Asterisk is open source, has a good community behind it, and can do *anything* you want it to.
Oh, really? Can Asterisk run its fingers through my hair while I rest my head in its lap, soothing me, calming me, letting me know that everything's going to be all right?
Can Asterisk make my butt rounder and firmer without me needing to exercise?
Will Asterisk tell me I'm pretty the next time I get a bad haircut?
While I do find it alarming that anyone would think that the right to own a pet was a constitutional right, I'm not at all bothered by the results of that particular survey.
In the article you link to, a reference is made to "more people being able to name the 3 American Idol judges than the first 3 rights in in the 1st ammendment" - well gosh, I didn't know we had to know them *in order*. I wonder what the numbers would be for *any* 3 rights...
This is completely off-topic, but a really poorly done survey is not a good way to get a snapshot of what USians know and don't know. A poorly done survey can prove anything.
Heck, according to a survey I just administered, 66.6% of respondents think Linux is only acceptable for peeing on or growling at, and would much rather have dehydrated goat kidneys rather than OSS, with the remainining 33.4% believing that it is suitable for batting at and sleeping on.
Or it's your clue to more closely examine what that analyst is saying, to see if he's actually a crackpot or maybe he's seen something/thought of something in a different way and might have a good idea.
But ignoring him shouldn't happen until the evidence is weighed. Ignoring someone who doesn't agree with the herd leads to group-think and lots of missed opportunities.
I played it on my Apple II (no +, no E, no GS). Very fun! I do wish a modern version would be made. Same gameplay (well, maybe add some more depth, longer missions etc.) - just better graphics, I'd be happy!
I'm with ya - I used to have an Archos, but the thing was miserable for skipping around my various playlists. I didn't like the interface at all, either. Really, it was almost a chore to use the thing, with the way I like to listen to music (parts of songs, some songs multiple times, skipping around, etc)
Then I got an iPod (5G, 60gig since I get a yummy student discount) and I'm incredibly happy with it. I thought people talking about the advantage of the scroll wheel were just being fanboys - but it really is just a LOT easier to use. And the software is pretty sweet, from a playlist management perspective! Ratings based playlists are awesome. It is a much better player for my type of listening.
If a person is the sort who just plonks everything onto their device and then just lets it go - not a song surfer - then yeah, sure, use whatever player. But if a person wants to have more flexibility, an iPod is likely the best choice at this point.
Except that the people in power, if they came to power illegally, then have 4 years to put in place measures to make sure they can skew future elections... If someone cheated once, while out of power, I imagine they'd have much better access to ways to cheat while in power.
Not that I necessarily think that is what has happened, but I do think it's possible to take the train off the tracks.
The only way someone can beat you is by cheating, right?
If there were only one or two instances where people said "Hm, something slightly fishy seems to have happened..." then you'd likely have a point.
But when there are dozens of reports of voting machines not working correctly, and when each and every time the errors seem to be in favor of the party that won... Yeah, I'd say calling shenannigans is justified.
Maybe it'll turn out that the errors didn't actually occur - maybe it'll turn out that the tracking software is fucked, but the votes were counted correctly. Maybe it'll turn out that there was some vast conspiracy. Maybe it'll turn out that the Democrats would have gotten *fewer* votes if the machines had worked properly. Whatever the results, what's important is this:
The machines don't seem to be working correctly when handling a very important task. We need to investigate this, no matter what. It isn't a matter of sour grapes (well, except for some people, maybe) but it IS a matter of finding out what the hell is going on.
Surely you don't think that we shouldn't investigate anomalous situations?
This is exactly the problem, there are different linux distros designed to work for almost anything, and Windows works on the majority of modern hardware, now why do I want a OS that will not work on whatever hardware I personally would prefer to use.
No, this is exactly your problem - you're looking at OSX to do something that it isn't intended to do, wasn't designed to do, and is in fact expressly forbidden by the EULA. Apple does not want their OS running on just anything.
Apple sells computers. The only reason they offer OSX as a seperately available product is because some of the older computers they sold years ago didn't come with it and the owners of those machines want to upgrade to the latest version without having to buy new hardware.
I think that's a miscalculation. People know what "no support" means. It wouldn't hurt Apple at all, and would probably help, with the free publicity from the "gotta build my own box" set.
