You are correct. I won't mind. Now, if I was any of those things and ashamed of it, then I probably would mind. But I wouldn't let that affect my preference that Google not perform any sort of morality based results cleansing. I may go after the site owner who published those things if they were lies, but I'm not going after Google for it.
I'm not mad at Google, they have the right to do this. It's their index. In this particular case, their change aligns with my beliefs so it didn't hurt me in the slightest. But what happens when it's no longer something that aligns with my beliefs...or yours...and what if it's not as cut and dry as it is with whether the holocaust happened or not? Maybe if Google had a option to turn off nanny filtering in searches then I'd be okay with it. Overall google makes millions of changes to results every time anyone searches but this just highlights one case where they did it supposedly with a moral imperative versus what I look to google to do which is make things relevant. This result was relevant to the search and should not be suppressed.
It shouldn't get Google into hot water. And asking if the holocaust happened is different than just searching for the holocaust. A site that denies it happened is a perfectly legitimate result for someone searching out the question. If you're asking a question and just go with the first result as the answer, you are the problem. Google does an insanely good job at bringing RELEVANT results back to almost anything you can search for. This result was relevant. Based on their ranking criteria it happened to be the first result. French military victories first result used to be a spoof site showing google having changed the search to French military defeats (Did you mean...). While this isn't as "egregious" a lie of result, it is up to you the reader to decide what you will believe. Please don't base it entirely on first result from Google..you can if you want...but if you do, don't be an ass and hold Google responsible.
If Google has a problem in its algorithm they can fix it all they want to provide more applicable search results. But just because the wrong answer got top billing, doesn't mean it is up to Google to fix it. While it's sad that anyone has to ask if the holocaust really happened (because it did, and it was horrible), I tell my daughters that anything they find on the internet is suspect because you just never know where it came from. You can trust various sources but always verify. Wikipedia has some great articles but at any given time must be treated like it's all bullshit because it may very well be. But I want uncensored access to the entire web of bullshit, not sugar coated or cleansed in any way.
You the reader must take responsibility for deciding what is real and what isn't on the internets. Do not require that anyone do that for you otherwise they eventually will when you don't want them to. If you need a warning label to avoid suffocating yourself on the plastic bag that is the world wide web then just turn around and walk away from whatever device you're using to access it.
Billionaires who will at least be less likely to be bought off by lobbyists...it's potentially a different kind of corruption, but at least it's different.
It's not a binary definition. Will there be an advanced human civilization in the future that is devoid of war? Maybe. But committing to settle differences violently while following a set of rules (only kill uniformed soldiers) still makes it more civil than just marauding through a country raping and killing everyone you see.
The Geneva Conventions exist to make warfare civilized. While that may seem contradictory, it isn't. It's the difference between stabbing someone in the kidney because they dared talk to your girl and asking them if they would like to step outside because of it. Yeah, still not a very pleasant activity, but things like not using nerve agents and land mines make it as civil as a fight (war) can be.
I would like having it for me. If everyone drove like me then I'd say that would be perfect. But I definitely see your point...people would abuse it. Even with the countdown disappearing a few seconds before zero, people would time it. Oh well, stupid drivers will be stupid regardless. No timers on lights right now near me but I routinely see people who "know" when their light will turn so they'll just start creeping into the crosswalk and even significantly into the intersection in anticipation. So dumb.
Careful, you are implying that you don't want to constantly be interacting with your kids and are relying on technology to babysit your children in place of parent child interaction. Slashdot does not look kindly on such suggestions...as you can see if you ever look back at AskSlashdot about anything related to children. I hope for your sake this comment was deep enough in this story to avoid the righteous retribution of the La Leche league or whoever the heck it is that drives such a strange, punitive behavior here.
1%ers pay almost 50% of the federal tax revenue. Bottom 60% pay less than 2%. In this world of fair share, why should a 1%er have to foot that much extra of the bill yet they don't get a disproportionate amount of the benefit of those taxes? Why do they need to foot more than 50% of the tax bill?
