Do you realize how many search terms there are and how many websites there are out there? The major search terms are probably human checked but that still leaves I'd guess a billion unique search terms left over. So there are probably millions of spam websites operating over tens of millions of search terms. That's not counting the unsuccessful spam sites, Blekko claims there's a million spam pages created every hour. So basically, you nuke one and they make twenty more in it's place.
Then again I suspect if they did what you wanted and in the process took out some random guy's legitimate website (ie: nuked his search rankings) you'd be the first one complaining about how evil google is for doing something like that.
Google doesn't need to show better ad results than search results because people are idiots. The first ad can be identical to the first search result and people will still slick the add in droves. People are idiots and they'll clicks ads no matter what. No idea why.
Attempting to put some sort of malicious view onto google in terms of ads pretty much shows your ignorance of how they work. Google shows very few ads compared to what they could show and as a result they sacrifice a massive amount of money. They block bad ads and don't promote bad ads to the top of the page. If one of their now dead competitors showed that few ads they'd have been bankrupt years ago.
The bottom feeders likely provide crap revenue to google and google would probably gladly kill them all. I wouldn't be surprised if google was discounting those bottom feeder click payments to insane levels. The damage to advertiser revenue from essentially worthless (ie: non converting) clicks (which means the advertiser's aren't willing to pay as much for clicks overall) is likely much greater than the pittance they make on those ads being clicked.
Then again your agenda (ie: it pays you to do so) is making google look bad so I have no idea how much of that you really don't know and how much you simply ignore mentioning.
Most comments on this note the player is not particularly great as far as Starcraft players are concerned, nowhere near an actual pro-gamer, and the only tournament mentioned is from 2001. So at best a good (but not great) player who's 10 years out of practice and behind on current strategies of playing. Also, the article only mentions that the AI won one test game against the player. Not even an actual game since it seems testing Goliaths was the real point of that game.
Yes, just as the iPhone is a great open platform, for after all we have jailbreaking.
Unless I turn off my iphone then I need to find a computer with the right software before I can use it. Or live with old version of the software assuming I suppose I wasn't stupid enough to upgrade before I decided to jailbreak. That's after I dig through the information to figure out the exact details of how to jailbreak my particular version of the phone and with what limitations. But yeah, other than that it's got a perfectly useful jailbreak.
Humans are wired for altruism. Doing something for other people is in fact being selfish since it fulfills your own desires (to help others). To a point of course, total selflessness is insane. Granted we're also wired to want to have kids and also wired to be rationally explain our emotional decisions.
A license is not a contract, it has no power or authority on it's own. It derives all it's power from copyright law by granting exceptions under certain circumstances. Without it you're bound by the usual copyright laws and those generally frown on copying.
In other words, copyright law gives you certain rights when it comes to copying things. Licenses give you additional rights as long as you abide by their terms. Licenses cannot remove existing right, such as fair use, that are granted by copyright law. You are also not in any way forced to follow the license but then you're stuck with the rights given by copyright law which are generally very limited.
Point being, once a work goes into public domain there are no restrictions on it under copyright law. You can simply ignore any licenses and you've got perfect freedom to do whatever you want. You don't need them to grant you any additional rights since you already have all of them. Since you're not breaking copyright laws, the license which derives it's power from copyright laws is useless.
I think the other objection Feyerabend would have is that statements like "the goal of science is truth" are so vague so as to be trivial and worthless. All sorts of institutions ideologies are going to claim that what they believe in is quite simple truth and goodness and justice and progress and fluffy puppies.
You're missing the point, the goals of those other ideologies aren't "truth" but rather whatever their ideological views are. It'd be as if science was defined as Newtonian physics, period. It's not. Other ideologies define truth as being their beliefs while science attempts to define truth as their beliefs.
Experiments and evidence provides the tools by which the validity of current scientific belief can be tested. If one accepts those as valid tests of the validity of beliefs then science does aim towards truth as best it can. That's an important point actually, scientific belief is at best valid within current possibilities of testing it. One may always find better tests in the future to disprove things.
Science never claims to have found "THE" truth but only the current best (or in some cases just decent) approximation of it. In science you gain prestige by disproving the existing beliefs.
