+1. TD;DR the article, but the parts I did made this whole story reek of "your unsubscription method isn't braindead obvious enough to end-users, so they're unsubscribing by hitting the Spam button until your emails go away for good."
Whether the law itself works or not, one has to hand this much to US politicians: over the years, they've turned finding acronyms into an art form. Few -- if any -- other countries have politicians who can boast the same.
Basically, users from your carrier get to use your Wifi, and in return you get to use their own Wifi routers across the country.
France is not alone, either. For carriers, it's a cheap way to roll-out a nationwide Wifi network, with the added benefit that they can then redirect mobile data traffic to land pipes, resulting in less encumbered wireless networks.
It has nothing to do with being a prude... You'll learn this much when you raise a kid: the moment he or she starts to think about sex, everything changes. And I really mean everything. There's a before and an after, and there's no turning back. So, very personally, I can appreciate that Google might decide to cut parents a (very short-lived) break. Once the kids are into it, let them find all the sex they want; until then, don't serve it in their face.
Per a separate comment, I made, kids start to think about sex along with their peers. It doesn't "just happen." It's a social process. When they *do* start to think about it, then let google return as much porn as they're willing to take -- I've no issue with that whatsoever. Until then though, let them remain in their (innocent?) childhood for as long as it lasts.
Of course not. When they look for it, let them find it. But until they *actively* look for it, why show it to them? Let the fucking kids live their childhoods to its very end.
Why? What good will this do when one can bypass it, or just use another search engine? Or just go to one of the many Youtube-for-porn sites available?
Here's a scoop for you... Kids start to think about sex along with their peers. It doesn't "just happen." It's a social process. When they *do* start to think about it, then let google return as much porn as they're willing to take -- I've no issue with that whatsoever. Until then though, let them remain in their (innocent?) childhood for as long as it lasts.
You'll learn this much when you raise a kid: the moment he or she starts to think about sex, everything changes. And I really mean everything. There's a before and an after, and there's no turning back. So, very personally, I can appreciate that Google might decide to cut parents a (short-lived) break.
Do your protect your kids from violence too or just sex?
Neither. But the crux of the matter is, if they're not actively looking for it, there's no reason they should be exposed to it. Which is what Google's move is all about...
Nope... Per a separate comment, I was merely stating the obvious: if your kid wants to find porn, he or she will find it. If he or she isn't actively looking for some (which they will, eventually), then there's no reason to rub it into his or her face in random search engine queries. But you wouldn't know that if you're not a parent. Let the kids discover sex at their rate...
What, you don't think your 13 year old is smart enough to find the porn he or she wants? You're not protecting anyone from anything. Your prudery is probably more harmful than the porn you're so afraid of.
No, I was merely stating the obvious: if your kid wants to find porn, he or she will find it. If he or she isn't actively looking for some (which they will, eventually), then there's no reason to rub it into his or her face in random search engine queries.
Next feature: If you want explicit results, you have to submit an example image of what you are searching for.
That wouldn't be such a bad idea, when you think about it. As in, show me stuff like... as an input method. It would apply to pretty much everything, really -- not just porn.
The danger for Microsoft is that as CEOs suddenly find that they can get by just fine with an iPad and no Office on it, they're going to look at the budget and ask why they're paying MS massive sums of money for Office enterprise agreements. Office is a huge cash cow, and the last thing MS wants is people using something else.
That should have been MS' problem when the iPhone got released. Several years down the road, end-users have been shown, again and again, that the "Computers are useless without Office!" mantra that they all religiously believed was, in fact, completely bogus.
There is a place called Mildura whose location is given as exactly where Apple put it – at least, there is in an authoritative source for such a location. (...)
In this case, the Australian Gazetteer – the authoritative list of 300,000-plus placenames, complete with coordinates – includes two Milduras. One is the “real” town, the other is an entry for “Mildura Rural City”, coordinates -34.79724 141.76108.
What are the benefits of using javascript on the server side over a more typical server side programming language?
You get to write every possible thing you need to use for your app, including basic things that aren't functional in the handful existing (albeit very dysfunctional) libraries.
