I didn't say that it was liberals who had done this (although I wouldn't be surprised if they did call themselves liberals). I said they've adopted liberal viewpoints as the only thing that can be said, with anything else being illegal.
Perhaps he meant American thousands? Just as an American billion is actually quite a small number (when compared with a real billion), perhaps American thousands suffer from the same plight;)
The censorship itself isn't typically liberal (although many who do consider them liberals do call for it), but the speech that is being censored isn't liberal, therefore if you don't agree with the the liberal line (and it's deemed to be hate speech), you better shut up or pay up, because only liberals aren't being fined for their beliefs. Liberals like to think of themselves as accepting of everyone, so therefore anyone who isn't accepting, isn't a liberal. But funny thing, liberals aren't very accepting of non-liberals.
I find the Canadian government to be discriminating. How much will they get fined? Nothing? Oh that's right. You can only discriminate the groups they've singled out. Damn special interest groups.
(I blame the legislators who created this mess, not the people it's designed to protect;)).
Wow, I never knew Canada was so totalitarian when it came to freedom of speech. Guess if you don't tow the liberal line your wallet suffers the consequences, even though there is no reasonable expectation that your actions will cause physical harm to anyone (and if there was such a reasonable expectation, then the laws need to be a lot stronger then a mere fine).
Is it sustainable? Depends if they're making a direct profit from Firefox users. I don't mean an increase in people using their search engine over others, I mean a per-use profit (as in, I do a search in Firefox using Google, Google earns $0.30 and gives Firefox $0.10), then yes, I'd say it is sustainable. Google is currently making a profit all up, so if Firefox users aren't eating into that profit, it should be able to continue indefinitely (unless other things begin to eat too much into Google's profits).
I don't think that's the case here. I think they're investigating this under the guise of looking for future virus methods so that they can in truth investigate it so they can implement it in a future Windows version/upgrade.
I'd definitely say that yes, they do want to have that technology mastered for if they ever do decide to implement it. But I'd say in the nearer future, it's to try to create detection methods or methods to stop it getting installed in the first place. With company's like Sony and Microsoft, they're willing to do anything, if they can get away with it. So VM-based rootkits is definitely something they want to have mastered, so when they can get away with it, they are capable of doing it.
As for the value of the company, that depends on who owns it and what's on the agenda. As long as the majority shareholders have made clear that they have no intention of compromising on principle for profit that remains the objective of the company, but as soon as walstreet types take over the board that may all change.
Which is why it's lucky that none of Google's shares are vote-thingy (I'm not a stock expert, but I've read here on slashdot enough that Google's shareholders get no say on anything about Google, because the shares don't give them the power to vote on anything Google does. If you've got some sources to the contrary, I'd love to see them).
Except for the idiots who migrate completely to Skype, it is a win-win for consumers. But then, the business world isn't intended for idiots to survive.
Point me to the relevant law please, where it says a public company must do everything it legally can to maximise it's profit, or the law that says the closest thing.
We're going to have to bring down the price of soybean oil first for this to be viable.
No we don't. We just have to wait for the price of the oil we currently use to increase to $8.99. It will eventually. At that point, an even cheaper alternative will be present, or we can switch to soybean oil (or soybean oil with a combination of other methods).
If the heir also works in the same field (such as Brian Herbert, Frank Herbert's son) then they can continue the story (or even finish it, such as in Brian Herbert's case) without having a whole bunch of other people meddling in the work (if 50 endings from 50 authors existed, there wouldn't be much incentive for Brian Herbert). If it wasn't possible to designate a heir to a body of work, then any author whose close to dying wouldn't really have any incentive to continue a long series (such as Anne McCaffrey (80 year old author) who has at least 3 ongoing series with co-authors (or even sole authors) of the latest books, who I presume will go on to finish the work once she dies). I would hate to lose the work of old authors (such as Anne McCaffrey).
Bullshit. Google censoring China doesn't get the government any benefit, so they're harrassing Google over it. If Google gave more "donations" (a.k.a bribes) or were able to pass the benefits over to the American people (such as by having lower prices due to stuff made by cheap labour) then you wouldn't be hearing anything from congress. Censoring the Chinese people, while terrible, certainly isn't anywhere near as bad as using slave labour (I'm sorry "child labour"), which (AFAIK) nearly every single company with a factory in China does.
Which isn't what I found impressive about the screenshots being shown (see a slashdot post further down). Way to go at being judgemental (although in all fairness, it being slashdotted doesn't help).
I've yet to get any of the pictures loaded in the cache. Had it been linked to in the first place, perhaps the cache would be working better.
Re:It looks cool, so it is cool?
on
KDE 4 Screenshots
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
How a program looks is often indicative on the time and care that went into the program itself. If it looks like absolute shit, there probably wasn't much time that went into it, or the people didn't know what they were doing. If it looks great, it MIGHT be good.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say that it was liberals who had done this (although I wouldn't be surprised if they did call themselves liberals). I said they've adopted liberal viewpoints as the only thing that can be said, with anything else being illegal.
