Like a few weeks back when they told the guy with the prosthetic limb that he could not compete. Why is it alright for someone to dedicate their life to trying to run faster, but not alright to use actual innovation to do so?
Of course this has zero to do with the Olympics, but this fellow was banned from competing in certain competitions because the technical innovation of his mechanical leg gave him an unfair advantage over those who did not have such a leg. If such a thing was allowed, where would it stop? Would a wheelchair with a V8 engine attached be allowed because it was simply a technological innovation that allowed amputees to move faster?
So... What exactly would happen to an athlete who violated this "rule"? Would they lose any medals? Be banned from competing? It's one thing to make such "rules", another to enforce them.
Google is not a "content provider", they are a content aggregator
Do an image search for porn. See all those thumbnails of giant cocks thrusting into gaping pussies? All those buff white guys going down on humongous black pile-drivers, big assed bitches wearing latex power tools thrusting their gigantic bosoms covered in white frosty jiz, on plastic sheets...
No, I am not looking for that. I am looking for news stories about what is going on. For example, will the house vote on the telco bill WITH the immunity in there (the immunity started LONG before 9/11, and parts of this may go back to clinton).
That sounds an awful lot like your interested in reporting with an editorial slant. It's out there... I did a simple Google News search and found exactly all you ask for, and in American news sources.
I noticed that little was in the press concerning all the dem senators that supported that immunity.
So you're not just interested in factual reporting, but something with an editorial slant against the bill and some discussion of why liberal Dems might vote for it (probably because of payoffs - er, I mean campaign donations, just like any other politician).
Just because most news sources are moderate and reflect a moderate view rather than a liberal view doesn't mean that they lack factual reporting, it means you disagree with their editorial view.
On a more serious note, it's not Google's job (nor should it ever) to filter it's results. This idea is horrible - does this guy even understand how the Internet and search engines work???
That might be so if Google where just a search engine, returning cold results based on hard inputs. But that's not what Google is. Google is not some cold search utility, Google is a content provider that makes money on returning the kind of results their customers are looking for, just like any other Web content provider.
Steven Hirsch: "Won't somebody please think of my profit margins... *cough* I mean... children?!"
Absolutely. And what's wrong with that approach? Businesses, especially porn, aren't there as a community service. Porn sites are required to make at least some minimal attempt to screen out kids from access, why shouldn't Google? Google is very much more than just a search engine, they are a content provider.
Apparently, the news industry is hurting. But the problem is that anymore they are all the same. More and more, they all spout the same thing, and will not cover what is news worthy (bad reporting, spin, whatever).
The problem is this isn't really true unless you're talking about small "hometown" newspapers like the Tacoma Tribune... The NYT, San Fran Chron, and other "national" papers do a fairly good job of actual news reporting, and anyway all that "news" you get from "overseas" sources is from the AP or Reuters anyway. What you seem to be talking about is critical editorial content - opinions. And even there, if you're not interested in the average moderate view, you can get your left wing propaganda at Indymedia or someplace like that.
For the last 5 years, I have seen nothing but increasingly shoddy reporting.
What you're looking for is anti-Republican, anti-Bush political editorial type stuff, and it's out there.
I can fix that stuff right away. It'll cost you...
We should all be thanking Rush for exposing to the world the people that think like him as the selfish ignorant fools that they are. While it's true that some people actually do believe that sort of tripe, Rush exposes these people to the vast majority as the dangerous buffoons they really are.
Actually, the Carlyle Group is mostly Bush and bin Laden money, or at least it used to be. Sort of makes you wonder who might actually be doing what, and what's at stake...
I may believe you, but it would surely help if you would be kind enough to provide some proof.
...more than likely is to make sure the fuel doesn't make it past the very upper atmosphere...
The satellite contains relativly minor amounts of hydrazine, which while toxic, would almost certainly dissipate / burn off in the atmosphere as its tank disintegrated. In the (very unlikely) event the tank made it back to Earth, the same thing would happed as the tank ruptured on ground impact: The gas would dissipate of burn off. Hydrazine leaks are fairly common on F-16 bases (used in the F-16's Emergency Power Unit).