I guess it's partially because IRC/BBS weren't as prevalent then because I absolutely got into e-wars in my youth and had no problem just walking away from them. Part of why I want it to be truly studied is to see what will snap them out of it. My aforementioned daughter finally just grew up, but I can still see her get caught up in a group chat or facebook post in a way that I wish she didn't feel compelled to. I mean she got a concussion from sports and was told by the doctor she needed sleep and to not be on her phone so much. Then she'd be snapchatting at 1:30am on a school night and I'm like "and then you complain to me that you're still having symptoms?" It's gotta be akin to drug addiction.
I guess it does fall under probably the same type of motivation people have for repeatedly posting those dumb canned comments on popular posts. I've seen the Pawn Star intro as a comment more times than I can count now. And there are dozens of varieties of that post just looking for likes. Why? It doesn't actually go anywhere. There's no prize...do you sit in a circle at school or work comparing your highest like post? I just don't get it. Which is why I'd like to see it studied to understand it better...
An important psychological study may be to determine why younger generation doesn't just "walk away" from the online bullying when there isn't a physical intimidation keeping them from it. I remember my daughter freaking out because she participated in this absolutely weird "ask.fm" where you anonymously ask and answer questions about a person. My first response to seeing what was being said was rage, but then I said to her...just don't go there. Don't ask anonymous questions about yourself...don't answer questions about other people. No one has power over you if you just ignore it. And luckily that was enough and it was no longer a problem. But years go by and kids seem just so attached to their social personas that they can't just walk way. I get into an argument on facebook or whatever and I'll just close it if I get too worked up. And voila I stop thinking about it. But kids don't seem to have that capability and it makes me wonder why not.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. I won't mind. Now, if I was any of those things and ashamed of it, then I probably would mind. But I wouldn't let that affect my preference that Google not perform any sort of morality based results cleansing. I may go after the site owner who published those things if they were lies, but I'm not going after Google for it.
I'm not mad at Google, they have the right to do this. It's their index. In this particular case, their change aligns with my beliefs so it didn't hurt me in the slightest. But what happens when it's no longer something that aligns with my beliefs...or yours...and what if it's not as cut and dry as it is with whether the holocaust happened or not? Maybe if Google had a option to turn off nanny filtering in searches then I'd be okay with it. Overall google makes millions of changes to results every time anyone searches but this just highlights one case where they did it supposedly with a moral imperative versus what I look to google to do which is make things relevant. This result was relevant to the search and should not be suppressed.
It shouldn't get Google into hot water. And asking if the holocaust happened is different than just searching for the holocaust. A site that denies it happened is a perfectly legitimate result for someone searching out the question. If you're asking a question and just go with the first result as the answer, you are the problem. Google does an insanely good job at bringing RELEVANT results back to almost anything you can search for. This result was relevant. Based on their ranking criteria it happened to be the first result. French military victories first result used to be a spoof site showing google having changed the search to French military defeats (Did you mean...). While this isn't as "egregious" a lie of result, it is up to you the reader to decide what you will believe. Please don't base it entirely on first result from Google..you can if you want...but if you do, don't be an ass and hold Google responsible.
If Google has a problem in its algorithm they can fix it all they want to provide more applicable search results. But just because the wrong answer got top billing, doesn't mean it is up to Google to fix it. While it's sad that anyone has to ask if the holocaust really happened (because it did, and it was horrible), I tell my daughters that anything they find on the internet is suspect because you just never know where it came from. You can trust various sources but always verify. Wikipedia has some great articles but at any given time must be treated like it's all bullshit because it may very well be. But I want uncensored access to the entire web of bullshit, not sugar coated or cleansed in any way.
You the reader must take responsibility for deciding what is real and what isn't on the internets. Do not require that anyone do that for you otherwise they eventually will when you don't want them to. If you need a warning label to avoid suffocating yourself on the plastic bag that is the world wide web then just turn around and walk away from whatever device you're using to access it.
Very good point....or they'll inflate 300 foot tall rats or however tall they need to be to interrupt the drone airspace.
because so many UPS trucks get shot each day?