You can't think of why it works in terms of strict logic, axioms and all that. It's more like machine learning or statistics. It's not guaranteed to work but with high probability it does. Trying to prove it is guaranteed to work is I think beyond foolish the same way proving no one ever wins the lottery is beyond foolish. They do but it's just not very likely and and in expectation you'll lose money in the venture. That you can prove but the approach you'd use to do so is different.
Only two known methods to being a society's birth rate under replacement, the wealth associated iwth classical capitialism and the horrors of Communist China's One Child policy.
There's also the Singapore method, requires wealth but not as much for the results. May be very culture dependent. Essentially, pay people to not have kids with all sorts of incentives and put social pressure on having fewer kids. They did so well in fact that they're now encouraging people to have more kids for fear of having a population that is too elderly heavy and declining to function.
It's frankly the capitalistic way of doing things, you don't make people do something, you pay them to do it instead. There is actually a group in the US that will pay woman to have a voluntary sterilization in an attempt to prevent the whole massive families in the inner city problem.
I've reported a few people who for instance, claim to be able to predict the future.
Be careful, if you claim that in public then they can sue you for libel. Sure you'll win probably but it'll cost you $200k or so. More if you lose or run out of money to defend yourself with.
Here's an amazing concept, statistics can be made to lie. It's a study that doesn't use any control and asked question about what people used to do. That's hilariously silly a thing to base conclusions off of. Amazing, insane people are more likely to break the law and use drugs to deal with their horrible life. It's also utterly impossible that teenagers who smoke pot would ever have a higher chance of doing stronger drugs due to the people they associate with as a result.
You know what I could prove that way? That anti-schizophrenia drugs make people insane. After all, most people everyone who used them is still schizophrenia when not medicated. Those who didn't use them aren't. Thus the drugs must be the reason for it.
That's not even getting into how it's a study of young adults which means they were smoking when still growing up. Aside from modern societies love of giving drugs to kids it really can't be that good.
I lived there, and my standard of living was higher than in US now (despite being an engineer in SF Bay Area).
Which very likely makes you biased and not a representative sample. If you're consciously or unconsciously misinterpreting your own experience or were lucky I'm not quite sure. I also lived in that region for a while, my grandfather had a good standard of living, for example, while most of my family didn't. Helped that he was a high ranking stooge for the government.
Shortages of luxury goods were far outweighed by over-developed by US standards urban infrastructure -- things like public transit, construction, etc.
That's a silly comparison, you're putting absurd weight on one area while ignoring everything else. You can take a light rail to work instead of driving, how nice. Of course, the time is offset by needing to stand in line for food, my mother still vividly remembers that part. The car, if you have one, is a death trap so you wouldn't want to take it. My grandmother still had a half manual washing machine, that must have been fun to use. ACs didn't exist which was really fun in areas where it actually got hot during the summer. Heating also wasn't always that nice, my mother remembers having to sleep in all her clothes (coat, gloves, etc) at home when younger because the heating wasn't good enough in winter. The clothes sucked as well mind you, she recently said she wouldn't mind going back in winter American winter clothes actually keep you warm. The TV channel selection sucked as well.
1. Because those are most certainly unique visitors per month so deleting old users does jack shit for the numbers. 2. As someone else pointed out gmail is very much a new player and people don't like switching email addresses as a rule. 3. Most anyone who isn't an old fart, see 2, is using gmail. 4. Gmail is gaining users very quickly, see 3, while everyone else is at best staying constant. 5. The people in those other companies know this and have great fun laughing, and cringing, whenever their CEOs mention how "fantastic" their webmail is doing.
Hardly bitten, more like they got a mildly dirty look from a random stranger. Have there been any settlements or awards that were more than a slap on the wrist of the company? Any that in any way impacted their bottom line in even the smallest way?
The red hat servers melt from too much traffic and red hat restricts downloads to their own customers.
And until either of those things happen MSFT is perfectly compliant with the GPL. If those things happen then they need to provide another location for the source but there is no need to do so preemptively.
Your logic dictates that any approach which has the possibility of going down, which is all of them, is not GPL compliant. So by your logic no company can ever be compliant with the GPL since it's always possible for their servers to crash and thus render them no longer compliant with the GPL.
