As much as I love your response, I'm more disheartened by the fact that you seem to be the only advocating this position, and are sitting there without upmods.
Leaks by definition are suspect. #1 problem is that leaks are always cherry-picked to show a particular problem. #2 problem is that leaks are always coming from an adversarial source that cannot be verified. #3 problem is that leaks can only be the starting point of an investigation, never the end point.
As a result, this should be treated the same way as any other leak: with circumspection, and with a follow-up investigation.
Wait, NOW context matters? Where were you when your fellow "skeptics" (I put that term in quotes, because most of your fellows who call themselves that are lousy skeptics) were pulling out half-sentence quotes from emails to prove a vast and global conspiracy?
What would you rather do: pay a few dollars for someone to get a set of birth control pills, or a few thousand dollars to house kids in orphanages, pay for parents with kids that they're not prepared for, or, heck, just deal with the social outcomes of children being born unwanted?
It's not a fucking right, but it has a fucking awesome ROI compared to the alternative.
Also a good point. It's possible this is indeed an elaborate PR campaign to kill Slashdot as a discussion forum, but then again, I've seen the derangement that fanboys can operate under. Either which way, this is one of the few times I'm for an actual IP ban. Nothing constructive is coming from this guy, even when he tries.
At this point I suspect that the original account is bonch, who is a paid subscriber. The shrillness of his anti-Google posts would indicate to me that he isn't getting paid for his opinions.... I can't imagine any PR company thinking that that kind of language would work in moving the discussion.
I've gotta say, someone has to be completely OCD about his Apple/Google position to run multiple accounts over the long term, just so that he can post some nice, long, properly linked post the instant that a story becomes publicly available. Not to mention keeping around several files to troll any Google story that comes up.
And the post I was replying to had moved into much broader generalities than just 3G wireless. Not to mention that Internet connectivity in general is ass in general in the US, and part of the reason are arguments like the one I replied to "the market will provide." At that point, it's really not much different from the belief in homeopathy.
Again, at what point do you decide that some people aren't worth participating in the general Internet economy? Considering that the founding fathers wrote into the constitution the need for the postal service, I'm endlessly amused by argument that today's equivalent of the postal service should be left strictly to what passes for market forces in that area.
Not quite. It's like making a comment on your friend's wall, and then being surprised that that comment shows up in an ad for facebook that is shown to your entire friend list.
It's distorting your intended use of the action.
Yes, FB's TOS says that it can do whatever the heck it wants to your data, but it still is not something that people would expect. I'm wondering if there will be space for a paid version of facebook....
Are you the same moron who argued that the Internet is the same as having a Domino's close by? Let's turn the argument around: why should the fly-over states have roads, hospitals, a functioning sewage system or access to the telephone? Do they really need to have a post office within 100 miles of the town of Podunck, Nowhere?
As someone else said: taxes buy you civilization. If you don't enjoy the various things that taxes buy you, go live on island and build out your own superpower. After all, it's just as easy as it is in Civ 5.
Of course. Because Internet Connectivity is the same thing has having a Domino's store nearby.
You are, of course, right when you say that the market doesn't make the decision I want it to make. Duh. It makes the decisions that the companies who make up the market want to make. Which, in turn, are predicated on the needs and desires of customers in said market.
Now that we have the Captain Obvious commentary out of the way, why don't we focus on the actual problem? Namely, that Internet connectivity these days is a lot more like electricity and roads: a fundamental infrastructure whose cost is far outweighed by the network effect it promotes. At that point, the question of ROI trumps all, and arguing that the market knows best is a ridiculously short-sighted answer.
Finally, your argument that people choose to live there means they ought to just suck it up... even ignoring the incredible amount of Not-My-Problem attitude that this displays, it also ignores the fact that moving has significant costs attached to it: emotional costs of rebuilding your social life, monetary costs of actually moving, and even the requirement of actually finding and having a job in the new area before moving. Those are all real costs that are easy to quantify for someone who is pondering moving.
Then again, I'm pretty sure you're also one of the people who thinks that not paying for health insurance is a choice, and that people without health insurance should just suck it up and die quickly. It's really the same attitude.
