It's not slightly disingenuous, it completely distorts the relationship and implies that there are things going on which aren't going on. I'm no more the product of Google than I am the product of say the New York Times print edition or the New Yorker.
Claiming that Google is selling me requires some amount of evidence that the GGP hasn't provided.
There was one positive test and there wasn't the normal second sample to validate against. The French paper managed to dig up results that weren't supposed to be released of a B sample that tested positive. The reason he wasn't charged was that there was supposed to be a second sample that could be used to verify that the sample hadn't been contaminated.
It has nothing to do with a ban on retro testing and everything to do with the poor quality of evidence.
Personally, I think he probably did it, but in civilized society you can't randomly lower the bar because you didn't get the result you wanted.
Unfortunately because of the debacle that surrounded the last tests of Lance's samples it's hard to say what the truth is. Without testing both samples you can't rule out contamination, which is why they have an A and a B sample to begin with.
No, I didn't affirm what the GGP said. I'm not an employee and I'm not a fanboy. I'm just a fan of people making factually correct statements.
Google doesn't guarantee that any particular individual will see the ads, nor do they sell information they gather. Additionally, they don't force people to see the ads, just because they're up doesn't mean that a person will scroll down or click on the links.
The sorts of bullshit comments that the GGP posted aren't particularly helpful as they bare little to no resemblance to reality.
Citation necessary. Google sells ad space, they do not sell information about users, which is definitely something to keep in mind. They do not guarantee that users will read the ads nor do they guarantee that the ads will even be seen by anybody.
Most likely that means it wasn't for you. I've been watching a lot of shows lately that were canceled or otherwise ended early. The State, The Tick, Brisco County, Dilbert etc., and they were good shows that for one reason or another only lasted for a season or two worth of shows. The problem ultimately is that it's hard to say at what point a show should be canceled. It's easy to assume that they'll continue indefinitely when much of the time they don't, you end up with a show like The Simpsons or Family Guy that continues past the point of being funny and becomes kind of a drudge to watch, if you even bother.
Services are largely the same way, sometimes Google cancels them before anybody knows what they're for, like wave, and other times they let them go too long. I get the feeling that health was probably a matter of the latter.
Why don't you say that correlation is not causation while you're repeating catch phrases of low value.
Google isn't selling people, they're selling access to a small amount of screen real estate that they hope you'll look at. All this absurd Google's selling people BS really needs to stop because it's completely unhelpful.
It would have been nice if they would have released the source code for the service under some sort of open license. There's definitely a need for a service like that, it's just a question of whether it makes any sense for Google to provide it or not. I'm sure there are plenty of organizations that would have been willing to adopt it for their own use.
Not really, nearly all power that we use comes from the Sun ultimately. Whether it be coal, oil or wind, where precisely do you think that energy comes from?
Having access to a good corpus is really helpful, but once you start hitting the 2k word count additional entries aren't really that helpful to anybody other than hardcore linguists.At that point it's generally more helpful to have information about what words frequently travel together and where they're likely to appear in a sentence.
That's why I don't have cable for either TV or internet. The Centurylink guys seem to be quite a bit more clueful and the DirecTV technicians on the rare occasion where I need them go way above and beyond what I've needed to make sure things are done and that I won't have further problems.
Teachers are given the curriculum, not the lesson plans. Teachers wouldn't be complaining so much about the pay if they weren't being expected to do the lesson planning on their own time.
As for the lecturing, just because there's a class of 40 students doesn't mean that there's no room for individual attention, it just means that it's less frequent and much shorter. If you're lecturing for more than 10 minutes without any student interaction you're doing it wrong.
Yes, but you don't automatically get the money just because the jury found that the software was infringed upon. Using the software isn't what gets you an award, it's the distribution bit. You would have to convince the jury that your damages happened to be the same as the sticker price and that's going to take some doing. The sticker price is what the customer pays, it's not necessarily going to be what you pocket unless you're not paying taxes and have no overhead.
