Except they were not publishing a theory, they were just publishing a ficitonal story. Nothing else. No historical theory hidden underneath. Just some people like Dan Brown were stupid enough to believe that there is historical truth to it.
Anyways, I want to sue him for being a crappy writer (and with today's courts, I might even have a case). I read two of his books, Deception Point and Digital Fortress (I was in a reading group, otherwise I would have quit halfway through the first one), and they were both crap. Assuming you have any background in science at all, try reading either one without vomiting. Then after you ensure there are no sharp objects around, consider that people pass off this crap as "intelligent fiction".
Why is Swing an option? Its got to be the worst GUI tool kit ever. Unless of course you want to make ugly, slow, and bloated interfaces for your applications...
I never said they were the same thing, just as the engineer in my little story never said his prototype was the same as the actual product. I certainly did not "try to equate" anything. The quote you copied and pasted into your post in no way suggests that was what I was trying to do. The point of my origional post was to point out that Google does not, nor ever has, treated search related data as private data. Thats all. If you thought it said something else, you need to take a reading comprehension class.
Are you really having this much trouble understanding this, or are you just blindly supporting Google because they have a cool website?
Oh really, is that all it is? Wow, then I just had an idea that could solve your little unemployment problem. You surely are competent enough to cash a check, right? Then why don't you just become a banker. You can just sit at a desk, cashing checks all day, and make a 6 digit salary. Since it is such an easy job, surely you will be good at it. Then everyone will happy.
Unless of course there is more to the world of banking than you realize...
"There's a difference between putting a fence on your property that the government asked for, versus having to monitor and report to authorities statistics on who passed through your yard."
Yeah, the later is much easier to do, especially in this case as Google already keeps track of what their users search for.
"Censorship is opaque to the government enacting it; They don't know how many people it is limiting, or how effective it really is at preventing the spread of their unwanted information. Giving search data is one step closer to being an active enforcer of the law, where one picks out users of unwanted information and reports them to authorities."
You are kidding me, right? Are you honestly saying censorship is better than reporting anonymous user information? Well then I (along with the rest of society) am just going to have to disagree with you. Of course, if you really think that, you had better not use Google at all because they currently collect (and distribute) anonymous user statistics (in fact it is part of their business plan).
"
Asking me to put a lock on my bedroom door or face fines is annoying (censorship). On the other hand, asking me to tell you the race, gender, and number of people passing through that door every week, is an invasion of privacy (statistics)."
No. Once again, the Google vs DOJ case is not about privacy. Google does not, nor has it ever, considered that data private. They are arguing that they should not have to give this data just to support some fishing expedition by the DOJ (yet they apparently feel they should be forced to redesign their system to support the Chinese government's unethical attempts to enslave their citizens through censorship).
Yeah, because as we all know the Free Tibet movement has great relations with China and never protests anything they do.
Its funny how Google grandstands its opposition to the US government's requests for anonymous search data, but when China asks them to make an entirely new censored version of their search engine, they fully comply?
Even with a euro-centric history curriculum, you still need to include Julius Ceaser in there. And William the Conquorer. No, he didn't take all that much land, but his name is "...the Conquorer". How can you leave him off the list of history's greatest conquorers.
Would it be possible to create a new 'history' topic to post stuff like this under? I mean currently its listed under 'Science', and I don't think the Einstein picture is really relevant. I'm not saying it isn't interesting, just that it can be classified better.
So these engineers were in a meeting discussing a way to get their new product to work, and one of them brings out a miniture prototype of his idea made out of things he found lying around in the office. After demonstrating the physics of his solution, the other engineers get excited, but the manager is less than convinced. "But this little model here is much different than our actual product. For example the color is all wrong".
Sure, it seems to you, someone who knows crap about real estate or banking, that bank employees and landlords don't do anything. Just like it seems to someone who knows crap about engineering that the engineers don't do anything.
"No, you made that up yourself. I disagree with the DOJ because Google is a private company and *requiring* them to provide this information gives no value for its users and is an unnecesary burden."
