That I no longer have Google with which to access my porn!
I mean, what did they do back in the heady days of JaNET and dialup BBS, yanno, like "Before Google"??
A line printer, a ton of green-bar paper, a lot of tape and scissor work, hang it on the wall, and then stand way, way back to find out you've been Rick-Rolled and it's the "woman in hat" picture again?
This is the standard Anglo approach to the problem. Present a false black and white argument instead of the actual argument, and then present an ultimatum.
Most European cultures including Spain do not have such a culture. Instead, they would likely prefer to negotiate with google on the issue. Google instead chooses to openly extort the country by offering them only two choices which you suggest.
I presume your middle option would be:
S: Pay us a lot for our content showing up in your search results and news! G: No. S: We have passed a law that makes you pay us, so pay us! G: Buh Bye! S: Savages! They should negotiate on the amount they will pay us! Have they never heard of under the table kickbacks?!?
Isn't that really how you are saying things should have gone?
Or were you thinking that Google should have charged your newspapers for listing them, an amount equal to the amount the newspapers were charging them for "their content" (but then pay Spanish taxes), so the newspapers get an expense write off on their taxes, they get the status quo, and the Spanish government gets more taxes out of Google?
I'm really curious to know what your idea of a negotiation would look like here...
Coming from Canada, I'll give you an example of the problem with Google News. PS I'm not french.
1) Clicking the news tab will always default to the US news. Even if Google is forcing the google.ca domain
Badly designed browsers when doing private browsing don't allow for ephemeral cookies.
The problem is that you are geolocated by IP (and yes, it gets this wrong if you are using a VPN into a node in another country - it thinks you are in the other country; not solving this "problem" is intentional on the part of the IETF), and a attempted cookie is set saying "They are in Canada; redirect and use the google.ca domain to serve up the first page". So google.ca shows up.
This geolocation is not repeated, and the cookie is not reset subsequently, since it's a relatively computationally expensive reverse lookup operation; if the cookie is there, it's referenced, and if the cookie is not there, it's not referenced. Then your subsequent request comes in through that first page, the cookie is examined, is not seen, and therefore you get the default, which is the US response.
The proper thing for your browser to do is to set an ephemeral cookie when doing "private browsing"; that is, it allows the "set" of the cookie, but since it's "private browsing", the cookie is set in memory in the DOM, instead of being saved in permanent cookie storage.
So it's happening that way because your browser implemented has screwed the pooch on what it mean when you are private browsing, and just blocks all cookie sets unconditionally. In other words, your browser sucks.
NB: Chrome gets this wrong in "incognito mode", as well, in the other direction; it implements ephemeral cookies into the session, rather than the DOM. Presumably, this is because they want cookies for login sessions to persist across DOMs which involve Google properties. So it's possible for an "incognito mode" session to leak information to outside parties for cross-site purposes. You'll see this with "limited number of views per month" sites, like the NYT and other news sites, where if you use the same "incognito mode" session - which persists, even if you close the window and open a new "incognito mode" window. If you restart Chrome, then the cookies are flushed. It's not clear whether this is intentional or just bad programming.
It's funny... there's one picture showing a huge amount of damage caused by their footprints, even deeper and more visible than the landmark lines in places, and in the rest of the pictures you can't see any damage at all.
The pictures showing no damage are the "before" pictures.
Too bad none of the idiots at Greenpeace knew how to use photoshop.
those bush fires are started to clear the jungle/forest and create new farmland. And the reason they do that is... overpopulation. So yes, it wouldn't be an issue if the population is low.
Awfully accommodating of the lightning gods to clear farmland... since almost all of them are started by lightning.
Well, look around you, watch what humans do... can you blame them for not liking this particular species?
Yeah, I don't like what those Greenpeace activist humans did to one of the 1,007 UNESCO wold heritage sites, the same way I'd hate them for demolishing other UNESCO world heritage sites, like the Statue of Liberty, Yosemite, The Pyramids in Egypt, Ankor Wat in Cambodia, the Great Wall in China, or the Acropolis in Greece.
Or are you saying that those sites are deserving of being defaced by Greenpeace activist humans as well?
You do realize that Greenpeace activist humans are members of the set of all humans, right?
Responsible nuclear power is fantastic, unfortunately I don't see many examples of it in the real world. Lowest bidder nuclear power, yeah, we're doing great at that.
