I disagree. "Edit" menu contains editing commands, right? Cut, copy, paste, delete (no matter if it spplies to text, image or other content). What's logical about placing Options there?
It's just as illogical to put options under "View" menu, which is meant for managing the way content is displayed in the program. You don't just "view" options, you view and modify them. "Tools" is a kind of a catch-all, but it makes most sense of the three.
Because if you cleanse Google, you've already covered what percentage of all search engine hits? 80? 80 percent? If it's not on Google, it won't be found my most people.
I get no image search results for "Lynndie England" on google.co.uk. (safe search off) You do? Could it rather be that Google filters results based on geolocation?
It sucks in a weirdly selective manner, though. Do an image search for "Abu Ghraib". Six pages of results. Not one image relevant to the issue of prison torture.
The information they're blocking is not even controversial. These are well-documented facts, the images are evidence, they're raw data. Google is blanking out portions of _history_.
I've read about the many perceived problems with Google before and ignored them because Google is free to do whatever they want yadda yadda. But this is giving me a major pause.
"If the 5 people in front of you said Kerry, a lot of people would say Kerry even if they voted for Bush to keep from being harrassed about it."
Right, but it requires a 5 to 1 ratio of Kerry voters to Bush voters. How about only 2 to 1? That is to say, if your argument applied, Kerry would have won anyway.
Reality check: Exactly _what_ trouble were the FBI after what happened with Sept. 11? Any dismissals, reprimands, indictments? Did any honcho at the FBI do any jail time for negligence?
Private information provided to corporations will sooner or later be accessed by the government, by law, by threat or by force. Private information collected by the government will not always be provided to corporations. Plus the government is accountable, at least in principle.
" then there is no protection for the family / estate of the artist."
Explain why there should be any. If you work thirty years as a teacher, say, your kids won't be getting any of your salary after you expire. Why should artists' kids have it any different?
(The major problem with copyright is that it can be *transferred* to other people or corporations. If that were not allowed, artists would be well-protected while all RIAAs/MPAAs of this world would never have come into existence.)
Families should never have control over an artist's creative work anyway. In book publishing it often happens that after a writer dies, his/her spouse, parents or children block some of the writer's books from reprints, or even get to edit them for publication. (Example: Sylvia Plath's mother, who edited The Bell Jar and is still hogging much of Plath's diaries). This is besides the question of royalties, of course.
"They're in a difficult position though. If they want to do business in China, then they're going to have to abide by Chinese laws and customs."
This is exactly the problem. They "want to do business" first and foremost. That's what spammers say, too - they just want to make a buck. But it matters howHow you do business and with whom you do it - that's where capitalism stops being morally neutral. If you trade with a corrupt government knowing that it is corrupt, you are willingly assisting them, no two ways about it. It's like selling a gun to a convicted murderer, because you "want to do business" with him.
They shouldn't be using "Free download" as the prominent eye-catching link. "Free download" does not mean the software is free, only that it costs nothing to download it. This semantic fuzziness is often used by commercial software vendors (and spammers) as a way to entice people to download trial and/or crippled software. They should instead say something like "Free software", "Free to get, free to use", anything that doesn't have the bad vibe that comes with "free download"
Wish I had mod points today, parent should be at +5. I remember the day we discussed the poem you quote from in English lit class - it made sense to me then, but in an abstract way, Now, it rings so true.
Why would private schoos be immune to corporate lobbying? They'll be more than happy to take the money in exchange for a small addendum to the curriculum here and there. And, being private, they're accountable to no-one. Government funded schools are accountable to the public, at least in principle.
"It doesn't fucking matter who owns the airwaves. THE CORPORATIONS OWN THEIR CONTENT"
Yeah, they own *their* content - the content they have produced. The Olympics is an event that they are reporting, it is NOT "their content", just like an ongoing war or a plane crash isn't "their content". These are events that they report.
Any exclusive licensing - indeed, any licensing at all, for reporting an event of global interest is absurd. Of course the IOC itself is a racket, they're no better and no worse than the media companies.
"The military wants robotic vehicles for unmanned transport of supplies, primarily."
Yeah, but supplies ain't just food, you know. Think munitions.
