I don't think the experiment will hold out in "the west" though, because countries outside of China has not had the "privilage" of being born into a couple thousand years of Confusious thought, in which everything you do in life and all that you hold dear is the idea of "being polite", or not making a fuss.
It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, so long as it's deemed "okay" by your country, or your town, or your family. Not "yourself" though. No. And no absolute truths can get in the way of doing the "polite" thing, oh no.
They probably won't revolt, French Revolution style, ever, but most of them might eventually be unhappy enough that they'll try to relocate to other places. Like where you and I are.
the lack of evidence that there is an invisible cat in the chair opposite me is precisely because it is insivible and you're not looking hard enough.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I do realise that it's hard to always have animals fossilized. But C'mon, the theory's been out for how many years now? One would expect more, that's all.
Eh~
is it just me or did that look like Google had an exclaimation mark after their logo way back when? O_o were they trying to sound eXcItEd or wanting to be a bit like Yahoo! ??
I don't see how that could be useful either, and I'm a chick.
this has GOT to be a joke. A light? When I was reading the headline and then the stub and then in little hope left, the article, I was hoping a device was invented that lets you digitally keep track of contents of a handbag using solar power!!
This device would possibly consist of tiny microchip sticker things that you can attach to your keys, to your wallet, to your lip balm, to your cell phone, etc, that reports to another thing installed in the bag itself. The bag will then be able to tell you which of the following be-stickered items are currently inside, and in bigger hand bags, which compartment. It may even choose to have that sticker FLASH or beep to signify its location for all I care.
but as it as, pray tell, how is this useless invention any different from having a (solar powered) flash light hot-glued to your handbag? Which I DOUBT will even be preferable when bags are exchanged every day to go with outfits....
some people really do want to know, and if you're there to help them with it, I think that's part of the job.
other people don't want to know what something means not because he's stubborn or stupid, but sometimes it's only because "the issue will never come up again"
I think that everyone's time is just as valuable as mine, and there are a lot of things I don't know about that others do, such as how to work an excel spreed sheet properly. It's not because they're stupid, it's simply because they have other things to take care of while we had our time to learn what things mean. To me, a good IT person will teach you how to do most simple things that the user is likely to see again, but will take difficult tasks, or tasks that are unrelated to the user's usual work day, off his hands.
I see where you're coming from, and yes it does seem kind of lame. I mean, even if there weren't electronic files or whatnot, they must have *something* right?
But just because they've forgotten about something that "aren't really doing [the companies] any good anyway", doesn't mean google can have it automatically.
what I would like to see in a perfect world is Google asking publisher x if it can have its old moldy book titled "The Big Old Moldy Book On Subject X", and then the publisher, having realised that Google wants something, can say yes or no.
If I find a dollar at home I can go ask my mom if I can have it. But it wouldn't be fair to say that any amount of money or loose change I happen upon, unless otherwise explicitly noted, is automatically mine.
Oi. I meant when I said that, the practice of buying a new textbook, photocopying it in its entirety and then refunding said textbook so I can have one for free.
I guess I left that out because i thought we've all thought of doing that but decided against it since that probably, just maybe, it isn't allowed. *sigh*
Do I have a bit of a reading disorder so I'm not readting TFA right, or does it say that yes, yes, yes google is scanning books that are not in the public domain?
there's always the fair use thing.Google can't, and isn't scanning books WHOLE that aren't in the public domain, but it's putting snippets of them up.
And I apologise if I am mistaken, but I am under the impression that Google is giving publishers time to tell them which copyrighted books to partly scan and which not to scan.
All I was saying is that instead of having publishers bear the weight of reporting which is okay and which isn't, Google should be the one taking the time to compile that list of stuff Google wants to scan.
either way, Google isn't being nice to publishers, Google just has a new and novel idea on what to do with publishers.
I know this is slashdot and I'm about as big a google whore as any, but just because I'm not waving its happy 4-coloured flag at the moment doesn't mean I'm automatically a troll.
Google has unilaterally set this rule: Publishers can tell it which books not to scan at all, similar to how Web site owners can request to be left out of search engine indexes.
this is unfair. It feels like when Bart windmills his arms and walks towards Lisa, saying "I'm going to go like this, if you get hurt, it's your own fault".
publishers shouldn't have to be the ones punished into pulling a lot of hours into explicitly drawing up a list that tells Google to back off. Google should be the one hiring lots of guys to compose a list of all books they want to index into a polite application submitted to the publishers for approval.
if poor students aren't allowed to make photocopies of textbooks they need because they don't have written consent from the publishers, why does Google get special treatment like this?