It's wouldn't have to be that way if they didn't have to (because of anti-nuclear nutjobs) refile an environmental impact statement reexamining the who project every time they change pipe fitting vendors.
for which the Greenpeace response -- as strong an apology as possible, while accepting that mere apology is insufficient -- is missing from the summary
To be entirely fair... the strongest possible apology would be to turn themselves in to the Peruvian authorities, and spend six years in a Peruvian prison, as martyrs to their cause.
Greenpeace seems to have the notion that the more obnoxious and arrogant you are, the more you can get people to agree with you.
Turning off people who might otherwise agree with them. Instead, they just generate hatred.
They're more like telemarketers. You eventually cave into their demands to make them go the hell away. At least that's the theory behind obnoxious and abusive marketing.
"Grand Traverse County Health Officer Wendy Trute said last week that a teacher fell ill with whooping cough in October. Some of the teacher's close contacts did not take the antibiotic until they started to show symptoms, which is too late to prevent the disease's spread, Trute said."
The spread of the disease was exacerbated by the fact that this was a charter school, which accepted students from across district lines, and those exposed kids then went home and exposed more kids in their neighborhoods outside the district in which the charter school was located.
Perhaps mandatory vaccinations for teachers traveling abroad, so that they don't bring the disease back with them from their trip, and give it to their students?
You can't have a patient 1 without a patient zero...
Go does not see significant use, even at Google. It's one of the allowed implementation languages, along with Python, JavaScript, and C/C++, but it doesn't see a lot of uptake internally at Google.
Why was VB so popular for Windows Development? Well it was designed to make Windows Apps. Other languages could do this as well, but they were often a bit more cumbersome to achieve similar tasks.
Actually, VB was popular because it lowered the bar on *who* could make Windows programs. It wasn't so much that it was better at making those programs, it was that vastly more people were capable of building working programs using it as a tool than using any other of the available tools. In terms of computer language learning curves, BASIC is still pretty hard to beat. In fact, I'd argue that no one has beat it yet.
If I give you an algorithm, throw a dart at a page of programming languages to select one and if you cannot implement that algorithm in that language then you are nothing but a code monkey.
A computer scientist can implement any algorithm in any language.
The "D" language used in writing DTrace scripts does not have loop constructs or recursion, and is not Turing complete. While I can do some pretty astonishing things in "D" that would make your jaw drop, even without looping constructs and recursion, it's pretty easy to come up with things which are impossible to implement in "D".
So I would say your page of programming languages would, at a minimum, need to be Turing complete programming languages.
If someone wants to win a suit over a negative review, they should have to prove that the review is false. For instance, they would have to prove that the customer was not dissatisfied with the service, or that some other statement that the client made in their review was false in a defamatory way. I think that a statement such as "this company is the worst ever" should not be expected to be literally true, but be taken as a statement of dissatisfaction on the part of the customer.
I think if this were to happen, yelp would be out of business, since according to some anecdotes, they post fake negative reviews to (effectively) blackmail you into buying their advertising services, which includes (1) not placing competitors ads on the pages they create for your business, without your permission, and (2) allow you to chose reviews seen by default by users who do not click through to additional reviews (thus allowing you to effectively "hide" negative reviews that they themselves might have originated).
Personally, I find yelp occasionally helpful, but fixing the standards of evidence, such as "when did Bad Review Bob say he was here, and does he have a receipt, because I was booked solid during those hours on that day?" to make being able to rip down a fake bad review from a hater/competitor/yelp itself/etc. easier would sink their "pay for positive review placement" model.
How would we observe it when there is a systematic bias towards pink and fluffy in every toy and media aimed at girls?
Just because a toy is aimed at girls, doesn't mean a parent has to pull the trigger on the toy and fire it at their daughter. Who put Hasbro's marketing department in charge of raising our children in the first place? Oh yeah, the parents.
As someone who is trying to choose my last topping on an N-topping pizza deal, I will spend my absolutely most time trying to choose between the last two toppings, unsure of which one of the two I want more. That will push those two toppings way up on the list, inflating their supposed value to me, when in fact, they are chosen last precisely because they have less value than anything else to me.
This seems like a way to sell extra toppings for an up-charge.
I asked my friend in Chernobyl about this... he said he and his family watched this via the internet, and they thought it was so ridiculous that he and his kids practically laughed their feelers off.
Why aren't companies paying more people to work on Open Source projects.
Does their purchase of a programmer's coding time give them any editorial control on the project? If it doesn't, then it's got little value to them to contribute patches to a project, if there's no chance that they're going to be accepted. This is frequently true when you want to make changes that go across area boundaries in Linux, and you aren't an area maintainer, like Alan Cox or Ingo Molnar.
