The scene was basically a teen-age orgy - and while "the naughty bits" weren't shown, there were plenty of bare backs (both male and female), side shots, and groping. Add in the girls clad only in bras and panties grinding their hips on the guys, and well...
"Well, I suppose that begs the question, T-Rex: if it's used more often to mean "raises the question" than "a fallacy of presumption", doesn't that suggest that the definition of the phrase has evolved?"
"NO IT DOES NOT. What is suggests is that everbody sucks except me!"
Not a lot of Slashdot response on this one, huh? Stuck for words?
"Man Accuses Slashdotters in a Post of Being Too Nerdy to Reply to a Post On Slashdot on Valentines Day Night"
Re:Does going public effect the level of trust?
on
Can We Trust Google?
·
· Score: 1
If you are a public company you have to make profits over everything else, in fact it is your only purpose.
OK, but doing something that the public objects to will (ideally) cause the public not to use your product any more. Right? So, really, the most profitable thing to do is follow the morals of the public. And the corporations can't break the law, right? Who (ideally) makes the law? The people, right? Wait, so aren't consumers responsible for the actions of the corporations they support?
Can we really trust any person? After several stories about people ratting their accomplices out, I would say: no.
Re:Can we trust google with our "secrets"?
on
Can We Trust Google?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
People need to understand the fact that executing a search on the Internet is akin to yelling out to the world, "Hey world, tell me everything you know about xyz".
No, it's not. My family/friends/neighbours don't know I was looking up -- well, never mind what I was looking up, but they don't know about it. So Google knows about it, and Google ties it to my IP address. Now if they wanted to they could go to the ISP, and get my name and address. Or I guess the ISP could be monitoring me.
But it's not the same as asking the world something, it's more like asking a particular person. Specifically, it's like asking someone you don't know.
What's the difference? Well I don't care if Google knows what I was searching for, it doesn't embarass me. If people I knew knew what I was searching for, it would be a different story completely.
A definition of "art" that I really like is Scott McCloud's. He says art is anything that we don't NEED to do or have to survive. (According to this definition, obviously, video games ARE art.)
No blogs of code (like Linux or FreeBSD) are allowed.
// Linux Kernal v.2.7...
int main()
{
while(1)
{
set_mood('depressed');
set_currently_playing('Mourning Dew For You - The Emostreet Boys');
set_post('i know ive said it before but my life sucks. im gonna kill myself i sware. everyone hates me. i cut myself again.');
That said, I find it rich that Mac users whinge when getting ports of Windows apps yet when Apple ports Mac apps to Windows blatant HIG/toolkit violations are the order of the day. *cough* QuickTime *cough*
Why would a Mac user care how software acts on Windows?
Obviously, it can't; unless, MS and Apple add Google's DRM to their players.
I've been thinking about this a bit. A lot of people (myself included) say other services could "simply" offer MP3s, then they'd be compatible with the iPod.
The rebuttal to this is that the recording industry would never allow it, so it's not plausible.
Now I'd say that's more the fault of the recording industry and less the fault of Apple, but we may be able to avoid that line of discussion altogether.
The format could be DRM'd with Google or Microsoft DRM or whatever, but when it is transfered to the iPod, it is converted to MP3. You can't move the MP3 back from the iPod easily, so that satisfies the basic requirement of the record companies.
This is similar to the ability to burn your DRM'd music files to a CD. You can then rip them to MP3, defeating the DRM (admittedly at the expense of some quality). But this would be even less straightforward since Apple/Google/Microsoft do not provide the tools to rip from the iPod.
This is kind of a half-through-out idea, so far, but I'd like to hear the opinions of other Slashdotters.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah yes. This robot won't give its owner annual sex.
Well, my fiance and I just broke up, so......let me look out the window...OMFG, no shit, it's snowing in hell, well I'll be...um...damned. =P
What, you didn't notice that? Yeah it started back around the time you got engaged....
The scene was basically a teen-age orgy - and while "the naughty bits" weren't shown, there were plenty of bare backs (both male and female), side shots, and groping. Add in the girls clad only in bras and panties grinding their hips on the guys, and well...
So basically they showed the inside of a club?
Better explanation
"Well, I suppose that begs the question, T-Rex: if it's used more often to mean "raises the question" than "a fallacy of presumption", doesn't that suggest that the definition of the phrase has evolved?"
