The reason is that spam = "some moron keeps sending me ads about penis enlargement", while malware = "my computer just acts weird". While most people don't really understand the reasons for spam's existence and the technical challenges of combating it, at least they can easily have some grasp of the problem (after all, they all get spam in their real life mailboxen too). With malware most won't know the difference between "legit" evil popups and malware-caused evil popups.
According to any marketing textbook and any respected marketing specialist (not a marketing whore or a marketdroid), marketing is supposed to be about: 1) Finding the needs of the market. 2) Fullfilling the said needs.
I don't see how lying or twisting the truth helps reach any of these two goals. You must be using wrong marketing.
Re:I suggest you search for...
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
I don't want to search for pornography on google. I just want to know the reason for filtering. I can easily understand that "it's no big deal" or "everyone filters sexual terms", but this is not the reason, this is not the why...
What is the point of filtering the list? What does Google want to accomplish? Think about it. It's much scarier than the simple fact that as of today Google doesn't suggest you search for "pornography", when you type "pornograp". I don't see a valid reason, no valid reason at all and this makes me sad, because by logic it follows that google acts by invalid reasons, which can lead to all sorts of crap in the future (and it likely will).
I suggest you search for...
on
Google Suggest
·
· Score: 1
... "censorship", because that's what you are getting from now on from Google, now that it has become an evil public company.
Interestingly, nowhere in the FAQ or terms of service does Google mention that it censors the words. In a Orwellian style this service suggests only one thing - that a giant unaccountable corporation should determine which search terms are proper and which terms are not.
In a few years, as Google Inc. (or shall I saw Though Police Inc.) continues to refine it technologies, expect more and more censorship from them. Hopefully, this truly global corporation would be able to sinergistically leverage the experience in Internet filtering gained in such bastions of Freedom as China or Iran.
For those who didn't notice, here is the patently obvious evidence that search terms are censored: "pornography" isn't suggested, while "porography" and "poronography" are. "Bestiality" is not suggested, while "bestility" and "zoophilia" are.
Please write Google and tell them that we do not approve attempts at censorship and unwanted filtering... Not that our voices count for anything anymore. At least I can still find the spyware-ridden official KaZaA client and find the nearest office of the Church of Scientology... Keep up the good work, Google.
Wikipedia is not the best place for this, since their NPOV policy basically means that those who deny that climate change is happening have a voice disporportionate to the validity of their views.
I think this project is better suited for Disinfopedia, although material can obviously be moved back and forth between these two.
I think you could use Disinfopedia for collaboration on this topic. I created a stub there with the list of claims. Feel free to edit it to make a comprehensive document that is needed.
The problem is summed up here: This isn't the problem either. Do you seriously believe that the results of a whole country the size of the US can be explained just by its irrational adherence to rote learning? The problem is very likely much more complex with a number of very different factors working together to produce this result. You can't fix this problem with a simple recipe, such as "work on practical problems in math class". Such simple recipes are only likely to make the situation worse.
There is a model, but it's not a business model. If commercial for-profit sites disappear, their place would usually be taken by non-commercial ones. The purpose of good sites is not profit, it's providing value to visitors. If you don't need profit, you have many options to cover the costs. You can pay them out of your pocket, you can employ the services of volonteers, you can encourage mirrors, shop smartly for hosting, use efficient technologies, etc.
Recently I had my PC broken (I stupidly uninstalled LBA-48 support and then wondered about disk corruption), so instead of reading/. I travelled for 5 days to another country, read several books books, read proceedings from a conference on technology foresight I was interested in, read a few more books, discovered for myself how great reading paper books in an armchair for 8 hours straight and finishing a book in one go actually is (I managed to forgot that in recent years), visited two museums and generally had a nice enjoyable life.
Sadly, the computer was fixed. Now I am playing Half-Life 2 and posting to Slashdot like a decadent degenerate.:( Meanwhile I am supposed to be writing a business plan and preparing a presentation for tomorrow's conference. Not to mention finishing my Ph.D. It's pathetic. My next computer won't have a Net connection or a 3D videocard...
I think a neat way to solve the problem would be to force kids to use different computers for different functions. For example, I can envision the following scenario where the child uses computers:
A cheap slow computer in his study with MS Office (SPSS, Mathematica, Visual C++, etc.) and an expensive large LCD (or two). No Net access.
An expensive machine with the latest video card and CPU and a multimedia projector in the living room.