I would agree with you, but I'm not sure that people who drive while drowsy are thinking rationally. It's something I avoid, but it's not always obvious until it's too late. And figuring out where exactly the line is isn't always easy. Really any technology that can prevent a drowsy driver from killing other people is something worth considering.
But, more than that, what needs to happen is for the consequences of drunk or drowsy driving to be aligned with similarly dangerous behavior out of the car. Around here there's talk of increasing the penalties to match what similarly dangerous behavior would warrant if a car weren't involved.
Given that you've purchased a Prius, I think it's a fair bet that the more the car does for you the better. Being unable to earn a driver's license seems to be the key to Prius ownership.
No, I think superphone is just about right. The only thing that prevented their desktops from being superdesktops was that most people aren't strong enough to send them sailing across the room after the umpteenth random CTD or other error.
The rule is that you have to prove your damages to be awarded them. Unless they can prove that they've been damaged, I see absolutely no reason why they should be given a penny that other industries wouldn't get under similar circumstances.
Mostly yes, but the term for "not copyrighted" is "public domain" and that is either because it's no longer subject to copyright or because the creator has specifically placed it into the public domain.
Not really, without copyright law there'd be no way of enforcing the license. The license being enforceable is predicated upon there not being a right to distribute the software without permission. Lose that angle and there's nothing to stop somebody from stripping the license and redistributing the tarball.
Do you have any evidence that any of those pirates would have paid for a license? And that's the crux of the matter. Until somebody actually shells out for a license you can't say for certain if they would.
There should be a penalty, but there's no particular reason to believe that a public shaming would be any less effective than forcing them to pay for a copy after the fact, even at a greatly increased cost.
Yes, but ultimately this is hardly the only abusive practice that the ESA has supported over the years. They might not be as abusive and generally evil as the BSA, but that doesn't mean that they aren't above tampering with the Wikipedia to deliver their own propaganda.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not slightly disingenuous, it completely distorts the relationship and implies that there are things going on which aren't going on. I'm no more the product of Google than I am the product of say the New York Times print edition or the New Yorker.
Claiming that Google is selling me requires some amount of evidence that the GGP hasn't provided.
There was one positive test and there wasn't the normal second sample to validate against. The French paper managed to dig up results that weren't supposed to be released of a B sample that tested positive. The reason he wasn't charged was that there was supposed to be a second sample that could be used to verify that the sample hadn't been contaminated.
It has nothing to do with a ban on retro testing and everything to do with the poor quality of evidence.
Personally, I think he probably did it, but in civilized society you can't randomly lower the bar because you didn't get the result you wanted.
Unfortunately because of the debacle that surrounded the last tests of Lance's samples it's hard to say what the truth is. Without testing both samples you can't rule out contamination, which is why they have an A and a B sample to begin with.
No, I didn't affirm what the GGP said. I'm not an employee and I'm not a fanboy. I'm just a fan of people making factually correct statements.
Google doesn't guarantee that any particular individual will see the ads, nor do they sell information they gather. Additionally, they don't force people to see the ads, just because they're up doesn't mean that a person will scroll down or click on the links.
The sorts of bullshit comments that the GGP posted aren't particularly helpful as they bare little to no resemblance to reality.
Citation necessary. Google sells ad space, they do not sell information about users, which is definitely something to keep in mind. They do not guarantee that users will read the ads nor do they guarantee that the ads will even be seen by anybody.
Most likely that means it wasn't for you. I've been watching a lot of shows lately that were canceled or otherwise ended early. The State, The Tick, Brisco County, Dilbert etc., and they were good shows that for one reason or another only lasted for a season or two worth of shows. The problem ultimately is that it's hard to say at what point a show should be canceled. It's easy to assume that they'll continue indefinitely when much of the time they don't, you end up with a show like The Simpsons or Family Guy that continues past the point of being funny and becomes kind of a drudge to watch, if you even bother.
Services are largely the same way, sometimes Google cancels them before anybody knows what they're for, like wave, and other times they let them go too long. I get the feeling that health was probably a matter of the latter.