While you're at it, compare the average car of the 60s to the average car today. The Hyundai Genesis is available for 34k, and destroys any luxury mobile of that time in every aspect. You can get a Toyota Yaris for just over 10k, and it would still be better than the average car of the 60s.
Just because you have to keep up with Joneses doesn't mean everyone needs to.
Oh for God's sake - this meme is bad as the one that said "Google puts is own financial results above others in its search results!". No. No, it doesn't. What is happening is that space around the actual search results - which, btw, is clearly defined - is used to show other Google products. Furthermore, I'm not sure that Twitter and Facebook have a leg to stand on to claim that they are more relevant than.... well, anything.
The Zdnet story is very simple: Facebook and Twitter want to get a free ride on Google's search engine. That's it. If Facebook and Twitter want to get higher rankings in search engines, they can roll their own. After all, Facebook apparently is worth more than Google anyway, so clearly Facebook has the money for it.
Simplest thing to do: put the pulp back into the juice. Alternatively, let it compost. Takes about a year to fully compost, but as long as you make sure to ONLY put organic (or at least thoroughly washed) produce into compost, you get some excellent soil back.
The problem is that people aren't objecting to laws being made quickly and cheaply, it is that they want laws to be made with rainbows and unicorn farts. Bismarck's remark describes the complete lack of understanding that a lot of people have about how laws are made in a parliamentary body. As a result, it does describe Democracy very well - or rather, it is a fitting analogy of the general public's understanding of how a democracy works.
Yes, in an ideal world, we'd all participate and provide oversight to our elected critters. In reality, few people have the time to do it, and those who have the time and inclination to supervise the lawmaking process are frequently those who shouldn't.
You're missing the point that Bismarck was making, and that is very apparent today: very few people LIKE watching sausage being made, and quite a few recoil in horror at the process. Especially when the sausage being made is being made quickly and cheaply. Same goes for laws. Have you noticed how very few people today have any idea who is supposed to do what in our government? The discussion around the debt ceiling alone was worth a few million facepalms, as people were watching sausage being made, and got squeamish because they saw things they didn't understand and didn't expect to see.
What Bismarck was referring to was that Democracy wasn't some pure process where people held hands as they arrived at a peaceful consensus on how exactly to distribute the collected tax money. It is an ugly, brutal process that many people don't think about when they consume the delicious result.
While in general, I would agree, I'd also say that the devil is in the details. Remember the Bill of Rights, and why it was thought necessary? Even though it made criminals out of large swathes of the American population? Sometimes, people act so barbarically that the law needs to make criminals out of the majority of people - or at least criminalize what a large chunk of the population considers right.
What this means is that the broadness of a law and who it criminalizes should not enter into consideration when analyzing whether a law is good, just, either or neither. Ultimately, what matters in a law is whether it was created by following established procedures, both in spirit and in black and white scribblings on paper.
And before you argue that point - individual freedom provides inherent benefits to society that should not be abrogated lightly, or without due consideration.
Possible. There's also the addition of Austria and Switzerland, both of which speak German, but would be highly offended if anyone from, say, Berlin, would try to correct their use of the German language.
How is that a surprise? I thought that was already done. Especially considering you log into the calendar and G+ service with the same username.... again, how is that a friggin surprise, or a problem?
Ok, I don't understand. On the one hand, Google is forced to implement a comprehensive privacy program. On the other hand, EPIC complains that Google's new privacy rules are.... too comprehensive? Can someone point me to what is actually changing in the privacy terms that is actually so bad? As far as I can tell, everyone's just complaining that the policies are going to be merged. So instead of having 20 separate privacy policies, now each service is governed by the same. How is that bad?
Just wondering, cuz I seriously don't get the outrage.
Ugh, please don't use a google search return as proof for anything. It's complete junk data.
No offense moron, but I'm German. So fuck off about your arrogant assumption about who I am. As for your comments about the German sentence structure, you must be young, because your distinction between the written formalism and spoken idioms is clearly lacking. Furthermore, your English is clearly deficient as well, since you don't understand the various caveats I had put into my sentences. Do you at least understand Latin? Should I translate what caveat means for you, including its use in idiomatic English?