Billionaires who will at least be less likely to be bought off by lobbyists...it's potentially a different kind of corruption, but at least it's different.
It's not a binary definition. Will there be an advanced human civilization in the future that is devoid of war? Maybe. But committing to settle differences violently while following a set of rules (only kill uniformed soldiers) still makes it more civil than just marauding through a country raping and killing everyone you see.
The Geneva Conventions exist to make warfare civilized. While that may seem contradictory, it isn't. It's the difference between stabbing someone in the kidney because they dared talk to your girl and asking them if they would like to step outside because of it. Yeah, still not a very pleasant activity, but things like not using nerve agents and land mines make it as civil as a fight (war) can be.
I would like having it for me. If everyone drove like me then I'd say that would be perfect. But I definitely see your point...people would abuse it. Even with the countdown disappearing a few seconds before zero, people would time it. Oh well, stupid drivers will be stupid regardless. No timers on lights right now near me but I routinely see people who "know" when their light will turn so they'll just start creeping into the crosswalk and even significantly into the intersection in anticipation. So dumb.
One who has it for home defense. Having to load a gun during a home invasion likely means you're already dead.
Did friend get the guy's attention? I'm guessing probably so!
Versus it coming down to altruistic delivery of Season 4 of Friend? Duh money duh.
Careful, you are implying that you don't want to constantly be interacting with your kids and are relying on technology to babysit your children in place of parent child interaction. Slashdot does not look kindly on such suggestions...as you can see if you ever look back at AskSlashdot about anything related to children. I hope for your sake this comment was deep enough in this story to avoid the righteous retribution of the La Leche league or whoever the heck it is that drives such a strange, punitive behavior here.
I'm waiting eagerly for 11 to roll around. If this turns out to be more fake news instead of actual News I'm going to mod you down. Oh wait...crap.
Have you tried applying as a iWriter for HuffPo?
He's not lowering the tax to zero. So what's your point?
1%ers pay almost 50% of the federal tax revenue. Bottom 60% pay less than 2%. In this world of fair share, why should a 1%er have to foot that much extra of the bill yet they don't get a disproportionate amount of the benefit of those taxes? Why do they need to foot more than 50% of the tax bill?
I guess it's partially because IRC/BBS weren't as prevalent then because I absolutely got into e-wars in my youth and had no problem just walking away from them. Part of why I want it to be truly studied is to see what will snap them out of it. My aforementioned daughter finally just grew up, but I can still see her get caught up in a group chat or facebook post in a way that I wish she didn't feel compelled to. I mean she got a concussion from sports and was told by the doctor she needed sleep and to not be on her phone so much. Then she'd be snapchatting at 1:30am on a school night and I'm like "and then you complain to me that you're still having symptoms?" It's gotta be akin to drug addiction.
Did you link the right thing? What does that count for?
I guess it does fall under probably the same type of motivation people have for repeatedly posting those dumb canned comments on popular posts. I've seen the Pawn Star intro as a comment more times than I can count now. And there are dozens of varieties of that post just looking for likes. Why? It doesn't actually go anywhere. There's no prize...do you sit in a circle at school or work comparing your highest like post? I just don't get it. Which is why I'd like to see it studied to understand it better...
Net worth isn't something that shows up on tax return...and someone had the nerve to mod me troll? geez.
An important psychological study may be to determine why younger generation doesn't just "walk away" from the online bullying when there isn't a physical intimidation keeping them from it. I remember my daughter freaking out because she participated in this absolutely weird "ask.fm" where you anonymously ask and answer questions about a person. My first response to seeing what was being said was rage, but then I said to her...just don't go there. Don't ask anonymous questions about yourself...don't answer questions about other people. No one has power over you if you just ignore it. And luckily that was enough and it was no longer a problem. But years go by and kids seem just so attached to their social personas that they can't just walk way. I get into an argument on facebook or whatever and I'll just close it if I get too worked up. And voila I stop thinking about it. But kids don't seem to have that capability and it makes me wonder why not.
moist years. Moist because of all the tears.