So the company is willing to hire people who already have commit bits and/or a high enough position in the project that they aren't going to be stuck maintaining local patches for the rest of eternity, and applying them to every new revision that comes out. Google was this way; the Google server team has literally years worth of patches that aren't being accepted back into mainline Linux at this point (example: the TSC resynchronization code for AMD processors that puts the TSCs on all the CPUs back where they would have been, before the platform went into a C2 or greater state, and stopped the CPU clocks. Google carries these forward every time the update the server OS.
If the software is strategic: you don't want it to be Open Source.
If the software is tactical: you want it back into the project so that it reduces your ongoing maintenance burden.
If you can't have both those things, then it makes sense to just internally fork the project, and then ignore anything major that causes divergence with the original project, unless it's a bug fix. Which you then merge back into your private source base.
NB: This is largely how Android works; most of the development is not in public, and is only published post, or simultaneous to, a hardware release. That's also how Apple works, too, when they figured out that developing in public had no commercial benefit, and leaked a lot of information. Apple didn't want to preannounce their hardware, any more than an Android using company like Samsung wants Huawei or Apple knowing ahead of time what hardware they're going to be releasing in 6 months.
So I guess if you want more companies hiring people to work on Open Source, you need to turn the question around a bit, and ask why editorial control is centralized in so few people, and why is their kingdom building that reinforces that centralization, such that there are not more prominent developers with some say in the project direct that are available for companies to hire?
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."...unless you live in Texas or Oklahoma.
Slashdot Mirror
That I no longer have Google with which to access my porn!
I mean, what did they do back in the heady days of JaNET and dialup BBS, yanno, like "Before Google"??
A line printer, a ton of green-bar paper, a lot of tape and scissor work, hang it on the wall, and then stand way, way back to find out you've been Rick-Rolled and it's the "woman in hat" picture again?
That's easy, heck Lycos still exists. The question is how do they get their population to use it?
Pass a law in Spain that people must use it instead of other search engines?
This is the standard Anglo approach to the problem. Present a false black and white argument instead of the actual argument, and then present an ultimatum.
Most European cultures including Spain do not have such a culture. Instead, they would likely prefer to negotiate with google on the issue. Google instead chooses to openly extort the country by offering them only two choices which you suggest.
I presume your middle option would be:
S: Pay us a lot for our content showing up in your search results and news!
G: No.
S: We have passed a law that makes you pay us, so pay us!
G: Buh Bye!
S: Savages! They should negotiate on the amount they will pay us! Have they never heard of under the table kickbacks?!?
Isn't that really how you are saying things should have gone?
Or were you thinking that Google should have charged your newspapers for listing them, an amount equal to the amount the newspapers were charging them for "their content" (but then pay Spanish taxes), so the newspapers get an expense write off on their taxes, they get the status quo, and the Spanish government gets more taxes out of Google?
I'm really curious to know what your idea of a negotiation would look like here...
Publishers do not have legislative powers. Democratically elected leaders owned by publisher lobbying organizations do.
Fixed that for you. You're welcome.
Coming from Canada, I'll give you an example of the problem with Google News. PS I'm not french.
1) Clicking the news tab will always default to the US news. Even if Google is forcing the google.ca domain
Badly designed browsers when doing private browsing don't allow for ephemeral cookies.
The problem is that you are geolocated by IP (and yes, it gets this wrong if you are using a VPN into a node in another country - it thinks you are in the other country; not solving this "problem" is intentional on the part of the IETF), and a attempted cookie is set saying "They are in Canada; redirect and use the google.ca domain to serve up the first page". So google.ca shows up.
This geolocation is not repeated, and the cookie is not reset subsequently, since it's a relatively computationally expensive reverse lookup operation; if the cookie is there, it's referenced, and if the cookie is not there, it's not referenced. Then your subsequent request comes in through that first page, the cookie is examined, is not seen, and therefore you get the default, which is the US response.
The proper thing for your browser to do is to set an ephemeral cookie when doing "private browsing"; that is, it allows the "set" of the cookie, but since it's "private browsing", the cookie is set in memory in the DOM, instead of being saved in permanent cookie storage.
So it's happening that way because your browser implemented has screwed the pooch on what it mean when you are private browsing, and just blocks all cookie sets unconditionally. In other words, your browser sucks.
