Great ability to work, poor use of moral limits
on
Google Fires Blogger?
·
· Score: 1
So not only did he reveal sensitive financial information on his blog earlier, he used his position in the AdSense division to circumvent the requirements for a properly formatted AdSense ad.
He then bitches and moans that he got fired because of something he wrote on his blog.
He is a disingenuous employee who used an inside connection to make money outside of the company. His paycheck wasn't big enough at google, so he just had to make ad revenue. Now he's not making any money at Google.
Due to the new cooperation between Google, Inc, and Mapsolute GmbH, maker of the unique mapping portal Map24.com, it is now possible to search for city maps in all European Google search engines. If you enter a city name into Google.co.uk, the first result list entry is a special link to Map24.com that brings up the corresponding city map. On the result page, for sure, the full set of the rich Map24 options is available to the users.
I'd wait until they're bought out, just like Picasa and Blogger.
Well, Google maps give me the direction from my home to my office along community-known short-cuts and faster routes. Mapquest takes me unncessarily on a major interstate for a few miles which is out of the way to the office. Google maps finds the best way to my office. Mapquest, on the other hand, gives me the slower and longer route.
So, what's your point? That a beta service didn't find the fastest route for you? It certainly found my fastest route.
Humans embryonic stem cells are being researched at the same time as animal embryonic stem cells. I'm trying to emphasize that embryonic stem cells are currently being researched in humans and in animals at the same time. Animal research should take priority over animal testing. Human testing should almost never go first because of ethical and financial implications.
Animal embryonic stem cells are well funded by the US government. Mod parent insightful!
Re:"New stem cell harvesting was outlawed in the U
on
US Stem Cells Contaminated
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You forgot another important word: human.
The research beginning first on humans simultaneously with animal embryonic stem cells is the first time that I can recall in medical research. The normal research process has animal testing prior to human testing. The idea is that we should invest in learning how the cells are able to differentiate and how the lab can use the process to an advantage in animals. Only after this has been turned into a political issue has the reearch process reversed from animal testing first to human testing first.
I don't know if this is tongue-in-cheek (it probably is), but the so-called "scientists" from the 1970s proposed covering the arctic in black soot to increase light-absorption and reverse the effects of global cooling. If climate change has an impact on life which we can not control, so be it.
Don't be a smartass. Everyone knows that early dinosaurs took public transportation. It was those pesky cro-magnons who drove to work in their massive HUVs (hunting-utility vehicles) by themselves in the carpool lanes.
What strikes me odd is how you portray the situation. Rather than saying that Saddam and his sons were committing crimes against humanity and they absolutely needed to be removed from power because of their confirmed crimes of raping, torturing, executing thousands of people, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Rather than praising the US government which liberated the Iraqi people from tyranny who are now moving on to democratic elections, you conjure up a disjointed and ignorant view that it is indeed the US government which is at fault. You use baseless claims of torture at a state-run "torture-camp".
It strikes me odd that if Bill Clinton had been in office and he liberated Iraq, you would be singing his praises! Oh yes! Just like in Kosovo, where the US government took down a genocidal leader, unilaterally. I recommend for your own good that you take off your glasses of ignorance and look at the situation for what it is. Ask yourself, was it worth it to liberate millions of people from tyranny? I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and Kosovo.
Illegal combatants, by definition, can not be given the benefits of the Geneva Convention because they do not abide by the laws. Simply being un-uniformed is enough to be considered an illegal combatant. Don't take you your grief and anti-americanism with me. Try bitching at the Hague who devised the treaty in the first place.
No, they're combatants. Illegal combatants. Should we not kill illegal combatants who fight and kill civilians and US soldiers while wearing the clothes of civilians?
Which of these criteria did the Afghanistan defenders fail to meet?
The last one:
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Wearing uniforms is part of the laws and customs of war. Not targetting civilians who support the US is part of the laws and customs of war. They refuse to abide by the rules and laws of warfare, and thus they will not receive the benefits of the Geneva Convention treaty.
