It doesn't change a genius to figure out how to change your location in Bing. (I'm posting from the UK, and I just switched to Bing India to check it out.)
In order to prevent people in India from searching for "sex", they would have to eliminate the choice to switch to another location.
I wonder how much of this is due to pressure from management. How many times has a journalist said, I'm going to need x hours and $y to fully research this and verify all the details and is told "Nonsense! Go look it up in Wikipedia and have a report ready in an hour."
I've worked in market research for the past few years. There have been times when management has asked me for an answer NOW and wouldn't listen when I told them that the data needs further verification, more research needs to be commissioned, etc.
So unfortunately, strategic decisions get made on the basis of flimsy, unsubstantiated information because researchers want to keep their jobs.
I imagine similar things can happen in the world of journalism.
How often do people marry their friends?
Most of the married couples that I know, including my husband and myself, started out as friends.
If all of the married couples you know got married because of something other than friendship, than the problem isn't the nature of marriage but the nature of the people you associate with.
Allowing everyone access to public education benefits society by providing everyone with the basic skills needed to be productive members of society (allowing for the fact that there are always going to be people who are smarter, more talented and better at certain things than others). It also, in theory, provides people with the knowledge to make good political decisions.
Providing equal access to healthcare has the same effect. You can't function to the best of your ability if you are dizzy, weak, tired, in pain, worried about the health of someone else, etc. You also aren't going to have the mental energy to think about political issues.
I don't think its useful to specifically consider the reasons why the system of public education was originally set up. At that time, the cost/types of medical treatment that are available today did not exist. I don't think that anyone considered the possibility that there could be significant numbers of people who aren't treated for illnesses simply because they couldn't afford the treatment. I think it was assumed that, for the most part, if someone suffered/died from an illness it was because there was nothing doctors could do.
A lot of the time, "social benefit" programs are set up for political reasons, not because they are good. Social Security was developed in the 1930s to avoid a communist revolution in the US, not because it was a nice thing to do for old people. Food Stamps were set up to benefit the farm constituency, not to help poor people to eat. The reasons why politicians/governments do things is a separate topic for discussion.
What about a comparison with free public education then? Why do we let our taxes pay for poor children to attend school? Because in the long run the benefit to society is greater than the cost.
Totally agree. I work as a research analyst for a financial company. I couldn't do my job if it weren't for Google. (Well, I could, but I would be ridiculously less effective than I am now.)
Agree with the comment about telecommuters being more responsible.
I don't telecommute, but I have the option to work from home on an as-needed basis - when it will allow me to be more productive.
For example, if I've got to extract an dorganise data from a large database, I can get it done twice as fast at home than in the office, where I would have to deal with phone interruptions, people coming by with questions, etc.
On the other hand, when it comes to analysing and reporting on that data, I can provide a richer output if I can use information from colleagues who have expertise in subjects that I don't have expertise in - so that's when I come into the office and talk to people.
I don't work in IT, but I think the principle is the same in any industry - the "privilege" of telecommuting is given to those who know use it to be more productive and will use it for that.
I moved to England from the US about 1 1/2 years ago, and work for a company that sells private health insurance.
Even though we could get it at a discount, lots of employees don't bother, because, as one manager said, "Why pay for something you don't need?"
So far, I really like the NHS.
1 - My GP is required to see me the same day for an appointment. In the US, I was lucky if I could see a doctor the same week.
2- The one time I had to see a specialist (a gyn)my waiting time was less than I would have waited in the US (and it was defined as a non-emergency situation.)
3 - Un-complicated pregnancies are cared for by midwives, not doctors, leaving gynaecologists to specialise in taking care of women who are actually sick.
4 - Doctors sometimes make home visits.
5 - After you have a baby, a heath visitor makes periodic visits to your home to check on you and the baby and teach you anything you might need to learn.
6 - BIRTH CONTROL IS FREE!!!!!!!!!!
7 - If you have a medical condition, you get special treatment for it. For example, because I have asthma, I get free flu vaccinatinos and periodic asthma checks. And I get letters inviting me to the vaccinations and the checks; I don't have to even think about them.
8 - UK doctors don't have pens and prescription pads with drug company logos. In the US, a dermatologist prescribed me a very expensive medication for a skin condition. My doctor in the UK told me I could use an inexpensive, over-the-counter medicine instead. The OTC medicine is more effective.
I have lived in both the US and the UK, and in my personl experience, free speech in practical terms - e.g. what you can say without being ostracised or being made to feel unsafe or uncomfortable - is, in my experience, much greater in the UK than in the US.
I can relate to the part about the mayor not having a clue what the guy does. I'm an insights consultant for an insurance company, and among other things, I get paid to analyse the news. So I'm sometimes sitting at my desk reading the newspaper - which is what I'm paid to do - with a stack of other papers on my desk, possibly even with a cup of coffee to keep me awake, and sometimes people who don't have a clue about my job will make some comment about how I'm "taking it easy". Because all they see is some woman drinking coffee and reading the paper.