NB: Chrome gets this wrong in "incognito mode", as well, in the other direction; it implements ephemeral cookies into the session, rather than the DOM. Presumably, this is because they want cookies for login sessions to persist across DOMs which involve Google properties. So it's possible for an "incognito mode" session to leak information to outside parties for cross-site purposes. You'll see this with "limited number of views per month" sites, like the NYT and other news sites, where if you use the same "incognito mode" session - which persists, even if you close the window and open a new "incognito mode" window. If you restart Chrome, then the cookies are flushed. It's not clear whether this is intentional or just bad programming.
It's funny... there's one picture showing a huge amount of damage caused by their footprints, even deeper and more visible than the landmark lines in places, and in the rest of the pictures you can't see any damage at all.
The pictures showing no damage are the "before" pictures.
Too bad none of the idiots at Greenpeace knew how to use photoshop.
those bush fires are started to clear the jungle/forest and create new farmland. And the reason they do that is... overpopulation. So yes, it wouldn't be an issue if the population is low.
Awfully accommodating of the lightning gods to clear farmland... since almost all of them are started by lightning.
Well, look around you, watch what humans do... can you blame them for not liking this particular species?
Yeah, I don't like what those Greenpeace activist humans did to one of the 1,007 UNESCO wold heritage sites, the same way I'd hate them for demolishing other UNESCO world heritage sites, like the Statue of Liberty, Yosemite, The Pyramids in Egypt, Ankor Wat in Cambodia, the Great Wall in China, or the Acropolis in Greece.
Or are you saying that those sites are deserving of being defaced by Greenpeace activist humans as well?
You do realize that Greenpeace activist humans are members of the set of all humans, right?
Responsible nuclear power is fantastic, unfortunately I don't see many examples of it in the real world. Lowest bidder nuclear power, yeah, we're doing great at that.
It's wouldn't have to be that way if they didn't have to (because of anti-nuclear nutjobs) refile an environmental impact statement reexamining the who project every time they change pipe fitting vendors.
for which the Greenpeace response -- as strong an apology as possible, while accepting that mere apology is insufficient -- is missing from the summary
To be entirely fair... the strongest possible apology would be to turn themselves in to the Peruvian authorities, and spend six years in a Peruvian prison, as martyrs to their cause.
Or they could just kill themselves and everyone to save the planet.
Carbon emission wouldn't be an issue if the whole human population is reduced by 90%.
Actually, it'd still be an issue, since ~26% of the CO2 put into the atmosphere each year comes from the yearly brushfires in Africa.
Greenpeace seems to have the notion that the more obnoxious and arrogant you are, the more you can get people to agree with you.
Turning off people who might otherwise agree with them. Instead, they just generate hatred.
They're more like telemarketers. You eventually cave into their demands to make them go the hell away. At least that's the theory behind obnoxious and abusive marketing.
In this case, patient zero was a teacher:
"Grand Traverse County Health Officer Wendy Trute said last week that a teacher fell ill with whooping cough in October. Some of the teacher's close contacts did not take the antibiotic until they started to show symptoms, which is too late to prevent the disease's spread, Trute said."
The spread of the disease was exacerbated by the fact that this was a charter school, which accepted students from across district lines, and those exposed kids then went home and exposed more kids in their neighborhoods outside the district in which the charter school was located.
Perhaps mandatory vaccinations for teachers traveling abroad, so that they don't bring the disease back with them from their trip, and give it to their students?
You can't have a patient 1 without a patient zero...
Go does not see significant use, even at Google. It's one of the allowed implementation languages, along with Python, JavaScript, and C/C++, but it doesn't see a lot of uptake internally at Google.
Why was VB so popular for Windows Development? Well it was designed to make Windows Apps. Other languages could do this as well, but they were often a bit more cumbersome to achieve similar tasks.
Actually, VB was popular because it lowered the bar on *who* could make Windows programs. It wasn't so much that it was better at making those programs, it was that vastly more people were capable of building working programs using it as a tool than using any other of the available tools. In terms of computer language learning curves, BASIC is still pretty hard to beat. In fact, I'd argue that no one has beat it yet.
If I give you an algorithm, throw a dart at a page of programming languages to select one and if you cannot implement that algorithm in that language then you are nothing but a code monkey.
A computer scientist can implement any algorithm in any language.
The "D" language used in writing DTrace scripts does not have loop constructs or recursion, and is not Turing complete. While I can do some pretty astonishing things in "D" that would make your jaw drop, even without looping constructs and recursion, it's pretty easy to come up with things which are impossible to implement in "D".
