Google describes how these China-based servers fit in to Google's mantra of 'Don't be evil.' Google hopes to use this as an opportunity to help bring global censorship into the spotlight of American politics.
Being evil fits into the idea of "Don't be Evil" because by being evil we are showing the evil of being evil, therefor getting people to talk about evil critically, which is Good.
Very noble of them!
In all honesty, I think this is overblown. Congress should examine its own dealings with China first.... clinging to this cold war ideal that isolating a population will cause it to stop supporting its government has been shown to be false (Cuba anyone). Only buy engaging a population, and exposing them to more of American culture can we cause change.
Put another way, missiles didn't win the Cold War, Bluejeans did.
I would have thought there would have been far more interest into researching how the brain functions.
There is plenty of interest... but remember, this isn't a car engine... you can't really just take pieces out, see how they work and put them back in... or better yet, rip parts out and see what stops running. Scientists have to use non-invasive procedures, or find people that had interesting accidents (Google for Phineas Gauge)
The short answer to this question is: yes, for now
For now because right now the stock price is up high (even though its value is questionable). When Google's stock price is underperforming the market, or even losing, how easy do you think it will keep to the "do no evil" mantra.
The real question, do you want to trust a company which currently has a P/E ratio of 72?
'I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy
Remember this statement. It is very telling about current and future problems for the US. I think it explains a lot of the problems we are having in Iraq, and with Hamas.
To these politicians, democracy naturally means no censorship, and things such as freedom of the press. It will probably come as a great surprise to them when many of these democracies they helped promote elect very theocratic controlling governments that do things such as censor and control the press.
This is how it works when you are an analyst: Make anything sound negative. Either it has too little features, or then it has too many. Never is anything just right, or well done.
That way, if it fails, you can say "See, I called it". If it succeeds, you say it did so in spite of those shortcomings. That's how it works.
Now look at what we've achieved since then. Uhhh..... let's see. Um. PDAs?... Blackberries?... Cell phones? (read: radio + telephone)... umm... well, our computers are smaller now, and faster?...
ummm... did you miss everything that has happened in biology and DNA lately? Electronics has just moved into the incremental consumer phase, instead of being a strict labratory science. Things like DNA sequencing, stem cells, cloning, nano-technology, and genetic engineering are where the real advancements are.
In the winter months, they sell a clear plastic sheet you can tape along the rim of the inside windowsill. It is amazingly effective at preventing heat loss. Use that.
It is a pretty damn strong theory, but theory none the less.
But this is the point. It isn't that they are mad because it isn't a theory. It is because they know that the point of this is not to educate the public, but to make them more ignorant.
The public doesn't understand the difference between the nominal usage of the word theory, and the scientific one. The scientific one meaning, consistantly proven by empirical measurements. The common usage of the word theory equates it with "I know this guy, who says he knows another guy, who says he killed JFK."
This is the real problem with these religious 'scientists'. They are really trying to equate, in the publics mind, all science with the credibility of most wacko conspiracy 'theories'.
Did people in 1850 need to consume Prozac just to cope with their own lives?
No, they had other problems that kept them from thinking of those things:
Starving to death
Cholera
Freezing during the winter
Smallpox
People during those times were depressed too, they just used alcohol (that's what most medicines were then anyway) People who were rich enough that they didn't have to worry about the things listed above had the same 'problems' you allude to the general population having today. It is only that now enough people are well off enough to sit around and worry about such higher level problems.
You realize, just because someone can go to extrodinary lengths to simulate a crime, doesn't mean that evidence of that crime is invalid in all cases. That's why we have judges to decide these things.
deliver deadly chemical or biological agents to the mass population?
This could get modded as funny, but its only half-meant to be so: Do you not already know what's on money? I don't think it would be possible to make it more dirty or infectious
If you were to look at a clock backwards, the hands would be moving counter-clockwise from your perspective. It's all relative. So in theory, both could be happenning at the same time.
Your right, these people probably got through years of Physics study, Ph.D defense, and peer review, but didn't think of that.
That does not mean visited. Presumably, the marketing people think, although the BBC is visited more often... MSNBC's web page is 'used' more (perhaps more people later talk about the MSNBC stories around the water cooler than the BBC?)
It is like when a beer says it is 'the coldest tasting'. Coldest could be proven, coldest tasting can not... same thing here
"Anybody who sells a Playboy to a 12 year old gets fined $1000," guess what magazine stores will stop carrying. If you don't carry the magazine, you can't get fined. If nobody carries the magazine, it won't get published.
You didn't address the question: Is it now illegal to sell playboys to 12 year olds? If it is, your reply doesn't make any sense, as stores do still carry them so nothing prevents you from getting it.
Look, it's what happens when a culture doesn't insist that immigrants conform.
Actually... my take on this is somewhat different. At least from what I know about early French colonial practices... they were very accepting of immigrants, as long as those immigrants totally disavowed their original culture and 'became French'. I imagine this group rioting are people who did not want to totally lose their original culture, and therefore have been alienated by the cultural elitist French society
I contrast this to America, where although yes it does require some integration, historically it is much easier to retain your original culture and still be considered an American.
Slashdot Mirror
Google describes how these China-based servers fit in to Google's mantra of 'Don't be evil.' Google hopes to use this as an opportunity to help bring global censorship into the spotlight of American politics.
Being evil fits into the idea of "Don't be Evil" because by being evil we are showing the evil of being evil, therefor getting people to talk about evil critically, which is Good.
Very noble of them!
In all honesty, I think this is overblown. Congress should examine its own dealings with China first.... clinging to this cold war ideal that isolating a population will cause it to stop supporting its government has been shown to be false (Cuba anyone). Only buy engaging a population, and exposing them to more of American culture can we cause change.