A cheap computer with a small LCD in the corridor (where the parents can easily monitor it) without chair (for use while standing). Net access (browser, e-mail, IM, etc.).
A tablet PC with good display, battery life and poor everything else. Just for reading.
A slow PC with Net access and easily washable keyboard in the bathroom.
Of course, the gaming machine can be replaced with a console, the tablet can be replaced with an ebook reader.
Under this scenario the kid would naturally be controlled by his parents and, although he would still have considerable freedom in using computers for fun and slacking, he would be gently nudged in the direction of working when he is supposed to be working and having fun in his free time. It also helps immensely when fun and work are physically separate. I am 24 and often I can bring myself to work on anything when I can play Half-Life 2 (which sucks, BTW) or slack on the Net.:(
By definition an average person would never write a complaint to FCC. So, now that they have a definition, they also need a procedure to test for indecency. It's really is simple. For every complaint that you want to investigate, ask a research organisation (sociology?) to invite a random sample of Americans and run a "blind" study showing them various shows (including the tested one) and measure their erection. If on average they get a boner during that show, it meets the 1 criteria. The 2nd should be determined by a lawyer. And the third by a representative panel of writers with a number of published books, TV and film artists (directors, actors, etc.), elected politicians and university scientists.
If the FCC thinks that simply waiting for any lunatic to complain about random shows is an acceptable simplification of the above procedure, their are fucking mistaken.
I rarely if ever "advertise" products that I like. I respect other people too much to do that. Only when I see that a person clearly has a need that can be met with a particular product, would I recommend it. Though when a product is free, I can suggest it even when the need is not so obvious.
For example, here on Slashdot I won't promote CS Desktop Notes, even though it's really great software, because I don't think most slashdotters need it. On the other hand, I feel no remorse about suggesting you check out Nici, an efficient, user-friendly program to mass-download free porn, categorize and view it, because people here look like a target audience.:) I would have suggested a dating service, but that would be an exercise in futility, though eHarmony is good.
I don't know, I think it's just scriptwriters sanitizing their scripts to satisfy the risk-averse studio execs, who'd rather have 10 movies flop moderately because they are all the same, than have one film totally flop because it was two ambitious and 9 succeed because they're original.:(
I am a militant atheist, rational, sceptical and what not, but I don't think I would mind gods/demons/angels (from any religion) in an action film. The truth is that pseudo-science is no better than myth/fantasy (and there is no such thing as pseudo-fantasy - any myth is equally [in]valid). The explanation only needs to be internally consistent to make sense, it doesn't have to agree with the real world.
Of course, it's also a matter of style, I am not interesting in crap like "Mashing of the Christ", but a few months ago I really enjoyed some nice B-movie about antichrist (don't recall the name, it had two brothers, one became antichrist and the leader of most world with the HQ in Rome, another was the US president).
Of course, being the militant atheist I am, I can only welcome the fact that fewer movies now involve religion.;)
The first-person technique was used by Aleksei Balabanov in Brat 2. The sequence, where Danila kills a bunch of mafiosi in the basement corridors of some night-club, is filmed in a Doom-like first-person perspective, with the gun in the bottom-middle of the screen.
Also, don't forget that we are part of the market. If we are discussing how open-source should be forced on everyone, we are being part of the market push for open-source.:)
You were brainwashed to believe that market is perfect. It isn't. The only thing is exceeds at is making demand equal supply, not at maximizing efficiency, utility or happiness.
It's quite obvious from current practices in game development, that open source has tremendous potential there. I am not saying GPL necessarily has, but open source in general. For example, 25% of EA projects use a common rendering platform - Renderware. Don't you think there are benefits for everyone if there was free access to the source (not necessarily "free as in beer"). Think about how much other middleware there is. Think about many companies optimizing their engines for moddability so that users can create custom content. All this just begs for open source model to be used.
The market, however, is not perfect. If it was perfect, it would release only perfect products, which is not the case.:) Ergo it isn't.
Well, that's why programmers have salaries, even though who work for OSS companies. This has no relation to whether the code should be eventually released.
1) They don't need RPGs to kill your grandma, just a "truck of fertilizer". Bingo - yesterday's insurgents become tomorrow's terrorists. 2) They can change tactics quickly and without multi-billion investments into ten-year R&D projects. 3) The USA fights only with enemies whose military budget is hundreds or thousands times smaller. It is possible (though at present it looks unlikely) that in several decades it would have to face an enemy that has comparable technology and military power.
