This isn't parts of your genitals in the implied sense. This is a piece of skin. It's not really all that different from cutting off a skin tab, and doesn't affect functionality. They aren't cutting any part of the functional organ. Claims to the affirmative of all these dangers and harms are also simply attempts to justify religious condemnation through pseudo-rational claims, and are the same kind of pseudo-rational nonsense that we get from other religions about celibacy, marriage, etc. It's almost entirely moral panic on something fairly benign (or almost entirely, if you ask me).
I agree with you that any book based on a magical sky wizard that someone holds as a belief system is either full of shit or in complete denial. But I don't see circumcision as some kind of demonized thing. How dare people get circumcisions, etc. etc. fear and yadda yadda. I was raised to be moderately religious and jewish and I basically am entirely atheist now, after having gone to Israel and being told I needed to make Jewish Babies which runs contrary to anything other than an explicit religious-political agenda. I don't see value in marrying people because "religion".
I guess I'm just somewhat shocked how crazy people troll circumcision.
"they can if they want to?" huh? I can sue anyone if I want to, it doesn't mean I'll even make it to court. If I had a patent, I could sue if I want to. That means absolutely zero. People don't function off fear like that. Most technology innovators just simply don't care about patents as highlighted by the oragoogle case.
Patent office does need to get fixed but the "they can sue if they want" when it comes to google isn't even a threat. If you were to make a competing product without resorting to illegal methods, they'd thank you.
Also, he's 37 and going to community college as some sort of a regular student? I think something may be wrong with your statements here (all of them):
“If you’re going to outsource email, then Google is the absolute worst choice you could make,” says Windward Community College student Robert Fread./slowclap .
How are we supposed to know who the hell this kid is? why should we even given a shit? That's not ad-hom, it's just that his opinion is about as valid as Florian Mueller's and we all know how that goes.
As also noted:
1) What does being a former marine have to do with privacy laws? 2) What does being a former superintendent for federal contracting projects have to do with privacy laws? 3) How do you know he is quite well versed in privacy laws?
PS: Hi shill! and/or referenced dude who nobody knows about.
Probably helps to use some intelligence and put a little more effort than you did. We know you're the kid or a shill, but you don't need to tell us you have Aspergers. we can already see you sperging out.
Freedom for developers helps, what, everyone who can, does or might use the app. It's a very explicit long term focus. Freedom for users helps...nobody if they can't get the app to work the way they want.
except that circumcision doesn't really have to do with HPV. Why do you guys keep referencing HPV?
I'm not saying everyone should or must be circumcised - the parents of the kids decide, but I don't understand the complete disrespect towards people who are that pops up in threads occasionally.
except that a: you link to two anti circumcision sites and b: you link to clearly flawed studies from the only non anti-circumcision site?
Let's tackle the ED study first:
Researchers surveyed 300 men and found that circumcised fellas had a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from ED than noncircumcised guys. So yeah, 300 men = clearly linked? Not in your imagination. We have no idea of the situation of these individuals or anything leading to a conclusive study.
100 baby deaths a year? You don't suppose that might be quite a bit of hype for something explained as "1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes". So 1% of all deaths? This doesn't even say if other causes were factored into the death or not.
Also the last one? another anti-circumcision site? Have you ever tried reading things that involve real science, and not just are sources which explicitly support your viewpoints? I'm going to guess that the answer is 100% no. Maybe you should think things through before you pull a Jenny McCarthy and cause outbreaks of diseases around the world based on websites that claim things are dangerous, have a bias, and are unreasonable which actually put other people around you at a real risk. You're in the same boat of junk pseudoscience as creationism, the vaccine freakouts, and republicans, freeper.
I'll enjoy my reduced likeliness of Penis cancer, thanks.
Considering the kid made the typical anti-google statements, I would tend to agree.
"Fread has filed a complaint with the federal Department of Education, saying, “They’re [UH] absolutely ignoring Google’s abysmal record with privacy.”