Put another way, missiles didn't win the Cold War, Bluejeans did.
I would have thought there would have been far more interest into researching how the brain functions.
There is plenty of interest... but remember, this isn't a car engine... you can't really just take pieces out, see how they work and put them back in... or better yet, rip parts out and see what stops running. Scientists have to use non-invasive procedures, or find people that had interesting accidents (Google for Phineas Gauge)
I'd offer up organs for one of these things
Me too, just not mine.
Ba-Bing!
The short answer to this question is: yes, for now
For now because right now the stock price is up high (even though its value is questionable). When Google's stock price is underperforming the market, or even losing, how easy do you think it will keep to the "do no evil" mantra.
The real question, do you want to trust a company which currently has a P/E ratio of 72?
'I was asked the question the other day, do U.S. corporations have the obligation to promote democracy
Remember this statement. It is very telling about current and future problems for the US. I think it explains a lot of the problems we are having in Iraq, and with Hamas.
To these politicians, democracy naturally means no censorship, and things such as freedom of the press. It will probably come as a great surprise to them when many of these democracies they helped promote elect very theocratic controlling governments that do things such as censor and control the press.
no text
says Deutsche Securities analyst
This is how it works when you are an analyst: Make anything sound negative. Either it has too little features, or then it has too many. Never is anything just right, or well done.
That way, if it fails, you can say "See, I called it". If it succeeds, you say it did so in spite of those shortcomings. That's how it works.
Now look at what we've achieved since then. Uhhh..... let's see. Um. PDAs? ... Blackberries? ... Cell phones? (read: radio + telephone)... umm ... well, our computers are smaller now, and faster?...
ummm... did you miss everything that has happened in biology and DNA lately? Electronics has just moved into the incremental consumer phase, instead of being a strict labratory science. Things like DNA sequencing, stem cells, cloning, nano-technology, and genetic engineering are where the real advancements are.
In the winter months, they sell a clear plastic sheet you can tape along the rim of the inside windowsill. It is amazingly effective at preventing heat loss. Use that.
It is a pretty damn strong theory, but theory none the less.
But this is the point. It isn't that they are mad because it isn't a theory. It is because they know that the point of this is not to educate the public, but to make them more ignorant.
The public doesn't understand the difference between the nominal usage of the word theory, and the scientific one. The scientific one meaning, consistantly proven by empirical measurements. The common usage of the word theory equates it with "I know this guy, who says he knows another guy, who says he killed JFK."
This is the real problem with these religious 'scientists'. They are really trying to equate, in the publics mind, all science with the credibility of most wacko conspiracy 'theories'.
You know, there are companies that make other kinds of cases, for your circular logic
Honestly, does that really even make sense?
I bet people sat around and wondered what the Carnegie Steel of 1995 would be like. I'm sure they had fun, but it probably wasn't worth the effort.
How many JPEGs would that be?
1 Really big one
No, they had other problems that kept them from thinking of those things:
- Starving to death
- Cholera
- Freezing during the winter
- Smallpox
People during those times were depressed too, they just used alcohol (that's what most medicines were then anyway) People who were rich enough that they didn't have to worry about the things listed above had the same 'problems' you allude to the general population having today. It is only that now enough people are well off enough to sit around and worry about such higher level problems.You realize, just because someone can go to extrodinary lengths to simulate a crime, doesn't mean that evidence of that crime is invalid in all cases. That's why we have judges to decide these things.
I think The Economist said it best:
"Intelligent Design is something Britons read about with a smirk before they turn to the Horoscope section"
(from memory, but very close)
deliver deadly chemical or biological agents to the mass population?
This could get modded as funny, but its only half-meant to be so: Do you not already know what's on money? I don't think it would be possible to make it more dirty or infectious
Or, he chopped down the trees and burned them to create steam. This steam turned a turbine, turning a magnet to induce electricity.
Brilliant!
If you were to look at a clock backwards, the hands would be moving counter-clockwise from your perspective. It's all relative. So in theory, both could be happenning at the same time.
Your right, these people probably got through years of Physics study, Ph.D defense, and peer review, but didn't think of that.
Key Word: used
That does not mean visited. Presumably, the marketing people think, although the BBC is visited more often... MSNBC's web page is 'used' more (perhaps more people later talk about the MSNBC stories around the water cooler than the BBC?)
It is like when a beer says it is 'the coldest tasting'. Coldest could be proven, coldest tasting can not... same thing here
Dear recording industry: Ha! Merry Fucking Christmas, motherfuckers!
Posting such a controversial stance to Slashdot is admirable. I hope your Karma doesn't suffer from all the pro-RIAA moderators here
"Anybody who sells a Playboy to a 12 year old gets fined $1000," guess what magazine stores will stop carrying. If you don't carry the magazine, you can't get fined. If nobody carries the magazine, it won't get published.
You didn't address the question: Is it now illegal to sell playboys to 12 year olds? If it is, your reply doesn't make any sense, as stores do still carry them so nothing prevents you from getting it.
The only people who will win are they lawyers. Makes me wish I went into law rather than computer science
But then you'd be part of the problem, instead of part of the other problem
he increase in muggings shows that citizens are now more prosperous (after all, no one mugs a poor person)
Look, it's what happens when a culture doesn't insist that immigrants conform.
Actually... my take on this is somewhat different. At least from what I know about early French colonial practices... they were very accepting of immigrants, as long as those immigrants totally disavowed their original culture and 'became French'. I imagine this group rioting are people who did not want to totally lose their original culture, and therefore have been alienated by the cultural elitist French society
I contrast this to America, where although yes it does require some integration, historically it is much easier to retain your original culture and still be considered an American.