You said in your last post, and I quote,
There is a huge difference between showing anonymous search statistics in order to aid the end-user and handing over personally identifiable private information to corrupt individuals. Although you could argue that the politicians think they are only doing what is in the public's best interest. I'm glad Google disagrees.
You were clearly differentiating between what Google does everyday and what the government is asking them to do by whether or not "personally identifiable private information" is given out. And please don't try to say you were just trying to explain how there was nothing wrong with what Google did then and were not referring to the court case in any way. Unless of course you think my job hungry classmates and I are "corrupt individuals" and went off on a tangent in those last two sentences. And then please show the point where I said they were sharing "private info", or else the title you chose for this little thread is a little strange.
If you are just going to find another reason to disagree with the government each time it is proven that you have the facts wrong, fine, but please be honest enough to admit that is what you are doing. Please don't try to argue that this is the opinion you have had the whole time.
"I was agreeing with your first post by giving a concrete example of sharing search statistics with the general public. You didnt provide any facts apart from an unverifiable story."
WTF do you mean "unverifiable story"? There were at least a hundred people in that room, plus Google probably gives the exact same presentation at every major university in the country. If needed, I could easily verify it, just ask anyone who attended. Or are you under the impression that unless a hyperlink can be posted, the information is questionable, while if a hyplerlink does exist, it must be true?
The sad part about that is there are many who really do believe that.
This story didn't make in/.s "Your Rights Online" section because they were protecting the rights of big companies to not do extra work for the feds.
That may well be the official reason they are not complying, but I doubt it is the real reason. They are now a public company who need good public relations, and they know this move will make them look like privacy advocates to people who either think no search information is ever stored anywhere or those who think (like the other guy who responded to me) that the DOJ wants personally identifiable information from Google. And it is especially neccessary with the recent news that Google backed down to Chinese requests to filter out searches.
So you don't think there is anything wrong with providing anonymous user statistics? Then you are saying you agree with the DOJ? Since of course that is exactly what they are requesting. In fact they specicially requested the removal of any identifiable information.
Actually, looking around today, I'm not seeing too much along the lines of "its the Indian's fault" or "I'm entitled to a job with a 75,000+ salary which involves me just sitting at a desk".
Of course those posters are probably just sleeping in...
Google has no qualms about showing search related data to the general public.
Back when I was in school several Google recruiters came and during the presentation were more than willing to demonstrate technology that allows you to see what others had been searching.
WTF does this have to do with the GOP? This occured in Montgomery county, with local Montgomery county officials who were acting outside of the law. This has nothing to do with the Bush Administration or the GOP in general.
Or if they recently seceded from the state of Maryland, which is probably slightly more likely (than Virginia invading Maryland and then Montgomery county leaving).
That teaches me to post before I've had a cup of coffee.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyways, I want to sue him for being a crappy writer (and with today's courts, I might even have a case). I read two of his books, Deception Point and Digital Fortress (I was in a reading group, otherwise I would have quit halfway through the first one), and they were both crap. Assuming you have any background in science at all, try reading either one without vomiting. Then after you ensure there are no sharp objects around, consider that people pass off this crap as "intelligent fiction".
Why is Swing an option? Its got to be the worst GUI tool kit ever. Unless of course you want to make ugly, slow, and bloated interfaces for your applications...
After all, 100% of all cancer patients live within the Earth's magnetic field. Thus magnetic fields must cause cancer.
Are you really having this much trouble understanding this, or are you just blindly supporting Google because they have a cool website?
Unless of course there is more to the world of banking than you realize...
Yeah, the later is much easier to do, especially in this case as Google already keeps track of what their users search for.
"Censorship is opaque to the government enacting it; They don't know how many people it is limiting, or how effective it really is at preventing the spread of their unwanted information. Giving search data is one step closer to being an active enforcer of the law, where one picks out users of unwanted information and reports them to authorities."
You are kidding me, right? Are you honestly saying censorship is better than reporting anonymous user information? Well then I (along with the rest of society) am just going to have to disagree with you. Of course, if you really think that, you had better not use Google at all because they currently collect (and distribute) anonymous user statistics (in fact it is part of their business plan).
