I agree that GP didn't do Fox justice. Should have just linked to Outfoxed and been done with it.
Now if you actually watch Fox News, think it's not the most biased major news source by far, and are calling someone else a fucking moron, I can't help you there.
For the benefit of those about to close the thread, thinking that GP was the best point against Google, I encourage you to read on. Here's a sample post from an AC a little further down the page.
Newspapers pay for their news gathering mostly with advertising. The advertisers are deserting the newspapers for Google.
A couple of things make the problem worse. Most people just read the headlines and story summaries on a news agregator and seldom click through to the original story where they will see the newspaper's advertising.
[...]
When all the newspapers are out of business, there will be no news gathering and Google (and Huffington et al.) will have killed the goose that laid the golden egg.
I meant to also say that Google is looking more and more evil in other ways. I can't think of any exact examples right now. To me, the fact that they do good stuff is incidental; they know that talk only goes so far, that they have to do tangibly good stuff and avoid tangibly bad stuff to look 'good', and in their industry, appearing 'good' is important to long-term success.
I still have to say I like 'em more than most other companies at this point though.
It doesn't hurt that what they are doing benefits themselves, the news companies, and consumers, and basically hurts no one.
Opt-out can be arrogant in some cases, but all they're really doing is providing a service. Someone who read The Sun before Google News came out is not restricted from doing the same afterwards. Meanwhile, anyone using Google's service has a chance of becoming a Sun reader... ok maybe Google is evil but my point still stands.
Explain your reasoning behind sentences 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Otherwise I could just say the opposite. Observe:
"If you think it is robots.txt that is the answer, you are correct. This is politics and Google has experience with political plays plus they are highly reasonable.
Google has very little power in this business relationship and the Newspaper industry has all of it. The newspapers have a lot of options they should consider before suing. Going nuclear (aka robots.txt) is an option for both parties."
Kind of a pissing contest without facts* to back it up, isn't it?
* If you don't have those, reasons of why you feel this way or even speculation of what's going on behind-the-scenes would suffice. Something.
And they're not reading Google News at the time. They're reading the newspaper because, that's pretty much their only choice for news, short of going on the internet every morning to print out some blogs for the subway.
Anyway, I find it pretty funny that the GGP thinks that the news giants are less biased than every small source. On the Internet, we use rating systems to try to cut out the crap. No rating system is perfect, but it's better than getting all your news from a few biased sources.
"Anyone seriously considering buying HP is going to ask HP for a price, they don't need to find out from GroundWork"
... why should I waste my time getting prices from different competitors when I could get all the information from one source? Sounds like bullshit to me.
Imagine if you went to a grocery store, but none of the price tags were there. You had to ask someone at the cash register for the price of each product (and negotiate your way down). So a competing grocery store that doesn't force you into these negotiations lets you compare the list prices and... you know the rest. Worse yet, there are only 4 grocery store chains in the world, 3 chains have the no price tag practice, and the remaining one doesn't have the brand names and shiny colours that your children like. Talk about getting in the way of the free market.
The only difference here is that only corporations are buying the products, so it only affects the small % of the population that purchases\negotiates for them. Hence no public outrage. Also, instead of children, it's executives, but the shiny colours point stands.
Games are already so suspiciously inefficient at managing the hardware they run on in order to help hardware companies push their newer products. It's going to be fun to watch games in the future somehow slow a 1000-core cpu to a crawl on the low detail setting, to help sell the 2000-core models.
They'll have an excuse if we have 3D monitors at that point, otherwise they'll just have to bullshit about particle effects taking more power (even on the low detail settings).
Yellow isn't a warning. Yellow means "stop (if you can)". Red means "if you followed that yellow correctly you definitely wouldn't be going through this, unless this county is run by assholes". So if anything, the yellow (meaning "stop") is redundant; it could just go straight to red but only give tickets a few seconds after turning red. But for human psychology, the yellow is good.
I like this blinking green idea. I'd like an actual countdown (ie the green light turns into green numbers as the yellow approaches), but that's not worth the money, and would probably just encourage people to gun strategically.
"Your Internet connection is down. Do you want some help with that?"