That's word for word, isn't it. quoted from fox news: Yep "Steve Pociask, president of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, wrote on FoxNews.com that "[Google's] abysmal track record on privacy " Or here's one for facebook: http://rsjrealestate.blogspot.com/2012/02/google-facebook-privacy-and-digital.html "Facebook, with its abysmal track record on privacy" How often do people trot out this line as if it's facts?
I am sure IE will not be limited to some crippled set of APIs, and you know that.
This part is absolutely irrelevant. The issue is whether Firefox will be limited to a lesser set of API's than IE, and so far that seems to be 100% confirmed.
except that this has nothing to do with anything of your denial of the original statement. In terms of even theoretical measurements they were saying at most the methane was theoretically 10% of total methane production.
Also, the article you reference, has ZERO to do with dinosaurs for a variety of reasons from different climate to different animals to different diets and different animal populations. I understand you may simply not understand science or not believe in it, but such an opinion has no basis within reality. Plus the original article references something which lacks even a citation for the guess.
You're saying "cyanobacteria". The article on wikipedia says "we just don't know".
Google has said they will never sue over patents and they haven't. It's more so they can protect themselves later and also highlights a complete lack of patent office quality.
Well the gaming equivalent of power users (which you correctly understood in what I was implying) are usually less technical but still willing to mod their consoles. It's a weird group of people, but it absolutely does exist. same people who understand mod chips, etc. Even if they could, you know, build it on a PC instead and have more functionality/options/etc.
It's not about Apache or Berkeley being business friendly. It's about how *un-friendly* they are for downstream users and other people wanting to maintain the code and also ensuring that the rights continue to be maintained.
Good luck with that happening with Apache or Berkeley licenses.
Except that, you know, all they're saying is that the dinosaurs made *SOME* methane. Nothing about dying from dinosaur farts or substantial amounts of methane. It's possible to speculate if you are anti-science, and that's about the only way to come to a conclusion that refutes science other than refusing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, people were full of shit in the first place.
What makes you think they need a patent for Pagerank? They can make Pagerank function with and without a patent. Have they stopped anyone else from doing their own equivalent to pagerank and will they ever? no. They explicitly said "we welcome competition". - http://www.google.com/competition/
We believe in choice. When it comes to search, competition is always just a click away.
Google has been one of the few actually involved in the common good at this rate.
actually, you're paying a privilege to have the limited device too. 4GB is nothing for storage. I'm not a Xbox360 fan, but you'd have to be lacking common sense to buy one without a substantial hard drive or a plan to replace the hard drive. A lot of functionality is based on having a large hard drive, though you could always buy one later and replace it (which is what power gamers are probably doing anyway).
This is google's direct chance to get the whole software -> patents thing invalidated. Many have been unwilling to fight for getting such a ruling, but I would bet a lot of money on google setting this up to invalidate patents on software.
Where did they break the law with the wifi thing? Hint: they didn't. Where did they break the law with the competitiveness thing with keywords? hint: they didn't. Where did they break the law with the Oracle case? Hint: it's not even over, and already indications show that they didn't. Also total liabilities in the $0 range are significant. Where did they break the law with the youtube case? Hint: they didn't.
How many more do we need? Do you even know what you're talking about?
If anyone's about to come into sanctions, it's going to be Oracle for the statements they made to acquire sun in Europe being completely contradictory to the claims they're making in the Oracle v Google case.
really, do we have to get to discussing dinosaur farts for people to figure out what pseudoscience is? Could this research have had actual research papers and not just been pure speculation?
I don't know about the legality, but a lot of people jumped ship when this deal was struck...I do recall many people had substantial disagreements with the deal in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't parts of your genitals in the implied sense. This is a piece of skin. It's not really all that different from cutting off a skin tab, and doesn't affect functionality. They aren't cutting any part of the functional organ. Claims to the affirmative of all these dangers and harms are also simply attempts to justify religious condemnation through pseudo-rational claims, and are the same kind of pseudo-rational nonsense that we get from other religions about celibacy, marriage, etc. It's almost entirely moral panic on something fairly benign (or almost entirely, if you ask me).
