California knows it's too close to becoming financially insolvent to be its own country. It is the opposite of Brexit. They have to stay in the union otherwise that huge illegal immigrant problem suddenly actually becomes their problem. "But California only relies on federal money for 25% (about 42.5 billion dollars) of their annual budget (about 170 billion)" Yeah and California has the highest state budget by $30 billion dollars over the next which is New York. Whereas Mississippi, the state with the highest percentage of federal money in their annual budget, has a state budget of 6.4 billion...25 times less...heck it's whole state budget is 7 times less than the amount of federal money California receives alone. California would crumble without federal aid. Mississippi might have to raise taxes, but they are in a much better position to not fold if federal aid was removed. So I welcome Calexit. Less of a tax burden on us flyover states.
That's Valve setting up it's mission critical domain name to NOT allow transfers under any of the standard methods. They would have to first unlock it with the registrar it's owned through. This prevents someone either accidentally transferring it or maliciously transferring it thereby rendering the service inoperable. Both types of things have happened to some pretty notable sites and services.
Once autonomous cars are commonly accepted then we will have more and more of them on the road. Once critical mass is achieved (not sure what this is) then it can become like I, Robot where autonomous mode can go way faster than manual drive mode. But until the tech is proven, solid, and accepted widely you can't have self-driven cars being at fault in any way or it will be a set back.
While I somewhat agree with the OP, the liberal whining, while significantly stronger now will not doubt taper off too dramatically to prove to be a viable energy source. Now if we could just harness power from the tears they'll cry alone in their basement...then we'd have a sustainable resource.
Because when they say "steadfast refusal to climate change" they are either looking past all the progressive attempts by individuals, companies and governments to shift more to renewables. No, it's not going to happen over night. And no it isn't a good idea to create tax penalties (carbon tax credits are SJW bullshit) to try to pretend to force companies to improve their green status.
Probably because there are a lot of WE and who are doing OUR part to reduce emissions. No, most of us aren't going to shun man made energy/waste all together, which is apparently what it takes to be labeled as someone who will address climate change.
In this case volatile means anything that happens can be claimed as proof that they were right. 72 degrees and sunny all year? Volatile! 4 distinct seasons? Volatile! 4 generally normal seasons with some outlier days? Volatile! Exactly the same weather patterns as last year? Volatile! Completely normal weather with no drastic fluctuations? Volatile!
Unless it didn't happen and the guy is making it up. He even admits in the filing that the email didn't identify him by name and some people just guessed it was him. Conveniently the guy doesn't include what action actually got him fired. Or what action allegedly got him fired whatever...
I agree with this comment. I can't even begin to understand how so many people have contributed useful information to this story when most ask slashdot articles consist entirely of comments bashing the person asking. This one where the person asking and the editor who approved the content both need to be whipped and suddenly slashdot is a helpful community?
Some warnings make sense, such as the sign about high voltage outside the area that has high enough voltage to arc through your body without you even touching it. The warning on plastic bags...how many adults who would let their child play with one would actually read that warning and care? It's there for liability purposes only. If all Google did was put a warning on their search results page saying "Some of this shit may be crap, don't assume it is accurate" then I'd be okay with it. Google IS working as intended. If you ask the question "Did the holocaust happen?" getting a result for someone who argues it didn't is a legitimate result. Just because we all (mostly all) agree that's wrong doesn't make it a less legitimate search match. We should not be asking Google for black and white answers. We're saying "here are some words, please show me something related to them so that I may determine what is useful to me."
In the mode of researching information, no I do not implicitly trust anybody. Once I have sufficiently vetted a person or source I may require less verification on certain topics, but I prefer to maintain skepticism on anything that matters. Just because an answer is wrong doesn't mean someone doesn't give that answer. And in the case of the main topic of this article there are people who genuinely believe and ardently argue that the holocaust didn't happen. While it is generally accepted that it did happen, that doesn't make having a website dedicated to denying it against the law. It is valid information, even if it is wrong. I want to know that those sites exist so that I can reference them to better understand that point of view. Even though facts are up for debate like opinion they offer a great way to get inside the mind of those who think that way. That's a pretty important utility. And as far as me being more exceptional than "the rest of us" all I have to say is there are extremely smart people who consistently accept being spoon fed "approved" content and I will never understand why that is. It is contrary to learning to only see part of a whole system. And as soon as you try to pretend that viewing only "approved" (aka "true") content means you are getting either the entire correct story OR not getting ANY of the wrong story, you're just being blissfully ignorant.
It's one of the most insidious things that infects all the major political parties. And it applies to more than just children. I'm tired of people presuming to tell me what to do with things that have no affect on their life and liberty. Don't like drinking? Don't drink. Don't like watching The Walking Dead? Don't watch it. Don't like your children watching The Walking Dead? Don't let them watch it. Yes it gets more complicated to enforce when you're talking about school related issues, but in short...if you don't like the way your child is being taught...teach them yourself. Just because public education is free doesn't mean you HAVE to use it.