I know it's a cool challenge and a geek-out, but I wish people really thought twice, and then thought some more, before they start doing free research for the world's most powerful military. They're getting enough of your tax money already, people. I'm sure everyone on the team that came up with the first two A-bombs dropped was a hell of a geek, but maybe they should have become gardeners instead.
"If MS can present a clean, uncluttered, unbiased search then they MIGHT stand a chance. What's the likelihood of that happening though?"
Not too shabby. MS has consistently shown that there are some things they just can't learn, such as security, and that there are things they learn exceedingly well, such as making software that fits what average home and office users want to do. They spend enormous amounts on research, they can afford to make mistakes, and they certainly don't need advertising money, so their search interface needn't be cluttered with ad banners. Unless they try milking the new service to MMF, but they probably know that's not the way to beat Google.
I live in a country where prices (cars, gas, housing, consumer goods, everything except food) are the same as in Western Europe, but salaries are five to ten times lower. In effect, even highly skilled and hard-working people have a hard time buying a car or an apartment, and very few people even dream of buying houses. But I'm independent, so I'll pack my bags tomorrow, buy a one-way ticket to the US, get a job at a gas station in Montana and start working my way up from there, maybe one day I'll make it in the land of opportunity.
What do you think is going to happen if I try to exercice my independence? What do you think will the immigration officer say at the JFK airport when I mention I've come to work in the US? But I wouldn't even get that far - I'll never get to so much as smell a visa, even though hey, my country's one of your best allies, your own president said so!
The point being, you can only be independent if the playing field is level. Start letting *everyone* work in the US just as you have allowed your corporations to put their stakes in just about every place on Earth, then we'll talk about being independent and self-reliant.
I'll start supporting free trade and outsourcing the day you start supporting free movement of labor. Why shouldn't the people from all the countries you mention, as well as India, Pakistan, China, Mexico and many others, be able to freely enter and legally work in the US, for better wages and better living standards? That is to say, why is the argument always for all the freedom for corporations, but never for the same freedom for, you know, people?
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree. "Edit" menu contains editing commands, right? Cut, copy, paste, delete (no matter if it spplies to text, image or other content). What's logical about placing Options there?
It's just as illogical to put options under "View" menu, which is meant for managing the way content is displayed in the program. You don't just "view" options, you view and modify them. "Tools" is a kind of a catch-all, but it makes most sense of the three.
Because if you cleanse Google, you've already covered what percentage of all search engine hits? 80? 80 percent? If it's not on Google, it won't be found my most people.
I get no image search results for "Lynndie England" on google.co.uk. (safe search off) You do? Could it rather be that Google filters results based on geolocation?
It sucks in a weirdly selective manner, though. Do an image search for "Abu Ghraib". Six pages of results. Not one image relevant to the issue of prison torture.
The information they're blocking is not even controversial. These are well-documented facts, the images are evidence, they're raw data. Google is blanking out portions of _history_.
I've read about the many perceived problems with Google before and ignored them because Google is free to do whatever they want yadda yadda. But this is giving me a major pause.
"If the 5 people in front of you said Kerry, a lot of people would say Kerry even if they voted for Bush to keep from being harrassed about it."
Right, but it requires a 5 to 1 ratio of Kerry voters to Bush voters. How about only 2 to 1? That is to say, if your argument applied, Kerry would have won anyway.
Reality check: Exactly _what_ trouble were the FBI after what happened with Sept. 11? Any dismissals, reprimands, indictments? Did any honcho at the FBI do any jail time for negligence?
Wish I had mod points today, this is so true.
US citizens can voice their displeasure here.
Not only is it funny, it's the first inventive use of the BLINK tag i've seen since, oh, 1996 or so.
How about twenty?
Private information provided to corporations will sooner or later be accessed by the government, by law, by threat or by force. Private information collected by the government will not always be provided to corporations. Plus the government is accountable, at least in principle.
" then there is no protection for the family / estate of the artist."
Explain why there should be any. If you work thirty years as a teacher, say, your kids won't be getting any of your salary after you expire. Why should artists' kids have it any different?
(The major problem with copyright is that it can be *transferred* to other people or corporations. If that were not allowed, artists would be well-protected while all RIAAs/MPAAs of this world would never have come into existence.)
Families should never have control over an artist's creative work anyway. In book publishing it often happens that after a writer dies, his/her spouse, parents or children block some of the writer's books from reprints, or even get to edit them for publication. (Example: Sylvia Plath's mother, who edited The Bell Jar and is still hogging much of Plath's diaries). This is besides the question of royalties, of course.
