The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms.
It doesn't give you the right to acquire or manufacture arms.
A strict constructionist would have to concede that it would be Constitutional to bar anyone from ever acquiring any new weapon, and after a century or so all gun possession would be illegal.
See, textualism goes both ways. This is why I'm not a strict constructionist or textualist.
I like this feature and I use it. It has saved me from many typos and a few reconsidered emails. But I think it's a poorly implemented feature. It should be a side-effect feature of a generally implemented send-later feature. The default timeout would be 20 seconds, and you could choose from a popup any longer wait period or a specific time. I would love that feature: send my brother's happy-birthday email tomorrow morning, for instance.
"People would walk towards [one woman] with concealed electronics, in an effort to provoke a reaction."
And there was no reaction. Therefore the claimed illness is total bullshit.
Live in a cave if you want, believe bullshit if you want, make nutty claims if you want -- and meanwhile, the rest of us will laugh at you and make fun of your stupidity by doing things like standing near you with concealed electronics. That's freedom.
Yeah the name of the feature matters. If you call it "keyword search" but it's actually a punch in the face, then I decline your suggestion that people should be surprised when they are punched in the face, because they didn't RTFM, as if there is an M to RTF.
If it's not verbatim search, then don't call it Verbatim Search. Call it We Show You What We Guess You Want Search. And that's not even my complaint -- my complaint is that verbatim search is impossible on all search engines I'm aware of today, but was easily available fifteen years ago. The world has lost a useful internet feature and I think that's too bad.
American Indians for the most part don't exist. There is a tiny smattering of people who have some cultural connection but the culture was mostly wiped out by genocide. So we can't really get much of an opinion from American Indians.
I don't see how that applies, though. The answer is that America has deep inequality in pretty much all regards, like all societies in all times, but we have this special thing that most other curiously haven't adopted -- we phrase it as "equality under the law". As I've said before, it's like the lowest possible bar for equality measures, which is why I'm surprised other nations haven't adopted it.
I've never been to NZ but I've heard it's a paradise in lots of ways. Do they put the Queen on their money? Do they ever say God Save The Queen at events? Do any NZers have titles of nobility or other in-born presumptions of legal superiority? If so, then my criticism applies to NZ; if not, it doesn't.
My layperson's understanding is that the 'unconscionable' thing is practically impossible to get a positive ruling on, and has never been done for EULAs. If you are a 'real lawyer' then you can trump my lay understanding by citing a court case. Otherwise I think GP is right unfortunately.
India is a good example. I might also point to France. I don't know much about Nigeria except for the murders.
The reason I insist on racial/cultural heterogeneity is to stem the people who say "Norway is super peaceful, why can't America be like Norway?" The Answer is that Norwegian Americans are also very peaceful and prosperous in America. No surprise. Meanwhile, people who come from places with traditions of violence and desperation skew desperate and violent in America. No surprise.
And the reason I insist on no royalty is because subjects have no idea what it means to be a citizen. A person who can't even wrap their head around the notion of legal equality can't possibly understand American politics.
Google should make the best product they know how and when they fuck up they should listen to their users. This Slashdot article is next in a loooooong line of forums complaining about the same thing.
The billions of other users don't know or care how it works, or how accurate the results are. They were happy with 1998 Google and they'll be happy if we get back to 1998 Google.
"Search for what I typed in the fucking box and keep your suggestions and corrections to yourself."
I say suggestions yes, corrections no. I actually quite like the "Did you mean...?" suggestions because yes, frequently I fat-finger a search term. That's fine. But even more frequently I'm searching for something like IContext, and I really need IContext, not Context.
I'm pretty sure startpage is just a front to Google results. So you get the benefit of no tracking but the results should be identical -- identically bad, according to complainers like me on this forum.
I want to challenge you on that. You have never had any problems just throwing in some extra terms for context?
I was once searching for a username that I encountered on one website, wondering whether it was used on other sites. The username was similar to a popular sports team name, but with a little tweak. It was IMPOSSIBLE to search for that username. Impossible. No amount of quotes or plus signs or "search for exact phrase" could convince Google to search for what I actually typed in. And nor should I have to put quotes or use a special search mode -- I searched for a certain token, so why can't i get results for that token? There is no way to "add extra terms for context" in that situation.