And anyway, without some hacking, Mac OS X would require an EFI logic board to boot out of the box - it wouldn't work on crappy old hardware, only new legacy-free stuff.
And I think even Joe Sixpack knows that if you have to get a third party hack to make your OS boot, the company is not going to support you.
That's a pretty naive assessment, frankly.
I used to do support for a company that sold children's educational software to home users. This software had nothing to do with the Internet, our company name bore no relation what-so-ever to any ISP that I'm aware of, and our phone number was not, as far as I know, similar to any ISP's phone number.
Yet, for some strange reason, at least 50% of our call volume was from people who wanted us to help them connect to the Internet (or, less freqently, wanted us to give them a quick phone tutorial on how to format stuff in Word or write formulas in Excel). When we explained that we didn't have *anything* to do with the Internet or MS Office, that we wouldn't even know where to begin, and that they really should just contact their ISP for help, the response was usually along the lines of "Fuck you! I'll tell everyone I know to stay away from your shitty company!"
Expecting Joseph Pack, IV to be a reasonable person when it comes to this stuff is not a wise idea. He'll try to install the software, it won't work, he'll beat his head against the wall for hours and hours, and then tell everyone he knows that Apple is shitty. How do I know this? Because I can point out that the exact same thing happens with Linux... How many people have you met who think Linux is a steaming pile of shit because whatever distro they tried didn't install easily? How many people have you met who think Linux is a company with a shitty "free" product?
Apple releasing OSX for anything other than their very specific hardware selection would be a catastrophic mistake - it isn't designed to work with "just anything" and I don't care how many disclaimers one puts on the box, people won't read them, they'll try to get it to work on stuff that specifically isn't supported, and then they'll bitch and moan to all and sundry that Apple sucks.
I assume you're kidding - you're suggesting that a $300 piece of hardware be tasked with doing the job of a $1 piece of plastic. The only upside would be the JIT stuff - but that could be accomplished by letting Blockbuster burn copies of movies on site - I'm sure it would be cheaper for them to invest in that sort of technology rather than go with the iPod as transport scheme.
The reason downloadable movies are tricky is because not everyone has broadband and of the people who do have broadband, many don't have a sufficiently beefy connection to handle a 5GB download in any kind of reasonable time.
Apple should make honking big (capacity-wise) servers that act as vending machines. The stuff on the machine gets updated regularly. They put this big thingamajobber in places where people can go, plug in their iPod (or, if they don't have an iPod, Apple could sell them an Apple branded storage and transport device along with an Apple home entertainment system (just a Mini, but marketed not as a computer, but as the home version of the iPod), download whatever, and go. Movies, music, whatever.
Also, having that sort of centralized way to get movies would be a minimizing of support headaches. No worries about the consumer being able to do anything but slide their iPod into a slot and swipe a credit card (or punch in an iTunes account)
For centuries, the "tone" of written litters, has been fairly easy to ascertain. My guess is that because letters took some time to arrive, because instant communication wasn't possible, that writers took great pains to make their intent absolutely clear. Any corrections or clarifications would be a long time coming, so extra effort was merited. Now, however, writers can be sloppy - if they weren't clear in the first place, they can quickly send multiple follow-ups explaining things.
The recipient is also to blame. People have gotten quite sloppy with their reading - they go for the gist, and completely ignore the nuance of a written work these days. I cannot say how many times I have said, in an email, "I am emphatically NOT saying XYZ" and then had someone respond with "Why are you saying XYZ!?" People nowadays seem to hear what they want to hear, read what they want to read from a thing, and spend very little time looking for the author's intent.
What I find most interesting about this phenomena is that it seems to be done in the name of speed, and yet that very quest for faster communications is causing people to lose information and spend more time on pointless flame wars due to misunderstandings - overall slowing things down and leading to a less fruitful discussion than would have been had if people took the time to express themselves more clearly up front, and to take the time to read what someone actually wrote to them.
To very clearly show the difference between the older mode of correspondence and the current one, go and get a book of the letters of any number of historical figures. Both sides take great pains to express themselves and understand the other person, something that we very rarely do today.