Religion provides more than one societal function, and the diminishment of religious influence in the U.S. does not seem, to me, to be an improvement.
The United States was founded in an attempt to remove religion from government. The founding father were hardly religious, so much so that any modern politician spouting similar views publicity wouldn't be elected.
If the universe were different the life in that different universe would be able to make the same argument as you. We are a product of our universe. We fit into it decently well because any other life form would have died out.
Amazing advice: don't use self-checkout when you know your items don't work well with self-checkout. I must be a genius or something to figure that out.
Only at sufficient speeds/friction. There's no reason a railgun-based aircraft launcher would be more prone to this problem than a steam-based one.
As I understand the issue, it has nothing to do with friction. In fact it's probably more likely to get welded if it's going too slowly.
A rail gun is basically an arc welder in a way, you're passing massive amount of energy in the form of electricity through the interface between the rails and projectile. A high power rail gun has enough energy passing through to basically vaporize nontrivial amounts of metal off the rails every time it's fired. If you're unlucky on the other hand it'll simply weld the projectile to the rails.
If you're able to do a man in the middle attack between amazon's servers and the credit card companies servers than it doesn't really matter if you have the hashed number or not. In every other case they're useless.
So once again you've shown your incompetence. Thank you for making it easy.
It's useless unless you're able to hack into amazon's servers and initiate charges using hashed information. In which case the information is still useless since you've got much better access from the hack anyways.
So yes, your own inability to understand what's going doesn't change reality.
But maybe I'm wrong, I mean its not like there are any examples of what some idiot with a camera won't do to get a shot they can sell to TMZ for 15 minutes of fame. There's just no possible way that someone who is more interested in catching something "juicy", could possibly get in harms way.
Shit happens, the world is a dangerous place. You're the same sort of idiot who runs the TSA and thinks we should all fly naked with explosives collars on our necks. Sacrifice everything for a marginally higher and often false sense of security. That is why the tone of my previous post was the way it was.
Onlookers is always a possible concern, but I think you failed to catch my comparison to paparazzi, who are anything but casual/passive onlookers.
It's an idiotic example which is why I ignored it. Celebrities are interesting, everything they do is interesting to people, them taking a dump is news worthy in tabloids. 99.99% of what police do is either boring, routine, by the book or otherwise worthless to watch. It's like saying it should be illegal to videotape cars since, after all, people would love to post a video online of an interested car crash and if they're allowed to tape they'll block the sidewalks gawking.
People who are already involved or watching will tape it, like they already do in many places, instead of just gawking as they all do now. Little change. If they're too much of a problem then the police can get them for that as the other poster mentioned. If it becomes a real problem you can just pass another set of laws to fix things.
Your position on this topic seems obvious from your sarcastic remarks, but I merely stated my opinions and do not expect anyone to believe what I believe. I am merely trying to consider ALL of the ramifications of specifically making it legal for anyone to do so.
Everything has detrimental side effects. You're blowing the ones you notice out of proportions likely to justify a pre-existing view on the issue.
Regarding my suggestion, is it a perfect solution? No not by farm I'm certain, but I believe that something along those lines is a far better solution than inviting the public to become involved, because they will be getting involved for the wrong reasons.
And many others will get involved for the right reasons. That's the whole point. The police either abuse their power or are perceived to abuse their power. Police won't prosecute or catch police. It's a good ol' boys club. It's already a problem. Rational people don't trust the police even a smidgen. As in, saying anything to the police is considered a massive risk unless you're legally forced to. It's an absurd and horribly broken way to run a society. Your word against theirs if they decide to be assholes and the judge is their friend. Any solution that they control is inherently useless since you can't trust it. Citing rather small hypothetical potential problems to stop solutions to existing problems is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you realize how many search terms there are and how many websites there are out there? The major search terms are probably human checked but that still leaves I'd guess a billion unique search terms left over. So there are probably millions of spam websites operating over tens of millions of search terms. That's not counting the unsuccessful spam sites, Blekko claims there's a million spam pages created every hour. So basically, you nuke one and they make twenty more in it's place.