Slippery slope: if you're "allowed" to by-pass the convention by claiming somebody terrorists (without any semblenance of due process being needed), what stops your enemies from doing it?
It's easy: nation-states are nation-states, and terrorists are terrorists. The US is a nation state. Iraq is a nation-state. When Saddam was in power, his uniformed soldiers were members of the military supporting the nation state. Terrorists who target civilians without wearing uniforms are terrorists and not uniformed soldiers of a nation-state. Don't assume ambiguity when there isn't.
What on earth do you have to do be counted a soldier? What is your criteria for when someone is allowed to defend themselves (soldier) or not (illegal combatants)?
According to the Geneva Convention and the rules of warfare, you are a soldier if you are wearing a uniform of a nation-state's military. If you are not, then you are an illegal combatant. Terrorists target civilians, which is against the laws of warfare and against the Geneva Convention.
There is absolutely no reason why terrorists should ever be considered soldiers. They break the rules of warfare and they are not distinguished from civilians by wearing uniforms and they are not part of a nation-state's military.
Do you realize how pathetic you sound? You wouldn't happen to be related to Ann Coulter, would you? You're arguements sound much the same.
Exactly, you have zero evidence to backup what you have said. The only thing you have left is to say that I'm related to Ann Coulter. THAT is what is truly pathetic.
Liberation? I'm assume you're referring to Iraq. We didn't go into Iraq (either time) to liberate its people. We went into Iraq for the oil, plain and simple. Political asshats trying to redefine their intentions post-action say we're liberating the people.
You are very cynical to believe that we went into Iraq "for the oil". Why don't we invade Kuwait instead? They are much smaller and have more oil to boot. What about the UAE? I'd love to hear you explain that.
They also said Saddam was about to attack us, was developing nuclear weapons, and was a part of 9/11. All of that was BS.
Can you give me a transcript of when the leaders said that Saddam was about to attack us? Can you give me evidence that Saddam was not developing nuclear weapons? Can you give me transcripts saying that Saddam was part of 9/11?
It should be fairly easy for you to do that, right? It's common knowledge that you are correct, right? Well, prove it!
We're not acting as liberators. We're acting like oil-hungry greedy coporations who only give a damn about the bottomline. And what the hell is this about Kosovo and the tsunami relief efforts? Where the hell did that come from? You're simply blind, period.
The point is that you claim that the Iraq effort is one for greed of oil. If the US is so greedy and evil for invading Iraq, then how does the Tsunami relief fit in? We're not getting oil from that. We didn't get oil from Kosovo, but we got rid of the genocidal leader Milosevic. If the US is so evil, how do those actions fit into the whole picture?
When we stoop to the lowest levels of the terrorists we become nothing more than terrorists ourselves.
In what way are we stooping to the lowest levels of terrorists? Are you insinuating that the US is targetting civilians for murder, car-bombing indiscriminately, or beheading prisoners?
Do you consider liberation to being a bully? What about Kosovo? Were we wrong then too? What about the tsunami relief? Were we wrong to give aid?
You are seriously interpreting our noble actions across the world to be acts of bullying. You claim that we stoop to the level of terrorists, yet we have not done a thing like it. Your eyes are blinded by hatred for GWB. You will say anything, do anything, think anything to make it fit that GWB is evil and the US is evil.
You need more than wanting to "save the world" to be a physician. I've seen pre-meds, med students, and residents with his attitude. They are some of the most miserable people I knew. When they come to the arduous workload and studyload while still working 80 hours a week, they don't know what to do. The wistful attitude that they are going to "save the world" is what do them in.
Why doesn't he go into nursing instead? He can have more patient contact, do more physically for the patient. Why is he studying in the US instead? Does he know about the horrible environment for physicians in Canada? Does he know what kind of terrible money he's gonna get for working in Canada? Dollars to donuts, he knows. He should just stay in Canada and "save the world" there. Oh wait, he can't make the big-bucks while there because of the socialized medicine. So instead, he's getting sued and might go to jail.