If you were headed right at someone at the speed of light, you would just seem INCREDIBLY blue-shifted (more energetic). You would not, ever, at any time, seem to be moving faster than light.
If a person is travelling at substantial portions of light speed they will experience time dilation. People moving at near the speed of light would experience, say, a 4.3 LY trip at high speed as, perhaps, several months, but an outside observer would, from whatever position they were standing, see the trip as taking at a minimum 4.3 years + whatever extra time was needed because the ship was slower than light.
You seem to be confusing time dilation (an effect on those moving at high speed) with... well, actually, nothing - you just seem to think it applies to all parties, which is not the case.
If some company valued me so highly that they wouldn't part with my services unless they could obtain a cash-cow like, say, Mickey Mouse, I'd feel pretty good about myself.
Of course, if I were traded for "Hippo #3" from a Betty Boop musical cartoon number, well, that would be a dark time.
The headline is misleading. What it actually should be is:
"What differences are there in the brains of 18 and 25-35 year-olds? Do those differences help regulate behavior in a way that we traditionally refer think of as signifying 'maturity'?"
Unfortunately, that's too long, so we get this misleading one.
I hire an accountant because I don't have the skill to do my own books. I hire a lawyer because I don't have the legal background or the resources to research case law and precedent. If BMW hired a SEO firm it is likely because they didn't have anyone with that skill-set on staff. How do you monitor someone who is performing a task for which you don't have the skills to do yourself?
How do we determine what someone does and doesn't know? If I hire an accounting firm and they get creative with my books illegally dodging taxes, how can it be proven that I did or didn't know anything about that? Unless all parties involved are absurdly stupid, no written evidence will be available - all communications would be verbal and unrecorded.
I think I was also a little unclear - I would hold *companies* to this standard, and the individuals acting as officers of companies. I think, if a group of people want to get the advantages of incorporation/partnership/whatever legal arrangement they choose, they should also have some more strict requirements as far as how they behave, ethical standards they're held to. I am emphatically not applying this to private citizens acting only on their own behalf. (So, if you, an individual, were to hire an accountant that cooked the books, saying "I didn't know he was doing that" would be permissible - but if you, an individual, were to hire an accountant on behalf of your company, saying "I didn't know" would be irrelevant.)
So what? If I hire someone, and that someone behaves unethically, and I continue to keep that someone in my employ and don't remedy the unethical actions they took acting on my behalf, I'm responsible for those actions.
But, you might say, what if I am not aware that these people are acting unethically? I respond again: so what? If I am employing someone to do something for me, I am responsible for monitoring what they're doing to make sure they aren't out of line, OR I must accept the consequences of not monitoring them.
Does it suck for the "innocent" who really didn't directly do any harm? Indeed it does - and hopefully it'll suck enough that they learn their lessons and make damn sure it doesn't happen again.
Re:Although this seems "reasonable" in light of th
on
Google Delists BMW-Germany
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
How is taking some company that was abusing the system off of a web-site even remotely like arresting people?
The premise is different. The process is different. The consequences are different. The governing factors are different. I'd have a hard time coming up with something that is more unlike police abuse than this situation.
Google is a search engine. Other search engines exist. Using Google does not preclude one from searching on other search engines. Delisting a company from Google may suck for that company, but so what? It isn't like they're putting that company out of business - they're just no longer provind a *free* service to that company because they feel that the company didn't play by their rules.
If Google goes over the line - if they stop listing companies "just because," then people will eventually stop using them because they don't provide useful results. But also, if Google doesn't nuke sites that are breaking the rules, they won't provide useful results, and people will stop using them. It's a balancing act, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Honestly, it seems like everyone's scrambling to find some way to turn Google into the evil empire, another MSFT. Here's the thing - it can't happen because they aren't a monopoly, and they can't become a monopoly because the user investment is exactly zero and the barriers to switching to using another search engine are non-existent. If Google starts dicking people around, Google will see a quick response. With companies like MSFT - where users have to invest a substantial amount of money just to use the products - there's incentive not to switch, since you'd be throwing your "investment" away.
Do I like everything that Google does? Hell no. But I'm able to recognize that their business model is one that would make it very difficult for them to behave in anti-competitive ways withour fucking themselves badly in the process.