Then again I suspect if they did what you wanted and in the process took out some random guy's legitimate website (ie: nuked his search rankings) you'd be the first one complaining about how evil google is for doing something like that.
Google doesn't need to show better ad results than search results because people are idiots. The first ad can be identical to the first search result and people will still slick the add in droves. People are idiots and they'll clicks ads no matter what. No idea why.
Attempting to put some sort of malicious view onto google in terms of ads pretty much shows your ignorance of how they work. Google shows very few ads compared to what they could show and as a result they sacrifice a massive amount of money. They block bad ads and don't promote bad ads to the top of the page. If one of their now dead competitors showed that few ads they'd have been bankrupt years ago.
The bottom feeders likely provide crap revenue to google and google would probably gladly kill them all. I wouldn't be surprised if google was discounting those bottom feeder click payments to insane levels. The damage to advertiser revenue from essentially worthless (ie: non converting) clicks (which means the advertiser's aren't willing to pay as much for clicks overall) is likely much greater than the pittance they make on those ads being clicked.
Then again your agenda (ie: it pays you to do so) is making google look bad so I have no idea how much of that you really don't know and how much you simply ignore mentioning.
Most comments on this note the player is not particularly great as far as Starcraft players are concerned, nowhere near an actual pro-gamer, and the only tournament mentioned is from 2001. So at best a good (but not great) player who's 10 years out of practice and behind on current strategies of playing. Also, the article only mentions that the AI won one test game against the player. Not even an actual game since it seems testing Goliaths was the real point of that game.
And the 100+ million in the former soviet satellite states are doing much better than during soviet times.
Yes, just as the iPhone is a great open platform, for after all we have jailbreaking.
Unless I turn off my iphone then I need to find a computer with the right software before I can use it. Or live with old version of the software assuming I suppose I wasn't stupid enough to upgrade before I decided to jailbreak. That's after I dig through the information to figure out the exact details of how to jailbreak my particular version of the phone and with what limitations. But yeah, other than that it's got a perfectly useful jailbreak.
Humans are wired for altruism. Doing something for other people is in fact being selfish since it fulfills your own desires (to help others). To a point of course, total selflessness is insane. Granted we're also wired to want to have kids and also wired to be rationally explain our emotional decisions.
Then why bother? Just send robots.
God damn, you're an ignorant rude cunt.
A license is not a contract, it has no power or authority on it's own. It derives all it's power from copyright law by granting exceptions under certain circumstances. Without it you're bound by the usual copyright laws and those generally frown on copying.
In other words, copyright law gives you certain rights when it comes to copying things. Licenses give you additional rights as long as you abide by their terms. Licenses cannot remove existing right, such as fair use, that are granted by copyright law. You are also not in any way forced to follow the license but then you're stuck with the rights given by copyright law which are generally very limited.
Point being, once a work goes into public domain there are no restrictions on it under copyright law. You can simply ignore any licenses and you've got perfect freedom to do whatever you want. You don't need them to grant you any additional rights since you already have all of them. Since you're not breaking copyright laws, the license which derives it's power from copyright laws is useless.
I think the other objection Feyerabend would have is that statements like "the goal of science is truth" are so vague so as to be trivial and worthless. All sorts of institutions ideologies are going to claim that what they believe in is quite simple truth and goodness and justice and progress and fluffy puppies.
You're missing the point, the goals of those other ideologies aren't "truth" but rather whatever their ideological views are. It'd be as if science was defined as Newtonian physics, period. It's not. Other ideologies define truth as being their beliefs while science attempts to define truth as their beliefs.
Experiments and evidence provides the tools by which the validity of current scientific belief can be tested. If one accepts those as valid tests of the validity of beliefs then science does aim towards truth as best it can. That's an important point actually, scientific belief is at best valid within current possibilities of testing it. One may always find better tests in the future to disprove things.
Science never claims to have found "THE" truth but only the current best (or in some cases just decent) approximation of it. In science you gain prestige by disproving the existing beliefs.