As a result they got tons and tons of ideas for new typhoon names, [many of which are food names....what can I say we're fond of food...]and from those they picked out 4 that had a lot of special meaning for Hong Kong's peoples and history.
Noo! Say it aint so! I know what a lot of people are saying about Google, but I believe in Google! You people are just jealous of what we've got between us...you wouldn't understand, it's special!
I've had my romantic fling with Yahoo! before, but Yahoo! broke my heart by doing something exactly like this.
but Google is different...I know it
the sad thing is, i'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic.......
before i put on my tinfoil hat, i'd like to say that google seems to be much more, "confident" these days than funny or "nice" like they were before.
notice the way they phrased this: When I install Google Secure Access, why does it ask if I also want to install the Google Toolbar?
We've included the option to install the Google Toolbar because it improves your browsing experience.
they really are looking to do everything for us, aren't they, because they *know* better.
I'm a self-proclaimed Google-whore, but...
Wow, I was still in concentration-camp style Hong Kong grade school when it died.
I guess they didn't want to give Q-Link users any sort of closure at all, but for them to log on the next day and go "hey, it died. So that's why they wanted us to go AOL. okay, i'll pay."
They could've held a nice goodbye bash for it, but that would've made some people look for alternatives instead of continuation of the most remote sort.
anyway i don't get them off the street cuz they look less "respectable" and "reliable" than stores in a dark corner of a "mall" opposite of the street of a bigger "mall" where you pay first and claim your CDs fresh off the grill 15 minutes later. Hmmm
and they're not a dollar, *scoffs* they're like, 5 dollars.*shrugs*for newer stuff you can't wait for the BT to finish at home anyway.
It seems like your comment is a bit of a mixed-bag too.
I agree with you if you're trying to say that sometimes in life there are things that count for more than intelligence, such as "experience". But I would also like to point out that you need intelligence to make the best out of things too. Example: we've all met cry-babies who go through hardships again and again and again simply because they don't learn anything from it. *cough*EMOs*cough*
and yeah, our gianticized wealth of information isn't going to help us much in a pinch, but that's what makes smart people smart and stupid people stupid: both can be exposed to the same amount of knowledge, but intelligence is what you make of facts, and wisedom is what you make of intelligence.
anyone could have told you all those things it said. So Boo on the article.
what I would've liked are perhaps some numbers such as :
--average attention span of 10 year olds in the 70's versus today
--contrast of average ability to grasp basic math skills in children growing up with computers -vs- no computers
--ability of children to write or verbalize well-reasoned out/logical arguments
--etc...
while those may not actually be criteria for "intelligence", those sound a lot more helpful and concrete, and more able to focus our resources in improving things than a REALLY outdated word like "intelligence".
Dude, Sasktel would've been bought out entirely by Rogers if it wasn't hiding behind the "alliance" sheild of Bell.
Think of it this way: when a Canadian invents something, it's usually acredited to the States, either because they might've helped fund it, helped make it known, helped patented it, whatever. Same goes for your beloved company. It's not fair, but hey I didn't invent the system.
is Bumblefuck seriously a town in Sask, or is that a typo? [/me wikis + google maps] hmmm it's not there but I'm afraid of googling more for that word while at work...
the article says rogers was pretty much forced into it. Good.
I'm not really much of a wireless person. Things don't have to be wireless if all they ever do is sit on my desk anyway. And perhaps I'm mistaken but there are a lot more things wireless networks have to take care of than wired devices no? So I for one won't be jumping on the band wagon of wireless things unless it's much cheaper, much more effective and gets me stuff faster than plain old cable broadband.
and even if I were I wouldn't sign up with Rogers. I'm not about to forgive them for renaming the Skydome to Rogers Center and buying out my old faithful cell phone service provider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcell
Slashdot Mirror
It is indeed very, very interesting.
I don't think the experiment will hold out in "the west" though, because countries outside of China has not had the "privilage" of being born into a couple thousand years of Confusious thought, in which everything you do in life and all that you hold dear is the idea of "being polite", or not making a fuss.