Maybe in his version of the universe, The Author had Number of the Beast based on time as multi-dimensional/geometrical, and also made NotB not suck.
Hey - to the folks who modded the GP "informative" - what IS it like to live in a universe where that book didn't suck? Do you have Carrot Top? Do you want him?
Have you ever mentioned, casually, that you were going to go out with your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse, while at work or at school?
If so, then congratulations - you've just brought your drama into a place that is not appropriate, according to your statement. The entire world doesn't need to see you parading about your heterosexuality, you drama queen!
Have you ever engaged in a public display of affection - holding hands, a hug, kiss, or other activity while out and about doing something completely unrelated to sex?
If so, then congratulations - you've just brought your drama into a place that is not appropriate, according to your statement. The entire world doesn't need to see you parading about your heterosexuality, you drama queen!
I'm kind of torn - should I look down on you because, like you said, you bring your drama into inappropriate places, or should I look down on you because you do it and you don't have enough personal insight to realize that you're doing it?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that if someone role-played an oppressed gay Tauren they'd be banned very quickly. Yet, if someone role-plays a bigot, they're seemingly encouraged based on a lack of consequences.
However, I think this rumor is bullshit - marriage isn't in the game at this point, doesn't need to be in the game, and so I think someone fabricated this story just to get attention.
The absolute dumbest thing Blizzard could do in these circumstances would be to institute marriage period, in any form. If they introduce heterosexual marriage only, they open up a huge radioactive can of worms. If they introduce gender-blind marriage, they open up a huge radioactive can of worms.
Personally, I'm against marriage being any kind of official thing at all - call 'em civil unions for everyone, and let the churches sort out what they want to call it.
Slashdot Mirror
Asterisk is open source, has a good community behind it, and can do *anything* you want it to.
Oh, really? Can Asterisk run its fingers through my hair while I rest my head in its lap, soothing me, calming me, letting me know that everything's going to be all right?
Can Asterisk make my butt rounder and firmer without me needing to exercise?
Will Asterisk tell me I'm pretty the next time I get a bad haircut?
*Anything* I want it to my foot!
While I do find it alarming that anyone would think that the right to own a pet was a constitutional right, I'm not at all bothered by the results of that particular survey.
In the article you link to, a reference is made to "more people being able to name the 3 American Idol judges than the first 3 rights in in the 1st ammendment" - well gosh, I didn't know we had to know them *in order*. I wonder what the numbers would be for *any* 3 rights...
This is completely off-topic, but a really poorly done survey is not a good way to get a snapshot of what USians know and don't know. A poorly done survey can prove anything.
Heck, according to a survey I just administered, 66.6% of respondents think Linux is only acceptable for peeing on or growling at, and would much rather have dehydrated goat kidneys rather than OSS, with the remainining 33.4% believing that it is suitable for batting at and sleeping on.
* Those surveyed included my cat and 2 puppies.
What about the even more trivial solution of people just not being rude assholes and turning their phones/pagers/other devices to vibrate?
How about people just put their phones on vibrate and be polite and step outside if they're going to take the freakin' call?
If people would just learn some manners, this wouldn't be an issue. I know, I know - that's crazy talk.
Or it's your clue to more closely examine what that analyst is saying, to see if he's actually a crackpot or maybe he's seen something/thought of something in a different way and might have a good idea.
But ignoring him shouldn't happen until the evidence is weighed. Ignoring someone who doesn't agree with the herd leads to group-think and lots of missed opportunities.
I played it on my Apple II (no +, no E, no GS). Very fun! I do wish a modern version would be made. Same gameplay (well, maybe add some more depth, longer missions etc.) - just better graphics, I'd be happy!
I'm with ya - I used to have an Archos, but the thing was miserable for skipping around my various playlists. I didn't like the interface at all, either. Really, it was almost a chore to use the thing, with the way I like to listen to music (parts of songs, some songs multiple times, skipping around, etc)
Then I got an iPod (5G, 60gig since I get a yummy student discount) and I'm incredibly happy with it. I thought people talking about the advantage of the scroll wheel were just being fanboys - but it really is just a LOT easier to use. And the software is pretty sweet, from a playlist management perspective! Ratings based playlists are awesome. It is a much better player for my type of listening.