Why should we apply nation-state status to terrorist groups? The Geneva Convention was never meant to protect non-uniformed soldiers and terrorists from US care. Rather, it was a treaty that was meant to protect OUR troops from the enemy. Because terrorists purposely target civilians and police without wearing a uniform and swearing allegiance to a state, the Geneva Convention will never apply to them.
The Geneva Convention prevents POWs from being interrogated and the prisoners must be held in groups, not separated. If we apply this "minimal level of professionalism" to terrorists, what does that gain us? The terrorists have already gone against the professionalism and rules of warfare. Why should we treat them as prisoners of war?
We already apply a very high level of treatment for the detainees without giving them specific allowances from the treaty.
Neither is a particularly good quality to see in someone that wants to be a doctor.
Not only is he ignorant of how laws work in the US with respect to copyright and theft, his motivations to study medicine are also suspect:
Anyway, I'm a junior in college - and despite popular belief I'm not a programming major or computer science aficionado; I'm just a plain ol' pre-med student.
My passion lies in medicine. I'm one of those hippy-save-the-world Canuks. I suppose that's due to committing myself to life as a perpetual student - but I have no problem with that. Non-stop school between the age of 4 and 30 isn't so bad, when you get to feel like you're making a difference in peoples lives.
He is planning on entering a career in medicine because of his good intentions to "save the world". I think his idea is that the only thing that matters is whether you have the right intentions. His intention to "save the world" by being a physician is about as admirable as his intention to satiate the want of his friends for X.4 Tiger.
If he is as idiotic as he describes himself with his "good intentions", I can't wait to see his MCAT scores from this April... if he's not in jail at that time.
Does anyone else find it peculiar that Porkins is fat? I mean, he almost looks like a pig. I find it hard not to laugh whenever I hear "porkins" and see his chubby face.
Slashdot Mirror
Also working great on my Yosemite 350mhz.
So not only did he reveal sensitive financial information on his blog earlier, he used his position in the AdSense division to circumvent the requirements for a properly formatted AdSense ad.
He then bitches and moans that he got fired because of something he wrote on his blog.
He is a disingenuous employee who used an inside connection to make money outside of the company. His paycheck wasn't big enough at google, so he just had to make ad revenue. Now he's not making any money at Google.
What a moron.
Not so micro. Or soft. He might be the new "giver".
* shudder *
* Yawn *
Due to the new cooperation between Google, Inc, and Mapsolute GmbH, maker of the unique mapping portal Map24.com, it is now possible to search for city maps in all European Google search engines. If you enter a city name into Google.co.uk, the first result list entry is a special link to Map24.com that brings up the corresponding city map. On the result page, for sure, the full set of the rich Map24 options is available to the users.
I'd wait until they're bought out, just like Picasa and Blogger.
Well, Google maps give me the direction from my home to my office along community-known short-cuts and faster routes. Mapquest takes me unncessarily on a major interstate for a few miles which is out of the way to the office. Google maps finds the best way to my office. Mapquest, on the other hand, gives me the slower and longer route.
So, what's your point? That a beta service didn't find the fastest route for you? It certainly found my fastest route.
The parent post sums up Google's strategy for future growth fairly well I think. Mod parent up!
Humans embryonic stem cells are being researched at the same time as animal embryonic stem cells. I'm trying to emphasize that embryonic stem cells are currently being researched in humans and in animals at the same time. Animal research should take priority over animal testing. Human testing should almost never go first because of ethical and financial implications.
Animal embryonic stem cells are well funded by the US government. Mod parent insightful!
You forgot another important word: human.
The research beginning first on humans simultaneously with animal embryonic stem cells is the first time that I can recall in medical research. The normal research process has animal testing prior to human testing. The idea is that we should invest in learning how the cells are able to differentiate and how the lab can use the process to an advantage in animals. Only after this has been turned into a political issue has the reearch process reversed from animal testing first to human testing first.
Obviously the mods have no sense of humor!