"NO IT DOES NOT. What is suggests is that everbody sucks except me!"
Not a lot of Slashdot response on this one, huh? Stuck for words?
"Man Accuses Slashdotters in a Post of Being Too Nerdy to Reply to a Post On Slashdot on Valentines Day Night"
If you are a public company you have to make profits over everything else, in fact it is your only purpose.
OK, but doing something that the public objects to will (ideally) cause the public not to use your product any more. Right? So, really, the most profitable thing to do is follow the morals of the public. And the corporations can't break the law, right? Who (ideally) makes the law? The people, right? Wait, so aren't consumers responsible for the actions of the corporations they support?
Can we really trust any person? After several stories about people ratting their accomplices out, I would say: no.
People need to understand the fact that executing a search on the Internet is akin to yelling out to the world, "Hey world, tell me everything you know about xyz".
No, it's not. My family/friends/neighbours don't know I was looking up -- well, never mind what I was looking up, but they don't know about it. So Google knows about it, and Google ties it to my IP address. Now if they wanted to they could go to the ISP, and get my name and address. Or I guess the ISP could be monitoring me.
But it's not the same as asking the world something, it's more like asking a particular person. Specifically, it's like asking someone you don't know.
What's the difference? Well I don't care if Google knows what I was searching for, it doesn't embarass me. If people I knew knew what I was searching for, it would be a different story completely.
Oh, it's very cool, I just don't see any practical reason for it. (Maybe I am missing something?)
Also it doesn't work so well for me, but I've never used graffiti before.
Being able to do stylus-style input online without flash can lead to all sorts of possibilites.
I expect handheld devices translate from stylus-to-text for the application when it encounters a text field...
I think it's defined in RFC2822, but I'm not sure how it varies in temperature. Links, anyone?
It's the stuff people see that bothers them the most, in my experience :)
Like a man with shaved shoulders and Robbin-Williams-thick backhair.
Man, how did you manage to pay Verizon for all those asterisks?
me too!
No. Of course not. Do not be ridiculous.
Sincerely,
John Soylent
President, Soylent Green Corporation.
I was going to make a joke... But while I was doing research on the PRC to find some fodder
You research your jokes? You must be new here.
I wouldn't worry about it. I hear email clients are invulnerable to viruses & malware.
A definition of "art" that I really like is Scott McCloud's. He says art is anything that we don't NEED to do or have to survive. (According to this definition, obviously, video games ARE art.)
Relax, your grandma always gets wet like this around me.
XOXO,
Latiffa (with two F's)
You want me to use a KVM switch with my laptop(s?)
That said, I find it rich that Mac users whinge when getting ports of Windows apps yet when Apple ports Mac apps to Windows blatant HIG/toolkit violations are the order of the day. *cough* QuickTime *cough*
Why would a Mac user care how software acts on Windows?
How would we know what software the site is ACTUALLY running, anyway?
Obviously, it can't; unless, MS and Apple add Google's DRM to their players.
I've been thinking about this a bit. A lot of people (myself included) say other services could "simply" offer MP3s, then they'd be compatible with the iPod.
The rebuttal to this is that the recording industry would never allow it, so it's not plausible.
Now I'd say that's more the fault of the recording industry and less the fault of Apple, but we may be able to avoid that line of discussion altogether.
The format could be DRM'd with Google or Microsoft DRM or whatever, but when it is transfered to the iPod, it is converted to MP3. You can't move the MP3 back from the iPod easily, so that satisfies the basic requirement of the record companies.
This is similar to the ability to burn your DRM'd music files to a CD. You can then rip them to MP3, defeating the DRM (admittedly at the expense of some quality). But this would be even less straightforward since Apple/Google/Microsoft do not provide the tools to rip from the iPod.
This is kind of a half-through-out idea, so far, but I'd like to hear the opinions of other Slashdotters.
Word, Excel, Windows... MS turns dictionary words into trademarks, while their competators do the opposite.
If I understand you correctly, I can think of a few counterexamples:
Powerpoint, Outlook, MSN (Messenger), Hotmail.
And on the Apple side, a lot of their apps are named just what they are:
Mail, Calculator, Address Book, etc.
I think it goes both ways.