If a person is the sort who just plonks everything onto their device and then just lets it go - not a song surfer - then yeah, sure, use whatever player. But if a person wants to have more flexibility, an iPod is likely the best choice at this point.
Except that the people in power, if they came to power illegally, then have 4 years to put in place measures to make sure they can skew future elections... If someone cheated once, while out of power, I imagine they'd have much better access to ways to cheat while in power.
Not that I necessarily think that is what has happened, but I do think it's possible to take the train off the tracks.
The only way someone can beat you is by cheating, right?
If there were only one or two instances where people said "Hm, something slightly fishy seems to have happened..." then you'd likely have a point.
But when there are dozens of reports of voting machines not working correctly, and when each and every time the errors seem to be in favor of the party that won... Yeah, I'd say calling shenannigans is justified.
Maybe it'll turn out that the errors didn't actually occur - maybe it'll turn out that the tracking software is fucked, but the votes were counted correctly. Maybe it'll turn out that there was some vast conspiracy. Maybe it'll turn out that the Democrats would have gotten *fewer* votes if the machines had worked properly. Whatever the results, what's important is this:
The machines don't seem to be working correctly when handling a very important task. We need to investigate this, no matter what. It isn't a matter of sour grapes (well, except for some people, maybe) but it IS a matter of finding out what the hell is going on.
Surely you don't think that we shouldn't investigate anomalous situations?
This is exactly the problem, there are different linux distros designed to work for almost anything, and Windows works on the majority of modern hardware, now why do I want a OS that will not work on whatever hardware I personally would prefer to use.
No, this is exactly your problem - you're looking at OSX to do something that it isn't intended to do, wasn't designed to do, and is in fact expressly forbidden by the EULA. Apple does not want their OS running on just anything.
Apple sells computers. The only reason they offer OSX as a seperately available product is because some of the older computers they sold years ago didn't come with it and the owners of those machines want to upgrade to the latest version without having to buy new hardware.
I think that's a miscalculation. People know what "no support" means. It wouldn't hurt Apple at all, and would probably help, with the free publicity from the "gotta build my own box" set.
And anyway, without some hacking, Mac OS X would require an EFI logic board to boot out of the box - it wouldn't work on crappy old hardware, only new legacy-free stuff.
And I think even Joe Sixpack knows that if you have to get a third party hack to make your OS boot, the company is not going to support you.
That's a pretty naive assessment, frankly.
I used to do support for a company that sold children's educational software to home users. This software had nothing to do with the Internet, our company name bore no relation what-so-ever to any ISP that I'm aware of, and our phone number was not, as far as I know, similar to any ISP's phone number.
Yet, for some strange reason, at least 50% of our call volume was from people who wanted us to help them connect to the Internet (or, less freqently, wanted us to give them a quick phone tutorial on how to format stuff in Word or write formulas in Excel). When we explained that we didn't have *anything* to do with the Internet or MS Office, that we wouldn't even know where to begin, and that they really should just contact their ISP for help, the response was usually along the lines of "Fuck you! I'll tell everyone I know to stay away from your shitty company!"
Expecting Joseph Pack, IV to be a reasonable person when it comes to this stuff is not a wise idea. He'll try to install the software, it won't work, he'll beat his head against the wall for hours and hours, and then tell everyone he knows that Apple is shitty. How do I know this? Because I can point out that the exact same thing happens with Linux... How many people have you met who think Linux is a steaming pile of shit because whatever distro they tried didn't install easily? How many people have you met who think Linux is a company with a shitty "free" product?
Apple releasing OSX for anything other than their very specific hardware selection would be a catastrophic mistake - it isn't designed to work with "just anything" and I don't care how many disclaimers one puts on the box, people won't read them, they'll try to get it to work on stuff that specifically isn't supported, and then they'll bitch and moan to all and sundry that Apple sucks.
I assume you're kidding - you're suggesting that a $300 piece of hardware be tasked with doing the job of a $1 piece of plastic. The only upside would be the JIT stuff - but that could be accomplished by letting Blockbuster burn copies of movies on site - I'm sure it would be cheaper for them to invest in that sort of technology rather than go with the iPod as transport scheme.