Perhaps he meant American thousands? Just as an American billion is actually quite a small number (when compared with a real billion), perhaps American thousands suffer from the same plight ;)
The censorship itself isn't typically liberal (although many who do consider them liberals do call for it), but the speech that is being censored isn't liberal, therefore if you don't agree with the the liberal line (and it's deemed to be hate speech), you better shut up or pay up, because only liberals aren't being fined for their beliefs. Liberals like to think of themselves as accepting of everyone, so therefore anyone who isn't accepting, isn't a liberal. But funny thing, liberals aren't very accepting of non-liberals.
I find the Canadian government to be discriminating. How much will they get fined? Nothing? Oh that's right. You can only discriminate the groups they've singled out. Damn special interest groups.
;)).
(I blame the legislators who created this mess, not the people it's designed to protect
Wow, I never knew Canada was so totalitarian when it came to freedom of speech. Guess if you don't tow the liberal line your wallet suffers the consequences, even though there is no reasonable expectation that your actions will cause physical harm to anyone (and if there was such a reasonable expectation, then the laws need to be a lot stronger then a mere fine).
It does when they apply (and receive) for non-profit status.
That's why I use Opera.
Funny I often see Google advertise here.
Is it sustainable? Depends if they're making a direct profit from Firefox users. I don't mean an increase in people using their search engine over others, I mean a per-use profit (as in, I do a search in Firefox using Google, Google earns $0.30 and gives Firefox $0.10), then yes, I'd say it is sustainable. Google is currently making a profit all up, so if Firefox users aren't eating into that profit, it should be able to continue indefinitely (unless other things begin to eat too much into Google's profits).
I don't think that's the case here. I think they're investigating this under the guise of looking for future virus methods so that they can in truth investigate it so they can implement it in a future Windows version/upgrade.
I'd definitely say that yes, they do want to have that technology mastered for if they ever do decide to implement it. But I'd say in the nearer future, it's to try to create detection methods or methods to stop it getting installed in the first place. With company's like Sony and Microsoft, they're willing to do anything, if they can get away with it. So VM-based rootkits is definitely something they want to have mastered, so when they can get away with it, they are capable of doing it.
As for the value of the company, that depends on who owns it and what's on the agenda. As long as the majority shareholders have made clear that they have no intention of compromising on principle for profit that remains the objective of the company, but as soon as walstreet types take over the board that may all change.
Which is why it's lucky that none of Google's shares are vote-thingy (I'm not a stock expert, but I've read here on slashdot enough that Google's shareholders get no say on anything about Google, because the shares don't give them the power to vote on anything Google does. If you've got some sources to the contrary, I'd love to see them).
Except for the idiots who migrate completely to Skype, it is a win-win for consumers. But then, the business world isn't intended for idiots to survive.
Point me to the relevant law please, where it says a public company must do everything it legally can to maximise it's profit, or the law that says the closest thing.
We're going to have to bring down the price of soybean oil first for this to be viable.
No we don't. We just have to wait for the price of the oil we currently use to increase to $8.99. It will eventually. At that point, an even cheaper alternative will be present, or we can switch to soybean oil (or soybean oil with a combination of other methods).
In that case, why not let derivative works while the original author is alive? Your same argument can be made.
If the heir also works in the same field (such as Brian Herbert, Frank Herbert's son) then they can continue the story (or even finish it, such as in Brian Herbert's case) without having a whole bunch of other people meddling in the work (if 50 endings from 50 authors existed, there wouldn't be much incentive for Brian Herbert). If it wasn't possible to designate a heir to a body of work, then any author whose close to dying wouldn't really have any incentive to continue a long series (such as Anne McCaffrey (80 year old author) who has at least 3 ongoing series with co-authors (or even sole authors) of the latest books, who I presume will go on to finish the work once she dies). I would hate to lose the work of old authors (such as Anne McCaffrey).
Bullshit. Google censoring China doesn't get the government any benefit, so they're harrassing Google over it. If Google gave more "donations" (a.k.a bribes) or were able to pass the benefits over to the American people (such as by having lower prices due to stuff made by cheap labour) then you wouldn't be hearing anything from congress. Censoring the Chinese people, while terrible, certainly isn't anywhere near as bad as using slave labour (I'm sorry "child labour"), which (AFAIK) nearly every single company with a factory in China does.
I for one welcome our new toxic toads overlords!
You misspelt old.
I can't wait to hear about World War 2 beginning in 4 years time.
Which isn't what I found impressive about the screenshots being shown (see a slashdot post further down). Way to go at being judgemental (although in all fairness, it being slashdotted doesn't help).
I've yet to get any of the pictures loaded in the cache. Had it been linked to in the first place, perhaps the cache would be working better.
How a program looks is often indicative on the time and care that went into the program itself. If it looks like absolute shit, there probably wasn't much time that went into it, or the people didn't know what they were doing. If it looks great, it MIGHT be good.
I know a slime mold that has a PhD in literature.
We trade with them because where else are we going to get child labour at such bargain basement prices?