There are a few pet peeves I have, and you managed to hit a good chunk of them. Congratulations, you're the reason I'm suspicious of Germans I meet.
You could say "Morgen regnet es". People will understand what you're saying, and it is grammatically acceptable. However, it is far more common to say "Morgen wird es regnen" or even "Es wird morgen regnen", which translates to "Tomorrow it will rain". To some extent, there is a bit of a difference in certainty that you're expressing. The more appropriate example would be "Morgen gehe ich nach Hause", which works just like "Morgen werde ich nach Hause gehen", and which both translate to "I will go home tomorrow". There is a similarity in English here: you can say "I go home tomorrow", which would be a response to the question "When will you go home?" There are some subtle differences between the two sentence structures, but by and large, neither one is wrong to indicate a future action.
Then again, I never was that strong in German grammar, and it's been a while since I last spoke German regularly. But I'm pretty sure that the Yale researcher is dramatically overstating his case. German has a well-functioning and -used future tense. While I believe that language does shape your perception (can you think of a thought for which you do not have a word?), he is doing a sloppy job of understanding the nuances of at least the German language.
No, that's exactly right. As a matter of fact, most of the big buying decisions are now accompanied by queries on FB. I don't use Twitter, so I can't tell there, but I know that FB status updates are including more and more things like "Anyone know a good realtor", "thinking of buying a laptop - suggestions", etc.
Google saw that coming, and knows that to continue to stay relevant, they have to get into the social search space, which requires having a social network. Facebook is never going to give anyone free access to their data.
Which is my opinion exactly as well. However, for a variety of political reasons (and a different view of public speech than the US), denying the Holocaust is a crime in quite a few European countries.
Slashdot Mirror
As much as I love your response, I'm more disheartened by the fact that you seem to be the only advocating this position, and are sitting there without upmods.
Leaks by definition are suspect. #1 problem is that leaks are always cherry-picked to show a particular problem. #2 problem is that leaks are always coming from an adversarial source that cannot be verified. #3 problem is that leaks can only be the starting point of an investigation, never the end point.
As a result, this should be treated the same way as any other leak: with circumspection, and with a follow-up investigation.
Wait, NOW context matters? Where were you when your fellow "skeptics" (I put that term in quotes, because most of your fellows who call themselves that are lousy skeptics) were pulling out half-sentence quotes from emails to prove a vast and global conspiracy?
What would you rather do: pay a few dollars for someone to get a set of birth control pills, or a few thousand dollars to house kids in orphanages, pay for parents with kids that they're not prepared for, or, heck, just deal with the social outcomes of children being born unwanted?
It's not a fucking right, but it has a fucking awesome ROI compared to the alternative.
Also a good point. It's possible this is indeed an elaborate PR campaign to kill Slashdot as a discussion forum, but then again, I've seen the derangement that fanboys can operate under. Either which way, this is one of the few times I'm for an actual IP ban. Nothing constructive is coming from this guy, even when he tries.
At this point I suspect that the original account is bonch, who is a paid subscriber. The shrillness of his anti-Google posts would indicate to me that he isn't getting paid for his opinions.... I can't imagine any PR company thinking that that kind of language would work in moving the discussion.
I've gotta say, someone has to be completely OCD about his Apple/Google position to run multiple accounts over the long term, just so that he can post some nice, long, properly linked post the instant that a story becomes publicly available. Not to mention keeping around several files to troll any Google story that comes up.
I love how drone killings are murder when Obama orders them, but proper and appropriate dealings when ordered by Bush. Nice going.
Of course. Because there's absolutely nothing you can learn from others if they aren't perfect.
Oh, and before you throw stones, you might want to look into free speech zones.
Fucking republicans.
Hah, I see the Rand libertarians have mod points today. Fun.
And the post I was replying to had moved into much broader generalities than just 3G wireless. Not to mention that Internet connectivity in general is ass in general in the US, and part of the reason are arguments like the one I replied to "the market will provide." At that point, it's really not much different from the belief in homeopathy.