It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, so long as it's deemed "okay" by your country, or your town, or your family. Not "yourself" though. No. And no absolute truths can get in the way of doing the "polite" thing, oh no.
They probably won't revolt, French Revolution style, ever, but most of them might eventually be unhappy enough that they'll try to relocate to other places. Like where you and I are.
the lack of evidence that there is an invisible cat in the chair opposite me is precisely because it is insivible and you're not looking hard enough.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I do realise that it's hard to always have animals fossilized. But C'mon, the theory's been out for how many years now? One would expect more, that's all.
Eh~
is it just me or did that look like Google had an exclaimation mark after their logo way back when? O_o were they trying to sound eXcItEd or wanting to be a bit like Yahoo! ??
I don't see how that could be useful either, and I'm a chick.
this has GOT to be a joke. A light? When I was reading the headline and then the stub and then in little hope left, the article, I was hoping a device was invented that lets you digitally keep track of contents of a handbag using solar power!!
This device would possibly consist of tiny microchip sticker things that you can attach to your keys, to your wallet, to your lip balm, to your cell phone, etc, that reports to another thing installed in the bag itself. The bag will then be able to tell you which of the following be-stickered items are currently inside, and in bigger hand bags, which compartment. It may even choose to have that sticker FLASH or beep to signify its location for all I care.
but as it as, pray tell, how is this useless invention any different from having a (solar powered) flash light hot-glued to your handbag? Which I DOUBT will even be preferable when bags are exchanged every day to go with outfits....
Worst. Invention. Ever.
very good, sir, very good
some people really do want to know, and if you're there to help them with it, I think that's part of the job.
other people don't want to know what something means not because he's stubborn or stupid, but sometimes it's only because "the issue will never come up again"
I think that everyone's time is just as valuable as mine, and there are a lot of things I don't know about that others do, such as how to work an excel spreed sheet properly. It's not because they're stupid, it's simply because they have other things to take care of while we had our time to learn what things mean. To me, a good IT person will teach you how to do most simple things that the user is likely to see again, but will take difficult tasks, or tasks that are unrelated to the user's usual work day, off his hands.
in addition to the porcelain toilet analogy, that also sounds like a black hole. =) good one.
But just because they've forgotten about something that "aren't really doing [the companies] any good anyway", doesn't mean google can have it automatically.
what I would like to see in a perfect world is Google asking publisher x if it can have its old moldy book titled "The Big Old Moldy Book On Subject X", and then the publisher, having realised that Google wants something, can say yes or no.
If I find a dollar at home I can go ask my mom if I can have it. But it wouldn't be fair to say that any amount of money or loose change I happen upon, unless otherwise explicitly noted, is automatically mine.
see what I'm saying?
Oi. I meant when I said that, the practice of buying a new textbook, photocopying it in its entirety and then refunding said textbook so I can have one for free.
I guess I left that out because i thought we've all thought of doing that but decided against it since that probably, just maybe, it isn't allowed. *sigh*
Do I have a bit of a reading disorder so I'm not readting TFA right, or does it say that yes, yes, yes google is scanning books that are not in the public domain?
there's always the fair use thing.Google can't, and isn't scanning books WHOLE that aren't in the public domain, but it's putting snippets of them up.
And I apologise if I am mistaken, but I am under the impression that Google is giving publishers time to tell them which copyrighted books to partly scan and which not to scan.
All I was saying is that instead of having publishers bear the weight of reporting which is okay and which isn't, Google should be the one taking the time to compile that list of stuff Google wants to scan.
either way, Google isn't being nice to publishers, Google just has a new and novel idea on what to do with publishers.
I know this is slashdot and I'm about as big a google whore as any, but just because I'm not waving its happy 4-coloured flag at the moment doesn't mean I'm automatically a troll.
Google has unilaterally set this rule: Publishers can tell it which books not to scan at all, similar to how Web site owners can request to be left out of search engine indexes.
this is unfair. It feels like when Bart windmills his arms and walks towards Lisa, saying "I'm going to go like this, if you get hurt, it's your own fault".
publishers shouldn't have to be the ones punished into pulling a lot of hours into explicitly drawing up a list that tells Google to back off. Google should be the one hiring lots of guys to compose a list of all books they want to index into a polite application submitted to the publishers for approval.
if poor students aren't allowed to make photocopies of textbooks they need because they don't have written consent from the publishers, why does Google get special treatment like this?
have a CONTEST to gather new names!