I do not trust Google or anybody to decide what is true or false regardless of how demonstrably true or false it may be. Yes, that could mean I have to wade through some information that ends up being false but as a thinking human being I am armed to deal with that. If Google is expected to do that for me, then it should always have one and only one result for every search. Couldn't possibly be more than one right answers, right?
Google isn't harming the world any more than a knife catalog is harming the world by advertising knives. You are saying that for the collective safety of the world, Google must protect the uneducated masses by applying a truth filter to their search algorithm. What you're really saying is people are too dumb to do substantive research on their own so nanny Google must make sure they don't burn themselves on the stove. Google only harms the world by applying it's own ideology to search results. Popularity of a website is a perfectly reasonable way to order results. But whether it's the first result or the 151st, I'm not going to blindly believe whatever I read. The more important a topic the more research I'm going to do online and offline prior to making whatever decision or drawing whatever conclusion. I just simply do not want google to make the decision for me whether something is true or not.
There are a lot of people behind the holocaust denier movement. If there is something general about Google's algorithm that they need to fix from this apparent abuse, that's fine. But I just don't need Google making changes specifically for this reason. If they improve their search algorithm to get more relevant results, I approve. If they change their search algorithm to suppress a viewpoint, I disapprove.
I provide guidance to my children. Because I'll be damned if I'm going to leave that up to a hate filled website OR a pretend altruistic entity like Google to teach them. Yes, my answer is let the fools figure it out for themselves. That's better than the alternative where we're all fools of Google or someone else's design.
Search engines shouldn't give a shit what they are indexing. Short of actual malicious websites that try to break your computer/device, just index and provide results. I do not EVER and will not EVER need a "responsible" party to get in between me and information, right or wrong. I'm sad so many people disagree with that, but if they want to only view whitewashed information, then that is there choice. But fuck you and anyone else who wants to make that choice for me.
If you want Google to protect you from the big bad internet that's your choice. I wouldn't want you to bleed any more out of whatever unlubricated hole you are pulling your inane argument out of. But for me, if I wouldn't want my voice squelched I'm never going to ask for someone else's to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah and Google Plus or whatever it was called was the end of Facebook.
With how much help from the internets? And what do you define as beat? Just ender dragon?
oops we accidentally removed your verified news article that just happened to conflict with our corporate interests or political views....
Getting super far off topic, but if the funniest of the three doesn't meet your criteria to be your favorite...what other criteria are you using?
California knows it's too close to becoming financially insolvent to be its own country. It is the opposite of Brexit. They have to stay in the union otherwise that huge illegal immigrant problem suddenly actually becomes their problem. "But California only relies on federal money for 25% (about 42.5 billion dollars) of their annual budget (about 170 billion)" Yeah and California has the highest state budget by $30 billion dollars over the next which is New York. Whereas Mississippi, the state with the highest percentage of federal money in their annual budget, has a state budget of 6.4 billion...25 times less...heck it's whole state budget is 7 times less than the amount of federal money California receives alone. California would crumble without federal aid. Mississippi might have to raise taxes, but they are in a much better position to not fold if federal aid was removed. So I welcome Calexit. Less of a tax burden on us flyover states.
That's Valve setting up it's mission critical domain name to NOT allow transfers under any of the standard methods. They would have to first unlock it with the registrar it's owned through. This prevents someone either accidentally transferring it or maliciously transferring it thereby rendering the service inoperable. Both types of things have happened to some pretty notable sites and services.
Once autonomous cars are commonly accepted then we will have more and more of them on the road. Once critical mass is achieved (not sure what this is) then it can become like I, Robot where autonomous mode can go way faster than manual drive mode. But until the tech is proven, solid, and accepted widely you can't have self-driven cars being at fault in any way or it will be a set back.
While I somewhat agree with the OP, the liberal whining, while significantly stronger now will not doubt taper off too dramatically to prove to be a viable energy source. Now if we could just harness power from the tears they'll cry alone in their basement...then we'd have a sustainable resource.
My point is the use of volatile in this article will be "proven" correct regardless of what weather patterns we actually end up having.
Because when they say "steadfast refusal to climate change" they are either looking past all the progressive attempts by individuals, companies and governments to shift more to renewables. No, it's not going to happen over night. And no it isn't a good idea to create tax penalties (carbon tax credits are SJW bullshit) to try to pretend to force companies to improve their green status.
Probably because there are a lot of WE and who are doing OUR part to reduce emissions. No, most of us aren't going to shun man made energy/waste all together, which is apparently what it takes to be labeled as someone who will address climate change.
In this case volatile means anything that happens can be claimed as proof that they were right. 72 degrees and sunny all year? Volatile! 4 distinct seasons? Volatile! 4 generally normal seasons with some outlier days? Volatile! Exactly the same weather patterns as last year? Volatile! Completely normal weather with no drastic fluctuations? Volatile!