I don't know if this is tongue-in-cheek (it probably is), but the so-called "scientists" from the 1970s proposed covering the arctic in black soot to increase light-absorption and reverse the effects of global cooling. If climate change has an impact on life which we can not control, so be it.
Don't be a smartass. Everyone knows that early dinosaurs took public transportation. It was those pesky cro-magnons who drove to work in their massive HUVs (hunting-utility vehicles) by themselves in the carpool lanes.
What strikes me odd is how you portray the situation. Rather than saying that Saddam and his sons were committing crimes against humanity and they absolutely needed to be removed from power because of their confirmed crimes of raping, torturing, executing thousands of people, and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Rather than praising the US government which liberated the Iraqi people from tyranny who are now moving on to democratic elections, you conjure up a disjointed and ignorant view that it is indeed the US government which is at fault. You use baseless claims of torture at a state-run "torture-camp".
It strikes me odd that if Bill Clinton had been in office and he liberated Iraq, you would be singing his praises! Oh yes! Just like in Kosovo, where the US government took down a genocidal leader, unilaterally. I recommend for your own good that you take off your glasses of ignorance and look at the situation for what it is. Ask yourself, was it worth it to liberate millions of people from tyranny? I'm not just talking about Iraq, I'm talking about the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and Kosovo.
Illegal combatants, by definition, can not be given the benefits of the Geneva Convention because they do not abide by the laws. Simply being un-uniformed is enough to be considered an illegal combatant. Don't take you your grief and anti-americanism with me. Try bitching at the Hague who devised the treaty in the first place.
And still they weren't combatants?
No, they're combatants. Illegal combatants. Should we not kill illegal combatants who fight and kill civilians and US soldiers while wearing the clothes of civilians?
Which of these criteria did the Afghanistan defenders fail to meet?
The last one:
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Wearing uniforms is part of the laws and customs of war. Not targetting civilians who support the US is part of the laws and customs of war. They refuse to abide by the rules and laws of warfare, and thus they will not receive the benefits of the Geneva Convention treaty.
Slippery slope: if you're "allowed" to by-pass the convention by claiming somebody terrorists (without any semblenance of due process being needed), what stops your enemies from doing it?
It's easy: nation-states are nation-states, and terrorists are terrorists. The US is a nation state. Iraq is a nation-state. When Saddam was in power, his uniformed soldiers were members of the military supporting the nation state. Terrorists who target civilians without wearing uniforms are terrorists and not uniformed soldiers of a nation-state. Don't assume ambiguity when there isn't.
What on earth do you have to do be counted a soldier? What is your criteria for when someone is allowed to defend themselves (soldier) or not (illegal combatants)?
According to the Geneva Convention and the rules of warfare, you are a soldier if you are wearing a uniform of a nation-state's military. If you are not, then you are an illegal combatant. Terrorists target civilians, which is against the laws of warfare and against the Geneva Convention.
There is absolutely no reason why terrorists should ever be considered soldiers. They break the rules of warfare and they are not distinguished from civilians by wearing uniforms and they are not part of a nation-state's military.
Do you realize how pathetic you sound? You wouldn't happen to be related to Ann Coulter, would you? You're arguements sound much the same.
Exactly, you have zero evidence to backup what you have said. The only thing you have left is to say that I'm related to Ann Coulter. THAT is what is truly pathetic.
Liberation? I'm assume you're referring to Iraq. We didn't go into Iraq (either time) to liberate its people. We went into Iraq for the oil, plain and simple. Political asshats trying to redefine their intentions post-action say we're liberating the people.
You are very cynical to believe that we went into Iraq "for the oil". Why don't we invade Kuwait instead? They are much smaller and have more oil to boot. What about the UAE? I'd love to hear you explain that.
They also said Saddam was about to attack us, was developing nuclear weapons, and was a part of 9/11. All of that was BS.
Can you give me a transcript of when the leaders said that Saddam was about to attack us? Can you give me evidence that Saddam was not developing nuclear weapons? Can you give me transcripts saying that Saddam was part of 9/11?