Again, at what point do you decide that some people aren't worth participating in the general Internet economy? Considering that the founding fathers wrote into the constitution the need for the postal service, I'm endlessly amused by argument that today's equivalent of the postal service should be left strictly to what passes for market forces in that area.
Not quite. It's like making a comment on your friend's wall, and then being surprised that that comment shows up in an ad for facebook that is shown to your entire friend list.
It's distorting your intended use of the action.
Yes, FB's TOS says that it can do whatever the heck it wants to your data, but it still is not something that people would expect. I'm wondering if there will be space for a paid version of facebook....
Are you the same moron who argued that the Internet is the same as having a Domino's close by? Let's turn the argument around: why should the fly-over states have roads, hospitals, a functioning sewage system or access to the telephone? Do they really need to have a post office within 100 miles of the town of Podunck, Nowhere?
As someone else said: taxes buy you civilization. If you don't enjoy the various things that taxes buy you, go live on island and build out your own superpower. After all, it's just as easy as it is in Civ 5.
Of course. Because Internet Connectivity is the same thing has having a Domino's store nearby.
You are, of course, right when you say that the market doesn't make the decision I want it to make. Duh. It makes the decisions that the companies who make up the market want to make. Which, in turn, are predicated on the needs and desires of customers in said market.
Now that we have the Captain Obvious commentary out of the way, why don't we focus on the actual problem? Namely, that Internet connectivity these days is a lot more like electricity and roads: a fundamental infrastructure whose cost is far outweighed by the network effect it promotes. At that point, the question of ROI trumps all, and arguing that the market knows best is a ridiculously short-sighted answer.
Finally, your argument that people choose to live there means they ought to just suck it up... even ignoring the incredible amount of Not-My-Problem attitude that this displays, it also ignores the fact that moving has significant costs attached to it: emotional costs of rebuilding your social life, monetary costs of actually moving, and even the requirement of actually finding and having a job in the new area before moving. Those are all real costs that are easy to quantify for someone who is pondering moving.
Then again, I'm pretty sure you're also one of the people who thinks that not paying for health insurance is a choice, and that people without health insurance should just suck it up and die quickly. It's really the same attitude.
While you're at it, compare the average car of the 60s to the average car today. The Hyundai Genesis is available for 34k, and destroys any luxury mobile of that time in every aspect. You can get a Toyota Yaris for just over 10k, and it would still be better than the average car of the 60s.
Just because you have to keep up with Joneses doesn't mean everyone needs to.
Oh for God's sake - this meme is bad as the one that said "Google puts is own financial results above others in its search results!". No. No, it doesn't. What is happening is that space around the actual search results - which, btw, is clearly defined - is used to show other Google products. Furthermore, I'm not sure that Twitter and Facebook have a leg to stand on to claim that they are more relevant than.... well, anything.
The Zdnet story is very simple: Facebook and Twitter want to get a free ride on Google's search engine. That's it. If Facebook and Twitter want to get higher rankings in search engines, they can roll their own. After all, Facebook apparently is worth more than Google anyway, so clearly Facebook has the money for it.
Simplest thing to do: put the pulp back into the juice. Alternatively, let it compost. Takes about a year to fully compost, but as long as you make sure to ONLY put organic (or at least thoroughly washed) produce into compost, you get some excellent soil back.
The problem is that people aren't objecting to laws being made quickly and cheaply, it is that they want laws to be made with rainbows and unicorn farts. Bismarck's remark describes the complete lack of understanding that a lot of people have about how laws are made in a parliamentary body. As a result, it does describe Democracy very well - or rather, it is a fitting analogy of the general public's understanding of how a democracy works.
Yes, in an ideal world, we'd all participate and provide oversight to our elected critters. In reality, few people have the time to do it, and those who have the time and inclination to supervise the lawmaking process are frequently those who shouldn't.
