I have stuff up on the internet and google doesn't give me any ad revenue for it. So thye can't "force" me not to do anything.
Sure they can. All they have to do is threaten to cut off everyone who does business with you or links to you. Your associates probably like being in business more than they like you. If one of them doesn't, well let's see if their associates like being in business.
It's easy for people (not you serviscope -- thinking people) to see the problem. Google has already started down this road of abusing their power.
Google controls the web advertising business. They didn't just not pay for an article, they coerced the removal of the article by threatening to deny access to advertising for all the articles. Google has enough power over the Internet to bully and silence almost anyone on the web. Now they've started doing it.
People (not you serviscope -- thinking people) should ask themselves: Do you want one company deciding for everyone what they can and can't read on the Internet?
Big corporations like Google have too much power. That's not an argument for centralizing that power in government hands instead. The government is happy to act on Google's behalf. Google has a lot more friends in government than you do.
Yeah, Google controls the internet advertising business and leverages that control to effectively censor content. That's just information on what Google does (according to this article).
Feel free to endorse that behavior if that's the kind of person you are. Or don't if you're the sort of person who wants content to go uncensored so people can make up their own minds.
Probably. Maybe only half of them are fake. Maybe 90% are fake. Maybe only 10%. There's no way to know.
With all the fakes and trolls, everyone should think twice and then think twice more whenever they see anything. Especially if it seems useful/helpful to someone with an agenda.
Want to see the post so you can applaud Google for taking a correct moral stand? Well, you can't. It's gone. Google abused their market control in web advertising and had it censored.
You may read only what Google allows you to read. You didn't want to decide for yourself anyway, did you?
Yeah, because Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Bacon, Newton, Leibniz, and all the groundbreaking mathematicians, scientists and technologists up through Einstein, Turing, Feynman and Berners-Lee took up science and technology because they were inspired by someone they saw on TV.
What they could aspire to was more of a blank canvas, because there wasn't an established trope of only X can do Y.
You really want to say that life decades and/or centuries ago was open and filled with opportunities for regular people? Really?
Read the links now, while you still can. If you have Google Fiber, maybe read them on your phone. (Of course you can't read one of the articles in question -- Google made sure of that.)
Whole Foods has a very tiny market share in groceries. There's no reason to block the deal because the grocery market is super competitive.
The FTC is a legal enforcement agency. They don't use internet conspiracy theories or grudges in their decision making. They can't make up a dystopian fairy tale to decide things like this.
It's not just the banks. Apple would also have to convince the public that face recognition is secure and that they can trust it with their finances. The public already thinks fingerprints are a good means of identifying individuals.
Also "push this button with the finger we have the fingerprint stored for" is a somewhat different sort of action than "my face is somewhere near my phone". They would also have to have some other sort of secondary action like pushing a button to activate authentication mode. If they didn't, you could just take a phone, put it in face scanning mode and then when the phone's owner walks by looking for his phone it will see him and automatically unlock. So anyone could authenticate a phone just by hiding it behind something that leaves the sensor exposed.
But it's hard to believe. Apple sold ApplePay to banks and card companies based on the security of their fingerprint scanner. Fingerprints have a hundred year history of being a means of unique biological identification. Facial recognition has a few years of history marked by some successes and some embarrassing failures.
Are banks and card companies just going to automatically OK a change like that? It's hard to believe.
Easier to believe they got the in-screen fingerprint scanner to work. Synaptics keeps claiming they have that technology and it works.
So "trade war" means "any disagreement at all about trade policies" then? Or even potential disagreements that might become disagreements because the sides haven't addressed them at all yet?
It's still crying wolf if you conveniently decide to call every plant and animal and insect "wolf".
Every day we hear this or that policy could start a trade war. But the last "trade war" was like 40+ years ago. They've predicted hundreds of trade wars since then and none have occurred.
Why should we listen to people telling stories about what they imagine the future might be like? Stop crying wolf all day every day.
Also, who designs open loop battery charging systems?
I fuck all about battery charging, but engineers would never design a system that could overcharge and explode batteries based on some old data about how much charge the system thought it might have. And even if they did, why would safety regulators ever approve such a system -- especially in Japan?
A "free and open Internet" means not banning for disagreement. Enjoy seeing exactly what Google allows you to see and never anything else. You didn't really want to choose for yourself anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
I have stuff up on the internet and google doesn't give me any ad revenue for it. So thye can't "force" me not to do anything.
Sure they can. All they have to do is threaten to cut off everyone who does business with you or links to you. Your associates probably like being in business more than they like you. If one of them doesn't, well let's see if their associates like being in business.
It's easy for people (not you serviscope -- thinking people) to see the problem. Google has already started down this road of abusing their power.
Google controls the web advertising business. They didn't just not pay for an article, they coerced the removal of the article by threatening to deny access to advertising for all the articles. Google has enough power over the Internet to bully and silence almost anyone on the web. Now they've started doing it.
