The cheque guarantee card would never have worked for ads, catalogues or online anyway, as the rules for a cheque guarantee card says that the MERCHANT must write down the details of the card on the back of the cheque, not the customer.
Cheque guarantee cards are only good for point of sale purchases.
Or more likely they cash the cheque and THEN dispatch the goods. Cheque guarantee cards are for when you are AT the merchant, and want to take your goods away with you.
Or perhaps it's because the Europeans have both in moderation whereas the USians have both in extremes: On TV extreme violence is the norm and extreme outrage is the norm when a nipple is shown for half a second.
Article submitter (kdawson...) jumps to the conclusion that the downloader was a customer. Nowhere in the linked article does is say that it was a customer, merely that it was "someone".
If that "someone" was the pub manager then I can see why the pub manager would be the one sued by the copyright holder.
I seriously doubt they'll do it for that reason because they rake in money to cover international readership by displaying ads to those who are browsing from outside the UK.
The point remains that by setting up shop in a country, and attempting to follow the 'laws' of every country, Google has placed itself in the position where countries (like Italy) attempt to treat them like they have an actual business in that country.
Er, "setting up shop" is doing business. If you set up shop in Italy, then that shop has to follow Italy's laws.
The internet does not have an immediate analogue in the real world, and attempting to treat services provided on the internet as a local service simply because you can 'see' it from inside your country is flawed logic. I suppose the closest analogy to this example would be someone in Italy attempting to apply an Italian law against lewd behavior against an Austrian couple because they were visible from the Italian side of the border.
Just because you can 'see' it on the internet doesn't mean that the act occurred within your country's jurisdiction.
In this case, the act did occur within that country's jurisdiction, so what's your point? I am sure that Italy's courts are not trying to prosecute Google Italy employees for infractions of non-Italian laws.
I also want discrimination to end, but I also see that there's a difference between blacks and whites - just as there is between males and females. But that does not mean I should think of people as "unequal" in general terms. Are you sexist if you do not want to treat males and females the same by running a co-ed 100m race at the Olympics? Of course not, even though a woman would never win a medal if that were the case. Admitting there are differences does not mean you should give one group more respect than another.
Same goes for the genes you carry that determine your skin colour. Admit there are differences, but get over it - treat every one with respect and stop thinking that we're all created the same. We're not.
I'm personally of the opinion that showing M. Obama as a monkey is racially motivated
Does anyone know the original source of the image? Do we even know that it wasn't just the product of a bored/b/tard with a warezed copy of Photoshop who saw the picture of Obama and thought "I think I'll piss off some people today!"
Google isn't really to blame.. and them removing this item can be seen as censorship.
Only if you are a total moron.
Google is not the government, it is a private company with no legal or moral requirement to link to something that clearly offends some of its customers.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that only the government can exert censorship. While it is true that the US constitution prohibits many forms of censorship BY the government, it does not prohibit censorship by non-government entities. Google can, if they wish, censor whatever the hell they like in the search results that they show to their users.
Google's quandry therefore is whether it is better for them to censor, or to not censor. I suspect that once a precedent is set by a single act of censorship, some people's trust in the results will be damaged, and therefore harm Google's perceived non-bias.
It's not the beeps that get us... we can live with that... it's...
the blinking, beeping, and flashing lights, blinking and beeping and flashing - they're *flashing* and they're *beeping*. I can't stand it anymore! They're *blinking* and *beeping* and *flashing*! Why doesn't somebody pull the plug!
Slashdot Mirror
IUPAC would disagree with you.
Aluminium is the correct spelling, and Aluminum is an acceptable alternative.
I'm pretty sure that pence are still around :)
The cheque guarantee card would never have worked for ads, catalogues or online anyway, as the rules for a cheque guarantee card says that the MERCHANT must write down the details of the card on the back of the cheque, not the customer.
Cheque guarantee cards are only good for point of sale purchases.
Or more likely they cash the cheque and THEN dispatch the goods. Cheque guarantee cards are for when you are AT the merchant, and want to take your goods away with you.
Or perhaps it's because the Europeans have both in moderation whereas the USians have both in extremes: On TV extreme violence is the norm and extreme outrage is the norm when a nipple is shown for half a second.