As a result they got tons and tons of ideas for new typhoon names, [many of which are food names....what can I say we're fond of food...]and from those they picked out 4 that had a lot of special meaning for Hong Kong's peoples and history.
contest details from last year :n troe.htm
http://www.hko.gov.hk/activities/tcname_contest/i
D: I'm getting ripped off! I demand my money back!
that , or, well, I download patiently like everyone else.
Noo! Say it aint so! I know what a lot of people are saying about Google, but I believe in Google! You people are just jealous of what we've got between us...you wouldn't understand, it's special!
I've had my romantic fling with Yahoo! before, but Yahoo! broke my heart by doing something exactly like this.
but Google is different...I know it
the sad thing is, i'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic.......
LOL
congrats, xmusrat.
before i put on my tinfoil hat, i'd like to say that google seems to be much more, "confident" these days than funny or "nice" like they were before.
notice the way they phrased this:
When I install Google Secure Access, why does it ask if I also want to install the Google Toolbar?
We've included the option to install the Google Toolbar because it improves your browsing experience.
they really are looking to do everything for us, aren't they, because they *know* better.
I'm a self-proclaimed Google-whore, but...
[/me puts on tinfoil hat]
Wow, I was still in concentration-camp style Hong Kong grade school when it died.
I guess they didn't want to give Q-Link users any sort of closure at all, but for them to log on the next day and go "hey, it died. So that's why they wanted us to go AOL. okay, i'll pay."
They could've held a nice goodbye bash for it, but that would've made some people look for alternatives instead of continuation of the most remote sort.
*smiles* yes, yes I did.
street?
anyway i don't get them off the street cuz they look less "respectable" and "reliable" than stores in a dark corner of a "mall" opposite of the street of a bigger "mall" where you pay first and claim your CDs fresh off the grill 15 minutes later. Hmmm
and they're not a dollar, *scoffs* they're like, 5 dollars.*shrugs*for newer stuff you can't wait for the BT to finish at home anyway.
It seems like your comment is a bit of a mixed-bag too.
I agree with you if you're trying to say that sometimes in life there are things that count for more than intelligence, such as "experience".
But I would also like to point out that you need intelligence to make the best out of things too. Example: we've all met cry-babies who go through hardships again and again and again simply because they don't learn anything from it. *cough*EMOs*cough*
and yeah, our gianticized wealth of information isn't going to help us much in a pinch, but that's what makes smart people smart and stupid people stupid: both can be exposed to the same amount of knowledge, but intelligence is what you make of facts, and wisedom is what you make of intelligence.
anyone could have told you all those things it said. So Boo on the article.
what I would've liked are perhaps some numbers such as :
--average attention span of 10 year olds in the 70's versus today
--contrast of average ability to grasp basic math skills in children growing up with computers -vs- no computers
--ability of children to write or verbalize well-reasoned out/logical arguments
--etc...
while those may not actually be criteria for "intelligence", those sound a lot more helpful and concrete, and more able to focus our resources in improving things than a REALLY outdated word like "intelligence".
Dude, Sasktel would've been bought out entirely by Rogers if it wasn't hiding behind the "alliance" sheild of Bell.
Think of it this way: when a Canadian invents something, it's usually acredited to the States, either because they might've helped fund it, helped make it known, helped patented it, whatever. Same goes for your beloved company. It's not fair, but hey I didn't invent the system.
is Bumblefuck seriously a town in Sask, or is that a typo? [/me wikis + google maps] hmmm it's not there but I'm afraid of googling more for that word while at work...
the article says rogers was pretty much forced into it. Good.
I'm not really much of a wireless person. Things don't have to be wireless if all they ever do is sit on my desk anyway. And perhaps I'm mistaken but there are a lot more things wireless networks have to take care of than wired devices no? So I for one won't be jumping on the band wagon of wireless things unless it's much cheaper, much more effective and gets me stuff faster than plain old cable broadband.
and even if I were I wouldn't sign up with Rogers. I'm not about to forgive them for renaming the Skydome to Rogers Center and buying out my old faithful cell phone service provider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcell
"they can touch anything but themselves....
oh, wait..."
Do they happen to be Blind and without tails perchance?