I agree with you that any book based on a magical sky wizard that someone holds as a belief system is either full of shit or in complete denial. But I don't see circumcision as some kind of demonized thing. How dare people get circumcisions, etc. etc. fear and yadda yadda. I was raised to be moderately religious and jewish and I basically am entirely atheist now, after having gone to Israel and being told I needed to make Jewish Babies which runs contrary to anything other than an explicit religious-political agenda. I don't see value in marrying people because "religion".
I guess I'm just somewhat shocked how crazy people troll circumcision.
"they can if they want to?" huh? I can sue anyone if I want to, it doesn't mean I'll even make it to court. If I had a patent, I could sue if I want to. That means absolutely zero. People don't function off fear like that. Most technology innovators just simply don't care about patents as highlighted by the oragoogle case.
Patent office does need to get fixed but the "they can sue if they want" when it comes to google isn't even a threat. If you were to make a competing product without resorting to illegal methods, they'd thank you.
Also, he's 37 and going to community college as some sort of a regular student? I think something may be wrong with your statements here (all of them):
“If you’re going to outsource email, then Google is the absolute worst choice you could make,” says Windward Community College student Robert Fread. /slowclap .
How are we supposed to know who the hell this kid is? why should we even given a shit? That's not ad-hom, it's just that his opinion is about as valid as Florian Mueller's and we all know how that goes.
As also noted:
1) What does being a former marine have to do with privacy laws?
2) What does being a former superintendent for federal contracting projects have to do with privacy laws?
3) How do you know he is quite well versed in privacy laws?
PS: Hi shill! and/or referenced dude who nobody knows about.
Probably helps to use some intelligence and put a little more effort than you did. We know you're the kid or a shill, but you don't need to tell us you have Aspergers. we can already see you sperging out.
Freedom for developers helps, what, everyone who can, does or might use the app. It's a very explicit long term focus. Freedom for users helps...nobody if they can't get the app to work the way they want.
except that circumcision doesn't really have to do with HPV. Why do you guys keep referencing HPV?
I'm not saying everyone should or must be circumcised - the parents of the kids decide, but I don't understand the complete disrespect towards people who are that pops up in threads occasionally.
except that a: you link to two anti circumcision sites and b: you link to clearly flawed studies from the only non anti-circumcision site?
Let's tackle the ED study first:
Researchers surveyed 300 men and found that circumcised fellas had a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from ED than noncircumcised guys.
So yeah, 300 men = clearly linked? Not in your imagination. We have no idea of the situation of these individuals or anything leading to a conclusive study.
100 baby deaths a year? You don't suppose that might be quite a bit of hype for something explained as "1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes". So 1% of all deaths? This doesn't even say if other causes were factored into the death or not.
Also the last one? another anti-circumcision site? Have you ever tried reading things that involve real science, and not just are sources which explicitly support your viewpoints? I'm going to guess that the answer is 100% no. Maybe you should think things through before you pull a Jenny McCarthy and cause outbreaks of diseases around the world based on websites that claim things are dangerous, have a bias, and are unreasonable which actually put other people around you at a real risk. You're in the same boat of junk pseudoscience as creationism, the vaccine freakouts, and republicans, freeper.
I'll enjoy my reduced likeliness of Penis cancer, thanks.
Considering the kid made the typical anti-google statements, I would tend to agree.
"Fread has filed a complaint with the federal Department of Education, saying, “They’re [UH] absolutely ignoring Google’s abysmal record with privacy.”
That's word for word, isn't it. quoted from fox news: Yep "Steve Pociask, president of the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research, wrote on FoxNews.com that "[Google's] abysmal track record on privacy "
Or here's one for facebook: http://rsjrealestate.blogspot.com/2012/02/google-facebook-privacy-and-digital.html "Facebook, with its abysmal track record on privacy"
How often do people trot out this line as if it's facts?
This part is absolutely irrelevant. The issue is whether Firefox will be limited to a lesser set of API's than IE, and so far that seems to be 100% confirmed.
Why would you ban something that's been scientifically proven to be beneficial?
No penis cancer for me, thank you.