Why don't you say that correlation is not causation while you're repeating catch phrases of low value.
Google isn't selling people, they're selling access to a small amount of screen real estate that they hope you'll look at. All this absurd Google's selling people BS really needs to stop because it's completely unhelpful.
It would have been nice if they would have released the source code for the service under some sort of open license. There's definitely a need for a service like that, it's just a question of whether it makes any sense for Google to provide it or not. I'm sure there are plenty of organizations that would have been willing to adopt it for their own use.
Not really, nearly all power that we use comes from the Sun ultimately. Whether it be coal, oil or wind, where precisely do you think that energy comes from?
Having access to a good corpus is really helpful, but once you start hitting the 2k word count additional entries aren't really that helpful to anybody other than hardcore linguists.At that point it's generally more helpful to have information about what words frequently travel together and where they're likely to appear in a sentence.
I'm sure he knows that the median is the guy you call a 900 number to get ones future told.
That's why I don't have cable for either TV or internet. The Centurylink guys seem to be quite a bit more clueful and the DirecTV technicians on the rare occasion where I need them go way above and beyond what I've needed to make sure things are done and that I won't have further problems.
I hardly see how Saundra Bullock caused the fall of Rome.
Teachers are given the curriculum, not the lesson plans. Teachers wouldn't be complaining so much about the pay if they weren't being expected to do the lesson planning on their own time.
As for the lecturing, just because there's a class of 40 students doesn't mean that there's no room for individual attention, it just means that it's less frequent and much shorter. If you're lecturing for more than 10 minutes without any student interaction you're doing it wrong.
Yes, but you don't automatically get the money just because the jury found that the software was infringed upon. Using the software isn't what gets you an award, it's the distribution bit. You would have to convince the jury that your damages happened to be the same as the sticker price and that's going to take some doing. The sticker price is what the customer pays, it's not necessarily going to be what you pocket unless you're not paying taxes and have no overhead.
I would agree with you, but I'm not sure that people who drive while drowsy are thinking rationally. It's something I avoid, but it's not always obvious until it's too late. And figuring out where exactly the line is isn't always easy. Really any technology that can prevent a drowsy driver from killing other people is something worth considering.
But, more than that, what needs to happen is for the consequences of drunk or drowsy driving to be aligned with similarly dangerous behavior out of the car. Around here there's talk of increasing the penalties to match what similarly dangerous behavior would warrant if a car weren't involved.
Given that you've purchased a Prius, I think it's a fair bet that the more the car does for you the better. Being unable to earn a driver's license seems to be the key to Prius ownership.
No, I think superphone is just about right. The only thing that prevented their desktops from being superdesktops was that most people aren't strong enough to send them sailing across the room after the umpteenth random CTD or other error.
The rule is that you have to prove your damages to be awarded them. Unless they can prove that they've been damaged, I see absolutely no reason why they should be given a penny that other industries wouldn't get under similar circumstances.
Mostly yes, but the term for "not copyrighted" is "public domain" and that is either because it's no longer subject to copyright or because the creator has specifically placed it into the public domain.
Not really, without copyright law there'd be no way of enforcing the license. The license being enforceable is predicated upon there not being a right to distribute the software without permission. Lose that angle and there's nothing to stop somebody from stripping the license and redistributing the tarball.
Do you have any evidence that any of those pirates would have paid for a license? And that's the crux of the matter. Until somebody actually shells out for a license you can't say for certain if they would.
There should be a penalty, but there's no particular reason to believe that a public shaming would be any less effective than forcing them to pay for a copy after the fact, even at a greatly increased cost.
I suppose you also fondly remember running with scissors and poking eyes out with sticks.
This is about that most Christian of virtues, making sure that the rich don't have to earn their money.
Yes, but ultimately this is hardly the only abusive practice that the ESA has supported over the years. They might not be as abusive and generally evil as the BSA, but that doesn't mean that they aren't above tampering with the Wikipedia to deliver their own propaganda.