I don't believe that you have never had that problem, unless you almost never use search engines.
"Sometimes it takes a little coaxing to tell Google what the hell you're searching for"
This is exactly right and it's exactly the problem. Here, let me propose a solution:
"Hey, Google, you can know what the hell I'm searching for because I FUCKING TYPED IT INTO YOUR FUCKING SEARCH BOX".
Take the tokens I type in, and return results which match exactly those tokens, every single last one of them, exactly as I typed them.
Done. Search engine complete.
If Google really thinks that its n00b users are dum dum then Google can have a helpful link that says "Try these search terms:..." and people can click on that. I just don't understand why it would be completely impossible to get Google today to do the one thing it actually did seventeen years ago. The two features that made Google dominant were no bullshit on the home page and search for what I actually ask for. Now I can't find that second feature on any search engine anywhere on the internet.
I'm having trouble reconciling your comment with the fact that the feature is called "VERBATIM" which means "in exactly the same words as were used originally".
So then tell us, where can we go to get VERBATIM results, if not to a search feature called "VERBATIM"?
It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask: why the heck is it so hard to search the internet for the terms that I actually type into the search box? We could do this in 1999, so why is it impossible in 2015?
I use DDG as my primary search engine, but it's only slightly better than Google. DDG also tries to guess what I really wanted, and it's ALWAYS wrong.
Are Slashdot users the only people in the world capable of typing into a search box the terms that they actually want? I would think that would be a nearly universal skill. I don't mind suggestions for improving my searches, but straight up ignoring what I ask for and giving me something totally different? What software engineer thought that would be a good idea?
As has already been pointed out, no search engine gives plaintext search functionality. All search engines break up pages into tokens then index the tokens. You will never be able to search the internet for a string of characters which wasn't previously tokenized by an algorithm, and no algorithm is going to tokenize "alpha.beta". You, sir, are out of luck forever.
Over the last thirty or so years, the very rich conducted a successful political campaign to promote a political message to the American people -- and the American people agreed with it. That message is "fuck the poor, let's give money to people who already have lots of money".
Like it or hate it, that is a valid political message supported by just barely less than half of voters. The country is "better" for a voter when the country conforms to the stated political preference of that voter, which means Republicans have "made the country better" for their nearly-half of voters. Those voters want deficit, they voted for it, and they got it. Those voters want poor people to pay more taxes than rich people, and they got it. Those voters want environmental degradation, and they got it. So for them, the country is better.
I'll accept critiques of America from the citizen of any country which doesn't have royalty and does have substantial racial heterogeneity. If you are from such a country, name it, then we'll address American politics.
Yeah, totally, and that's a problem but it's a hard problem, right it's a social problem. But the easy problem is the legal question: yes or no, some people are legally superior to other people based on an inherited title of nobility? Well, my answer is... no, duh that's totally stupid. Americans aren't all equal in all ways but we have the bare-minimum of equality which is at least the nominal presumption of legal equality. It's a low ethical bar, sure, but compare that to "Hey, that newborn over there, we've decided that in forty or fifty years he's going to be the King and we're going to call him His Majesty and have people salute him everywhere he goes, based on literally nothing that he himself ever does, just because".
Yeah, I get it, it's not an actual large extant problem for the average Brit on the average day, but still, you have no problem walking around with the thought in your head that some people are born into titles of nobility, they are legally superior people to you for no good reason. I don't know it just seems totally crazy. How can it persist in this day and age? And it's not just the Brits it's half of Europe. Hell even Canada puts the royals on their money.
Slashdot Mirror
If it did, it would say so.
Diaspora failed, man, give it up.
The Constitution gives you the right to keep and bear arms.
It doesn't give you the right to acquire or manufacture arms.
A strict constructionist would have to concede that it would be Constitutional to bar anyone from ever acquiring any new weapon, and after a century or so all gun possession would be illegal.
See, textualism goes both ways. This is why I'm not a strict constructionist or textualist.