"Connecting to online help and support database... "
*5 minutes elapse, hogging the CPU entirely with no way to cancel*
"Could not connect to online help and support database. Problem encountered: Your Internet connection is down. Do you want some help with that?"
Google \ Sun Microsystems are more or less guilty of the same thing. If you want to run certain apps, you need Java, and what comes with Java? Google Toolbar, and yep, you have to opt-out. Not exactly a monopoly, but the fact is many people need to download Java to run their corporate apps, if nothing else.
That's another thing, they used to dupe stories within 3 days of the original posting, sometimes on the same day. Sometimes you would see a front page consisting of nothing but the same story by the same contributor repeated over and over again. Ah, the good old days.
Bribes to congressman should be legal; they're going to take bribes anyway, so if they're illegal it will accomplish making congress look bad, which in turn diminishes the integrity of the government and country which is bad for us all.
Except bribing congress is pretty much legal already, and I'd imagine they came up with a better excuse than that for why:/
That would be more suitable a poll, not a discussion. Although that does bring up the point that it might be cool to attach a poll to every news story.
I was already pretty sure that there was at least one person in the world with the opinion you expressed, but thanks anyway:P
Ah, but we are talking about censorship as in hiding information from people.
Here is a more clear example in the logical flaw you made: imagine an article about weed not being free to use in the US, and you'd say "In Amsterdam it isn't free because you have to pay for it, it's obvious you don't understand the word free." you see, we're talking about different definitions of the same word. I hope that was enlightening.
I don't care if the guy's user id is 1 digit, that does not grant them immunity from a "you must be new here" joke. (Although using a "you must be new here" in response to a "RTFA" is getting pretty old).
I have a dream that my children will one day live in a message board where they will not be judged by the length of their userid but by the content of their character.
As opposed to this scintillating patent. Commercial breaks... but wait! It's commercial breaks on streaming video. And as if that's not enough innovation for you, the commercial breaks will be designed to happen between scenes by an algorithm. I had an idea for commercials on streaming video, but I was just thinking of having them interrupt the action randomly. I would have never thought of placing the commercials between scenes *hits head*. That's the difference between simple intelligence and utter brilliance I guess.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that GP didn't do Fox justice. Should have just linked to Outfoxed and been done with it.
Now if you actually watch Fox News, think it's not the most biased major news source by far, and are calling someone else a fucking moron, I can't help you there.
I meant to also say that Google is looking more and more evil in other ways. I can't think of any exact examples right now. To me, the fact that they do good stuff is incidental; they know that talk only goes so far, that they have to do tangibly good stuff and avoid tangibly bad stuff to look 'good', and in their industry, appearing 'good' is important to long-term success.
I still have to say I like 'em more than most other companies at this point though.
It doesn't hurt that what they are doing benefits themselves, the news companies, and consumers, and basically hurts no one.
Opt-out can be arrogant in some cases, but all they're really doing is providing a service. Someone who read The Sun before Google News came out is not restricted from doing the same afterwards. Meanwhile, anyone using Google's service has a chance of becoming a Sun reader... ok maybe Google is evil but my point still stands.
Explain your reasoning behind sentences 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Otherwise I could just say the opposite. Observe:
"If you think it is robots.txt that is the answer, you are correct. This is politics and Google has experience with political plays plus they are highly reasonable.
Google has very little power in this business relationship and the Newspaper industry has all of it. The newspapers have a lot of options they should consider before suing. Going nuclear (aka robots.txt) is an option for both parties."
Kind of a pissing contest without facts* to back it up, isn't it?
* If you don't have those, reasons of why you feel this way or even speculation of what's going on behind-the-scenes would suffice. Something.
And they're not reading Google News at the time. They're reading the newspaper because, that's pretty much their only choice for news, short of going on the internet every morning to print out some blogs for the subway.
Anyway, I find it pretty funny that the GGP thinks that the news giants are less biased than every small source. On the Internet, we use rating systems to try to cut out the crap. No rating system is perfect, but it's better than getting all your news from a few biased sources.
Chrome is open-source.
"Anyone seriously considering buying HP is going to ask HP for a price, they don't need to find out from GroundWork"
... why should I waste my time getting prices from different competitors when I could get all the information from one source? Sounds like bullshit to me.
