According to the BBC [bbc.co.uk],"MPs criticised video-sharing websites, including YouTube, in July, saying they should be doing more to vet content."
That was in a press conference. There is no mention of a direct request. There was no compulsion for Google to do this, even if they did get a request. So how is it anybody but Google's fault?
Since your reading comprehension seems to be deficient,
How is my reading comprehension deficient? You then go on to ramble about irrelevant things, but fail to answer the question - how does the Second Amendment prevent Google, of their own free will, from implementing a similar policy in the USA? Also, you say:
the Second Amendment to the Constitution upholds the right of the people to bear arms. This right is under increasing political attack,
That's simply not true. The gun control debate has gotten a lot quieter in recent years. Democrats don't want to touch it, as it's a political third rail. The gun control lobby was much more vocal 10 years ago. If anything, the Second Amendment is under decreasing political pressure. How many times have you heard Obama mention gun control this election season? He talks about everything but gun control.
It has everything to do with it. How many knifing epidemics have you ever heard of in the United States?
I doubt it would be reported, as America has a violence-loving culture, and we generally don't care much. We do care if titties are shown on TV, though. Or if people are enjoying sex too much.
As for the "knifing epidemic" in the UK, it doesn't exist. It's a fabrication of the media.
Google very clearly did this in response to a request by U.K. officials.
How is that "very clear"? the article doesn't mention any request from officials whatsoever.
Makes you wonder about the "Do No Evil" mantra, eh?
Nope. I've always considered that slogan to be empty marketing bullshit. That said, many people would consider the broadcasting of violent videos to be evil. So it depends on your definition of evil.
But back to the point - how does the Second Amendment stop Google from doing something similar in the USA?
OK, so where does your link show skyrocketing knife crimes correlating to a ban of knives? That's what the GP claimed.
Also, the Reason article you link to is from 2002, so is rather outdated. Violent crimes have dropped in the UK since then. And I'm not seeing the claimed correlation between UK gun laws and the incidence of violent crime. Again, linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm
From your link on Obama, he states "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?
The funny thing is that your own links rebut the argument you were trying to make with them!
Uhh, what would this have to do with the British government or laws, or the second amendment? Google decided to do this of their own free will. They could easily decide to ban gun videos in the USA, and the Second Amendment wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it.
It's within Google's First Amendment rights to show whatever they see fit, and not show what they don't see fit.
You can deny it, but it's still true: up front the ad is saying that Macintosh is liberating, cool, and competent and that PCs are clunky, temperamental, and losing; and, by extension, their user communities are the same.
No, that's not true at all. The ads are trying to appeal to Windows users, saying they should switch to Mac.
It's saying to Windows users: "Hey, you're cool, you don't have time to bother with clunky, old fashioned computers. Why not use a Mac, which suits you better?"
It is definitely not saying that people who use Windows aren't cool.
Hey genius, we were talking about it being discussed outside of slashdot - so how is you discussing it on slashdot evidence of that? Also, the fact that you haven't actually said anything positive about the ad (other than to state that you are saying positive things about it) doesn't help. So, what exactly is so great about it?
A blind scientist is just as bad as the most dogmatic preacher.
Uhhh, what the fuck does any of that have to do with my comment? Can you please tell me who these "militant atheists" who are using violence in the name of spreading atheism? Scientists with strange ideas is nothing like the religious people who are actually using violence and murder to push their particular sect.
Well, they can keep their small one-room schoolhouses. Why should they expect government funding to preach their religion? Why do they want government involvement in their religion, anyway? Much of America was founded on the basis of religious freedom from government, for good reasons. Do they really want a return to world they left for America, where European countries had an official state church? I'm beginning to think that many modern fundamentalists do.
I don't think it has anything to do with that. It has everything with fundamentalists increasing their push to drive religion into the classroom, under new guises, such as "Intelligent Design."
One question - why would you want to "manage files" on my mp3 player in the first place? I'd much rather do that from a PC. Why are you having to delete mp3 files, anyway?
you cannot install applications without your pc and itunes.
Completely untrue. You can buy and install applications directly from the iPhone/Touch. It's very quick and easy to do. That you don't know this really strains your credibility on this topic.
Yeah, but you're not going to get nearly as much traffic to your web page as the iTunes store, even if you pay for advertising. The iTunes store basically comes with free advertising and no overheads.