Slashdot Mirror
Can't you just bomb the DirectRevenue? Or something...
The reason is that spam = "some moron keeps sending me ads about penis enlargement", while malware = "my computer just acts weird". While most people don't really understand the reasons for spam's existence and the technical challenges of combating it, at least they can easily have some grasp of the problem (after all, they all get spam in their real life mailboxen too). With malware most won't know the difference between "legit" evil popups and malware-caused evil popups.
According to any marketing textbook and any respected marketing specialist (not a marketing whore or a marketdroid), marketing is supposed to be about:
1) Finding the needs of the market.
2) Fullfilling the said needs.
I don't see how lying or twisting the truth helps reach any of these two goals. You must be using wrong marketing.
I don't want to search for pornography on google. I just want to know the reason for filtering. I can easily understand that "it's no big deal" or "everyone filters sexual terms", but this is not the reason, this is not the why...
What is the point of filtering the list? What does Google want to accomplish? Think about it. It's much scarier than the simple fact that as of today Google doesn't suggest you search for "pornography", when you type "pornograp". I don't see a valid reason, no valid reason at all and this makes me sad, because by logic it follows that google acts by invalid reasons, which can lead to all sorts of crap in the future (and it likely will).
... "censorship", because that's what you are getting from now on from Google, now that it has become an evil public company.
Interestingly, nowhere in the FAQ or terms of service does Google mention that it censors the words. In a Orwellian style this service suggests only one thing - that a giant unaccountable corporation should determine which search terms are proper and which terms are not.
In a few years, as Google Inc. (or shall I saw Though Police Inc.) continues to refine it technologies, expect more and more censorship from them. Hopefully, this truly global corporation would be able to sinergistically leverage the experience in Internet filtering gained in such bastions of Freedom as China or Iran.
For those who didn't notice, here is the patently obvious evidence that search terms are censored: "pornography" isn't suggested, while "porography" and "poronography" are. "Bestiality" is not suggested, while "bestility" and "zoophilia" are.
Please write Google and tell them that we do not approve attempts at censorship and unwanted filtering... Not that our voices count for anything anymore. At least I can still find the spyware-ridden official KaZaA client and find the nearest office of the Church of Scientology... Keep up the good work, Google.
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Globa l_Warming
Wikipedia is not the best place for this, since their NPOV policy basically means that those who deny that climate change is happening have a voice disporportionate to the validity of their views.
I think this project is better suited for Disinfopedia, although material can obviously be moved back and forth between these two.
I think you could use
Disinfopedia for collaboration on this topic. I created a stub there with the list of claims. Feel free to edit it to make a comprehensive document that is needed.
The problem is summed up here:
This isn't the problem either. Do you seriously believe that the results of a whole country the size of the US can be explained just by its irrational adherence to rote learning? The problem is very likely much more complex with a number of very different factors working together to produce this result. You can't fix this problem with a simple recipe, such as "work on practical problems in math class". Such simple recipes are only likely to make the situation worse.
There is a model, but it's not a business model. If commercial for-profit sites disappear, their place would usually be taken by non-commercial ones. The purpose of good sites is not profit, it's providing value to visitors. If you don't need profit, you have many options to cover the costs. You can pay them out of your pocket, you can employ the services of volonteers, you can encourage mirrors, shop smartly for hosting, use efficient technologies, etc.
"often I can bring myself" should be "can't", of course.
Recently I had my PC broken (I stupidly uninstalled LBA-48 support and then wondered about disk corruption), so instead of reading /. I travelled for 5 days to another country, read several books books, read proceedings from a conference on technology foresight I was interested in, read a few more books, discovered for myself how great reading paper books in an armchair for 8 hours straight and finishing a book in one go actually is (I managed to forgot that in recent years), visited two museums and generally had a nice enjoyable life.
:( Meanwhile I am supposed to be writing a business plan and preparing a presentation for tomorrow's conference. Not to mention finishing my Ph.D. It's pathetic. My next computer won't have a Net connection or a 3D videocard...
Sadly, the computer was fixed. Now I am playing Half-Life 2 and posting to Slashdot like a decadent degenerate.
Of course, the gaming machine can be replaced with a console, the tablet can be replaced with an ebook reader.