You're missing the point that Bismarck was making, and that is very apparent today: very few people LIKE watching sausage being made, and quite a few recoil in horror at the process. Especially when the sausage being made is being made quickly and cheaply. Same goes for laws. Have you noticed how very few people today have any idea who is supposed to do what in our government? The discussion around the debt ceiling alone was worth a few million facepalms, as people were watching sausage being made, and got squeamish because they saw things they didn't understand and didn't expect to see.
What Bismarck was referring to was that Democracy wasn't some pure process where people held hands as they arrived at a peaceful consensus on how exactly to distribute the collected tax money. It is an ugly, brutal process that many people don't think about when they consume the delicious result.
While in general, I would agree, I'd also say that the devil is in the details. Remember the Bill of Rights, and why it was thought necessary? Even though it made criminals out of large swathes of the American population? Sometimes, people act so barbarically that the law needs to make criminals out of the majority of people - or at least criminalize what a large chunk of the population considers right.
What this means is that the broadness of a law and who it criminalizes should not enter into consideration when analyzing whether a law is good, just, either or neither. Ultimately, what matters in a law is whether it was created by following established procedures, both in spirit and in black and white scribblings on paper.
And before you argue that point - individual freedom provides inherent benefits to society that should not be abrogated lightly, or without due consideration.
Possible. There's also the addition of Austria and Switzerland, both of which speak German, but would be highly offended if anyone from, say, Berlin, would try to correct their use of the German language.
How is that a surprise? I thought that was already done. Especially considering you log into the calendar and G+ service with the same username.... again, how is that a friggin surprise, or a problem?
Ok, I don't understand. On the one hand, Google is forced to implement a comprehensive privacy program. On the other hand, EPIC complains that Google's new privacy rules are.... too comprehensive? Can someone point me to what is actually changing in the privacy terms that is actually so bad? As far as I can tell, everyone's just complaining that the policies are going to be merged. So instead of having 20 separate privacy policies, now each service is governed by the same. How is that bad?
Just wondering, cuz I seriously don't get the outrage.
Ugh, please don't use a google search return as proof for anything. It's complete junk data.
No offense moron, but I'm German. So fuck off about your arrogant assumption about who I am. As for your comments about the German sentence structure, you must be young, because your distinction between the written formalism and spoken idioms is clearly lacking. Furthermore, your English is clearly deficient as well, since you don't understand the various caveats I had put into my sentences. Do you at least understand Latin? Should I translate what caveat means for you, including its use in idiomatic English?
There are a few pet peeves I have, and you managed to hit a good chunk of them. Congratulations, you're the reason I'm suspicious of Germans I meet.
You could say "Morgen regnet es". People will understand what you're saying, and it is grammatically acceptable. However, it is far more common to say "Morgen wird es regnen" or even "Es wird morgen regnen", which translates to "Tomorrow it will rain". To some extent, there is a bit of a difference in certainty that you're expressing. The more appropriate example would be "Morgen gehe ich nach Hause", which works just like "Morgen werde ich nach Hause gehen", and which both translate to "I will go home tomorrow". There is a similarity in English here: you can say "I go home tomorrow", which would be a response to the question "When will you go home?" There are some subtle differences between the two sentence structures, but by and large, neither one is wrong to indicate a future action.
Then again, I never was that strong in German grammar, and it's been a while since I last spoke German regularly. But I'm pretty sure that the Yale researcher is dramatically overstating his case. German has a well-functioning and -used future tense. While I believe that language does shape your perception (can you think of a thought for which you do not have a word?), he is doing a sloppy job of understanding the nuances of at least the German language.
No, that's exactly right. As a matter of fact, most of the big buying decisions are now accompanied by queries on FB. I don't use Twitter, so I can't tell there, but I know that FB status updates are including more and more things like "Anyone know a good realtor", "thinking of buying a laptop - suggestions", etc.
Google saw that coming, and knows that to continue to stay relevant, they have to get into the social search space, which requires having a social network. Facebook is never going to give anyone free access to their data.
Which is my opinion exactly as well. However, for a variety of political reasons (and a different view of public speech than the US), denying the Holocaust is a crime in quite a few European countries.