What does this have to do with the topic? I don't see anybody at your link saying that everything Apple does is good and dandy. All I see is a poorly-written rant at the other end of your link. I'm not sure how this passes for evidence that everything Apple does is seen as good.
There is an Apple Fanboys thing...
Which, as you have demonstrated, is mostly a myth made up by haters.
The irony of this is that Apple also takes much more from the F/OSS ecosystem than Microsoft ever did
Isn't that a good thing? I thought the F/OSS community wanted their stuff to be used.
Apple, meanwhile, is quite happy to take a lot, give back little, and generally behave in a manner not consistent with OSS principles
Whenever Apple uses F/OSS, they "give back" everything that they are required to give back, under the terms of the software license. Why should they be required to give back any more? If that is the case, it should be written into the license.
Going by the name, I thought "Handango" was a site where you can learn to improve your masturbation techniques... or find a partner to masturbate with or something. But it's a software store? Why the creepy name, then?
Up to this point, I have been using Safari to navigate to the home pages of the podcasts that I am interested in and then I download the podcasts directly. This works very well, but is a bit hard to do while I'm driving.
Wait, who is saying that? I haven't come across anybody saying that what Apple is doing here is a good thing. People are almost universally upset/annoyed/outraged - particularly Apple users and developers.
They seem to have been doing ok running 'exclusive'. So i pose the question again, why should they invite competition?
Because it makes them extra money, and is no threat at all to Apple. Tell me - how does having another choice in podcast client software on the iPhone hurt Apple? There are plenty of podcast clients on Mac OS, and that's not hurting the dominance of iTunes one bit.
Slashdot Mirror
According to the BBC [bbc.co.uk],"MPs criticised video-sharing websites, including YouTube, in July, saying they should be doing more to vet content."
That was in a press conference. There is no mention of a direct request. There was no compulsion for Google to do this, even if they did get a request. So how is it anybody but Google's fault?
Since your reading comprehension seems to be deficient,
How is my reading comprehension deficient? You then go on to ramble about irrelevant things, but fail to answer the question - how does the Second Amendment prevent Google, of their own free will, from implementing a similar policy in the USA? Also, you say:
the Second Amendment to the Constitution upholds the right of the people to bear arms. This right is under increasing political attack,
That's simply not true. The gun control debate has gotten a lot quieter in recent years. Democrats don't want to touch it, as it's a political third rail. The gun control lobby was much more vocal 10 years ago. If anything, the Second Amendment is under decreasing political pressure. How many times have you heard Obama mention gun control this election season? He talks about everything but gun control.
It has everything to do with it. How many knifing epidemics have you ever heard of in the United States?
I doubt it would be reported, as America has a violence-loving culture, and we generally don't care much. We do care if titties are shown on TV, though. Or if people are enjoying sex too much.
As for the "knifing epidemic" in the UK, it doesn't exist. It's a fabrication of the media.
Google very clearly did this in response to a request by U.K. officials.
How is that "very clear"? the article doesn't mention any request from officials whatsoever.
Makes you wonder about the "Do No Evil" mantra, eh?
Nope. I've always considered that slogan to be empty marketing bullshit. That said, many people would consider the broadcasting of violent videos to be evil. So it depends on your definition of evil.
But back to the point - how does the Second Amendment stop Google from doing something similar in the USA?
OK, so where does your link show skyrocketing knife crimes correlating to a ban of knives? That's what the GP claimed.
Also, the Reason article you link to is from 2002, so is rather outdated. Violent crimes have dropped in the UK since then. And I'm not seeing the claimed correlation between UK gun laws and the incidence of violent crime. Again, linky: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm
From your link on Obama, he states "As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns." You do realize that gun control and safety measures are different than banning guns, don't you?
The funny thing is that your own links rebut the argument you were trying to make with them!
Wait, what does his voting on gun issues have to do with knives again? And since when is voting on gun control the same as voting to outlaw guns?
As for crime rates, there's a nice chart and some analysis here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6906554.stm
Ban guns, gun crime skyrockes. Ban knives, knife crime escalates.
That actually never happened. Violent crime has been dropping in Britain.
BTW, if you like the way that England is going with this, vote Obama, he's got the same thing in mind for America.
Riiiiiiiggght. Got any evidence to back that up?
Uhh, what would this have to do with the British government or laws, or the second amendment? Google decided to do this of their own free will. They could easily decide to ban gun videos in the USA, and the Second Amendment wouldn't do a damn thing to stop it.