... bastard ...
Article submitter (kdawson ...) jumps to the conclusion that the downloader was a customer. Nowhere in the linked article does is say that it was a customer, merely that it was "someone".
If that "someone" was the pub manager then I can see why the pub manager would be the one sued by the copyright holder.
Because UK citizens do not pay to give information to people outside the UK.
My non-UK based reading is paid for by the ads that the BBC charges to be shown on pages being read by non-UK web users.
I seriously doubt they'll do it for that reason because they rake in money to cover international readership by displaying ads to those who are browsing from outside the UK.
few people want to use them for news anyway
I'm sorry, but where else would you go for news (especially local)?
TV & Non-newspaper news websites.
The point remains that by setting up shop in a country, and attempting to follow the 'laws' of every country, Google has placed itself in the position where countries (like Italy) attempt to treat them like they have an actual business in that country.
Er, "setting up shop" is doing business. If you set up shop in Italy, then that shop has to follow Italy's laws.
The internet does not have an immediate analogue in the real world, and attempting to treat services provided on the internet as a local service simply because you can 'see' it from inside your country is flawed logic. I suppose the closest analogy to this example would be someone in Italy attempting to apply an Italian law against lewd behavior against an Austrian couple because they were visible from the Italian side of the border.
Just because you can 'see' it on the internet doesn't mean that the act occurred within your country's jurisdiction.
In this case, the act did occur within that country's jurisdiction, so what's your point? I am sure that Italy's courts are not trying to prosecute Google Italy employees for infractions of non-Italian laws.
No, atheism is a lack of belief. Calling atheism a belief-system is like calling not collecting stamps a hobby.
I also want discrimination to end, but I also see that there's a difference between blacks and whites - just as there is between males and females. But that does not mean I should think of people as "unequal" in general terms. Are you sexist if you do not want to treat males and females the same by running a co-ed 100m race at the Olympics? Of course not, even though a woman would never win a medal if that were the case. Admitting there are differences does not mean you should give one group more respect than another.
Same goes for the genes you carry that determine your skin colour. Admit there are differences, but get over it - treat every one with respect and stop thinking that we're all created the same. We're not.
Since when does different mean not equal? Apples and oranges are both fruit - so from that perspective they are equal, yet different.
I don't think it will hurt them either, but mainly because from what I see they didn't actually censor anything at all.
If I am reading it right, the site that hosted the image took it down, and Google's indexing bots merely updated the cache and therefore the results.
Yes, I think they handled it quite well.
I'm personally of the opinion that showing M. Obama as a monkey is racially motivated
Does anyone know the original source of the image? Do we even know that it wasn't just the product of a bored /b/tard with a warezed copy of Photoshop who saw the picture of Obama and thought "I think I'll piss off some people today!"
Hang on, let me google it ...
Only if you are a total moron.
Google is not the government, it is a private company with no legal or moral requirement to link to something that clearly offends some of its customers.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that only the government can exert censorship. While it is true that the US constitution prohibits many forms of censorship BY the government, it does not prohibit censorship by non-government entities. Google can, if they wish, censor whatever the hell they like in the search results that they show to their users.
Google's quandry therefore is whether it is better for them to censor, or to not censor. I suspect that once a precedent is set by a single act of censorship, some people's trust in the results will be damaged, and therefore harm Google's perceived non-bias.
tl;dr
>140 characters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delphi_online_service
I think the award for latest Kansas moment recently goes to District 9. At times, almost believable :)
It's not the beeps that get us... we can live with that... it's...
the blinking, beeping, and flashing lights, blinking and beeping and flashing - they're *flashing* and they're *beeping*. I can't stand it anymore! They're *blinking* and *beeping* and *flashing*! Why doesn't somebody pull the plug!
I have it on Presidential authority that the actual phrase is :
"Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."
Math error :)
1 billion is a thousand million.
So $1 million x 1,000 sites = $1 billion. You're out by a factor of 10.
I'm pretty sure your wife would ensure you stayed very dead. Permanently dead. Extremely and terminally dead. Deader 'n a dead thing.
how much more reliable could you be?
11 more reliable.