People (not you serviscope -- thinking people) should ask themselves: Do you want one company deciding for everyone what they can and can't read on the Internet?
Big corporations like Google have too much power. That's not an argument for centralizing that power in government hands instead. The government is happy to act on Google's behalf. Google has a lot more friends in government than you do.
The market didn't decide. Google decided for everyone.
Yeah, Google controls the internet advertising business and leverages that control to effectively censor content. That's just information on what Google does (according to this article).
Feel free to endorse that behavior if that's the kind of person you are. Or don't if you're the sort of person who wants content to go uncensored so people can make up their own minds.
Probably. Maybe only half of them are fake. Maybe 90% are fake. Maybe only 10%. There's no way to know.
With all the fakes and trolls, everyone should think twice and then think twice more whenever they see anything. Especially if it seems useful/helpful to someone with an agenda.
Have you been forced by google to change your film script?
These guys were forced by Google to delete a post.
Want to see the post so you can applaud Google for taking a correct moral stand? Well, you can't. It's gone. Google abused their market control in web advertising and had it censored.
You may read only what Google allows you to read. You didn't want to decide for yourself anyway, did you?
Vampire hunter, starship captain, post-apocalyptic tribal warrior, superhero sidekick, etc., etc. How many examples do you need?
Yeah, because Aristotle, Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes, Bacon, Newton, Leibniz, and all the groundbreaking mathematicians, scientists and technologists up through Einstein, Turing, Feynman and Berners-Lee took up science and technology because they were inspired by someone they saw on TV.
What they could aspire to was more of a blank canvas, because there wasn't an established trope of only X can do Y.
You really want to say that life decades and/or centuries ago was open and filled with opportunities for regular people? Really?
Historians will say mission accomplished.
False flag. See also fake hate crimes.
Someday perhaps you will realize that the life you spent being mean to people and hating people because they're not like you was a sad, wasted life.
Also, I don't know those references. I guess they're from some TV show?
Yes. The social justice religion requires daily devotions. If any part of life is outside the cult leaders' influence, they see that as a threat.
In related news, Google abuses it's power in advertising. And Google abuses it's power in video. And Google bullies a leftist think tank.
Read the links now, while you still can. If you have Google Fiber, maybe read them on your phone. (Of course you can't read one of the articles in question -- Google made sure of that.)
Enjoy seeing only what Google allows you to see and never anything else. You didn't really want to decide for yourself anyway.
People start out at bad or mediocre jobs and then show others they have talent and then go on to better and better jobs.
We should get a poll going:
How many hard-working guys with valuable skills and a good attitude do you know who can't find any good work?
I'm guessing the numbers would be low these days.
Whole Foods has a very tiny market share in groceries. There's no reason to block the deal because the grocery market is super competitive.
The FTC is a legal enforcement agency. They don't use internet conspiracy theories or grudges in their decision making. They can't make up a dystopian fairy tale to decide things like this.
It's not just the banks. Apple would also have to convince the public that face recognition is secure and that they can trust it with their finances. The public already thinks fingerprints are a good means of identifying individuals.
Also "push this button with the finger we have the fingerprint stored for" is a somewhat different sort of action than "my face is somewhere near my phone". They would also have to have some other sort of secondary action like pushing a button to activate authentication mode. If they didn't, you could just take a phone, put it in face scanning mode and then when the phone's owner walks by looking for his phone it will see him and automatically unlock. So anyone could authenticate a phone just by hiding it behind something that leaves the sensor exposed.
But it's hard to believe. Apple sold ApplePay to banks and card companies based on the security of their fingerprint scanner. Fingerprints have a hundred year history of being a means of unique biological identification. Facial recognition has a few years of history marked by some successes and some embarrassing failures.
Are banks and card companies just going to automatically OK a change like that? It's hard to believe.
Easier to believe they got the in-screen fingerprint scanner to work. Synaptics keeps claiming they have that technology and it works.
Information without relevance has negative value.
So "trade war" means "any disagreement at all about trade policies" then? Or even potential disagreements that might become disagreements because the sides haven't addressed them at all yet?
It's still crying wolf if you conveniently decide to call every plant and animal and insect "wolf".
Someone I never heard of had music I never heard made into another form of media I don't care about. Keep it up.
Every day we hear this or that policy could start a trade war. But the last "trade war" was like 40+ years ago. They've predicted hundreds of trade wars since then and none have occurred.
Why should we listen to people telling stories about what they imagine the future might be like? Stop crying wolf all day every day.
Also, who designs open loop battery charging systems?
I fuck all about battery charging, but engineers would never design a system that could overcharge and explode batteries based on some old data about how much charge the system thought it might have. And even if they did, why would safety regulators ever approve such a system -- especially in Japan?
A "free and open Internet" means not banning for disagreement. Enjoy seeing exactly what Google allows you to see and never anything else. You didn't really want to choose for yourself anyway.