It should be fairly easy for you to do that, right? It's common knowledge that you are correct, right? Well, prove it!
We're not acting as liberators. We're acting like oil-hungry greedy coporations who only give a damn about the bottomline. And what the hell is this about Kosovo and the tsunami relief efforts? Where the hell did that come from? You're simply blind, period.
The point is that you claim that the Iraq effort is one for greed of oil. If the US is so greedy and evil for invading Iraq, then how does the Tsunami relief fit in? We're not getting oil from that. We didn't get oil from Kosovo, but we got rid of the genocidal leader Milosevic. If the US is so evil, how do those actions fit into the whole picture?
When we stoop to the lowest levels of the terrorists we become nothing more than terrorists ourselves.
In what way are we stooping to the lowest levels of terrorists? Are you insinuating that the US is targetting civilians for murder, car-bombing indiscriminately, or beheading prisoners?
Do you consider liberation to being a bully? What about Kosovo? Were we wrong then too? What about the tsunami relief? Were we wrong to give aid?
You are seriously interpreting our noble actions across the world to be acts of bullying. You claim that we stoop to the level of terrorists, yet we have not done a thing like it. Your eyes are blinded by hatred for GWB. You will say anything, do anything, think anything to make it fit that GWB is evil and the US is evil.
You need more than wanting to "save the world" to be a physician. I've seen pre-meds, med students, and residents with his attitude. They are some of the most miserable people I knew. When they come to the arduous workload and studyload while still working 80 hours a week, they don't know what to do. The wistful attitude that they are going to "save the world" is what do them in.
Why doesn't he go into nursing instead? He can have more patient contact, do more physically for the patient. Why is he studying in the US instead? Does he know about the horrible environment for physicians in Canada? Does he know what kind of terrible money he's gonna get for working in Canada? Dollars to donuts, he knows. He should just stay in Canada and "save the world" there. Oh wait, he can't make the big-bucks while there because of the socialized medicine. So instead, he's getting sued and might go to jail.
Why should we apply nation-state status to terrorist groups? The Geneva Convention was never meant to protect non-uniformed soldiers and terrorists from US care. Rather, it was a treaty that was meant to protect OUR troops from the enemy. Because terrorists purposely target civilians and police without wearing a uniform and swearing allegiance to a state, the Geneva Convention will never apply to them.
The Geneva Convention prevents POWs from being interrogated and the prisoners must be held in groups, not separated. If we apply this "minimal level of professionalism" to terrorists, what does that gain us? The terrorists have already gone against the professionalism and rules of warfare. Why should we treat them as prisoners of war?
We already apply a very high level of treatment for the detainees without giving them specific allowances from the treaty.
Neither is a particularly good quality to see in someone that wants to be a doctor.
Not only is he ignorant of how laws work in the US with respect to copyright and theft, his motivations to study medicine are also suspect:
Anyway, I'm a junior in college - and despite popular belief I'm not a programming major or computer science aficionado; I'm just a plain ol' pre-med student. My passion lies in medicine. I'm one of those hippy-save-the-world Canuks. I suppose that's due to committing myself to life as a perpetual student - but I have no problem with that. Non-stop school between the age of 4 and 30 isn't so bad, when you get to feel like you're making a difference in peoples lives.
He is planning on entering a career in medicine because of his good intentions to "save the world". I think his idea is that the only thing that matters is whether you have the right intentions. His intention to "save the world" by being a physician is about as admirable as his intention to satiate the want of his friends for X.4 Tiger.
If he is as idiotic as he describes himself with his "good intentions", I can't wait to see his MCAT scores from this April... if he's not in jail at that time.
which laws it wants to follow on a mere whim (can you say Geneva Convention?)
The Geneva Convention is a treaty, not a law. And it's a treaty signed with certain nation-states, not terrorist groups.
Does anyone else find it peculiar that Porkins is fat? I mean, he almost looks like a pig. I find it hard not to laugh whenever I hear "porkins" and see his chubby face.