So I think that's more like
561400593) Ban something regardless of the science involved proclaiming it's benefits.
except that this has nothing to do with anything of your denial of the original statement. In terms of even theoretical measurements they were saying at most the methane was theoretically 10% of total methane production.
Also, the article you reference, has ZERO to do with dinosaurs for a variety of reasons from different climate to different animals to different diets and different animal populations. I understand you may simply not understand science or not believe in it, but such an opinion has no basis within reality. Plus the original article references something which lacks even a citation for the guess.
You're saying "cyanobacteria". The article on wikipedia says "we just don't know".
Why do people keep parroting this shit?
Google has said they will never sue over patents and they haven't. It's more so they can protect themselves later and also highlights a complete lack of patent office quality.
Well the gaming equivalent of power users (which you correctly understood in what I was implying) are usually less technical but still willing to mod their consoles. It's a weird group of people, but it absolutely does exist. same people who understand mod chips, etc. Even if they could, you know, build it on a PC instead and have more functionality/options/etc.
Since when would people give a shit about "officially supported"? This is an xbox360, or roughly equivalent to a PC for gaming.
It's not about Apache or Berkeley being business friendly. It's about how *un-friendly* they are for downstream users and other people wanting to maintain the code and also ensuring that the rights continue to be maintained.
Good luck with that happening with Apache or Berkeley licenses.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/05/07/the-reports-of-dinosaurs-dying-of-farts-are-greatly-exaggerated/
Except that, you know, all they're saying is that the dinosaurs made *SOME* methane. Nothing about dying from dinosaur farts or substantial amounts of methane. It's possible to speculate if you are anti-science, and that's about the only way to come to a conclusion that refutes science other than refusing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, people were full of shit in the first place.
except that doing this is a: more expensive than a hard drive and b: ridiculously slow.
There's a reason you load games on a big, faster hard drive and it's not to have PS1-era 30 second load times.
What makes you think they need a patent for Pagerank? They can make Pagerank function with and without a patent. Have they stopped anyone else from doing their own equivalent to pagerank and will they ever? no. They explicitly said "we welcome competition". - http://www.google.com/competition/
Google has been one of the few actually involved in the common good at this rate.
Nice try though.
actually, you're paying a privilege to have the limited device too. 4GB is nothing for storage. I'm not a Xbox360 fan, but you'd have to be lacking common sense to buy one without a substantial hard drive or a plan to replace the hard drive. A lot of functionality is based on having a large hard drive, though you could always buy one later and replace it (which is what power gamers are probably doing anyway).
This is google's direct chance to get the whole software -> patents thing invalidated. Many have been unwilling to fight for getting such a ruling, but I would bet a lot of money on google setting this up to invalidate patents on software.
Tons of laws? Tons of sanctions? Show em.
Where did they break the law with the wifi thing? Hint: they didn't.
Where did they break the law with the competitiveness thing with keywords? hint: they didn't.
Where did they break the law with the Oracle case? Hint: it's not even over, and already indications show that they didn't. Also total liabilities in the $0 range are significant.
Where did they break the law with the youtube case? Hint: they didn't.
How many more do we need? Do you even know what you're talking about?
If anyone's about to come into sanctions, it's going to be Oracle for the statements they made to acquire sun in Europe being completely contradictory to the claims they're making in the Oracle v Google case.
really, do we have to get to discussing dinosaur farts for people to figure out what pseudoscience is? Could this research have had actual research papers and not just been pure speculation?
because the private sector when it's a monopoly works about as fast as government?
This is "sooner". Later would be 10 years from now probably.
I'm amused at the wording. This could be a unique and useful technology (certainly), but:
"The Microsoft Research team is reporting a 90-100% accuracy rate for SoundWave, even in noisy environments."
well no shit - it's using visuals, so sound means almost nothing here.
This is like saying "vision reported as perfectly accurate with 120dbs of sound". Well gee, ya think?
I don't know about the legality, but a lot of people jumped ship when this deal was struck...I do recall many people had substantial disagreements with the deal in the first place.