So I would say your page of programming languages would, at a minimum, need to be Turing complete programming languages.
If someone wants to win a suit over a negative review, they should have to prove that the review is false. For instance, they would have to prove that the customer was not dissatisfied with the service, or that some other statement that the client made in their review was false in a defamatory way. I think that a statement such as "this company is the worst ever" should not be expected to be literally true, but be taken as a statement of dissatisfaction on the part of the customer.
I think if this were to happen, yelp would be out of business, since according to some anecdotes, they post fake negative reviews to (effectively) blackmail you into buying their advertising services, which includes (1) not placing competitors ads on the pages they create for your business, without your permission, and (2) allow you to chose reviews seen by default by users who do not click through to additional reviews (thus allowing you to effectively "hide" negative reviews that they themselves might have originated).
Personally, I find yelp occasionally helpful, but fixing the standards of evidence, such as "when did Bad Review Bob say he was here, and does he have a receipt, because I was booked solid during those hours on that day?" to make being able to rip down a fake bad review from a hater/competitor/yelp itself/etc. easier would sink their "pay for positive review placement" model.
Buy her a Maleficent costume and teach her chemistry; color change experiments, glowing water, diet coke and mentos... :D
How would we observe it when there is a systematic bias towards pink and fluffy in every toy and media aimed at girls?
Just because a toy is aimed at girls, doesn't mean a parent has to pull the trigger on the toy and fire it at their daughter. Who put Hasbro's marketing department in charge of raising our children in the first place? Oh yeah, the parents.
Time tracking is a *bad* metric.
As someone who is trying to choose my last topping on an N-topping pizza deal, I will spend my absolutely most time trying to choose between the last two toppings, unsure of which one of the two I want more. That will push those two toppings way up on the list, inflating their supposed value to me, when in fact, they are chosen last precisely because they have less value than anything else to me.
This seems like a way to sell extra toppings for an up-charge.
I asked my friend in Chernobyl about this... he said he and his family watched this via the internet, and they thought it was so ridiculous that he and his kids practically laughed their feelers off.
And you do it with a unique MAC address, duly recorded by the ISP that provides service where you slurp your caffeine.
The AC already stated that the MAC address was spoofed. Good luck finding the hardware device that has 0a:0b:0c:0d:0e:0f.
cash handlers get special training because they need to know how to reconcile their cash box
"Help wanted. Must be able to add. No English majors, please."
Give me a break...
The real question should be:
Why aren't companies paying more people to work on Open Source projects.
Does their purchase of a programmer's coding time give them any editorial control on the project? If it doesn't, then it's got little value to them to contribute patches to a project, if there's no chance that they're going to be accepted. This is frequently true when you want to make changes that go across area boundaries in Linux, and you aren't an area maintainer, like Alan Cox or Ingo Molnar.
So the company is willing to hire people who already have commit bits and/or a high enough position in the project that they aren't going to be stuck maintaining local patches for the rest of eternity, and applying them to every new revision that comes out. Google was this way; the Google server team has literally years worth of patches that aren't being accepted back into mainline Linux at this point (example: the TSC resynchronization code for AMD processors that puts the TSCs on all the CPUs back where they would have been, before the platform went into a C2 or greater state, and stopped the CPU clocks. Google carries these forward every time the update the server OS.
If the software is strategic: you don't want it to be Open Source.
If the software is tactical: you want it back into the project so that it reduces your ongoing maintenance burden.
If you can't have both those things, then it makes sense to just internally fork the project, and then ignore anything major that causes divergence with the original project, unless it's a bug fix. Which you then merge back into your private source base.
NB: This is largely how Android works; most of the development is not in public, and is only published post, or simultaneous to, a hardware release. That's also how Apple works, too, when they figured out that developing in public had no commercial benefit, and leaked a lot of information. Apple didn't want to preannounce their hardware, any more than an Android using company like Samsung wants Huawei or Apple knowing ahead of time what hardware they're going to be releasing in 6 months.
So I guess if you want more companies hiring people to work on Open Source, you need to turn the question around a bit, and ask why editorial control is centralized in so few people, and why is their kingdom building that reinforces that centralization, such that there are not more prominent developers with some say in the project direct that are available for companies to hire?
Maybe I've been away too long, but last I heard was that Relativity is still a theory.
It's a Scientific theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation." ...unless you live in Texas or Oklahoma.