I know of people who have tried to access non-pornographic sites at libraries and been unable to because the filter judged them as having pornographic content.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't change a genius to figure out how to change your location in Bing. (I'm posting from the UK, and I just switched to Bing India to check it out.) In order to prevent people in India from searching for "sex", they would have to eliminate the choice to switch to another location.
I wonder how much of this is due to pressure from management. How many times has a journalist said, I'm going to need x hours and $y to fully research this and verify all the details and is told "Nonsense! Go look it up in Wikipedia and have a report ready in an hour." I've worked in market research for the past few years. There have been times when management has asked me for an answer NOW and wouldn't listen when I told them that the data needs further verification, more research needs to be commissioned, etc. So unfortunately, strategic decisions get made on the basis of flimsy, unsubstantiated information because researchers want to keep their jobs. I imagine similar things can happen in the world of journalism.
How often do people marry their friends? Most of the married couples that I know, including my husband and myself, started out as friends. If all of the married couples you know got married because of something other than friendship, than the problem isn't the nature of marriage but the nature of the people you associate with.
Allowing everyone access to public education benefits society by providing everyone with the basic skills needed to be productive members of society (allowing for the fact that there are always going to be people who are smarter, more talented and better at certain things than others). It also, in theory, provides people with the knowledge to make good political decisions.
Providing equal access to healthcare has the same effect. You can't function to the best of your ability if you are dizzy, weak, tired, in pain, worried about the health of someone else, etc. You also aren't going to have the mental energy to think about political issues.
I don't think its useful to specifically consider the reasons why the system of public education was originally set up. At that time, the cost/types of medical treatment that are available today did not exist. I don't think that anyone considered the possibility that there could be significant numbers of people who aren't treated for illnesses simply because they couldn't afford the treatment. I think it was assumed that, for the most part, if someone suffered/died from an illness it was because there was nothing doctors could do.
A lot of the time, "social benefit" programs are set up for political reasons, not because they are good. Social Security was developed in the 1930s to avoid a communist revolution in the US, not because it was a nice thing to do for old people. Food Stamps were set up to benefit the farm constituency, not to help poor people to eat. The reasons why politicians/governments do things is a separate topic for discussion.
What about a comparison with free public education then? Why do we let our taxes pay for poor children to attend school? Because in the long run the benefit to society is greater than the cost.
Totally agree. I work as a research analyst for a financial company. I couldn't do my job if it weren't for Google. (Well, I could, but I would be ridiculously less effective than I am now.)
Agree with the comment about telecommuters being more responsible. I don't telecommute, but I have the option to work from home on an as-needed basis - when it will allow me to be more productive. For example, if I've got to extract an dorganise data from a large database, I can get it done twice as fast at home than in the office, where I would have to deal with phone interruptions, people coming by with questions, etc. On the other hand, when it comes to analysing and reporting on that data, I can provide a richer output if I can use information from colleagues who have expertise in subjects that I don't have expertise in - so that's when I come into the office and talk to people. I don't work in IT, but I think the principle is the same in any industry - the "privilege" of telecommuting is given to those who know use it to be more productive and will use it for that.
I moved to England from the US about 1 1/2 years ago, and work for a company that sells private health insurance.
Even though we could get it at a discount, lots of employees don't bother, because, as one manager said, "Why pay for something you don't need?"
So far, I really like the NHS.
1 - My GP is required to see me the same day for an appointment. In the US, I was lucky if I could see a doctor the same week.
2- The one time I had to see a specialist (a gyn)my waiting time was less than I would have waited in the US (and it was defined as a non-emergency situation.)
3 - Un-complicated pregnancies are cared for by midwives, not doctors, leaving gynaecologists to specialise in taking care of women who are actually sick.
4 - Doctors sometimes make home visits.
5 - After you have a baby, a heath visitor makes periodic visits to your home to check on you and the baby and teach you anything you might need to learn.
6 - BIRTH CONTROL IS FREE!!!!!!!!!!
7 - If you have a medical condition, you get special treatment for it. For example, because I have asthma, I get free flu vaccinatinos and periodic asthma checks. And I get letters inviting me to the vaccinations and the checks; I don't have to even think about them.
8 - UK doctors don't have pens and prescription pads with drug company logos. In the US, a dermatologist prescribed me a very expensive medication for a skin condition. My doctor in the UK told me I could use an inexpensive, over-the-counter medicine instead. The OTC medicine is more effective.
I have lived in both the US and the UK, and in my personl experience, free speech in practical terms - e.g. what you can say without being ostracised or being made to feel unsafe or uncomfortable - is, in my experience, much greater in the UK than in the US.
What kind of word is "evolutionist"? I think that if I let go of something, it will fall down. Does that make me a gravitationist?
I can relate to the part about the mayor not having a clue what the guy does. I'm an insights consultant for an insurance company, and among other things, I get paid to analyse the news. So I'm sometimes sitting at my desk reading the newspaper - which is what I'm paid to do - with a stack of other papers on my desk, possibly even with a cup of coffee to keep me awake, and sometimes people who don't have a clue about my job will make some comment about how I'm "taking it easy". Because all they see is some woman drinking coffee and reading the paper.
I know of people who have tried to access non-pornographic sites at libraries and been unable to because the filter judged them as having pornographic content.