I like this feature and I use it. It has saved me from many typos and a few reconsidered emails. But I think it's a poorly implemented feature. It should be a side-effect feature of a generally implemented send-later feature. The default timeout would be 20 seconds, and you could choose from a popup any longer wait period or a specific time. I would love that feature: send my brother's happy-birthday email tomorrow morning, for instance.
"People would walk towards [one woman] with concealed electronics, in an effort to provoke a reaction."
And there was no reaction. Therefore the claimed illness is total bullshit.
Live in a cave if you want, believe bullshit if you want, make nutty claims if you want -- and meanwhile, the rest of us will laugh at you and make fun of your stupidity by doing things like standing near you with concealed electronics. That's freedom.
Next question, please. This one is answered.
Yeah the name of the feature matters. If you call it "keyword search" but it's actually a punch in the face, then I decline your suggestion that people should be surprised when they are punched in the face, because they didn't RTFM, as if there is an M to RTF.
If it's not verbatim search, then don't call it Verbatim Search. Call it We Show You What We Guess You Want Search. And that's not even my complaint -- my complaint is that verbatim search is impossible on all search engines I'm aware of today, but was easily available fifteen years ago. The world has lost a useful internet feature and I think that's too bad.
American Indians for the most part don't exist. There is a tiny smattering of people who have some cultural connection but the culture was mostly wiped out by genocide. So we can't really get much of an opinion from American Indians.
I don't see how that applies, though. The answer is that America has deep inequality in pretty much all regards, like all societies in all times, but we have this special thing that most other curiously haven't adopted -- we phrase it as "equality under the law". As I've said before, it's like the lowest possible bar for equality measures, which is why I'm surprised other nations haven't adopted it.
I've never been to NZ but I've heard it's a paradise in lots of ways. Do they put the Queen on their money? Do they ever say God Save The Queen at events? Do any NZers have titles of nobility or other in-born presumptions of legal superiority? If so, then my criticism applies to NZ; if not, it doesn't.
My layperson's understanding is that the 'unconscionable' thing is practically impossible to get a positive ruling on, and has never been done for EULAs. If you are a 'real lawyer' then you can trump my lay understanding by citing a court case. Otherwise I think GP is right unfortunately.
India is a good example. I might also point to France. I don't know much about Nigeria except for the murders.
The reason I insist on racial/cultural heterogeneity is to stem the people who say "Norway is super peaceful, why can't America be like Norway?" The Answer is that Norwegian Americans are also very peaceful and prosperous in America. No surprise. Meanwhile, people who come from places with traditions of violence and desperation skew desperate and violent in America. No surprise.
And the reason I insist on no royalty is because subjects have no idea what it means to be a citizen. A person who can't even wrap their head around the notion of legal equality can't possibly understand American politics.
Google should make the best product they know how and when they fuck up they should listen to their users. This Slashdot article is next in a loooooong line of forums complaining about the same thing.
The billions of other users don't know or care how it works, or how accurate the results are. They were happy with 1998 Google and they'll be happy if we get back to 1998 Google.
"Search for what I typed in the fucking box and keep your suggestions and corrections to yourself."
I say suggestions yes, corrections no. I actually quite like the "Did you mean...?" suggestions because yes, frequently I fat-finger a search term. That's fine. But even more frequently I'm searching for something like IContext, and I really need IContext, not Context.
If "understanding context" makes Google's search results suck then Google should stop "understanding context". And it does, so they should.
Just give me results containing all of my search terms exactly as I enter them. That is all the context Google needs to understand.
I'm pretty sure startpage is just a front to Google results. So you get the benefit of no tracking but the results should be identical -- identically bad, according to complainers like me on this forum.
I have previously suggested that they introduce http://classic.google.com./
I want 1998 Google. It worked. It's the only search engine that has ever worked -- before or since, including modern Google.
EVERY TERM EXACTLY AS WRITTEN, it's so blindingly obvious that I can't believe that the engineers at Google can't understand it.
I want to challenge you on that. You have never had any problems just throwing in some extra terms for context?