The two real reason would be to demonstrate that such a thing can be done, and also to insure that the technology itself is destroyed.
--
No Jail For Pot
What *I* object to is being on a cable loop where someone like *you* is hogging all the bandwidth for your torrents, while 90% of the other customers on that loop suffer. Mybe you should find a conection service that more fits your needs rather than FUCKING all your neighbors doing something the service you have is not designed for?
Campbell's tax returns were on her laptop, and Best Buy apparently violated Washington, DC's security breach notification laws by not telling her about the potential data loss...
I know we all hate Best Buy (does Microsoft own them, or something?), but honestly, how was Best Buy to know she had her tax returns on the machine? The quote above is asinine, laws about data loss and notification are aimed at companies that aquire and keep personal data on their own systems as a matter of business. Best Buy fucking lost this lady's personal machine, and they are not responsible that way for whatever personal data (and illegal porn) she might have had one it.
A problem would be if Apple would tell these stores: "We give you special deals if you stop selling the Zune."
Exclusivity deals are nothing new. It seems only an issue when it's our favorite targets. Very hypocritical, which is nothing new in the Open Source Movement. Chairman Stallman approves.
Yes, but in a free market, there WILL be losers and winners. Otherwise, maybe we don't have a free market? It is, after all a competition to the death (the way we play it these days), it's not a friendly game where we split up the market and we all get some...
The problem is not that Media Market was selling Intel because they liked them, but because they would get special deals from Intel if they DIDN'T sell AMD. That's what Intel (allegedly) does in markets where AMD might stand a chance.
And this is business, as it has been for 100's of years. If AMD has a good product, they can do the same. By the way, last time I checked, the Apple Store doesn't sell Zunes. Shall I bitch at the regulators about competition?
As to Media Markt, if they wish to sell only the crap from Intel, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Simply because you don't "like" a company (...Microsoft...) doesn't mean in a free market, retailers should not be able to be exclusive.
When a group actually hates a company as much as people do here with Microsoft/Intel, it's easy to become overly biased against the rights of people to choose these two businesses.
Refusing this deal borders on illegal, assuming their job is to act in the interests of their shareholders.
Instant profit is not always in the long term benifit if it comes along with total destruction of the company. And who says short term profit is what Yahoo!'s shareholders want?
Stock will fall even lower then the $19,18 it was at the moment of the hostile take over from MSFT...
Sure, or course. The circling money vultures who could not really care any less about Yahoo! or it's business will flee to other more tasty rotting Interweb meat. And Yahoo will live another day.
The problem with American business and the financial "industry" built around it is that there is actually no interest at all in sustainable business, but rather exponential profit growth at all cost, even the death of the company itself. The company dies, the money vultures move on to the next target.
Slashdot Mirror
So... What exactly would happen to an athlete who violated this "rule"? Would they lose any medals? Be banned from competing? It's one thing to make such "rules", another to enforce them.
Just because most news sources are moderate and reflect a moderate view rather than a liberal view doesn't mean that they lack factual reporting, it means you disagree with their editorial view.
The two real reason would be to demonstrate that such a thing can be done, and also to insure that the technology itself is destroyed. -- No Jail For Pot
What *I* object to is being on a cable loop where someone like *you* is hogging all the bandwidth for your torrents, while 90% of the other customers on that loop suffer. Mybe you should find a conection service that more fits your needs rather than FUCKING all your neighbors doing something the service you have is not designed for?
Yes, but in a free market, there WILL be losers and winners. Otherwise, maybe we don't have a free market? It is, after all a competition to the death (the way we play it these days), it's not a friendly game where we split up the market and we all get some...
Well, then, the only real solution is where The State operates all retail stores and markets all products equilly. As in Cuba and Soviet Russia.
When a group actually hates a company as much as people do here with Microsoft/Intel, it's easy to become overly biased against the rights of people to choose these two businesses.
ATTENTION FBI: You might want to have a look at Jesse Lambert's Internet activity and personal computers.
The problem with American business and the financial "industry" built around it is that there is actually no interest at all in sustainable business, but rather exponential profit growth at all cost, even the death of the company itself. The company dies, the money vultures move on to the next target.