You can't think of why it works in terms of strict logic, axioms and all that. It's more like machine learning or statistics. It's not guaranteed to work but with high probability it does. Trying to prove it is guaranteed to work is I think beyond foolish the same way proving no one ever wins the lottery is beyond foolish. They do but it's just not very likely and and in expectation you'll lose money in the venture. That you can prove but the approach you'd use to do so is different.
Only two known methods to being a society's birth rate under replacement, the wealth associated iwth classical capitialism and the horrors of Communist China's One Child policy.
There's also the Singapore method, requires wealth but not as much for the results. May be very culture dependent. Essentially, pay people to not have kids with all sorts of incentives and put social pressure on having fewer kids. They did so well in fact that they're now encouraging people to have more kids for fear of having a population that is too elderly heavy and declining to function.
It's frankly the capitalistic way of doing things, you don't make people do something, you pay them to do it instead. There is actually a group in the US that will pay woman to have a voluntary sterilization in an attempt to prevent the whole massive families in the inner city problem.
I've reported a few people who for instance, claim to be able to predict the future.
Be careful, if you claim that in public then they can sue you for libel. Sure you'll win probably but it'll cost you $200k or so. More if you lose or run out of money to defend yourself with.
that isn't really true.
Here's an amazing concept, statistics can be made to lie. It's a study that doesn't use any control and asked question about what people used to do. That's hilariously silly a thing to base conclusions off of. Amazing, insane people are more likely to break the law and use drugs to deal with their horrible life. It's also utterly impossible that teenagers who smoke pot would ever have a higher chance of doing stronger drugs due to the people they associate with as a result.
You know what I could prove that way? That anti-schizophrenia drugs make people insane. After all, most people everyone who used them is still schizophrenia when not medicated. Those who didn't use them aren't. Thus the drugs must be the reason for it.
That's not even getting into how it's a study of young adults which means they were smoking when still growing up. Aside from modern societies love of giving drugs to kids it really can't be that good.
I lived there, and my standard of living was higher than in US now (despite being an engineer in SF Bay Area).
Which very likely makes you biased and not a representative sample. If you're consciously or unconsciously misinterpreting your own experience or were lucky I'm not quite sure. I also lived in that region for a while, my grandfather had a good standard of living, for example, while most of my family didn't. Helped that he was a high ranking stooge for the government.
Shortages of luxury goods were far outweighed by over-developed by US standards urban infrastructure -- things like public transit, construction, etc.
That's a silly comparison, you're putting absurd weight on one area while ignoring everything else. You can take a light rail to work instead of driving, how nice. Of course, the time is offset by needing to stand in line for food, my mother still vividly remembers that part. The car, if you have one, is a death trap so you wouldn't want to take it. My grandmother still had a half manual washing machine, that must have been fun to use. ACs didn't exist which was really fun in areas where it actually got hot during the summer. Heating also wasn't always that nice, my mother remembers having to sleep in all her clothes (coat, gloves, etc) at home when younger because the heating wasn't good enough in winter. The clothes sucked as well mind you, she recently said she wouldn't mind going back in winter American winter clothes actually keep you warm. The TV channel selection sucked as well.
It's worse than that actually. Every ton of steel used in building submarines is a ton of steel that can't be used for making iron mining equipment.
Gmail will delete inactive accounts as well, I think the time for them is nine months or so.
The interesting question is - if accounts from hotmail are deleted due to inactivity, why does hotmail still have double the number of users of gmail (and yahoo mail 3 times as many users as gmail) http://gorumors.com/crunchies/number-of-users-on-hotmail-vs-gmail-vs-yahoo-mail/
1. Because those are most certainly unique visitors per month so deleting old users does jack shit for the numbers.
2. As someone else pointed out gmail is very much a new player and people don't like switching email addresses as a rule.
3. Most anyone who isn't an old fart, see 2, is using gmail.
4. Gmail is gaining users very quickly, see 3, while everyone else is at best staying constant.
5. The people in those other companies know this and have great fun laughing, and cringing, whenever their CEOs mention how "fantastic" their webmail is doing.
Hardly bitten, more like they got a mildly dirty look from a random stranger. Have there been any settlements or awards that were more than a slap on the wrist of the company? Any that in any way impacted their bottom line in even the smallest way?