Unless it didn't happen and the guy is making it up. He even admits in the filing that the email didn't identify him by name and some people just guessed it was him. Conveniently the guy doesn't include what action actually got him fired. Or what action allegedly got him fired whatever...
I agree with this comment. I can't even begin to understand how so many people have contributed useful information to this story when most ask slashdot articles consist entirely of comments bashing the person asking. This one where the person asking and the editor who approved the content both need to be whipped and suddenly slashdot is a helpful community?
Some warnings make sense, such as the sign about high voltage outside the area that has high enough voltage to arc through your body without you even touching it. The warning on plastic bags...how many adults who would let their child play with one would actually read that warning and care? It's there for liability purposes only. If all Google did was put a warning on their search results page saying "Some of this shit may be crap, don't assume it is accurate" then I'd be okay with it. Google IS working as intended. If you ask the question "Did the holocaust happen?" getting a result for someone who argues it didn't is a legitimate result. Just because we all (mostly all) agree that's wrong doesn't make it a less legitimate search match. We should not be asking Google for black and white answers. We're saying "here are some words, please show me something related to them so that I may determine what is useful to me."
In the mode of researching information, no I do not implicitly trust anybody. Once I have sufficiently vetted a person or source I may require less verification on certain topics, but I prefer to maintain skepticism on anything that matters. Just because an answer is wrong doesn't mean someone doesn't give that answer. And in the case of the main topic of this article there are people who genuinely believe and ardently argue that the holocaust didn't happen. While it is generally accepted that it did happen, that doesn't make having a website dedicated to denying it against the law. It is valid information, even if it is wrong. I want to know that those sites exist so that I can reference them to better understand that point of view. Even though facts are up for debate like opinion they offer a great way to get inside the mind of those who think that way. That's a pretty important utility. And as far as me being more exceptional than "the rest of us" all I have to say is there are extremely smart people who consistently accept being spoon fed "approved" content and I will never understand why that is. It is contrary to learning to only see part of a whole system. And as soon as you try to pretend that viewing only "approved" (aka "true") content means you are getting either the entire correct story OR not getting ANY of the wrong story, you're just being blissfully ignorant.
It's one of the most insidious things that infects all the major political parties. And it applies to more than just children. I'm tired of people presuming to tell me what to do with things that have no affect on their life and liberty. Don't like drinking? Don't drink. Don't like watching The Walking Dead? Don't watch it. Don't like your children watching The Walking Dead? Don't let them watch it. Yes it gets more complicated to enforce when you're talking about school related issues, but in short...if you don't like the way your child is being taught...teach them yourself. Just because public education is free doesn't mean you HAVE to use it.
I do not trust Google or anybody to decide what is true or false regardless of how demonstrably true or false it may be. Yes, that could mean I have to wade through some information that ends up being false but as a thinking human being I am armed to deal with that. If Google is expected to do that for me, then it should always have one and only one result for every search. Couldn't possibly be more than one right answers, right?
Google isn't harming the world any more than a knife catalog is harming the world by advertising knives. You are saying that for the collective safety of the world, Google must protect the uneducated masses by applying a truth filter to their search algorithm. What you're really saying is people are too dumb to do substantive research on their own so nanny Google must make sure they don't burn themselves on the stove. Google only harms the world by applying it's own ideology to search results. Popularity of a website is a perfectly reasonable way to order results. But whether it's the first result or the 151st, I'm not going to blindly believe whatever I read. The more important a topic the more research I'm going to do online and offline prior to making whatever decision or drawing whatever conclusion. I just simply do not want google to make the decision for me whether something is true or not.
And just to be clear, though I've stated so in other replies, I am not a holocaust denier. The holocaust happened, and it was horrific.
There are a lot of people behind the holocaust denier movement. If there is something general about Google's algorithm that they need to fix from this apparent abuse, that's fine. But I just don't need Google making changes specifically for this reason. If they improve their search algorithm to get more relevant results, I approve. If they change their search algorithm to suppress a viewpoint, I disapprove.
I provide guidance to my children. Because I'll be damned if I'm going to leave that up to a hate filled website OR a pretend altruistic entity like Google to teach them. Yes, my answer is let the fools figure it out for themselves. That's better than the alternative where we're all fools of Google or someone else's design.
Your signature disagrees with your entire post. I agree, strongly, with your signature.
Search engines shouldn't give a shit what they are indexing. Short of actual malicious websites that try to break your computer/device, just index and provide results. I do not EVER and will not EVER need a "responsible" party to get in between me and information, right or wrong. I'm sad so many people disagree with that, but if they want to only view whitewashed information, then that is there choice. But fuck you and anyone else who wants to make that choice for me.
If you want Google to protect you from the big bad internet that's your choice. I wouldn't want you to bleed any more out of whatever unlubricated hole you are pulling your inane argument out of. But for me, if I wouldn't want my voice squelched I'm never going to ask for someone else's to be.