Under this scenario the kid would naturally be controlled by his parents and, although he would still have considerable freedom in using computers for fun and slacking, he would be gently nudged in the direction of working when he is supposed to be working and having fun in his free time. It also helps immensely when fun and work are physically separate. I am 24 and often I can bring myself to work on anything when I can play Half-Life 2 (which sucks, BTW) or slack on the Net.
I'm sick of this stupid crap about "indecency".
You don't understand. Indecency harms "human decency". That's why it must be stopped.
By definition an average person would never write a complaint to FCC. So, now that they have a definition, they also need a procedure to test for indecency. It's really is simple. For every complaint that you want to investigate, ask a research organisation (sociology?) to invite a random sample of Americans and run a "blind" study showing them various shows (including the tested one) and measure their erection. If on average they get a boner during that show, it meets the 1 criteria. The 2nd should be determined by a lawyer. And the third by a representative panel of writers with a number of published books, TV and film artists (directors, actors, etc.), elected politicians and university scientists.
If the FCC thinks that simply waiting for any lunatic to complain about random shows is an acceptable simplification of the above procedure, their are fucking mistaken.
Do they even see the contradiction?
What contradiction? I absolutely refuse to sumbit to your liberal logic. God (i.e. my local cleric) tells me what to think.
I rarely if ever "advertise" products that I like. I respect other people too much to do that. Only when I see that a person clearly has a need that can be met with a particular product, would I recommend it. Though when a product is free, I can suggest it even when the need is not so obvious.
:) I would have suggested a dating service, but that would be an exercise in futility, though eHarmony is good.
For example, here on Slashdot I won't promote CS Desktop Notes, even though it's really great software, because I don't think most slashdotters need it. On the other hand, I feel no remorse about suggesting you check out Nici, an efficient, user-friendly program to mass-download free porn, categorize and view it, because people here look like a target audience.
I don't know, I think it's just scriptwriters sanitizing their scripts to satisfy the risk-averse studio execs, who'd rather have 10 movies flop moderately because they are all the same, than have one film totally flop because it was two ambitious and 9 succeed because they're original. :(
;)
I am a militant atheist, rational, sceptical and what not, but I don't think I would mind gods/demons/angels (from any religion) in an action film. The truth is that pseudo-science is no better than myth/fantasy (and there is no such thing as pseudo-fantasy - any myth is equally [in]valid). The explanation only needs to be internally consistent to make sense, it doesn't have to agree with the real world.
Of course, it's also a matter of style, I am not interesting in crap like "Mashing of the Christ", but a few months ago I really enjoyed some nice B-movie about antichrist (don't recall the name, it had two brothers, one became antichrist and the leader of most world with the HQ in Rome, another was the US president).
Of course, being the militant atheist I am, I can only welcome the fact that fewer movies now involve religion.
The first-person technique was used by Aleksei Balabanov in Brat 2. The sequence, where Danila kills a bunch of mafiosi in the basement corridors of some night-club, is filmed in a Doom-like first-person perspective, with the gun in the bottom-middle of the screen.
The story goes that the whole Far Cry engine was born out of an ancient tech demo for nVidia. :)
Also, don't forget that we are part of the market. If we are discussing how open-source should be forced on everyone, we are being part of the market push for open-source. :)
You were brainwashed to believe that market is perfect. It isn't. The only thing is exceeds at is making demand equal supply, not at maximizing efficiency, utility or happiness.
:) Ergo it isn't.
It's quite obvious from current practices in game development, that open source has tremendous potential there. I am not saying GPL necessarily has, but open source in general. For example, 25% of EA projects use a common rendering platform - Renderware. Don't you think there are benefits for everyone if there was free access to the source (not necessarily "free as in beer"). Think about how much other middleware there is. Think about many companies optimizing their engines for moddability so that users can create custom content. All this just begs for open source model to be used.
The market, however, is not perfect. If it was perfect, it would release only perfect products, which is not the case.
Well, that's why programmers have salaries, even though who work for OSS companies. This has no relation to whether the code should be eventually released.
1) They don't need RPGs to kill your grandma, just a "truck of fertilizer". Bingo - yesterday's insurgents become tomorrow's terrorists.
2) They can change tactics quickly and without multi-billion investments into ten-year R&D projects.
3) The USA fights only with enemies whose military budget is hundreds or thousands times smaller. It is possible (though at present it looks unlikely) that in several decades it would have to face an enemy that has comparable technology and military power.
I dunno about userfriendly, but Caterpillar loader from Aliens is a great example.