I was once searching for a username that I encountered on one website, wondering whether it was used on other sites. The username was similar to a popular sports team name, but with a little tweak. It was IMPOSSIBLE to search for that username. Impossible. No amount of quotes or plus signs or "search for exact phrase" could convince Google to search for what I actually typed in. And nor should I have to put quotes or use a special search mode -- I searched for a certain token, so why can't i get results for that token? There is no way to "add extra terms for context" in that situation.
I don't believe that you have never had that problem, unless you almost never use search engines.
Yes, and the solution to both problems is
1. Return results for the exact terms requested
2. Suggest alternatives using a separate link
So why the heck has every single search engine on the internet decided instead on
1. Return results that are totally different than the terms requested
2. Fuck you
????
"Sometimes it takes a little coaxing to tell Google what the hell you're searching for"
This is exactly right and it's exactly the problem. Here, let me propose a solution:
"Hey, Google, you can know what the hell I'm searching for because I FUCKING TYPED IT INTO YOUR FUCKING SEARCH BOX".
Take the tokens I type in, and return results which match exactly those tokens, every single last one of them, exactly as I typed them.
Done. Search engine complete.
If Google really thinks that its n00b users are dum dum then Google can have a helpful link that says "Try these search terms:..." and people can click on that. I just don't understand why it would be completely impossible to get Google today to do the one thing it actually did seventeen years ago. The two features that made Google dominant were no bullshit on the home page and search for what I actually ask for. Now I can't find that second feature on any search engine anywhere on the internet.
I'm having trouble reconciling your comment with the fact that the feature is called "VERBATIM" which means "in exactly the same words as were used originally".
So then tell us, where can we go to get VERBATIM results, if not to a search feature called "VERBATIM"?
It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask: why the heck is it so hard to search the internet for the terms that I actually type into the search box? We could do this in 1999, so why is it impossible in 2015?
I use DDG as my primary search engine, but it's only slightly better than Google. DDG also tries to guess what I really wanted, and it's ALWAYS wrong.
Are Slashdot users the only people in the world capable of typing into a search box the terms that they actually want? I would think that would be a nearly universal skill. I don't mind suggestions for improving my searches, but straight up ignoring what I ask for and giving me something totally different? What software engineer thought that would be a good idea?
You should check it for yourself:
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22alpha%5C.beta%22
It doesn't work.
As has already been pointed out, no search engine gives plaintext search functionality. All search engines break up pages into tokens then index the tokens. You will never be able to search the internet for a string of characters which wasn't previously tokenized by an algorithm, and no algorithm is going to tokenize "alpha.beta". You, sir, are out of luck forever.
Over the last thirty or so years, the very rich conducted a successful political campaign to promote a political message to the American people -- and the American people agreed with it. That message is "fuck the poor, let's give money to people who already have lots of money".
Like it or hate it, that is a valid political message supported by just barely less than half of voters. The country is "better" for a voter when the country conforms to the stated political preference of that voter, which means Republicans have "made the country better" for their nearly-half of voters. Those voters want deficit, they voted for it, and they got it. Those voters want poor people to pay more taxes than rich people, and they got it. Those voters want environmental degradation, and they got it. So for them, the country is better.
I'll accept critiques of America from the citizen of any country which doesn't have royalty and does have substantial racial heterogeneity. If you are from such a country, name it, then we'll address American politics.
Yeah, totally, and that's a problem but it's a hard problem, right it's a social problem. But the easy problem is the legal question: yes or no, some people are legally superior to other people based on an inherited title of nobility? Well, my answer is... no, duh that's totally stupid. Americans aren't all equal in all ways but we have the bare-minimum of equality which is at least the nominal presumption of legal equality. It's a low ethical bar, sure, but compare that to "Hey, that newborn over there, we've decided that in forty or fifty years he's going to be the King and we're going to call him His Majesty and have people salute him everywhere he goes, based on literally nothing that he himself ever does, just because".
Yeah, I get it, it's not an actual large extant problem for the average Brit on the average day, but still, you have no problem walking around with the thought in your head that some people are born into titles of nobility, they are legally superior people to you for no good reason. I don't know it just seems totally crazy. How can it persist in this day and age? And it's not just the Brits it's half of Europe. Hell even Canada puts the royals on their money.