Yes, because they were already doing so in 2002.
"They're in a difficult position though. If they want to do business in China, then they're going to have to abide by Chinese laws and customs."
This is exactly the problem. They "want to do business" first and foremost. That's what spammers say, too - they just want to make a buck. But it matters howHow you do business and with whom you do it - that's where capitalism stops being morally neutral. If you trade with a corrupt government knowing that it is corrupt, you are willingly assisting them, no two ways about it. It's like selling a gun to a convicted murderer, because you "want to do business" with him.
They shouldn't be using "Free download" as the prominent eye-catching link. "Free download" does not mean the software is free, only that it costs nothing to download it. This semantic fuzziness is often used by commercial software vendors (and spammers) as a way to entice people to download trial and/or crippled software. They should instead say something like "Free software", "Free to get, free to use", anything that doesn't have the bad vibe that comes with "free download"
Wish I had mod points today, parent should be at +5. I remember the day we discussed the poem you quote from in English lit class - it made sense to me then, but in an abstract way, Now, it rings so true.
Why would private schoos be immune to corporate lobbying? They'll be more than happy to take the money in exchange for a small addendum to the curriculum here and there. And, being private, they're accountable to no-one. Government funded schools are accountable to the public, at least in principle.
"It doesn't fucking matter who owns the airwaves. THE CORPORATIONS OWN THEIR CONTENT"
Yeah, they own *their* content - the content they have produced. The Olympics is an event that they are reporting, it is NOT "their content", just like an ongoing war or a plane crash isn't "their content". These are events that they report.
Any exclusive licensing - indeed, any licensing at all, for reporting an event of global interest is absurd. Of course the IOC itself is a racket, they're no better and no worse than the media companies.
"The military wants robotic vehicles for unmanned transport of supplies, primarily."
Yeah, but supplies ain't just food, you know. Think munitions.
I know it's a cool challenge and a geek-out, but I wish people really thought twice, and then thought some more, before they start doing free research for the world's most powerful military. They're getting enough of your tax money already, people. I'm sure everyone on the team that came up with the first two A-bombs dropped was a hell of a geek, but maybe they should have become gardeners instead.
So how do you propose he should have done it? By asking his boss if it's true he plays Solitaire 70% of the time in office?
"If MS can present a clean, uncluttered, unbiased search then they MIGHT stand a chance. What's the likelihood of that happening though?"
Not too shabby. MS has consistently shown that there are some things they just can't learn, such as security, and that there are things they learn exceedingly well, such as making software that fits what average home and office users want to do. They spend enormous amounts on research, they can afford to make mistakes, and they certainly don't need advertising money, so their search interface needn't be cluttered with ad banners. Unless they try milking the new service to MMF, but they probably know that's not the way to beat Google.
"Where is it written that American corporations have an obligation to hire American workers"
On the same page where it says Americans companies exepect to sell their products to the US population. Right under the "Buy American!" heading.
"Whatever happened to a person's independence?"
I live in a country where prices (cars, gas, housing, consumer goods, everything except food) are the same as in Western Europe, but salaries are five to ten times lower. In effect, even highly skilled and hard-working people have a hard time buying a car or an apartment, and very few people even dream of buying houses. But I'm independent, so I'll pack my bags tomorrow, buy a one-way ticket to the US, get a job at a gas station in Montana and start working my way up from there, maybe one day I'll make it in the land of opportunity.
What do you think is going to happen if I try to exercice my independence? What do you think will the immigration officer say at the JFK airport when I mention I've come to work in the US? But I wouldn't even get that far - I'll never get to so much as smell a visa, even though hey, my country's one of your best allies, your own president said so!
The point being, you can only be independent if the playing field is level. Start letting *everyone* work in the US just as you have allowed your corporations to put their stakes in just about every place on Earth, then we'll talk about being independent and self-reliant.
I'll start supporting free trade and outsourcing the day you start supporting free movement of labor. Why shouldn't the people from all the countries you mention, as well as India, Pakistan, China, Mexico and many others, be able to freely enter and legally work in the US, for better wages and better living standards? That is to say, why is the argument always for all the freedom for corporations, but never for the same freedom for, you know, people?