The red hat servers melt from too much traffic and red hat restricts downloads to their own customers.
And until either of those things happen MSFT is perfectly compliant with the GPL. If those things happen then they need to provide another location for the source but there is no need to do so preemptively.
Your logic dictates that any approach which has the possibility of going down, which is all of them, is not GPL compliant. So by your logic no company can ever be compliant with the GPL since it's always possible for their servers to crash and thus render them no longer compliant with the GPL.
Religion provides more than one societal function, and the diminishment of religious influence in the U.S. does not seem, to me, to be an improvement.
The United States was founded in an attempt to remove religion from government. The founding father were hardly religious, so much so that any modern politician spouting similar views publicity wouldn't be elected.
If the universe were different the life in that different universe would be able to make the same argument as you. We are a product of our universe. We fit into it decently well because any other life form would have died out.
Amazing advice: don't use self-checkout when you know your items don't work well with self-checkout. I must be a genius or something to figure that out.
Only at sufficient speeds/friction. There's no reason a railgun-based aircraft launcher would be more prone to this problem than a steam-based one.
As I understand the issue, it has nothing to do with friction. In fact it's probably more likely to get welded if it's going too slowly.
A rail gun is basically an arc welder in a way, you're passing massive amount of energy in the form of electricity through the interface between the rails and projectile. A high power rail gun has enough energy passing through to basically vaporize nontrivial amounts of metal off the rails every time it's fired. If you're unlucky on the other hand it'll simply weld the projectile to the rails.
If you're able to do a man in the middle attack between amazon's servers and the credit card companies servers than it doesn't really matter if you have the hashed number or not. In every other case they're useless.
So once again you've shown your incompetence. Thank you for making it easy.
It's useless unless you're able to hack into amazon's servers and initiate charges using hashed information. In which case the information is still useless since you've got much better access from the hack anyways.
So yes, your own inability to understand what's going doesn't change reality.
But maybe I'm wrong, I mean its not like there are any examples of what some idiot with a camera won't do to get a shot they can sell to TMZ for 15 minutes of fame.
There's just no possible way that someone who is more interested in catching something "juicy", could possibly get in harms way.
Shit happens, the world is a dangerous place. You're the same sort of idiot who runs the TSA and thinks we should all fly naked with explosives collars on our necks. Sacrifice everything for a marginally higher and often false sense of security. That is why the tone of my previous post was the way it was.
Onlookers is always a possible concern, but I think you failed to catch my comparison to paparazzi, who are anything but casual/passive onlookers.
It's an idiotic example which is why I ignored it. Celebrities are interesting, everything they do is interesting to people, them taking a dump is news worthy in tabloids. 99.99% of what police do is either boring, routine, by the book or otherwise worthless to watch. It's like saying it should be illegal to videotape cars since, after all, people would love to post a video online of an interested car crash and if they're allowed to tape they'll block the sidewalks gawking.
People who are already involved or watching will tape it, like they already do in many places, instead of just gawking as they all do now. Little change. If they're too much of a problem then the police can get them for that as the other poster mentioned. If it becomes a real problem you can just pass another set of laws to fix things.
Your position on this topic seems obvious from your sarcastic remarks, but I merely stated my opinions and do not expect anyone to believe what I believe. I am merely trying to consider ALL of the ramifications of specifically making it legal for anyone to do so.
Everything has detrimental side effects. You're blowing the ones you notice out of proportions likely to justify a pre-existing view on the issue.
Regarding my suggestion, is it a perfect solution? No not by farm I'm certain, but I believe that something along those lines is a far better solution than inviting the public to become involved, because they will be getting involved for the wrong reasons.
And many others will get involved for the right reasons. That's the whole point. The police either abuse their power or are perceived to abuse their power. Police won't prosecute or catch police. It's a good ol' boys club. It's already a problem. Rational people don't trust the police even a smidgen. As in, saying anything to the police is considered a massive risk unless you're legally forced to. It's an absurd and horribly broken way to run a society. Your word against theirs if they decide to be assholes and the judge is their friend. Any solution that they control is inherently useless since you can't trust it. Citing rather small hypothetical potential problems to stop solutions to existing problems is stupid.