" Asking me to put a lock on my bedroom door or face fines is annoying (censorship). On the other hand, asking me to tell you the race, gender, and number of people passing through that door every week, is an invasion of privacy (statistics)."
No. Once again, the Google vs DOJ case is not about privacy. Google does not, nor has it ever, considered that data private. They are arguing that they should not have to give this data just to support some fishing expedition by the DOJ (yet they apparently feel they should be forced to redesign their system to support the Chinese government's unethical attempts to enslave their citizens through censorship).
Its funny how Google grandstands its opposition to the US government's requests for anonymous search data, but when China asks them to make an entirely new censored version of their search engine, they fully comply?
Sure, but that doesn't mean we can't categorize it better. Archeology is very distinct from the other sciences, as your quote indicates.
Christ, get a fucking life. You've been pretending to stalk me for years and you don't even have my right middle initial.
If that is supposed to be a reference to my post, you need to develop a sense of humor.
The origional poster is probably wondering why you people are so obsessed with some guy William Shatner killed in the second Star Trek movie.
Even with a euro-centric history curriculum, you still need to include Julius Ceaser in there. And William the Conquorer. No, he didn't take all that much land, but his name is "...the Conquorer". How can you leave him off the list of history's greatest conquorers.
I don't know, I thought it was pretty funny. "the company that is at the forefront of intelligent vehicles", hehe, thats great.
Would it be possible to create a new 'history' topic to post stuff like this under? I mean currently its listed under 'Science', and I don't think the Einstein picture is really relevant. I'm not saying it isn't interesting, just that it can be classified better.
You remind me a lot of that manager.
Sure, it seems to you, someone who knows crap about real estate or banking, that bank employees and landlords don't do anything. Just like it seems to someone who knows crap about engineering that the engineers don't do anything.
You said in your last post, and I quote,
You were clearly differentiating between what Google does everyday and what the government is asking them to do by whether or not "personally identifiable private information" is given out. And please don't try to say you were just trying to explain how there was nothing wrong with what Google did then and were not referring to the court case in any way. Unless of course you think my job hungry classmates and I are "corrupt individuals" and went off on a tangent in those last two sentences. And then please show the point where I said they were sharing "private info", or else the title you chose for this little thread is a little strange.If you are just going to find another reason to disagree with the government each time it is proven that you have the facts wrong, fine, but please be honest enough to admit that is what you are doing. Please don't try to argue that this is the opinion you have had the whole time.
"I was agreeing with your first post by giving a concrete example of sharing search statistics with the general public. You didnt provide any facts apart from an unverifiable story."
WTF do you mean "unverifiable story"? There were at least a hundred people in that room, plus Google probably gives the exact same presentation at every major university in the country. If needed, I could easily verify it, just ask anyone who attended. Or are you under the impression that unless a hyperlink can be posted, the information is questionable, while if a hyplerlink does exist, it must be true?
The sad part about that is there are many who really do believe that.
The feds specifically asked that any identifiable information to be removed, and anonymous stats are already given away by Google.
That may well be the official reason they are not complying, but I doubt it is the real reason. They are now a public company who need good public relations, and they know this move will make them look like privacy advocates to people who either think no search information is ever stored anywhere or those who think (like the other guy who responded to me) that the DOJ wants personally identifiable information from Google. And it is especially neccessary with the recent news that Google backed down to Chinese requests to filter out searches.
So you don't think there is anything wrong with providing anonymous user statistics? Then you are saying you agree with the DOJ? Since of course that is exactly what they are requesting. In fact they specicially requested the removal of any identifiable information.
Of course those posters are probably just sleeping in...
Back when I was in school several Google recruiters came and during the presentation were more than willing to demonstrate technology that allows you to see what others had been searching.
Read my previous post.
WTF does this have to do with the GOP? This occured in Montgomery county, with local Montgomery county officials who were acting outside of the law. This has nothing to do with the Bush Administration or the GOP in general.
That teaches me to post before I've had a cup of coffee.