*Ducks*
In all seriousness, there's a sweet spot when you're writing some app that needs a real-time, state-full, non-blocking environment, such as a chat server. There are of course alternatives, but this is what node.js was designed for.
It does a good job at it, too, as long as you don't mind the tons of callbacks (read: impossible to follow spaghetti code), and the lack of decent debugging tools (unless this changed since last year?), the scarce (and occasionally unmaintained, and frequently buggy) libraries related to much about anything useful.
My (admittedly scathing) take on node.js is this: it was created by a someone with a specific need, lots of love of javascript, and time to spend on reinventing the wheel instead of using more mature tools for the job. Many credits to him for being such an enthusiastic hobbyist who then open sourced his work. The issue is, it then got picked up by an army of web designers, as opposed to actual programmers. They thought "Oh great I can now code server stuff too!" and went off to write a library or three. And it shows, because nearly all of the libraries in question are borderline unusable except in very specific cases.
In practice, node.js is a horror story littered with writing your own libraries for much about everything because testing existing ones revealed that they suffered from either or all of a missing feature, too many bugs, no maintainer, etc. As a hobbyist and potential library contributor, go there; you're much needed, and you'll even have fun if javascript turns you on. For actual development, just don't -- not even with a 10-foot pole.
Slashdot Mirror
Methinks you're confusing him with McAffee.
+1. TD;DR the article, but the parts I did made this whole story reek of "your unsubscription method isn't braindead obvious enough to end-users, so they're unsubscribing by hitting the Spam button until your emails go away for good."
I was meaning it in a casual sense, yeah. As in, he's welcome to return, get arrested on the spot and board the next plane to the US.
Thanks for the more precise legal meaning and perspective, though. +1 interesting. :-)
I don't know if I like government to get involved in regulations like these. (...) how much money we could save?
Methinks it's safe to assume that one can measure -- and fine -- it automatically.
If not, end users will find all sorts of reasons to sue.
Whether the law itself works or not, one has to hand this much to US politicians: over the years, they've turned finding acronyms into an art form. Few -- if any -- other countries have politicians who can boast the same.
Wtf, Google? Why isn't this available in every iTunes store?
PS don't you have to be charged before you can be arrested?
Paying the requested charge is actually a good way to not be arrested in many countries.
Color me puzzled...
How does he intend to campaign from the Ecuadorian embassy in London?
And more to the point, isn't he persona non grata in his own country? As in, subject to being expelled to the US should he go there?
FWIW, all four major carriers offer this in France:
http://www.ariase.com/fr/guides/hotspots-wifi.html (url is in French)
Basically, users from your carrier get to use your Wifi, and in return you get to use their own Wifi routers across the country.
France is not alone, either. For carriers, it's a cheap way to roll-out a nationwide Wifi network, with the added benefit that they can then redirect mobile data traffic to land pipes, resulting in less encumbered wireless networks.
What about Sam, the Belizean chick a fourth of his age who followed him all along? Is she going to get kicked back to Belize?
It has nothing to do with being a prude... You'll learn this much when you raise a kid: the moment he or she starts to think about sex, everything changes. And I really mean everything. There's a before and an after, and there's no turning back. So, very personally, I can appreciate that Google might decide to cut parents a (very short-lived) break. Once the kids are into it, let them find all the sex they want; until then, don't serve it in their face.
Per a separate comment, I made, kids start to think about sex along with their peers. It doesn't "just happen." It's a social process. When they *do* start to think about it, then let google return as much porn as they're willing to take -- I've no issue with that whatsoever. Until then though, let them remain in their (innocent?) childhood for as long as it lasts.
Of course not. When they look for it, let them find it. But until they *actively* look for it, why show it to them? Let the fucking kids live their childhoods to its very end.
Why? What good will this do when one can bypass it, or just use another search engine? Or just go to one of the many Youtube-for-porn sites available?
Here's a scoop for you... Kids start to think about sex along with their peers. It doesn't "just happen." It's a social process. When they *do* start to think about it, then let google return as much porn as they're willing to take -- I've no issue with that whatsoever. Until then though, let them remain in their (innocent?) childhood for as long as it lasts.