The reason downloadable movies are tricky is because not everyone has broadband and of the people who do have broadband, many don't have a sufficiently beefy connection to handle a 5GB download in any kind of reasonable time.
Apple should make honking big (capacity-wise) servers that act as vending machines. The stuff on the machine gets updated regularly. They put this big thingamajobber in places where people can go, plug in their iPod (or, if they don't have an iPod, Apple could sell them an Apple branded storage and transport device along with an Apple home entertainment system (just a Mini, but marketed not as a computer, but as the home version of the iPod), download whatever, and go. Movies, music, whatever.
Also, having that sort of centralized way to get movies would be a minimizing of support headaches. No worries about the consumer being able to do anything but slide their iPod into a slot and swipe a credit card (or punch in an iTunes account)
For centuries, the "tone" of written litters, has been fairly easy to ascertain. My guess is that because letters took some time to arrive, because instant communication wasn't possible, that writers took great pains to make their intent absolutely clear. Any corrections or clarifications would be a long time coming, so extra effort was merited. Now, however, writers can be sloppy - if they weren't clear in the first place, they can quickly send multiple follow-ups explaining things.
The recipient is also to blame. People have gotten quite sloppy with their reading - they go for the gist, and completely ignore the nuance of a written work these days. I cannot say how many times I have said, in an email, "I am emphatically NOT saying XYZ" and then had someone respond with "Why are you saying XYZ!?" People nowadays seem to hear what they want to hear, read what they want to read from a thing, and spend very little time looking for the author's intent.
What I find most interesting about this phenomena is that it seems to be done in the name of speed, and yet that very quest for faster communications is causing people to lose information and spend more time on pointless flame wars due to misunderstandings - overall slowing things down and leading to a less fruitful discussion than would have been had if people took the time to express themselves more clearly up front, and to take the time to read what someone actually wrote to them.
To very clearly show the difference between the older mode of correspondence and the current one, go and get a book of the letters of any number of historical figures. Both sides take great pains to express themselves and understand the other person, something that we very rarely do today.
Well I'll be damned! That's actually pretty nifty. Thanks for that link.
I stand corrected, and please disregard my "no no no no no" stuff.
No. No, no, no, no, no, no.
... well, actually, nothing - you just seem to think it applies to all parties, which is not the case.
If you were headed right at someone at the speed of light, you would just seem INCREDIBLY blue-shifted (more energetic). You would not, ever, at any time, seem to be moving faster than light.
If a person is travelling at substantial portions of light speed they will experience time dilation. People moving at near the speed of light would experience, say, a 4.3 LY trip at high speed as, perhaps, several months, but an outside observer would, from whatever position they were standing, see the trip as taking at a minimum 4.3 years + whatever extra time was needed because the ship was slower than light.
You seem to be confusing time dilation (an effect on those moving at high speed) with
I don't know - depends on the cartoon character.
If some company valued me so highly that they wouldn't part with my services unless they could obtain a cash-cow like, say, Mickey Mouse, I'd feel pretty good about myself.
Of course, if I were traded for "Hippo #3" from a Betty Boop musical cartoon number, well, that would be a dark time.
Heck, if the employee were indispensible, he'd be making more than 27k after 6 years in NYC...
So, yes, it is likely that he wasn't much of a much.
The headline is misleading. What it actually should be is:
"What differences are there in the brains of 18 and 25-35 year-olds? Do those differences help regulate behavior in a way that we traditionally refer think of as signifying 'maturity'?"
Unfortunately, that's too long, so we get this misleading one.
I hire an accountant because I don't have the skill to do my own books. I hire a lawyer because I don't have the legal background or the resources to research case law and precedent. If BMW hired a SEO firm it is likely because they didn't have anyone with that skill-set on staff. How do you monitor someone who is performing a task for which you don't have the skills to do yourself?
How do we determine what someone does and doesn't know? If I hire an accounting firm and they get creative with my books illegally dodging taxes, how can it be proven that I did or didn't know anything about that? Unless all parties involved are absurdly stupid, no written evidence will be available - all communications would be verbal and unrecorded.