Imagine if you went to a grocery store, but none of the price tags were there. You had to ask someone at the cash register for the price of each product (and negotiate your way down). So a competing grocery store that doesn't force you into these negotiations lets you compare the list prices and... you know the rest. Worse yet, there are only 4 grocery store chains in the world, 3 chains have the no price tag practice, and the remaining one doesn't have the brand names and shiny colours that your children like. Talk about getting in the way of the free market.
The only difference here is that only corporations are buying the products, so it only affects the small % of the population that purchases\negotiates for them. Hence no public outrage. Also, instead of children, it's executives, but the shiny colours point stands.
Games are already so suspiciously inefficient at managing the hardware they run on in order to help hardware companies push their newer products. It's going to be fun to watch games in the future somehow slow a 1000-core cpu to a crawl on the low detail setting, to help sell the 2000-core models.
They'll have an excuse if we have 3D monitors at that point, otherwise they'll just have to bullshit about particle effects taking more power (even on the low detail settings).
Yellow isn't a warning. Yellow means "stop (if you can)". Red means "if you followed that yellow correctly you definitely wouldn't be going through this, unless this county is run by assholes". So if anything, the yellow (meaning "stop") is redundant; it could just go straight to red but only give tickets a few seconds after turning red. But for human psychology, the yellow is good.
I like this blinking green idea. I'd like an actual countdown (ie the green light turns into green numbers as the yellow approaches), but that's not worth the money, and would probably just encourage people to gun strategically.
They're still in beta.
*5 minutes elapse, hogging the CPU entirely with no way to cancel*
"Could not connect to online help and support database. Problem encountered: Your Internet connection is down. Do you want some help with that?"
Perhaps because in a rap song it's not addressed to the person directly in a hateful way?
I assume there are few black people who drive around and yell "nigger" at random black strangers, but I would classify that as offensive as well.
Oops, looks like some people beat me to it. In case you missed those above comments, Adobe Acrobat also comes with the toolbar.
Google \ Sun Microsystems are more or less guilty of the same thing. If you want to run certain apps, you need Java, and what comes with Java? Google Toolbar, and yep, you have to opt-out. Not exactly a monopoly, but the fact is many people need to download Java to run their corporate apps, if nothing else.
That's another thing, they used to dupe stories within 3 days of the original posting, sometimes on the same day. Sometimes you would see a front page consisting of nothing but the same story by the same contributor repeated over and over again. Ah, the good old days.
Yeah, the rule used to be strictly at least one full week.
That's awesome, let me try one.
:/
Bribes to congressman should be legal; they're going to take bribes anyway, so if they're illegal it will accomplish making congress look bad, which in turn diminishes the integrity of the government and country which is bad for us all.
Except bribing congress is pretty much legal already, and I'd imagine they came up with a better excuse than that for why
I guess you could say the US is going the Fahrenheit 451 route and China is going for straight-up 1984, to grossly oversimplify.
That would be more suitable a poll, not a discussion. Although that does bring up the point that it might be cool to attach a poll to every news story.
:P
I was already pretty sure that there was at least one person in the world with the opinion you expressed, but thanks anyway
Jokes on him, all the websites that say why the videos are blocked are also blocked.
Ah, but we are talking about censorship as in hiding information from people.
Here is a more clear example in the logical flaw you made: imagine an article about weed not being free to use in the US, and you'd say "In Amsterdam it isn't free because you have to pay for it, it's obvious you don't understand the word free." you see, we're talking about different definitions of the same word. I hope that was enlightening.
The question turns to whether Western civilization would remain profitable (and humane) if China disappeared.
I don't care if the guy's user id is 1 digit, that does not grant them immunity from a "you must be new here" joke. (Although using a "you must be new here" in response to a "RTFA" is getting pretty old).
I have a dream that my children will one day live in a message board where they will not be judged by the length of their userid but by the content of their character.
As opposed to this scintillating patent. Commercial breaks... but wait! It's commercial breaks on streaming video. And as if that's not enough innovation for you, the commercial breaks will be designed to happen between scenes by an algorithm. I had an idea for commercials on streaming video, but I was just thinking of having them interrupt the action randomly. I would have never thought of placing the commercials between scenes *hits head*. That's the difference between simple intelligence and utter brilliance I guess.