You'll learn this much when you raise a kid: the moment he or she starts to think about sex, everything changes. And I really mean everything. There's a before and an after, and there's no turning back. So, very personally, I can appreciate that Google might decide to cut parents a (short-lived) break.
Do your protect your kids from violence too or just sex?
Neither. But the crux of the matter is, if they're not actively looking for it, there's no reason they should be exposed to it. Which is what Google's move is all about...
Man, I hope you're a troll
Nope... Per a separate comment, I was merely stating the obvious: if your kid wants to find porn, he or she will find it. If he or she isn't actively looking for some (which they will, eventually), then there's no reason to rub it into his or her face in random search engine queries. But you wouldn't know that if you're not a parent. Let the kids discover sex at their rate...
What, you don't think your 13 year old is smart enough to find the porn he or she wants? You're not protecting anyone from anything. Your prudery is probably more harmful than the porn you're so afraid of.
No, I was merely stating the obvious: if your kid wants to find porn, he or she will find it. If he or she isn't actively looking for some (which they will, eventually), then there's no reason to rub it into his or her face in random search engine queries.
They already are...
http://www.google.com/search?q=goatse&tbm=isch
Meh, just wait until your kids are 13, and you may have a very, very, very different opinion on this.
Next feature: If you want explicit results, you have to submit an example image of what you are searching for.
That wouldn't be such a bad idea, when you think about it. As in, show me stuff like... as an input method. It would apply to pretty much everything, really -- not just porn.
Or, much more likely: they have realized it and they're now panicking.
The danger for Microsoft is that as CEOs suddenly find that they can get by just fine with an iPad and no Office on it, they're going to look at the budget and ask why they're paying MS massive sums of money for Office enterprise agreements. Office is a huge cash cow, and the last thing MS wants is people using something else.
That should have been MS' problem when the iPhone got released. Several years down the road, end-users have been shown, again and again, that the "Computers are useless without Office!" mantra that they all religiously believed was, in fact, completely bogus.
Here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/10/apple_maps_ghost_mildura/
There is a place called Mildura whose location is given as exactly where Apple put it – at least, there is in an authoritative source for such a location. (...)
In this case, the Australian Gazetteer – the authoritative list of 300,000-plus placenames, complete with coordinates – includes two Milduras. One is the “real” town, the other is an entry for “Mildura Rural City”, coordinates -34.79724 141.76108.
Mountain out of a molehill...
Dude, if Javascript is your only skill, you're in serious trouble.
The trouble is, this actually describes many a web developer's skill set happens to be. And it's a self-taught skill set at that.
What are the benefits of using javascript on the server side over a more typical server side programming language?
You get to write every possible thing you need to use for your app, including basic things that aren't functional in the handful existing (albeit very dysfunctional) libraries.
*Ducks*
In all seriousness, there's a sweet spot when you're writing some app that needs a real-time, state-full, non-blocking environment, such as a chat server. There are of course alternatives, but this is what node.js was designed for.
It does a good job at it, too, as long as you don't mind the tons of callbacks (read: impossible to follow spaghetti code), and the lack of decent debugging tools (unless this changed since last year?), the scarce (and occasionally unmaintained, and frequently buggy) libraries related to much about anything useful.
My (admittedly scathing) take on node.js is this: it was created by a someone with a specific need, lots of love of javascript, and time to spend on reinventing the wheel instead of using more mature tools for the job. Many credits to him for being such an enthusiastic hobbyist who then open sourced his work. The issue is, it then got picked up by an army of web designers, as opposed to actual programmers. They thought "Oh great I can now code server stuff too!" and went off to write a library or three. And it shows, because nearly all of the libraries in question are borderline unusable except in very specific cases.
In practice, node.js is a horror story littered with writing your own libraries for much about everything because testing existing ones revealed that they suffered from either or all of a missing feature, too many bugs, no maintainer, etc. As a hobbyist and potential library contributor, go there; you're much needed, and you'll even have fun if javascript turns you on. For actual development, just don't -- not even with a 10-foot pole.