I think I was also a little unclear - I would hold *companies* to this standard, and the individuals acting as officers of companies. I think, if a group of people want to get the advantages of incorporation/partnership/whatever legal arrangement they choose, they should also have some more strict requirements as far as how they behave, ethical standards they're held to. I am emphatically not applying this to private citizens acting only on their own behalf. (So, if you, an individual, were to hire an accountant that cooked the books, saying "I didn't know he was doing that" would be permissible - but if you, an individual, were to hire an accountant on behalf of your company, saying "I didn't know" would be irrelevant.)
So what? If I hire someone, and that someone behaves unethically, and I continue to keep that someone in my employ and don't remedy the unethical actions they took acting on my behalf, I'm responsible for those actions.
But, you might say, what if I am not aware that these people are acting unethically? I respond again: so what? If I am employing someone to do something for me, I am responsible for monitoring what they're doing to make sure they aren't out of line, OR I must accept the consequences of not monitoring them.
Does it suck for the "innocent" who really didn't directly do any harm? Indeed it does - and hopefully it'll suck enough that they learn their lessons and make damn sure it doesn't happen again.
How is taking some company that was abusing the system off of a web-site even remotely like arresting people?
The premise is different. The process is different. The consequences are different. The governing factors are different. I'd have a hard time coming up with something that is more unlike police abuse than this situation.
Google is a search engine. Other search engines exist. Using Google does not preclude one from searching on other search engines. Delisting a company from Google may suck for that company, but so what? It isn't like they're putting that company out of business - they're just no longer provind a *free* service to that company because they feel that the company didn't play by their rules.
If Google goes over the line - if they stop listing companies "just because," then people will eventually stop using them because they don't provide useful results. But also, if Google doesn't nuke sites that are breaking the rules, they won't provide useful results, and people will stop using them. It's a balancing act, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with it.
Honestly, it seems like everyone's scrambling to find some way to turn Google into the evil empire, another MSFT. Here's the thing - it can't happen because they aren't a monopoly, and they can't become a monopoly because the user investment is exactly zero and the barriers to switching to using another search engine are non-existent. If Google starts dicking people around, Google will see a quick response. With companies like MSFT - where users have to invest a substantial amount of money just to use the products - there's incentive not to switch, since you'd be throwing your "investment" away.
Do I like everything that Google does? Hell no. But I'm able to recognize that their business model is one that would make it very difficult for them to behave in anti-competitive ways withour fucking themselves badly in the process.
Maybe in his version of the universe, The Author had Number of the Beast based on time as multi-dimensional/geometrical, and also made NotB not suck.
Hey - to the folks who modded the GP "informative" - what IS it like to live in a universe where that book didn't suck? Do you have Carrot Top? Do you want him?
Have you ever mentioned, casually, that you were going to go out with your boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse, while at work or at school?
If so, then congratulations - you've just brought your drama into a place that is not appropriate, according to your statement. The entire world doesn't need to see you parading about your heterosexuality, you drama queen!
Have you ever engaged in a public display of affection - holding hands, a hug, kiss, or other activity while out and about doing something completely unrelated to sex?
If so, then congratulations - you've just brought your drama into a place that is not appropriate, according to your statement. The entire world doesn't need to see you parading about your heterosexuality, you drama queen!
I'm kind of torn - should I look down on you because, like you said, you bring your drama into inappropriate places, or should I look down on you because you do it and you don't have enough personal insight to realize that you're doing it?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that if someone role-played an oppressed gay Tauren they'd be banned very quickly. Yet, if someone role-plays a bigot, they're seemingly encouraged based on a lack of consequences.
However, I think this rumor is bullshit - marriage isn't in the game at this point, doesn't need to be in the game, and so I think someone fabricated this story just to get attention.
The absolute dumbest thing Blizzard could do in these circumstances would be to institute marriage period, in any form. If they introduce heterosexual marriage only, they open up a huge radioactive can of worms. If they introduce gender-blind marriage, they open up a huge radioactive can of worms.
Personally, I'm against marriage being any kind of official thing at all - call 'em civil unions for everyone, and let the churches sort out what they want to call it.
Did you ban casual mention of things like: "I'm going to the movies with my boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife"?
After all, those comments can be, essentially, declarations of one's sexual orientation - they are, in fact, often taken as such.