It's within Google's First Amendment rights to show whatever they see fit, and not show what they don't see fit.
Don't you mean "forking retarded"? It fits the theme better. Anyway, I think the solution is more sporks.
This is a good example of why their advertising is misplaced. If they mean "shit", then why don't they just say it? Euphemisms are for the weak.
You can deny it, but it's still true: up front the ad is saying that Macintosh is liberating, cool, and competent and that PCs are clunky, temperamental, and losing; and, by extension, their user communities are the same.
No, that's not true at all. The ads are trying to appeal to Windows users, saying they should switch to Mac.
It's saying to Windows users: "Hey, you're cool, you don't have time to bother with clunky, old fashioned computers. Why not use a Mac, which suits you better?"
It is definitely not saying that people who use Windows aren't cool.
Those commercials had to have cost at LEAST $200,000 each without airtime.
They hired Seinfeld on a $10 million contract, so I'm guessing they cost a LOT more than $200,000 each.
Hey genius, we were talking about it being discussed outside of slashdot - so how is you discussing it on slashdot evidence of that? Also, the fact that you haven't actually said anything positive about the ad (other than to state that you are saying positive things about it) doesn't help. So, what exactly is so great about it?
Wow, saying that the ad isn't about torturing kittens is really high praise. And talking to yourself doesn't count as a "discussion."
A blind scientist is just as bad as the most dogmatic preacher.
Uhhh, what the fuck does any of that have to do with my comment? Can you please tell me who these "militant atheists" who are using violence in the name of spreading atheism? Scientists with strange ideas is nothing like the religious people who are actually using violence and murder to push their particular sect.
Well, they can keep their small one-room schoolhouses. Why should they expect government funding to preach their religion? Why do they want government involvement in their religion, anyway? Much of America was founded on the basis of religious freedom from government, for good reasons. Do they really want a return to world they left for America, where European countries had an official state church? I'm beginning to think that many modern fundamentalists do.
I don't think it has anything to do with that. It has everything with fundamentalists increasing their push to drive religion into the classroom, under new guises, such as "Intelligent Design."
Militant atheists?????
One question - why would you want to "manage files" on my mp3 player in the first place? I'd much rather do that from a PC. Why are you having to delete mp3 files, anyway?
you cannot install applications without your pc and itunes.
Completely untrue. You can buy and install applications directly from the iPhone/Touch. It's very quick and easy to do. That you don't know this really strains your credibility on this topic.
Yeah, but you're not going to get nearly as much traffic to your web page as the iTunes store, even if you pay for advertising. The iTunes store basically comes with free advertising and no overheads.
Yeah, they are the same people who use the word "fanboi". Which means they must be about 13 years old.
What does this have to do with the topic? I don't see anybody at your link saying that everything Apple does is good and dandy. All I see is a poorly-written rant at the other end of your link. I'm not sure how this passes for evidence that everything Apple does is seen as good.
There is an Apple Fanboys thing...
Which, as you have demonstrated, is mostly a myth made up by haters.
The irony of this is that Apple also takes much more from the F/OSS ecosystem than Microsoft ever did
Isn't that a good thing? I thought the F/OSS community wanted their stuff to be used.
Apple, meanwhile, is quite happy to take a lot, give back little, and generally behave in a manner not consistent with OSS principles
Whenever Apple uses F/OSS, they "give back" everything that they are required to give back, under the terms of the software license. Why should they be required to give back any more? If that is the case, it should be written into the license.
Going by the name, I thought "Handango" was a site where you can learn to improve your masturbation techniques... or find a partner to masturbate with or something. But it's a software store? Why the creepy name, then?
Up to this point, I have been using Safari to navigate to the home pages of the podcasts that I am interested in and then I download the podcasts directly. This works very well, but is a bit hard to do while I'm driving.
(!)
Now Apple is all good and dandy! BS!
Wait, who is saying that? I haven't come across anybody saying that what Apple is doing here is a good thing. People are almost universally upset/annoyed/outraged - particularly Apple users and developers.
They seem to have been doing ok running 'exclusive'. So i pose the question again, why should they invite competition?
Because it makes them extra money, and is no threat at all to Apple. Tell me - how does having another choice in podcast client software on the iPhone hurt Apple? There are plenty of podcast clients on Mac OS, and that's not hurting the dominance of iTunes one bit.