it gives you patches to GNU/Linux to enable an already "functional open source OS" to work better on mobile devices. But it leaves out the apps which make it "entire". And denies access to the one of the most valuable features of any Linux distro - the official software repository. Oh, and there's usually a pesky binary driver problem, but perhaps we can blame device manufacturers for that.
MS meanwhile builds its own operating systems from scratch and allows you access to the source for the base OS on its own semi-useful terms, e.g. Windows Embedded Compact. Also crippled in the sense that you don't get the source for higher level stuff.
Line for line, MS is offering you access to more of its own code than Google, if you want to look at it like that. But Google is bound (luckily!) by a more open licence. On balance, they're equally crappy.
You're arguing that profit is one method of amassing the capital to start or expand a business under capitalism. This is not the same as arguing that profit is necessary.
To answer your question:
1) One might start up a business because they want a job and they want to be their own boss. That's why I did it;
2) To start up this business, I used savings from wages from working as a regular employee;
3) I've never needed a loan, 'cos I'm awesome, but if I did, I'd take it from my local credit union, which merely has to break even by setting interest rates to offset the cost of defaulters.
HTH!
1) Non-interventionism was US foreign policy for most of its life - this means not preemptively collecting data about millions of foreigners to use against them;
2) Reciprocal agreements mean the US is effectively spying on its own people.
Try harder.
In case you didn't remember what that whole American Revolution was about, the US was supposed to be better. It was supposed to be about not having a bunch of unaccountable rulers and their lackeys monitoring and controlling society.
Snowden's revelations confirm that the Old World is as bad as expected, and that the New World is just as bad as the Old.
It is common to regard the progress of technology over the past decade as magnificent.
But all the ingredients are much older than this. For the last decade of progress, all we really have are:
1) Apple, not for inventing usability, but for merely realising that it is important;
2) Chinese sweatshop labour for their undying devotion to increased efficiency.
All the current ideas had already been envisioned by the '70s, prototyped by the '80s, and implemented by the '90s. Today we just have a bunch of consolidated wankers shoving it down our throats.
The performance of the Google driverless car has not been independently verified through real driving scenarios by a single person.
Don't imagine it's nearly as sophisticated as you'd hope.
Intelligence down, productivity down, ineffective+gameable metrics up.
Have you even seen how schools and businesses measure people nowadays?
Could you give a less awful example than Canonical?
Red Hat and IBM are mentionable. IBM have been one of the evillest companies on earth, by hopefully unambiguous standards. Red Hat are awwww-right.
There is a difference between wages and profit.
Wages are necessary.
Breaking even is necessary.
Profit is a religious thing.
Oh, and you don't get to create artificial scarcity just to guarantee someone a viable business.
Android is open in the sense that some Microsoft stuff is open: you get a crippled version, and don't expect Google to make any exceptions for you.
I expect it depends a lot on your physiology/psychology. I don't really get any kick at all out of extreme physical experiences, or anything material - and I've had lots of opportunity.
Solving a complex mathematical problem is an immense thrill for me, however. Or figuring out a clever algorithm.
Why yes, I am a nerd and a geek.
World's good with all different sorts, though :).
Mod parent to heaven.
Young people do things quickly. Older people tend to do things well.
*Saviour.
If you're going to write derivatives of traditional fictional works, at least use traditional spellings.
Perhaps if you survive things which are perceived as very dangerous, your risk awareness is skewed?
You can get thousands of e-mail addresses for free, and one 'phone number for $40 which is almost free. Therefore you can get thousands of 'phone numbers for nearly free.
FTFY. And you made me almost crack a smile - bravo.
Doesn't everyone use Asterisk to troll the telemarketers?
I find it interesting that BUY THIS PRODUCT NOW ** Awesome features!! ** Relevant to your audience!!! **
These are some of the clearer signs yet that these companies have reached a point where they're no longer willing to be participants
Or, before they were willing to hide their complicity, but now they're willing to both hide it and lie loudly about it.
Hypocritical Google engineers probably wouldn't have their job if their company hadn't been so compliant, as Google wouldn't have grown to the behemoth it is today.
1) Just where do you find all these strawmen? The problem is not that they're prevented from implementing a charitable network. The problem is that their marketing did not reflect their intention.
As for, "Why do you think charity+business is worse than just charity?" see a) and b). Again. b) should be obvious even to someone of evident low intelligence such as yourself: if you secretly patent something then you're both deliberately restricting how it can be applied AND deliberately delaying the dissemination of knowledge, slowing down implementation for competitive advantage. a) is maybe half an inch more subtle, but I've explained it to you maybe three times already. However, I've always been told to be patient with the slow, so here goes again...
It is dishonest to knowingly mislead. This is why you swear to tell "the truth, the WHOLE truth" in court, and why every academic analysis of capitalism requires a perfectly informed consumer. It is not up to either me or you whether the information is relevant. In particular, an "ethical consumer" may have seen Google in a better light after hearing about this project, which was presented as altruistic, not realising that they had in fact secretly patented the design for commercialisation. They might therefore choose Google over a competitor on the basis of Google's dishonest withholding of information. You might say, "Well, that shit wouldn't matter to me cuz all I care about is greens yo," but the whole point of a free society is that it's not for you (nor me) to choose other people's values.
2) You don't actually mean "meaningless", do you? You're just misusing that term to avoid having to answer my question.
What you're attempting to argue that my question is irrelevant. And you're doing that the same way every dullard tackles an analogy: by complaining that two scenarios aren't exactly equivalent.
Dance, monkey, dance!
1) "An optional facet of this system" - what is that supposed to mean, and why is it relevant?
Who said they were mutually exclusive?
n'th time:
a) it is dishonest to knowingly withold relevant information about your intentions in order to paint them in a different light;
b) It's even worse when you're announcing something altruistic but in fact asserting power over both commercial and charitable competitors behind the scenes using secret patents.
2) Still waiting for your answer, homeslice.
1) "...seems to be true for you and the OP..." - so we're going on your vibes, now? My problem is that they patent for one specific purpose, deliberately request that the publication describing that purpose be hidden, then go off announcing a different purpose which paints the company in a better light.
The immediate problem is obvious: they're undermining the patent system, a founding aim of which was to prevent companies from keeping secrets. And they're doing because it paints them in a better light - it's the psychological trickery on which marketing is based: present yourself in the best possible light rather than providing all the information available.
If you can't see how it's dishonest to hide some planned intention then announce a different intention, I can only assume you've been clinically diagnosed as slow. I'll therefore defer to the professionals responsible for your care.
2) If someone were to punch you in the face then give you a lollipop, would you keep your mouth shut because you'd been compensated for the punch? A simple yes or no will do.